Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

 

[ptbw forever]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

Reminds me of how the history of the Spanish Inquisition was written by Muslims and by Muslim sympathizers....

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

you really LOVE to quote CANARDS. Try to think for YOURSELF. So
far you have been a PARROT.

You write that junk about Ayodhya and accuse me of canards???? Yeah, right.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

Because it is also filled with tolerance and humanity. Not unlike the Bible.

What is it about these recurring mass murders of innocent Human Beings buy blood thirsty Islamist that you don’t get?
This is not fake, they are real people who are being slaughtered.

The Koran is 1400 years old. If it was the source of the mass murders wouldn't all of Islamic history been filled with such events? Why has it only recently been such an issue? If it is not the source, attacking it will be counterproductive in the extreme.

It mostly is filled with mass murders....

The so called “Islamic Golden age” was a short lived, extremely overrated period.

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

banned

 

[alang1216]

It mostly is filled with mass murders...

Really, I wasn't aware. One mass murder is too many but how many are in the Koran? How does that number compare to the Bible?

 

[ptbw forever]

It mostly is filled with mass murders...

Really, I wasn't aware. One mass murder is too many but how many are in the Koran? How does that number compare to the Bible?

I was talking about Islamic history(as were you in that post btw).

Islam has a history of persecuting, while Christianity has a history of mostly being persecuted.

 

[alang1216]

It mostly is filled with mass murders...

Really, I wasn't aware. One mass murder is too many but how many are in the Koran? How does that number compare to the Bible?

I was talking about Islamic history(as were you in that post btw).

Islam has a history of persecuting, while Christianity has a history of mostly being persecuted.

Thanks for clearing that up. So how many mass murders are in Islamic history? How many are in Christian history?

You may want to ask a Jew about persecutions under Islamic vs Christian states, they may give you a very different perspective.

 

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

banned

there were jews living in the city called YATHRIB------in what is today
'SAUDI ARABIA'-----probably for more than 1000 years before the rapist
pig of Arabia was born. Jews lived there----died there----were buried there---
had schools and synagogues there. ------then the rapist pig attacked and STOLE
the entire city----pillaged, murdered and enslaved. Even today----I cannot set
foot in that DESTROYED AND DEFILED CITY and the rotted carcass of the
rapist pig is buried in that ONCE HOLY LAND. TODAY~~~ my hubby cannot
so much as search for the cemetaries in which his ancestors are buried in the
shariah shit hole in which he was born

 

[irosie91]

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

you really LOVE to quote CANARDS. Try to think for YOURSELF. So
far you have been a PARROT.

You write that junk about Ayodhya and accuse me of canards???? Yeah, right.

"junk" about Ayodhiya? how is a correct history of the theft of a hindu
holy city "JUNK"? It is not a canard----simple fact. Feel free to ask
questions

 

[alang1216]

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

banned

there were jews living in the city called YATHRIB------in what is today
'SAUDI ARABIA'-----probably for more than 1000 years before the rapist
pig of Arabia was born. Jews lived there----died there----were buried there---
had schools and synagogues there. ------then the rapist pig attacked and STOLE
the entire city----pillaged, murdered and enslaved. Even today----I cannot set
foot in that DESTROYED AND DEFILED CITY and the rotted carcass of the
rapist pig is buried in that ONCE HOLY LAND. TODAY~~~ my hubby cannot
so much as search for the cemetaries in which his ancestors are buried in the
shariah shit hole in which he was born

ONCE HOLY LAND? Holy to who? Both Jews and Arabs lived there and it was the Arabs there that invited Mohammad to come.

Who lived in Jerusalem for the 3,000 years before the Jews 'stole' it?

 

[irosie91]

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

banned

there were jews living in the city called YATHRIB------in what is today
'SAUDI ARABIA'-----probably for more than 1000 years before the rapist
pig of Arabia was born. Jews lived there----died there----were buried there---
had schools and synagogues there. ------then the rapist pig attacked and STOLE
the entire city----pillaged, murdered and enslaved. Even today----I cannot set
foot in that DESTROYED AND DEFILED CITY and the rotted carcass of the
rapist pig is buried in that ONCE HOLY LAND. TODAY~~~ my hubby cannot
so much as search for the cemetaries in which his ancestors are buried in the
shariah shit hole in which he was born

ONCE HOLY LAND? Holy to who? Both Jews and Arabs lived there and it was the Arabs there that invited Mohammad to come.

Who lived in Jerusalem for the 3,000 years before the Jews 'stole' it?

try again-----HOLY PLACES FOR JEWS-----cemetaries and synagogues and schools-------"INVITED MUHUMMAD"?? so he showed up eager to rape girls and
behead innocent people and STEAL AND PILLAGE ? some guest the dogs
"INVITED" Read all about the shit-----it is recorded in the KHARAHAN

 

[alang1216]

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

you really LOVE to quote CANARDS. Try to think for YOURSELF. So
far you have been a PARROT.

You write that junk about Ayodhya and accuse me of canards???? Yeah, right.

"junk" about Ayodhiya? how is a correct history of the theft of a hindu
holy city "JUNK"? It is not a canard----simple fact. Feel free to ask
questions

My source says it was the Hindus that attempted to reclaim a site occupied by a mosque. Seems the source of the dispute is the claim of Hindu land forever.

 

[irosie91]

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

you really LOVE to quote CANARDS. Try to think for YOURSELF. So
far you have been a PARROT.

You write that junk about Ayodhya and accuse me of canards???? Yeah, right.

"junk" about Ayodhiya? how is a correct history of the theft of a hindu
holy city "JUNK"? It is not a canard----simple fact. Feel free to ask
questions

My source says it was the Hindus that attempted to reclaim a site occupied by a mosque. Seems the source of the dispute is the claim of Hindu land forever.

wrong again-----find some non-muslim sources. The city was INVADED by a
muzzie pig named BARBUR--------that vile dog destroyed hindu holy sites---VERY IMPORTANT HOLY SITES in order to FOIST the stench of islam on the
KAFFIRIN by defecating mosques all over the hindu city---------old stuff but not unique----same reason the DOGS bombed
Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. I am not surprised that you endorse the filth-----

it was only a few centuries ago that the muzzie dogs IMPOSED their barbaric
"MOGHUL EMPIRE" I learned about the Moghul Empire from a muslim
surgeon from INDIA------he was so PROUD of the stink----it was sickening

 

[irosie91]

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

your understanding and simple knowledge of facts is VERY LIMITED. Feel free to ask questions. What does "banded from the city..." mean? Is English your
first language?

banned

there were jews living in the city called YATHRIB------in what is today
'SAUDI ARABIA'-----probably for more than 1000 years before the rapist
pig of Arabia was born. Jews lived there----died there----were buried there---
had schools and synagogues there. ------then the rapist pig attacked and STOLE
the entire city----pillaged, murdered and enslaved. Even today----I cannot set
foot in that DESTROYED AND DEFILED CITY and the rotted carcass of the
rapist pig is buried in that ONCE HOLY LAND. TODAY~~~ my hubby cannot
so much as search for the cemetaries in which his ancestors are buried in the
shariah shit hole in which he was born

ONCE HOLY LAND? Holy to who? Both Jews and Arabs lived there and it was the Arabs there that invited Mohammad to come.

Who lived in Jerusalem for the 3,000 years before the Jews 'stole' it?

to what "3000 years" do you refer. King david purchased the little city Jews
have been living in it for more than 4000 years?. Before that it was barely a city----it was a place that people in the area threshed and stored wheat

 

[koshergrl]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

 

[koshergrl]

"The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

"The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics."

I'm not sure why anybody would try to deny an accepted reality that the muslims themselves are quite proud of.

The answer...leftist pos whitewash the nature of muslim by lying to American students about the nature and history of Islam, in order to facilitate the destruction of the US.

Brainwashed, mentally ill *useful idiots* despise America and see it as their *job* to lie to our students. They've successfully created a whole alternate world history for leftist dolts to use to justify their abhorrent rhetoric and actions against the US.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Early rise of Islam (632-700)

 

[evenflow1969]

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

You may not be aware that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they killed the Muslims that lived there. When the Muslims retook the city they spared the Christians. Which is the religion of peace?

Yeah. They spared them because they wanted slaves. Also, I've never heard of Muslims surrendering. So yeah. Need to kill them all. BTW. The only way to defeat Islam is to kill them. However many it takes. They're like cockroaches. You can reduce the infestation, but it is difficult to eradicate.

Thak you Hitler or Stalin which ever you feel most comfortable with.

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

 

[irosie91]

k-girl------I AM SURE YOU NEVER NOTICED------but OCCASSIONALLY I allude to the fact that hubby and lots of relatives are successful escapees from shariah shit holes. Lots of them (hubby included) from countries that WITNESSED the invasion of the muslim hordes and experienced the filth of dhimmia. Here in the US---hubby runs into muslims from the land of his birth-------even they INSIST -----"how happy were the jews to live in a muslim land" Not their fault-------they LEARN that
BS in their schools and mosques-----INCESSANTLY. Even I learned it long ago---
when I first encountered muslims in the USA (adolescent---LONG LONG AGO)