The lie of Muslims not evolving out of the Dark Ages

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If disagreeing is trolling then the owner is a troll as are you. Is that what you are saying?

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

I'm just trying to show that Muslims aren't the only people that are always looking for war. Since we are talking about the Middle ages, who started the Crusades for one? The Catholics.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If disagreeing is trolling then the owner is a troll as are you. Is that what you are saying?

Disagreeing is one thing. But coming in and posting inflammatory one liners like I don't know what I'm talking about with no supporting argument is a totally different story. And I always thought you and I had mutual respect for each other. Guess I was wrong.

a reply to: greencmp

3 posts already which offer nowt to the OP.
I suggest you put up or shut up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I consider your statement that accusing Islam of being a violent totalitarian regime is a lie as quite inflammatory.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: greencmp

3 posts already which offer nowt to the OP.
I suggest you put up or shut up.

Explain

It's always good to hear pseudo-history, from pseudo-historians, wrapped in a pseudo-source...


No one has refuted what KrazyShot has said...

They've just deflected with questionable pseudo-history mandated by Christians and the Vatican.



If you're gonna believe Vatican sanctioned history lessons about Islam...
You might as well be taking Hitler's views of what caused his uprising and eventual attack on Jewish people as gospel as well!




S&F Krazy!

a reply to: greencmp

I never said they weren't violent. I said that comparing the Muslim world of today to the world of the Middle Ages is incorrect since the Muslim world of those times was in MUCH better shape and much more tolerant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

I'm just trying to show that Muslims aren't the only people that are always looking for war. Since we are talking about the Middle ages, who started the Crusades for one? The Catholics.

clashdaily.com...

THE CRUSADES: A Direct Response To Islam’s Bloodlust

Some facts for your ill-informed friends/family/colleagues:

— The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews…forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates.
— The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont.
— The Crusades were a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering “Muslim lands’”. (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)
— The motives of the Crusaders were pure. They were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a “peaceful”, native Muslim population. The Crusades were NOT for profit, but rather to recover the Holy Land brutally invaded and conquered by Muslims…who conquered for profit and as a notch on their superiority belt.
— The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.

The Islamic world ripped through the Christian world on a bloody Jihad crusade to propagate Islam. Muslim imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles (larger than the British Empire at its peak). The Jihad crusade went from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

The dictionary defines imperialism as “the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries.” This historical Islamic Jihad WAS imperialistic…and its goals remain the same.

Islam’s greed and lust for bloody domination of non-Muslims and their property CAUSED the Crusades…it doesn’t get simpler than that!

www.crisismagazine.com...

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now I disagree with that. The US until after WW2 is when the war was for profit vs an imminent danger to the US Mainland. Honestly I'm tired of the muslim population crying foul at the world all the time when they should be blaming themselves for not raising better people with common sense. The world is partially not responsible for all the hatred. It is Islams majority that are at fault for lack of teaching or keeping their herd in line.

For god sakes you have religious zealots asking for the killing of people because they cant handle a cartoon picture. Or they stone a woman to death because she drives a car or wants to look beautiful...

That is what the world will NOT stand for.


The crusades were led by a person with an flawed ideal. Anyone can do that. Who ran the jews from Jeruselem? The muslims did.

Both sides are at fault.

The only reason why Muslims are getting caught up more than ever is because the world we live in. It would be the same for any religion condoning violence.


The few are making the majority look bad. The majority isn't speaking up enough or protesting about it.+

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I never said they weren't violent. I said that comparing the Muslim world of today to the world of the Middle Ages is incorrect since the Muslim world of those times was in MUCH better shape and much more tolerant.

Tolerant?

Muslim conquests

Spread of Islam

Now that I have provided two links, I can close my case?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You might as well be taking Hitler's views of what caused his uprising and eventual attack on Jewish people as gospel as well!

I believe that many people here do exactly that.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You might as well be taking Hitler's views of what caused his uprising and eventual attack on Jewish people as gospel as well!

I believe that many people here do exactly that.

You are not kidding. Type the word "Israel" in a post title and watch the haters roll in.

a reply to: amicktd


The countries who have religion as a staple of government authority are the root causes of the worlds problems IMO.

I wish people were in a frienzy like this over science and technology to see who could get off this planet first and stay out without coming back.

Religion needs to take a back seat in the private life where it belongs. I have been waiting for someone to build a starship already so I can get off this prison planet.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I started to not open this can of worms but I will.

REASONS A POPULATION WOULD PRACTICE INBREEDING

Religion and culture can play a large role in the amount of inbreeding that takes place in a population. In many Muslim and Hindu societies in Africa, Asia, and India, consanguious marriages, especially unions of first cousins, account for twenty to fifty-five percent of the total. These religions tend to inbreed because of religious acceptance, preference, and tradition. Moreover, the culture of these societies also plays a large role into increased levels of inbreeding. Consanguineous marriages are thought to be an advantage when considering compatibility of the bride and her husband's family.

www.as.wvu.edu...

April 13, 2011
The Keystone of the Islamic Milieu: Inbreeding
By Ann Barnhardt
The darkest hour is just before dawn. A huge swath of this planet, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Philippine Sea, has been held in a synthetic, forced nightfall for nearly fourteen centuries. But the sunrise is coming, it is coming sooner rather than later, and this light will be the life of men.
Everywhere in the western world, people look at the savage violence that is a daily occurrence in the Muslim world and shake their heads in stunned disbelief.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

originally posted by: Urantia1111
I think it may have been a better idea for god to have kept his mouth shut altogether and never said a word to any humans about anything. Life would be much simpler.

My thoughts exactly!!!

All the abrahic religions require blind faith, and absolute obedience, or else there will be torture and death and eternal damnations.

What a kind and merciful god they all worship.

Nm didn't read far enough

a reply to: Sremmos80

I did.

The questions are:

Does that now make my position viable for this conversation?

Why was it not before?

Would his original post have not been valid had he not?

a reply to: johnwick

Not my God. The one I know is all about inspiration-forgivenss-love-compassion-obedience but in a way that does not interrupt the life you live. To give thanks to him for he has provided

It is not

Submit to him or die
If you convert from him you will burn
If you eat this or that you will burn
If you do not control your women you will burn
Those who do not believe -they must die
You must pray 5 times a day or you will burn
You must fast during Ramadan or burn
You must make the pilgrimmage to Mecca or see it at least or you will burn..


I see an aweful lot of negativity with Islam. Then again it is how you interpret it. LOL