Islam, Christianity and the idea of Conquest

[atiguhya padma]

I saw a programme last night about the Islamic contribution to European history. In it, the tele-journalist Rageh Omaah, himself a Muslim, claimed that after the Islamic conquest of Spain and southern France, a period of peaceful co-existence occurred, in which the Christians gained much knowledge from the Muslims, especially in architecture and science. It just struck me, that Christianity has a history of agressive suppression in the lands that it conquers. If truth conquers all, why did Christianity not adopt a more passive approach? Why did it not allow other religions to worship in peace in Christian lands? After all, such worshippers would surely have seen 'the light' once they became aware of the 'truth' in the Christian lifestyle, wouldn't they? Had the Christians adopted the Islamic approach in Spain and France, then maybe the world would have turned out to be a much nicer place. Maybe people like me would not have felt so aggrieved at the course of Christian history.

Interestingly enough, another programme I saw recently on the Crusades supported Rageh's view: when Richard the Lionheart took Acre (?) he slaughtered the prisoners he had taken and publicly displayed their bodies so that the Muslims could see what the Christians had done (Muslims, on the other hand, had respected the lives of their prisoners and given them the ancient privilege of quarter). I know some on this site would have it that people like Richard the Lionheart were more interested in worldly power than religious conviction, but according to the scholars on this programme, Richard was a devout and passionate Christian, who was tormented by the idea of Muslim control of Jerusalem.

[Amra]

Nice point. It is very disturbing that people usually assume Islam to be a conquering violent force and that it has a brutal history of war, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. There is vast evidence throughout history that countries and people under Islamic rule were living in peace with each other. One such great example is the leader Sallahudeen Ayube, who stoped the christian crusades and took over Jerusalem, because even though christians had killed so many muslims that blood was flowing on the streets, he freed the prisoners, forbid killing of women and children, and even gave money for those in need to return to places where they came from. However, you never hear about this great man when studying history in western countries...Come to think, I have long ago lost my faith in the truth of any so-called history book...

[baddad]

Who was it who said, "Hisrtory is written by the victor!?"

IMHO.....A religion is incapable of committing acts, either good or bad. A religion may wield words, but the truth of all atrocities committed in the name of religion (or any other viloence for that matter) is that humans are inherently violent, shallow, and willing to sacrifice the entire planet if need be, all as justification for their own wants, for the chance to mold the earth with their own perspective.

Islam is not violent, Christianity is not violent. NOne of the great religions preach violence as a way to the truth. People are violent. And some of them use a religious umbrella as the only truth (and to cover their own lies and treachery) , a truth that others must die, in order for a truth to be upheld. Religious piety seems like a pretty obvious facade when you take even the simplest of glances at it, a perfunctoruy examination, would seem to reveal this truth; religious excesses,excuses as umbrella for dominance.

But people blind themselves in the name of religion, often because they don't believe it themselves, but it IS an excuse to act upon otherwise unacceptalbe prejudices. Again.......In my humble opinion.....

[Amra]

Very good points baddad.. :thumbs_up

[atiguhya padma]

Baddad,

What about teachings like an eye for an eye? Is this not promoting violence?

[IWilKikU]

The same man said 'turn the other cheek'.

[baddad]

Ahhh.....AP, of course you must point that out!! I would not expect otherwise.

But 2000 years ago the world was a maelstrom of misunderstanding, tribal warfares, a need to protect one's own resources, because to do otherwise was to perish, both as a tribe and as an individual. An eye for an eye would have seemed fair recompence and 'just' in those heady days of 2000 years ago, as little other instant recourse was available. And instant recourse is still unavailable today. But....as I'm (kinda)sure you will agree, the bible is filled with anecdotes, lessons, messages hidden within 'the word', and is no longer taken as literal except by a fundamentalist few. As a species we have grown far beyond the need to (*jeez, dare I say it*) eliminate our enemies with violence. We have grown beyond the need to react with 'like' repercussions upon those who would do us harm. An eye for an eye can be interpreted in many ways, and not all involve violence. And besides, "an eye for an eye" had little weight or practical use in the days it was quoted, let alone any practical use as a way of religious practice. And...I will reiterate, religions don't commit violent acts...........intrepretation is an intellectual pursuit, and so should be one's approach to life, religious or not.

One last thing......do you have an illustration of another book, other than a religious text, that, in general, causes people to perform acts contrary to basic moral stances? Humans are products of their environment, prone to exonophobia (sp?). But the intellect reaches beyond these parameters in many people, and these take it upon themselves to expose the ways of the future to their fellows. An 'eye for an eye' probably made good 'copy' in the days it was written, but today it only raises a few eyebrows in surprise.

[dwg]

Baddad,
What about teachings like an eye for an eye? Is this not promoting violence?

Of course, an eye for an eye is Old Testament. If you believe in the New Testament, Jesus gives a new teaching: "Love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul. The second is like unto it, Love your neighbor as yourself." No violence here."

[atiguhya padma]

Of course, an eye for an eye is Old Testament. If you believe in the New Testament, Jesus gives a new teaching: "Love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul. The second is like unto it, Love your neighbor as yourself." No violence here."

Firstly, I agree it would be far better if christians stuck to new testament morality, in fact, it would be far better if they ditched the old testament altogether. Unfortunately, in my experience, christians will always use the old testament to bolster whatever they want to say about morality, prophecy etc, and then when someone points out the dubious ethics of various old testament teachings, like stoning adulterers, killing witches etc, they then revert to saying ah but thats old testament, there's a new testament which supersedes it.

Funny how the ten commandments are publicly promoted as a set of moral beliefs to reform society and yet nobody seems to be building monuments talking about how blessed the peacemakers are.

There may be no violence in the love thy neighbour proclamation, and the beatitudes are commendable but don't think the new testament is all about love and peace, after all, what about this from matthew 10:34:

<Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.>

Or this from Luke:

<Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.>

Is this really about love and peace?

[Amra]

Firstly, I agree it would be far better if christians stuck to new testament morality, in fact, it would be far better if they ditched the old testament altogether. Unfortunately, in my experience, christians will always use the old testament to bolster whatever they want to say about morality, prophecy etc, and then when someone points out the dubious ethics of various old testament teachings, like stoning adulterers, killing witches etc, they then revert to saying ah but thats old testament, there's a new testament which supersedes it.

:thumbs_up

[SheykAbdullah]

I think that a positive statement about the ethics of religion and the role it plays in the human condition is impossible. The same goes for morality. That fact is that moral pluralism is inherit in all religions. We have mentioned the pluralism of Christianity, and we have speculated on how followers of that religion can break its basic sanctions to regard human life as sacred, but is this any different than the Muslim who disreagrds the Prophet's commandment to respect all 'People of the Book" and blows up Christians and Jews?

Of course here you can run into arguments about who is of the book, and who isn't, just as in Christianity it is possible to justify the indiscriminate slaying of someone of another religion by saying "They were not Christians and the Bible says they are denied Christ's mercy so why should the recieve mine?" So a suicide bomber may say there is only one book, and this person isn't of it.

That is the trick morality and religion plays on people; the trick of ambiguity. Of course one may easily turn the statement around and say that is the trick people play on morality and religion. However, if a person says that he is a Christian, and says that he can kill anyone who is not a Christian (or any religion for that matter), but must treat Christians with mercy and follows this rule perfectly, is he an immoral person? He is consistent to his own internal moral code, and in the end it is the responsibility of every moral person to police HIMSELF, and in any case where people police themselves differences and conflicts will arise.

The fact that people in every religion do these things shouldn't be surprising. No matter our religion we are all ultimately human and under the influence of our own humanity, which can be a con artist as often as it can be a priest. Even when you speak to God, Allah, a Bodhisvatta, or some Avatar of a Hindu God how sure can you be that the answer you recieve is not filtered through your own perceptions? Of course this is a personal answer that may differ with every person, and I don't want to start a debate on the subject of Truth, but how likely is it that another person hears something totally different but is as convinced, or unconvinced, it is the true word of (a) God as you?

[Virgil]

I think that a positive statement about the ethics of religion and the role it plays in the human condition is impossible. The same goes for morality. That fact is that moral pluralism is inherit in all religions. We have mentioned the pluralism of Christianity, and we have speculated on how followers of that religion can break its basic sanctions to regard human life as sacred, but is this any different than the Muslim who disreagrds the Prophet's commandment to respect all 'People of the Book" and blows up Christians and Jews?

Of course here you can run into arguments about who is of the book, and who isn't, just as in Christianity it is possible to justify the indiscriminate slaying of someone of another religion by saying "They were not Christians and the Bible says they are denied Christ's mercy so why should the recieve mine?" So a suicide bomber may say there is only one book, and this person isn't of it.

That is the trick morality and religion plays on people; the trick of ambiguity. Of course one may easily turn the statement around and say that is the trick people play on morality and religion. However, if a person says that he is a Christian, and says that he can kill anyone who is not a Christian (or any religion for that matter), but must treat Christians with mercy and follows this rule perfectly, is he an immoral person? He is consistent to his own internal moral code, and in the end it is the responsibility of every moral person to police HIMSELF, and in any case where people police themselves differences and conflicts will arise.

The fact that people in every religion do these things shouldn't be surprising. No matter our religion we are all ultimately human and under the influence of our own humanity, which can be a con artist as often as it can be a priest. Even when you speak to God, Allah, a Bodhisvatta, or some Avatar of a Hindu God how sure can you be that the answer you recieve is not filtered through your own perceptions? Of course this is a personal answer that may differ with every person, and I don't want to start a debate on the subject of Truth, but how likely is it that another person hears something totally different but is as convinced, or unconvinced, it is the true word of (a) God as you?
Sheyk - That is very profound. I have always felt that people will rationalize all sorts of things. If religon had not existed, people different from each other will find some other justifcation to find conflict if that is what they wish. Religion is an easy one to fall on because it is visually distinct, just like race.

[Boris239]

Interestingly enough, another programme I saw recently on the Crusades supported Rageh's view: when Richard the Lionheart took Acre (?) he slaughtered the prisoners he had taken and publicly displayed their bodies so that the Muslims could see what the Christians had done (Muslims, on the other hand, had respected the lives of their prisoners and given them the ancient privilege of quarter). I know some on this site would have it that people like Richard the Lionheart were more interested in worldly power than religious conviction, but according to the scholars on this programme, Richard was a devout and passionate Christian, who was tormented by the idea of Muslim control of Jerusalem.

Simply put- Muslim civilization at the time of Crusades was much better developed, most of the Christians were mere barbarians compared to Muslims. Most of the works of great Greek philosophers came to Europe through Muslim hands. So it's logical that at the time Muslim people were much more tolerant than Christians. The changing point, in my opinion, was Renaissance that brought Christian civilization to a completely different level. As far as I know there was nothing like that in the Muslim world

[Mililalil XXIV]

Nice point. It is very disturbing that people usually assume Islam to be a conquering violent force and that it has a brutal history of war, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. There is vast evidence throughout history that countries and people under Islamic rule were living in peace with each other. One such great example is the leader Sallahudeen Ayube, who stoped the christian crusades and took over Jerusalem, because even though christians had killed so many muslims that blood was flowing on the streets, he freed the prisoners, forbid killing of women and children, and even gave money for those in need to return to places where they came from. However, you never hear about this great man when studying history in western countries...Come to think, I have long ago lost my faith in the truth of any so-called history book...
Many television specials are politically slanted. There are better ways to guage the truth than by this limited media form.

From the outset, Muhammad followed a very clear battle-plan, forcing islam on Arabia. Immediately after his demise, his successors were still pushing ahead with the same focused - and thus effective - campaigne. Soon muslims were taking over every government they could - there is absolutely no argument against that at all. What were they doing in Egypt, Spain, Persia (and all its former domain), and Syria? What became of those many nations that once the Apostle Paul travelled through? Whatever Christians did after this, they did not as the aggravators, but as the invaded and attacked, in consequence of something forced upon them. Until this time, there were no Crusades, nor largescale government Inquisitions, etc. There had never been a war between Jews and Christians, nor a Crusade against Buddhists (not even when the Buddhists killed many Christians in China), nor one against the Hindus, etc.

This is all history I refer to - not current politics. But consider cause and effect.

At one time, almost all the old world was in the hands of muslims by force. Even China and India saw their time in that predicament. The spreading forces of the day even sent out people into the few untaken lands, like England, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia, and many unfortunate persons in those remote regions ended up as slaves to muslims in lands so far away as to transcend their geographical comprehension. That can only be evidence of a well-maintained world dominating scheme.

The so-called golden age of islam in Spain reflects nothing great about those who were at the top of the pyramid of that society, and at an advantage over their captive national hosts - it shows how easily their captives could try to make the best of the situation. Had Spaniards taken Mecca, and governed the muslims as they had governed the Spaniards, there would have been such a revolt - regardless of Spanish benevolence.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Simply put- Muslim civilization at the time of Crusades was much better developed, most of the Christians were mere barbarians compared to Muslims. Most of the works of great Greek philosophers came to Europe through Muslim hands. So it's logical that at the time Muslim people were much more tolerant than Christians. The changing point, in my opinion, was Renaissance that brought Christian civilization to a completely different level. As far as I know there was nothing like that in the Muslim world
At the very same moment in history that islam was siezing the world, all Christian nations were being steadilly bombarded by heathen invaders from many quarters of the world. As each invaded Europe, it killed off much of the prior Catholic inhabitants, and, largely displacing most of the prior generation of Catholics in this manner, in one generation unto the next, these barbarians largely outnumbered all those with deep Christian roots. When muslims took control of Spain, there were a few Catholics practically swallowed by the sheer numbers of the Arian sect, which had a very recent origin, and was largely peopled by anti-Catholic heathen invaders, that sort of took over the Arian sect begun by Roman apostates from the Church. As every newly catechised addition to the Catholic Church from the ever-arriving heathen invaders was just getting depth to their spititual roots, their own refined society was bombarded, in turn, by others still as heathen as their fathers had once recently been themselves - and this compounded new trauma with the former in Christendom.

America is a replication of what happened in a constantly re-besieged Europe:
protestants left Europe, where the Catholic Church was trying to assimilate the more recent peoples that had invaded them - to be their own masters, creating their own religion. As some of their kin kept trying to modernize the Church from within, making much European tension, these created a modern version of "Christianity" in America, that traditional Christians have to contend with spiritually in America. Such a composite society is just as chaotic in America now as in Europe during the Crusades. There were even two sets of knights in the First Crusade, one which went out to take back Christian lands and end oppression of Christians by muslims - which is not a fiction of any sort - and those that consisted largely of Germanic people that already were of bad repute among Catholics: these were the ones that tried to take over Europe in the absence of the former said group of Knights, and who attacked both Jews and Christians.

Who else was going through this as well as facing the islamic threat? What right did any man have to make the former states bow to them, then act as though offended at governments lawfully dealing with a matter concerning unlawful invasion and occupation of thes governing bodies? Not one islamic nation had previously ever been an islamic nation - so whose ownership was violated by who?

The civilization that the successive waves of heathens were taking possession of in Europe and in North Africa was unrivalled by any other - but even the rights that were won back from meddling barbarian invaders through converting them (through Doctrine), were never to be won back from islamic dominators except by rightful removal of the imposed yoke. Without the threat of trouble from all sides, the Christian countries' worst problems would have been monastic rhetorical squibbles, etc. In 2000 years' time, other problems (percieved or real) have little occurred.

If the islamic community had been under the same threats as Christendom, in the same dire straits, would they be accepting verbal abuse now over their conduct in perilous confusion? Friendly fire results not from enimical sentiments between neighbors, but from fearful instincts of selfpreservation. But, of course, there are some that show no rhyme or reason in analysing the Church position in situations that involved government officials and military dealing with a war they either had to prevail in or lose their quality of life in.
Had the first love of Christians been violence, they had more than enough people to reverse islamic military history, as well as to maybe have taken over the world. Christian armies often grew weak, with the Byzantines eventually thinking it best to wait for an Angel to deliver them, than to fight - thus Constantinople became Istanbul.

[Doctor Boogaloo]

Amra: You say that you long ago lost faith in any history book. You go, girl. And any of those dumb books that claim the earth is older than what -- 6000 years or so? -- forget them, too. Keep studying the Koran. (Notice that I used the 'historical', western infidel spelling. No Q's for me. But forgive me. I'm old.)

Hey, speaking of old... how old was Mo when he married Aisha? Of course things were different back then. I mean, the earth hadn't even cooled. had it?

[Boris239]

Ok, arianism, if I'm not mistaken, has its origins in the 4th century. So, yes, it's younger than christianity itself, but not that much. If we talk about Spain, arianism became the leading practice before Muslim conquest, and Spain(its christian part) changed from Mozarabic to Catholic practices only in the late 11th century during the reign of Alfonso VIII of Castille-Leon.
I'm not arguing that Christian civilization had a lot of challenges at the time, I'm just saying that at the time of Crusades it was less developed than Muslim one. Do you agree, Mililalil XXIV? (correct me if I'm wrong about arianism in Spain, I'm a specialist)

[Amra]

Mililalil,

Your view couldn't be more biased and further from the truth. :D Research Salahudeen Ayubi and the history of countries that were ruled under Islamic law. Many prospered like never before, and because muslim civilization was advanced, civilized and just, many smaller nations at that time chose to live under their rule to be protected from pagans and barbarians. The crusades showed how Christians fought, and how they violently killed MILLIONS of muslims, that at one time, blood was flowing in the streets.
However, as it is often true in matters like this, everyone will have their own view, ignore facts, and decide to use selective listening, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. I will always believe that muslims were more fair as rulers to other nations living under them, than were Christian rulers tu muslims. To me, that is the fact history has recorded. Prophet Mohammed a.s showed us the way of tolerance when he came back to Mecca, after he was prosecuted and lived away from his city for years when he finally entered Mecca, he told people that no one will be harmed, and ordered his soldiers to not harm anyone who is not fighting them. He did this eventhough he was treated in the cruelest ways possible by those same people when they were stronger. May Allah s.v.t bless him for being an amazing human being.

[Amra]

Amra: You say that you long ago lost faith in any history book. You go, girl.

I only claimed what any critical human being already knows, and that is the fact that any event in history could be looked at from various different perspectives. Depending on who wrote the history book, whether or on not that book was published in a country involved in the event, or one that had no interest in it, the perspective on the event will differ accordingly. I lived in a communist country that had most of its history books rewritten after the fall of communist regime. Did the history change, or did they simply choose to portray another side of it; one that is less pro communism oriented?


And any of those dumb books that claim the earth is older than what -- 6000 years or so? -- forget them, too.

The only book that claims that, as far as I know, is the Bible. Or, Christians used to claim that, and burn other books that didn't agree with that theory.


Keep studying the Koran.

Of course I will. Studying Qur'an only encourages me to study other things. Contrary to Christianity, Islam didn't burn science books because they didn't contradict its teachings, nor did it prosecute scientists like the Church used to to because they didn't agree with its view that the Earth is flat, in the center of the universe, and not moving. :D


(Notice that I used the 'historical', western infidel spelling. No Q's for me. But forgive me. I'm old.)

Ok. :confused:


Hey, speaking of old... how old was Mo when he married Aisha? Of course things were different back then. I mean, the earth hadn't even cooled. had it?

How old was Mary when she had Jesus, and how old was her husband Joseph at that time? HOw old was Abraham when he was married to Hager and Sarah?


P.S Keep searching..knowledge doesn't hurt...even on old person.

[Mililalil XXIV]

There may be no violence in the love thy neighbour proclamation, and the beatitudes are commendable but don't think the new testament is all about love and peace, after all, what about this from matthew 10:34:

<Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.>

But HE means that HIS Gospel, that does not promote the sword (as said elsewhere by HIM), has the effect of drawing lines between the one embracing the Gospel of Peace, and those that reject it. The said "sword" is that drawn out against those that will not step aside from the Gospel, by those who are against It. HE goes on to say how non-Christians would deliver up Christians to death. HE is admitting that by presenting Good, one should expect an adverse reaction from those that want us to remain sided with them as before we accepted that Gospel that so irritates their conscience.

The sword is also an attitude, not just the weapon. We are called to love those that are adverse to us.



Or this from Luke:

<Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.>

[Doctor Boogaloo]

Amra: What I meant to ask was: how old was Mo (peace be upon him) when he married the six-year old Aisha? Thirty? Forty? Fifty?

(And please: don't point me towards those history books that you've given up on.)

[Mililalil XXIV]

Ok, arianism, if I'm not mistaken, has its origins in the 4th century. So, yes, it's younger than christianity itself, but not that much. If we talk about Spain, arianism became the leading practice before Muslim conquest, and Spain(its christian part) changed from Mozarabic to Catholic practices only in the late 11th century during the reign of Alfonso VIII of Castille-Leon.
I'm not arguing that Christian civilization had a lot of challenges at the time, I'm just saying that at the time of Crusades it was less developed than Muslim one. Do you agree, Mililalil XXIV? (correct me if I'm wrong about arianism in Spain, I'm a specialist)
Boris, hadn't you noticed that I didn't actually refute any particular statement you made, so much as clamp a qualifying addendum to it for the benefit of all? Some things added into the post that quoted yours involved flash backs of the other statements by others in this thread. If you happen to reread the progression of earlier posts, you'll no doubt spot what things I squeezed in responses to - however I didn't want to compromise the form of progressing thoughts for too many quotations introducing altogether divergent trains of thought.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Mililalil,

Your view couldn't be more biased and further from the truth. :D Research Salahudeen Ayubi and the history of countries that were ruled under Islamic law. Many prospered like never before, and because muslim civilization was advanced, civilized and just, many smaller nations at that time chose to live under their rule to be protected from pagans and barbarians. The crusades showed how Christians fought, and how they violently killed MILLIONS of muslims, that at one time, blood was flowing in the streets.
However, as it is often true in matters like this, everyone will have their own view, ignore facts, and decide to use selective listening, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. I will always believe that muslims were more fair as rulers to other nations living under them, than were Christian rulers tu muslims. To me, that is the fact history has recorded. Prophet Mohammed a.s showed us the way of tolerance when he came back to Mecca, after he was prosecuted and lived away from his city for years when he finally entered Mecca, he told people that no one will be harmed, and ordered his soldiers to not harm anyone who is not fighting them. He did this eventhough he was treated in the cruelest ways possible by those same people when they were stronger. May Allah s.v.t bless him for being an amazing human being.
But who in those nations prospered? The unislamicised?

[Amra]

But HE means that HIS Gospel, that does not promote the sword (as said elsewhere by HIM), has the effect of drawing lines between the one embracing the Gospel of Peace, and those that reject it. The said "sword" is that drawn out against those that will not step aside from the Gospel, by those who are against It.

It is very clear from the statement what he means. But, of course, you will stretch it so far until you obscure the complete meaning of what he said, so that it fits your own views, and that which you wish to portray. It is not "sword" but the sword that is drawn out.

[Amra]

But who in those nations prospered? The unislamicised?

Everyone prospered. Islam brought a new way of life to people, social norms, morals and values, and it encouraged education and advancement in every possible way. The most beautiful architeture comes from that period. Islam showed tolerance towards other nations, and you can find churches that were preserved for centuries in those countries that were ruled by muslims. Math, literature, medicine, geography were all sciences that evolved enormously during that time. It was the golden age of Islam, and during that time, people could see what the true word of God could do, and how it can transform nations. Unfortunately, corrupt leaders and straying away from Islam, that was apparent towards the end of Ottoman empire, led to the fall of khilafet.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I only claimed what any critical human being already knows, and that is the fact that any event in history could be looked at from various different perspectives. Depending on who wrote the history book, whether or on not that book was published in a country involved in the event, or one that had no interest in it, the perspective on the event will differ accordingly. I lived in a communist country that had most of its history books rewritten after the fall of communist regime. Did the history change, or did they simply choose to portray another side of it; one that is less pro communism oriented?


I have taken note of that, and have often collated the agreeing witnesses of religions absolutely irreconcilable one to another. The Jews in France, for example, wrote details not only about what muslims did to their unarmed families as they entered France, but also mentioned what was done to all French Priests captured - and the Jews themselves hated the Religion of those Priests they had no personal bias towards. Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity are at absolute odds with one another, yet their testimonies about the expansion of islam are roughly identical.



The only book that claims that, as far as I know, is the Bible. Or, Christians used to claim that, and burn other books that didn't agree with that theory.

Never did any Christian burn all other books they could get their hands on than the Bible, as the immediate military successors of Muhammad are said to have soon tried to do to all but the quran in Alexandria. The muslims did at least do large-scale damage to it, whether or not caliph Omar said that the quran was the only book that needed ever be had.

Monks preserved all sorts of books, and it was select doctrinal books, not histories that were burnt by a few Christians here and there. The Arian books burnt were not historically threatening, but blasphemed GOD, WHO had delivered Christians from Roman persecution previously - however, the Arians soon took over the Roman empire, renewing the Roman persecution of Catholics, and they routinely burnt office archives, full of historical facts. Though not much of the once Arian bent Eusebius' doctrinal works survive, his histories were preserved. The Ottomans and the Mongols destroyed a great deal of historical records and doctrinal treatises, the former mentioned erasing whole nations from Asia Minor.


Of course I will. Studying Qur'an only encourages me to study other things. Contrary to Christianity, Islam didn't burn science books because they didn't contradict its teachings, nor did it prosecute scientists like the Church used to to because they didn't agree with its view that the Earth is flat, in the center of the universe, and not moving. :D
Do you have more than Galileo in mind? Contrary to Christianity, islam considers the word of one man alone the basis for all doctrine and history. The many gentiles that freely became Christians when it was likey a death sentence under Rome to Christianize, included many of the leading heatheb scholars, who never ceased to find startling correlations between the history they had previously learnt, and that of the Bible.[/QUOTE]



How old was Mary when she had Jesus, and how old was her husband Joseph at that time? HOw old was Abraham when he was married to Hager and Sarah?


The question is not how old the older one is, but how young the younger is.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Everyone prospered. Islam brought a new way of life to people, social norms, morals and values, and it encouraged education and advancement in every possible way. The most beautiful architeture comes from that period. Islam showed tolerance towards other nations, and you can find churches that were preserved for centuries in those countries that were ruled by muslims. Math, literature, medicine, geography were all sciences that evolved enormously during that time. It was the golden age of Islam, and during that time, people could see what the true word of God could do, and how it can transform nations. Unfortunately, corrupt leaders and straying away from Islam, that was apparent towards the end of Ottoman empire, led to the fall of khilafet.
There was a price exacted on Christians by muslims for remaining what they were. No Christian, apart from trying to be optimistic, was living it up under the new regime.

[Amra]

The question is not how old the older one is, but how young the younger is.

Why?


There was a price exacted on Christians by muslims for remaining what they were

What price?



Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity are at absolute odds with one another, yet their testimonies about the expansion of islam are roughly identical.

This is a very broad generalization, and to the most part untrue. There are many Christians, and Jews who praise Prophet Mohammed a.s, and tell the truth about the islamic rule during the time of Ottoman Empire. Did you ever read Bernard Shaw? Michael Hart? Karen Armstrong? It is a historical fact that many Christians chose to live under islamic law because it gave them protection. Prophet Mohammed a.s had signed many treaties with Christians, and at one point they offered him protection when he was prosecuted. This showed a very amiable relationship he established with the "people of the book". I do not deny that isolated attrocities during the Ottoman Empire were commited, but those were not intrinsic part of some kind of a systematic cleansening of non-muslims, but simply crimes that should have been punished.



islam considers the word of one man alone the basis for all doctrine and history.

It is the Word of God that is the basis for everything else, not the word of Prophet MOhammed a.s

[SheykAbdullah]

It is impossible and ridiculous to say that Islam was more tolerant, or Christianity was more tolerant in the middle ages. In the first case, if the Muslims were so tolerant why did they wage a war to invade and conquor other countries that didn't want them there in the first place? I do believe that the national epic in France is still The Song of Roland, which is more or less about how the Moors invaded France REGARDLESS of what the French wanted, which doesn't sound very enlightened to me. In fact, if you are going to use this argument, we must be objective and logical. The US invaded Iraq allegedly to stop a tyrant's oppression and the killing of innocent people, a pretty enlightened sounding idea to me. How do you all feel about that? It's really no different than wht the Moors did, and before you say it was motivated by oil, I don't think that Moorish conquests in Spain were done just to enlighten the poor, ignorant populace.

And after this is considered, no one has mentioned about Islam's far east. There was intense amounts of violence raised by Muslims against the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) of Persia and peoples through out the former Soviet Union and in Afghanistan. In fact, the last province of Afghanistan to be non-Muslim converted only in the last decade of the nineteenth century, it is now called Nuristan (Land of the Light) and was then called Kafiristan (Land of the Infidels). Those people, who practiced a native, animist religion, had been persecuted for not converting since long before Tammerlane all the way through till after the formation of the modern Afghan Kingdom. On top of this, the Taliban were not the first to attempt to destroy the Bamian Buddhasm this had been done centuries before them, which is why their faces were disfigured.

Now I am not saying Christianity was less violent, and in truth it wasn't. What I am saying is that to take a stance one way or the other is to subscribe to one side or the other's propoganda. The historical truth is unbiased. It merely must be filtered through your preception of the world, and that is where problems arise.

The truth is no religion is any kinder, gentler, than any other and no religion has ever been wholly altruistic. To make a broad generalization of that is to ignore plain, unfiltered facts. Religion is made up of people and people will be people no mater where or who they are. One group of one people may be 'better' than another, but even so it is an irrelevant question. We are talking about plain, historical facts. They have ahppened and are immutable, as long as you are learning things they way they actually happened. There is no need to play judge and jury with these things, they simply are and not debate will cure them.

[Boris239]

I do believe that the national epic in France is still The Song of Roland, which is more or less about how the Moors invaded France REGARDLESS of what the French wanted, which doesn't sound very enlightened to me. In fact, if you are going to use this argument, we must be

SheykAbdullah, you are wrong about the Song of Rolandes. It was Charlemagne who attacked Spain in the song, and when he was returning home to France his rear guard led by Rolandes was supposedely attacked by Moors in Roncesvalles(which is of course in Spain). Epic poems in general are not the best sources of history. The whole Song of Rolandes has very few true facts. Actually Charlemagne's rear guard was attacked not by Moors but by Basques (who were Christians), because on the way to Spain his army sacked and plundered a bunch of Basque villages.And there was no great battle between Emir and Charlemagne of any kind after that.

Having said that, you are still right that Muslims did attack France. I think it happened like a centrury earlier. They were defeated by Charlemagne's gradfather Charles Martel.

[mcrane]

I am trying to find a few good, simple history books. Unlike Amria, I havent lost faith yet :)
I would like to read a short book about the history of Europe, in General, and Christianity in particular.
I am also trying to find a good book Islam and Muhammad, and another about Judaism. I am intersted in the concept of the "holy war" and what it meant to various leaders of the time.
Boogaloo, who said the Earth was less than 6000 years old??!!!

[SheykAbdullah]

SheykAbdullah, you are wrong about the Song of Rolandes. It was Charlemagne who attacked Spain in the song, and when he was returning home to France his rear guard led by Rolandes was supposedely attacked by Moors in Roncesvalles(which is of course in Spain). Epic poems in general are not the best sources of history. The whole Song of Rolandes has very few true facts. Actually Charlemagne's rear guard was attacked not by Moors but by Basques (who were Christians), because on the way to Spain his army sacked and plundered a bunch of Basque villages.And there was no great battle between Emir and Charlemagne of any kind after that.

Having said that, you are still right that Muslims did attack France. I think it happened like a centrury earlier. They were defeated by Charlemagne's gradfather Charles Martel.

I know that the Song of Roland is innaccurate, but its accuracy is not important for my point, which is not the historical relevancy of the facts of the poem, rather the relevancy of its emotional content. The fact that the facts were distorted so that the Basques became the Moors proves even further my point, that the French did not want the Moors in their country in anyway shape or form, yet the Moors presisted.

[Theshizznigg]

Who was it who said, "Hisrtory is written by the victor!?"

IMHO.....A religion is incapable of committing acts, either good or bad. A religion may wield words, but the truth of all atrocities committed in the name of religion (or any other viloence for that matter) is that humans are inherently violent, shallow, and willing to sacrifice the entire planet if need be, all as justification for their own wants, for the chance to mold the earth with their own perspective.

Islam is not violent, Christianity is not violent. NOne of the great religions preach violence as a way to the truth. People are violent. And some of them use a religious umbrella as the only truth (and to cover their own lies and treachery) , a truth that others must die, in order for a truth to be upheld. Religious piety seems like a pretty obvious facade when you take even the simplest of glances at it, a perfunctoruy examination, would seem to reveal this truth; religious excesses,excuses as umbrella for dominance.

But people blind themselves in the name of religion, often because they don't believe it themselves, but it IS an excuse to act upon otherwise unacceptalbe prejudices. Again.......In my humble opinion.....


Well Done I couldn't agree with you more. Hit the bloody nail right on its head.
It is never the religion or faith that causes people harm, it is those people who use that faith or religion to achieve their own ends that are responsible, not the religion itself.
If people truly followed all the doctrines of Christianity, Then there would have been no Crusades, but instead missions of conversion. And who knows, Mohammehdans might have lost the will to fight the Christians, and eventually all, or many converted.
The unfortunate fact is, however that no one human is perfect or can ever be perfect without godly intervention. Since then that humans are not perfect, then we must always assume that people are prone to human vices.
And what a better way to attract people to do your bidding, then to be in a position of authority and to offer them a false hope of heaven if they do your will.
Its simply the same with Communism, but instead of religious rewards you offer people, socialist rewards.
Neither will ever work in the way they are supposed to.

"Bombs over Bagdhad."
Outcast.

"Show me a human who claims to be truly perfect, and I will show you the greatest liar the world has ever known."

[atiguhya padma]

If Christianity is incapable of doing bad, and as Baddad says, also incapable of doing good, then I'm looking forward to the time when all the Christians recognise that the doing of good works by Christians is not a product of their belief at all, but rather a product of their human nature.

[SheykAbdullah]

If Christianity is incapable of doing bad, and as Baddad says, also incapable of doing good, then I'm looking forward to the time when all the Christians recognise that the doing of good works by Christians is not a product of their belief at all, but rather a product of their human nature.

People say this, but I don't believe it. Hitler launched the Holocaust because of his belief he was doing the right thing. If he believed differently there would have been no holocaust and thus it is an accurate statement to say that Hitler initiated the Holocaust because he believed that it was the necesary solution. Thus by a logical extension it may be assumed that Christians do good acts because they believe that good acts should be done, just as Hitler attempted to eliminate the Jews because he believed it should be done.

If we are to assume that Christians only do good acts because of their human nature, what do we say about people that do not do good acts but lead selfish and destructive lives. Do they do this out of human nature as well? Do they have a different nature than others? Are some people's 'human nature' better than others? That seems impossible if we are going to assume that there is such a united concept as 'human nature.' Or it is a brilliant discovery that we should explore, eventually learn how to identify people's natures, and then find everyone with a bad nature and kill them. It would prevent a lot of problems.

In any case, what is 'human nature'? Is our nature confined to some instinctive kick held within some primitive region of our brain that serves as some kind of limitor to guide our actions and dictates what we can and can't do, or is human nature in fact our basic wiring, which includes religious beliefs, that acts as something which the mind builds from to produce an ultimate result.

If we want to look purely at human natures we should turn our eyes to Lucy and the 'Wild Children' that pop up perdiodically in the world and are raised by wild animals. When they are found they are effectively stripped of human society and are in a primoridal state, what we would expect to be human nature at its rawest, and we find them acting out petty grievances and indulgences like the animals we all are until the moderating influence of society calms them and they eventually become either the 'good' or the 'bad' people we expect, albeit with certain social retardations.

So, I think we can safely say that 'human nature' is a much more limited concept than people think. We rarely act things out because of anything like a 'human nature' we rather, as fully developed human beings, act out of a sense of rational enterprise. We do things because we believe in them. We are good because we believe in a greater good, or we are 'evil' because we have a definition of goodness that is in contrast to the rest of society, or because we simply don't care (a psychological condition refered to either as sociopathy or psychopathy depending on the extremity) about society.

Thus Jeffrey Dommer and serial killers do whatt hey did because they BELIEVE it makes them feel good, and for them probably does. Also, Hitler did what he did because he BELIEVED he was doing something for the GOOD of mankind, and so Christians help their neighbor because they BELIEVE it to be right, or because they BELIEVE it will get them into heaven (I don't really mean to start a salvation by faith vs salvation by work argument). In any case human nature is a cop out for an explanation. It is both too vague and too incorrect. People within the context of society have moved beyond the need to consult human nature to act, it is in fact what defines us a rational beings.