S
Shadowcry
Guest
So by your logic warfare is justified. Why did the Christians have to take Jerusaleum ?
- Status
S
Shadowcry
Guest
Stop trying to change the arguement. Seeking power is the same as warfare.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Jerusalem had Jewish connections first, then Christian connections.
M
mike182d
Guest
Then how do you explain Islam being in a perpetual state of war from it’s beginnings and Muhammed’s sacking of Mecca in the 7th Century and continuing though nearly the 18th Century? What did the Byzantine Empire do to Muslims to warrant a “defensive” war? What did Jerusalem do to Muslims to warrant a “defensive” war? Islamic warfare from its beginnings and through the middle ages was imperialist and about expansion and conquest.
You are aware that Pople Urban II launched a *defensive *war against the Muslims who were trying to kill them? There is no war of conquest or conversion accepted by the teachings of the Church. Of course they’ll receive reward for defending their faith, but the Church has never taught that they receive reward just for killing unbelievers.
I’m curious as to what the author meant by “at home.” Europe was not unified until sometime later with the Holy Roman Empire, which didn’t pan out. Secondly, the massacre of the Jews in Germany was not sanctioned by Rome and there are accounts of Priest and Bishops hiding Jews in their own churches and Cathedrals from the renegade force.
S
Shadowcry
Guest
Then Muslim connections.
M
mike182d
Guest
No. By my logic *defensive *war is justified. When Islam began a massive campaign of imperial conquest and the emperor of Byzantium calls out to Rome for help, would it be right to sit by and let them be slaughtered by the invading Muslims?
M
mike182d
Guest
By the sword.
L
LRThunder
Guest
I’m aware of Mecca and Medina’s Islamic connections. But other than making Jerusalem under Islam’s sphere of influence, how can Islam lay claim to Jerusalem?
M
mike182d
Guest
Let me phrase it this way:
Which battle did Christians fight to win initial control of the Holy Land?
Which battle did Muslims fight to win control of the Holy Land?
P
pro_universal
Guest
There is no moment in history where the Christian empires were not expanding in the exact same way. The difference is that when Christians conquered, there was no option of “pay this tax and you can keep your religion.” This image you seem to have of a peaceful Europe that only made war when provoked is simply wrong.
The Byzantines lost the war to the Muslims because they were corrupt, persecuted the monophysites and Jews relentlessly, and thus had no popular support whatsoever when the numerically inferior Muslims came to conquer. And the muslims stayed because they offered a vastly better deal to the places they conquered.
Just as every group calls any such war “defensive,” (just as the Muslims said they were defending Islam, and even the terrorists now say they are defending muslims), so Pope Urban used the language. However, when you consider the following facts, it’s pretty clear that this was not a defensive war:
- The Eastern Christians had been excommunicated and declared anathema already by 1095.
- The first people attacked by the Crusader armies were Jews in Europe. What threat did they pose to Christians?
- The Muslims had been doing just fine in Egypt and Palestine for 400 years before Urban called for a Crusade. If a native american goes to Washington DC and tries to remove the government by force in order to install a tribal religionist state, would you call his actions a “defensive response to white man’s aggression”?
That sir is revisionism. The fact that we are more enlightened now doesn’t change what happened.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Because a major holy site for muslims is there in Jerusalem, and because the majority of Jerusalem’s population for 1300 years has been muslim.
O
onesimplemind
Guest
And now they are whining because the Jews are desiring to take it back.
But wait, the Jews aren’t allowed to do that. No, only muslims can conquer.
P
pro_universal
Guest
If Israel permitted every person who is subject to the authority of the Israeli army to vote, this would not be a problem, because Israel would be a majority muslim state.
The problem is that in the age of democracy, there is now a government that defines who is and is not a citizen based on the need to maintain a religious majority of only one faith, even though its army controls many more people than those who vote. That and other factors (like huge numbers of civilian casualties and unrelenting degradation) are why they are “whining” in Palestine (including Christian palestinians), not because “only muslims can conquer.”
M
mike182d
Guest
No, the difference is that in Christianity, contrary to Islam, there is seperation between the State and Religion. When the King of Britain, who professes to be Christian, attacks Scotland, that’s not “Christian expansion” that’s British expansion. Rome, the head of Christianity, has *never *called for wars of conquest or expansion. Such a seperation does not exist in Islam, or at least it did not in the first several hundred years of its existence, and so national military expansion *was *Islamic expansion. That is why you will never read in the history books about Britains colonization being “Christian” colonization even though Britain was a Christian nation. The only wars attributed to Christianity are those decreed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Odd how *every *conquerer has believed that.
You fail to mention what the Byzantines did to incite this war of conquest. “We preach a better life” was very popular with the Roman Empire too.
Well, sort of. The Eastern Orthodox may argue this point as the Patriarch of the West and the Patriarch of the East excommunicated each other, but that’s another story. There was always hope of reconciliation though.
The Catholic Church did not sanction this attack against the Jews. This was a case of fanatics losing control. Like I said, when this broke out, the Catholic Church actually tried to *protect *the Jews by hiding them in their churches.
Doing fine? They were in a constant state of expansion and warfare. Granted, the West’s response to Byzantium cry for help was belated, but that’s because the West was never really unified. There were so many internal wars and fued between nations that a unified effort against Muslim expansion would have been impossible.
Perhaps. They were here first.
No, it was not and I’ve explained this point to you already. Let’s say a General tells an American soldier during the Second World War that he needs to defeat the Nazi’s and then he goes off into the nearest German town out of zeal and kills whoever he sees. 1) The soldier is not doing what the general told him to do and 2) the mission of defeating the Nazi’s is not delegitimized by those who fail to follow orders or become renegades.
Now, if you can show me a quote from Pope Urban II calling for attacks on the Jews in Germany, then you might have an argument.
What is revisionism? The fact that Jerusalem was Christian territory before the Muslims decided they wanted it and sacked the city unprovoked?
M
mike182d
Guest
Is that before or after the Muslims invaded and stole the land from the Jews and Christians?
M
mike182d
Guest
How did the Muslims gain control of Jerusalem? How was this war defensive?
You have *yet *to answer these questions.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm#I
Instead of using the Fordham site, how about this? It was obvious that it was the Muslims (Seljuk Turks) who abrogated the existing treaties many years before the First Crusade was launched.
Instead of using the Fordham site, how about this? It was obvious that it was the Muslims (Seljuk Turks) who abrogated the existing treaties many years before the First Crusade was launched.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Alright, here’s a more direct expression of Papal approval for Conquest:
catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0214a.htm
Yes they did. They treated the Monophysites like dogs and engaged in war after war, weakening the people’s support for their unjust regime. The muslims did in fact do better for heretical christians, poor orthodox, and jews.
As for the three points, here are my responses:
That is beside the point. There was no such thing as a “sort of” anathema at the time. It’s dubious to claim defense of Christians after the Church already declared that they weren’t.
In some cases they did, in many they did not. It certainly was not the majority opinion of the members of the Church at the time that Jews should be defended at all costs. And look at how much protection they offered the Cathari.
No they weren’t. They were in a state of Imperial expansion, just like the Romans had been, just like Europe was whenever it had power. But life in the heartland of the Muslim empire was very good leading up to the time of the Crusades. That’s why they were able to build up such an economy and expand so rapidly (an expansion that slowed down greatly after 732…that’s also about four centuries before 1095).
They didn’t sack the city. The garrisoned it and actually lowered taxes, and also granted religious protection for the Christians and Jews there. That was something the Byzantines failed miserably at doing, and it’s why their armies were defeated so quickly. They had no support, and the populations they were supposed to be “defending” knew they were in for a much better life under muslim occupation.
O
onesimplemind
Guest
If it is ok for Saudi Arabia and other muslims countries to dhimmitize minorites, its ok for Isreal to do what it wants also. In a democracy with majority rule, an Islamic majority would just dhimmitize the Isrealis. Isreal has every right to prevent that from happening.
The conditions of the Palestinians are purely the fault of the Arabs at large. The Palestinian condition is a public relation ploy to demonize the Isrealis. The Palestinian condition is also a result of the unacceptance of Isreal’s existence. Too bad, if Muslims can conquer and dhimmitize people, they better be willing to accept the same treatment.
The Christian Palestinians aren’t only complaining about the Isrealis, they have lots of gripes about the Islamic groups running the scene.
P
pro_universal
Guest
We can’t get any further in discussion until you recognize the fault in this logic.
“If it’s okay for China to kill Christians, then it’s okay for Christians to kill Chinese living in Christian countries.”
Is that a correct statement? Are you seriously affirming the principle “if someone else does bad, I’m entitled to do bad also”?
- Status