The Crusades: Just and Reasonable

[pro_universal]

Yet you seem to believe that Islamic violence is the same as that done by Christians.

And there is a difference.

Imagine if you will for a moment that I pick up a gun and shoot my neighbour dead.

Imagine then if I pick up a gun and in an effort to protect himself my neighbour kills me.

There is no analogy here, because Christian empires during this period didn’t even pretend to protect their neighbors. They were ruthless European despots, and behaved like it.

Islam calls for people to be violent. Christianity does not.

Not true. Islam has no provisions for violence that are beyond the Christian limitations of just warfare. None.

You seek to treat them both the same. They are not. Your ‘truth’ is one of a relativistic argument, and lack of facts don’t seem to pose a problem for you.

And yet, mantra-like you repeat a point he’s already conceded.

It is not a relativistic argument. I’m pointing out that both of your claims are false:

1. That Christianity spread peacefully (it did not)
2. That Islam commands violence (it does not.)

This is not relativism, it’s truth.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, I have a question:

Can you give me one example of a period and place where Christians were in power, yet did not spread their religion by the sword?

Can you name one Christian empire that tolerated religious minorities to the same extent that Muslim empires tolerated Christians and Jews?

I already did. Here’s one small one. The Kentish king Ethelbert married a Christian woman from the continent. As part of the marriage deal she was allowed to set up a small Christian group to administer to her.

The King gave the Christians lands about Canterbury. From here they spread out througout his small kingdom. His wife, whilst not in direct power was never-the-less influential.

He allowed the missionary work of St. Augustine to proceed.

There were various Arab tribes that were converted to Christianity who lay outside the domain of the Empire.

I believe that Vladimir of Kiev also became Christian and allowed Christianity to spread peacefully.

Wenceslas is another.

 

[pro_universal]

I already did. Here’s one small one. The Kentish king Ethelbert married a Christian woman from the continent. As part of the marriage deal she was allowed to set up a small Christian group to administer to her.

The King gave the Christians lands about Canterbury. From here they spread out througout his small kingdom. His wife, whilst not in direct power was never-the-less influential.

He allowed the missionary work of St. Augustine to proceed.

There were various Arab tribes that were converted to Christianity who lay outside the domain of the Empire.

I believe that Vladimir of Kiev also became Christian and allowed Christianity to spread peacefully.

Wenceslas is another.

You are giving examples of some of the most small and insignificant areas of Christian conversion. The few Arab tribes whose leaders converted, and the English (who later fell into paganism), and the Irish (who also converted top-down) are not examples of even a percent of the spread of the religion, and they’re not examples of religious freedom either…

Converting a local warlord who then forces his serfs to convert is not a peaceful spreading of the religion.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Yet you seem to believe that Islamic violence is the same as that done by Christians.

And there is a difference.

Imagine if you will for a moment that I pick up a gun and shoot my neighbour dead.

Imagine then if I pick up a gun and in an effort to protect himself my neighbour kills me.

pro_universal:

There is no analogy here, because Christian empires during this period didn’t even pretend to protect their neighbors. They were ruthless European despots, and behaved like it.

Are you saying that a Christian empire attacked another Christian empire to spread Christianity? Or to spread it’s power? You still have trouble distinguishing the two.

Montalban:

Islam calls for people to be violent. Christianity does not.

pro_universal:

Not true. Islam has no provisions for violence that are beyond the Christian limitations of just warfare. None.

That is itself a loaded statement. What are the ‘Christian limitation on just warefare’? Please quote any of Jesus’ teachings.

Montalban:

Quote:You seek to treat them both the same. They are not. Your ‘truth’ is one of a relativistic argument, and lack of facts don’t seem to pose a problem for you.

And yet, mantra-like you repeat a point he’s already conceded.

pro_universal:

It is not a relativistic argument. I’m pointing out that both of your claims are false:

1. That Christianity spread peacefully (it did not)

It did. I just gave you examples. Your response is ‘no it didn’t’. Wowee, what a riposte!

pro_universal:

1. That Islam commands violence (it does not.)
   This is not relativism, it’s truth.

You are an apologist for Islam. I see that now. I note your argument mostly entails ‘just-so’ statements too.

From the Koran is the approval of terror…
Surah Al-'Imran Ayah [151]
We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong*doers).

Surah Al-Ahzab Ayah [26]
And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

Surah Al-Hashr Ayah [2]
He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

Muhammad himself over-saw the execution of PoWs of the Banu Qurayzah tribe. You need to have a look at Andrew Bostom’s book “The Legacy of Jihad” we he examines all the major Islamic schools (and even the ‘Sufi’ movement) who all condone violence as a part of Jihad.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Roman Crusader:

Had the crusades not been launched the Greek population would have suffered a horrible fate at the hands of Moslem pillagers.

They got off relatively lightly in 1453 - Mohammed II let the Orthodox Church choose itself a Patriarch. This is in pleasing contrast to the usurpation of the Patriarchate by the Latins. Quite apart from the installation of a Latin Patriarch in a Greek city (which was bad enough, without setting up a Latin Empire - an attempt at one, might be more accurate: it survived for less than 60 years) the sack weakened Constantinople so that the Empire lacked the resources to stand up to further attack by the Ottomans in the 15th century. The rape of Constantinople was not only an atrocity, a sacrilege, & an act of wanton barbarism - it was also extremely stupid. It goes without saying that Christian morals and love of neighbour play no part in raping a city.​

Finally, the Seljuk Muslims were commiting unspeakable atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. Christian women were being raped ontop of altars, pilgrims robbed and beheaded, Churches burnt to the ground (including the Holy Sepulchure), ect.

The final blow came when the Seljuks banned Christians from entering Jerusalem under pain of death in 1095. Jerusalem was a sacred city where Our Lord had walked and to allow the savage Seljuk Moslems to defile it and persecute Gods people was unthinkable.

Jerusalem was defiled when Richard III massacred 2000 Muslim prisoners - or do only Catholics matter ? Orthodox nuns obviously don’t - they did not escape being raped in 1204. The Ottomans in 1453 behaved more decently and less brutally than the Latin invaders had done in 1204.​

Everyone forgets how Saladin stole a priceless relic: a possible piece of the True Cross.

It’s only a relic - relics are trivial, compared with the Gospel. If that is destroyed, or perverted, that means trouble - but a few bits of wood don’t matter. True faith is worth all the relics in the world. Besides, if it was not certainly a relic of the True Cross, why does it matter ? Palestine was stuffed with fake relics by the fourth century, as is clear from the Pilgrimage of Egeria - so the supposed relic of the Cross was probably not genuine. Relics have always been exposed to the danger of being falsified or trafficked in. Why not mention the Latin theft of relics from Constantinople ?​

Certain crusaders themselves certainly did some evil things: the massacre of Jerusalem, sack of Constantinople, ect. These vile actions were not ordered by high crusader leadership however. However those actions still cannot be excused nonetheless. Certain rotten actions doesn’t change the fact that the crusades themselves were a reasonable war against a savage enemy though.

The Latins - and the Pope - were quite happy to turn the sack of Constantinople to their own ends.​

Our brave crusader ancestors fought the same enemy we fight today: RADICAL ISLAM! We should start to honor our heroic crusader ancesotrs instead of scorning them.

1. It is important to distinguish between different types of Islam.​

1. It is not clear that the Seljuks, even if as savage as you say, were savage because of, or despite, their being Muslim. If this argument is a valid defence for Catholics, it is not clear that it is less valid for other groups.
2. None of what has been said seems to have anything to do with Christianity. Even if there can be a fusion of “the warrior” with “the Christian”, it is not clear that the Crusaders behaved any better than their supposedly savage adversaries. Saladin sometimes put his “Christian” opponents to shame by his behaviour; his brutality is not put in any kind of context.

 

[Montalban]

You are giving examples of some of the most small and insignificant areas of Christian conversion.

Two points
a) these are the ones I know, because I actually studied it at uni.
and
b) it’s beside the point. You made the absolute statement that Christianity NEVER spread peacefully, and I showed that it did. Then you shifted the goal-posts demanding that I show where the ‘leaders’ were Christian (i.e a top-down conversion scenario) and I did. Now instead of acknowledging you were wrong, you’re attempting to shift the goal-posts again to a ‘significant’ area. And there you were claiming you were about the truth.

The few Arab tribes whose leaders converted, and the English (who later fell into paganism),

Wrong again. The English didn’t later fall into paganism. They were pagan when they arrived in Britain and were converted from two different directions; peacefully. From the north, where the kingdom of Northumbria accepted the Celtic church. And from the south, where Kent accepted the Roman church.

They didn’t revert. Sure areas would later come under control of the pagan Danes, but the English kept their Christian faith.

You need to read a lot

and the Irish (who also converted top-down) are not examples of even a percent of the spread of the religion, and they’re not examples of religious freedom either…

As noted above, you’ve gone from an absolute statement, to shifting the goal posts. Why not just modify your statement and be done with it.

Converting a local warlord who then forces his serfs to convert is not a peaceful spreading of the religion.

Show me that this happened and that this was the only way it happened. Enough with your just-so statements. I’ve provided you with evidence. You’ve only provided evidence of a bias against Christianity

 

[pro_universal]

Are you saying that a Christian empire attacked another Christian empire to spread Christianity? Or to spread it’s power? You still have trouble distinguishing the two.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Christians fought each other to spread particular brands of Christianity, and the fight between east and west was part of that war.

That is itself a loaded statement. What are the ‘Christian limitation on just warefare’? Please quote any of Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus doesn’t say much about warfare, but the old testament does and the Church has built up a doctrine of Just Warfare around it. It is very similar to the rules in Islam, except that in Islam, the rules come from the holy book itself, not just the Church’s interpretation.

It did. I just gave you examples. Your response is ‘no it didn’t’. Wowee, what a riposte!

Your examples were flawed, I explained why. As long as you’re not taking the time to present source material for your claims neither will I.

From the Koran is the approval of terror…
.

That’s you quoting a bunch of verses without having read the book. Read the book, then get back to us. It’s painfully obvious in there that you can’t attack people who haven’t attacked you first, and specifically, the issue of the Banu Qurayza…

They weren’t judged by Islamic law. They elected to be judged for the crime of violating a treaty by Jewish law, and Muhammad didn’t issue the judgment. He let them choose their judge and law, and the result was that Jewish law required executing the people who had fought the war (for the war crime of violating a treaty).

This is more of the same from you. Cartoon histories of Islam, and cartoon histories of Christianity.

 

[pro_universal]

Two points
a) these are the ones I know, because I actually studied it at uni.

So did I. Likely at a better uni with better professors. What exactly does this prove?

My claim was that it mostly spread by the sword. Not always, but that its greatest leaps were at the point of the sword.

They didn’t revert. Sure areas would later come under control of the pagan Danes, but the English kept their Christian faith.

Not when the Saxons came.

So far, the most compelling argument you have is “I studied this at uni.”

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Having just beaten the Persians the Arabs burst onto the scene and were seen rightly or wrongly as liberators. And the Jews opened the gates for them.

pro_universal:

There’s also the fact that Jews were barred by Christians from being in Jerusalem. I guess that’s not religious persecution.

The Jews were in Jerusalem, in order to open the gates.

Montalban:

Even if that were true and you’re welcome to show this, it’s besides the point because in terms of geography Christianity had spread PEACEFULLY (which was my point) from one end of the Empire to the other.

pro_universal:

No it had not. Christianity was not even a majority religion in the Empire until Theodosius mandated orthodox Christianity as the only legal religion and started burning out everyone who didn’t follow orders.

That’s simply false. We know that before Theodosius there were Christian communities throughout the Empire. If you want to quibble about the size of these communities, that’s another matter, but the absolute statement you made was that it had not spread AT ALL peacefully. And this has been shown to be false. There were Christian communities in Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, throughout Asia Minor, possibly even as far as Britain.

I strongly suggest that your statements be modified in light of the facts, because you’re showing an argument that is devoid of balance.

pro_universal:

Justinian really did non-Christian Greek religion to death, completing the process.

What’s this got to do with anything? Julian the Apostate who had preceded him had tried to revive paganism, but he failed because Christianity was already firmly entrenched amongst the people.

I’m sorry, but your claim that it spread peacefully is false. It was never a major religion until the Roman state declared from the top down that Romans had to be Christian.

Montalban:

Sure, into Bulgaria and other Slavic lands; Sts. Cyril and Methodius did this. It spread into the Russian lands by peace.

pro_universal:

You just gave examples of top down conversion. These were places where the leadership converted (mainly for political reasons, like Clovis) and then it was the law that the people had to convert too. There was no option to keep your old religion in these instances, so this is more spreading by force.

You’ve yet to show that this was the case in Bulgaria, Moldova, Kiev.

Montalban:

Into Ireland by Patrick, and from Ireland into Scotland by Columba. It spread into Kent by Augustine who was in fact invited by the Kentish king.

pro_universal:

Ireland was another top-down conversion process. And England delved into paganism soon after the fall of the Roman empire, so that wasn’t really a conversion at all. It was lost.

Actually Ireland was not. Ireland was so divided amongst tribes that to simply convert one tribal leader would not have done anything.

Montalban:

Quote:In one we have a man of peace. In the other we have a lecherous man who was morally bankrupt - having had sex with a nine year old child. Thus if Christians go against the ‘norm’ of Christ, we can test this. And if Moslems go with the ‘norm’ of Muhammad we can test this.

 

[Montalban]

pro_universal:

Your historical appraisal of Muhammad is as bad and cartoonish as your historical appraisal of Christianity’s spread.

As I noted, you are an apologist for Islam. The evidence regarding his under-aged bride comes from various Hadith
From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
“Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: “I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).””
Bukhari vol. 7, #88:
“Narrated Urwa: “The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).””
Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says:
“Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and **at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” **
FROM THE HADITH OF SAHIH MUSLIM VOLUME 2, #3309
Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house **at the age of nine". **
FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD
(Abu Dawud’s Hadith is the third most respected Hadith in Islam.)
From Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2116:
"Aisha said, “The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old.” (The narrator Sulaiman said: “Or six years.”). **“He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.” **

These are some who were assassinated:
Muhammad And His Personal Enemies
Kab bin al-Ashraf Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) Al-Nadr bin al-Harith Uqba bin Abi Muayt Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-Aufi Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna
Abd Allah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh Abu Afak
`Asma’ Bint Marwan

The Meccan Ten:
Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl
Habbar Ibn al-Aswad
Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi
Abd Allah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami Hind Bint Utbah Sarah the mawlat of Amr Ibn Hashim
Fartana
Qaribah
Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh
Ibn Sunayna
list from
answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Actually there was because Islam was one of the first to routinise violence as part of its religion.

pro_universal:

Okay, let’s get this clear: Muslims did not demand conversion or death from non-Muslims. Both were allowed to practice their religions in Muslim lands.

No, let’s get this right. Islam forced people to submit to Islamic law. They could accept a lower status (which Bat Ye’or has referred to as Dhimmitude) or they would be killed. This lower status meant that their testimony could not be used to convict a Moslem. They had to pay a special tax. They had to wear special clothing showing that they were non-Moslem. They couldn’t build a new church. They were not allowed to seek converts, etc. And you want to go on about persecution!
Look at his letter to the Roman Emperor…
PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTER TO HERACLIUS

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Most Merciful. From: The Prophet of Allah To: Heraclius, the greatest of Romans Peace be upon those who follow Divine Guidance. I therefore invite you to embrace Islam. Surrender to Allah and live in peace. Allah will doubly reward you, but if you turn away, the sin of the Arians will rest upon you." Then he quoted the Koran:
'Say: People of the Book! (Jews, Nazarenes and Christians) let us come to a common word between us and you, that we will worship none except Allah, that we will associate none with Him, and that none of us take others for lords beside Allah.’ If they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’ Koran 3:64

islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Millennium_Biography/Preface.htm

Either submit, or die.

pro_universal:

In contrast, Christians routinely outlawed all religions besides orthodox Christianity, and killed/tortured anyone who did not obey. This was institutional practice in every Christian land until Christianity found itself at the margins of political power post-Renaissance.

Indeed this did happen. You seem again unable to separate the evils done by Christians (contrary to Christ) with the evils done by Moslems done in the name of Al-lah.

pro_universal:

The claim that Christianity did not engage in routine violence is simply preposterous

No, the claim "that Christians did not engage in routine violence’ would be preposterous. You’ve yet to show any causal link between Christian teachings and the actions of these people.

pro_universal:

It is a long and document history, and it occurred whenever Christianity had the upper political and military hands.

More irrelevance

 

[Mystophilus]

I agree. We should be proud of the Crusades - except in the atrocities committed in them that are unfortunately committed in any war - we should not be embarrassed in the slightest!

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
**
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
**
But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword
**
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice
**
what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
**
Frankly, my friend, given the direct contradiction of Jesus’ teachings and of the expressed words of God in the OT, I am not sure that you should be unashamed. I could go on, filling post after post with quotes condemning the destruction of humanity by humanity, but I trust that, if you will listen to anyone, you will listen to God, and so I leave it in more capable hands.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Two points
a) these are the ones I know, because I actually studied it at uni.

pro_universal:

So did I. Likely at a better uni with better professors.

Your fact-lite argument style doesn’t bear that out. Your quip about the Saxons shows this perhaps even better

pro_universal:

What exactly does this prove?

Actually I stated I studied them at uni to show why I used these as an example, not to ‘prove’ that this was so. Maybe you should have done English as well?

pro_universal:

My claim was that it mostly spread by the sword. Not always, but that its greatest leaps were at the point of the sword.

I know that is your claim. Re-stating it doesn’t make it more true. Try introducing some facts. Perhaps they didn’t teach you that either?

Montalban:

They didn’t revert. Sure areas would later come under control of the pagan Danes, but the English kept their Christian faith.

pro_universal:

Not when the Saxons came.

This shows that your university didn’t give you an even half-descent education. The Saxons were “ENGLISH”.

Angles, Saxons and Jutes were Germanic tribes that were pagan and attacked Britain, which was Romano-Celtic, and largely Christian.

They Germanic tribes established a plethora of kingdoms. The Jutes on the Isle of Wight, and in Kent. The Saxons in the south, the Angles in the north and east. There were kingdoms in Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Northumbria, and sub-kingdoms such as Deria, Bernicia, Lindsey, Magonsaete, Hwicce, Dunbar, Lothian, Surrey, in the Chilterns and so on.

Together they are referred to as ‘the English’ though their own identity of themselves may not have been one of unity. We get the name “England” from the Angles, who’s lands were Angle-land, (viz East Anglia). But all the peoples are known to us as the English.

They were converted to Christianity. I exampled several instances.

They weren’t then ‘attacked by the Saxons!’ I had to laugh when I read this.

Hey, why not just repeat your opinion a few more times as a reply? Who knows, if you say it enough times it might constitute a debate!

And for the record I note you’ve still not conceded that you were wrong about the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire

 

[Mystophilus]

2327 Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it, we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. The Church prays: “From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us.”

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Are you saying that a Christian empire attacked another Christian empire to spread Christianity? Or to spread it’s power? You still have trouble distinguishing the two.

pro_universal:

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Christians fought each other to spread particular brands of Christianity, and the fight between east and west was part of that war.

Give some examples. What type of Christianity was the Holy Roman Emperor Otto trying to impose on the French?

Montalban:

That is itself a loaded statement. What are the ‘Christian limitation on just warefare’? Please quote any of Jesus’ teachings.

pro_universal:

Jesus doesn’t say much about warfare, but the old testament does and the Church has built up a doctrine of Just Warfare around it.

There is not ‘the church’ as one monolithic Church. Your argument is probably about one particular church not ‘the Christian faith.’ I am Orthodox. We don’t read that much Augustine. We don’t have military clerics.

pro_universal:

It is very similar to the rules in Islam, except that in Islam, the rules come from the holy book itself, not just the Church’s interpretation.

Are you conceding that Islam evokes war? Before you were saying this is not true. It would help if you pick an argument and stick with it.

Montalban:

It did. I just gave you examples. Your response is ‘no it didn’t’. Wowee, what a riposte!

pro_universal:

Your examples were flawed, I explained why. As long as you’re not taking the time to present source material for your claims neither will I.

You’ve offered no evidence AT ALL for any of your claims.

Montalban:

From the Koran is the approval of terror…

.

pro_universal:

That’s you quoting a bunch of verses without having read the book. Read the book, then get back to us.

This is supposition. You suppose I’ve never read it. You’re more than welcome to offer a ‘context’ that you feel I’ve missed, but you’ve not done so, your response comes close to an Appeal to Incredulity

pro_universal:

It’s painfully obvious in there that you can’t attack people who haven’t attacked you first,

That’s depending upon what you deem to be an ‘attack’. To be offered the chance to submit, and to refuse it, is to be deemed an ‘attack’ on Islam

pro_universal:

and specifically, the issue of the Banu Qurayza…
They weren’t judged by Islamic law. They elected to be judged for the crime of violating a treaty by Jewish law, and Muhammad didn’t issue the judgment. He let them choose their judge and law, and the result was that Jewish law required executing the people who had fought the war (for the war crime of violating a treaty).

Not quite. They did indeed chose a judge, from their own tribe, and he was a convert to Islam. And Muhammad approved of the execution of between 600-900 men. And in fact benefited by it by taking one of the women as his wife.
And they were judged by Islamic law, for they were deemed to have broken the treaty. They were thus deemed to have betrayed the prophet.
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa’, the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina.
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.362

In fact the Koran gives approval for this action…
“And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner”
Sura 33.25
Which is a verse I quoted in a previous post. Al-lah approved of this striking of terror against a tribe that Moslems deem ‘betrayed’ Muhammed

pro_universal:

This is more of the same from you. Cartoon histories of Islam, and cartoon histories of Christianity.

Ouch! Keep up the just-so’s and you’ll convince me!

 

[pro_universal]

Well, that turned out to be a fruitful discussion.

Three main points:

1. I haven’t seen even a single primary source listed in your posts. Demanding “proof proof proof!” from me when I’ve at least given two such sources is ridiculous.
2. Yours and Mines educations: The point was that these claims add zero. The odds that you’re competent to critique my own education are astronomically low. But this is the internet, and one upmanship means more than learning.
3. Islam: the fact that you are talking about Muhammad’s sexual partners speaks volumes about how ridiculous your claims are. If that’s what you have to do in order to make points about the Islamic position on warfare, then it’s obvious what the problem is.

You are an apologist, as the board indicates. The irony is that you’re throwing this label at me as if it’s bad

 

[Montalban]

Well, that turned out to be a fruitful discussion.

Three main points:

1. I haven’t seen even a single primary source listed in your posts. Demanding “proof proof proof!” from me when I’ve at least given two such sources is ridiculous.

I quoted the Hadith and Koran. Your rebuttal was that the post was ‘cartoonish’ and that I should read the Koran; you thus assume that I haven’t and you don’t address the evidence. Now you even deny that there has ever been any evidence by me.
Further You made a blanket statement about the spread of Christianity. You know full well that even at the time of the Apostles it had spread to Rome. You made the statement that it was spread by violence. The onus of proof is upon you.

I offered proof about the violence in Islam.

1. Yours and Mines educations: The point was that these claims add zero. The odds that you’re competent to critique my own education are astronomically low. But this is the internet, and one upmanship means more than learning.

Well you certainly mentioned that you thought you’d gone to a better university. The mere fact you offer a ridiculous re-working of English history is refutation enough.

1. Islam: the fact that you are talking about Muhammad’s sexual partners speaks volumes about how ridiculous your claims are.

Another ‘just-so’ statement. The fact that you don’t address the evidence I cited (oh that’s right, you deny that there was any) is again detrimental to your argument.

Muhammad was a lecher. I stated it. I evidenced it.

If that’s what you have to do in order to make points about the Islamic position on warfare, then it’s obvious what the problem is.

You are an apologist, as the board indicates. The irony is that you’re throwing this label at me as if it’s bad

If you’d have bothered to have noticed, I’m Orthodox and have argued vigorously against the Fourth Crusade. But such rants as you offer do at least provide me with some late-night mirth.

Even another bloke who continually said he wasn’t proud of the Crusades, and you just continually raised the point he’d already agreed to.

Get back to me if you want to actually engage in a serious discussion with any evidence I’ve cited.

 

[pro_universal]

Certainly, I’d like to have a serious discussion. This will be so when:

1. You give some primary sources or at least reputable secondaries to support your points
2. You can actually say something credible about Islam and warfare, that doesn’t turn on your personal opinion that Muhammad was a bad guy. Quoting a hadith or a verse and saying “end of story!” is absurd, which you well know from having read evangelical attacks on Catholic interpretations of the bible.
3. When you can do 1 and 2 in a fashion that at least minimally appears to be more than “I’m smarter than you because I went to UWS/UTS wherever.”

 

[Montalban]

Why did Muhammed attack the Roman Empire in the first place?

This ‘man of peace’ attacked a people that had never attacked him.

So much for Islam being a religion that is only defence-orientated.

 

[Montalban]

Certainly, I’d like to have a serious discussion. This will be so when:

1. You give some primary sources or at least reputable secondaries to support your points

SO the Koran is not reputable?

1. You can actually say something credible about Islam and warfare, that doesn’t turn on your personal opinion that Muhammad was a bad guy. Quoting a hadith or a verse and saying “end of story!” is absurd, which you well know from having read evangelical attacks on Catholic interpretations of the bible.

If you disagree with the interpretation, then say so, else you’re just spamming this thread.

1. When you can do 1 and 2 in a fashion that at least minimally appears to be more than “I’m smarter than you because I went to UWS/UTS wherever.”

You’re a funny guy. You’re now suggesting the Koran is not a reputable source!