|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 15:26:54 GMT -5
I just want to say that I personally believe that much of the hatred that many Muslims bear towards Christians and Westerners is rather hypocritical and unfounded regardless of the Crusades. This is because the Crusades, although admittedly an aggressive act on the part of the Catholic Church, was largely a response to repeated Muslim invasions of Europe. Many Muslims seem to conveniently forget that they were the initial aggressors in the long-heated tensions between Christians and Muslims. With the Moors in Iberia, France, and Italy, and the Turks in Anatolia and the Balkans, Muslims were simply the ones who ignited the conflict. This is my personal opinion on the matter.
Feel free to offer your own opinions, but I simply have no tolerance for those Muslims who despise anything Western or Christian because Muslims in fact initiated much of the tension that now exists. I don't hate Muslims either, in fact I have a couple friends who are Muslim, but I'm mainly referring to the ones who are anti-Western/Christian. I understand that the establishment of the state of Israel on the part of Western nations has also caused much tension as well, but these tensions in part undoubtedly go back to the Crusades.
*BTW I also realize that many Christians have an unreasonable hatred of Muslims.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 14, 2005 16:08:03 GMT -5
You still think in terms of Muslims, Chritians, ...etc. You should up-date your vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 14, 2005 16:24:18 GMT -5
I think that what many muslims dont realize is that North Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Syria were christian lands, the core of christianity, the most populated, wealthiest most christian lands. Europe was not the core of christianity, it was far less developed, and there were still many pagans.
4 of the 5 apostolic sees, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople were in the east, and to this day they are under muslim control, only the Pope in Rome saved himself.
I was told that for example in Egypt or Syria kids in school dont study the period where the country was christian. And they discriminate the copts, when in fact every muslim in egypt has ancestors who were christian copts.
And when the crusades happened, the ethnic make up of the middle east was not the same as nowadays, when the crusades happened, still more than half of the egyptian population was coptic christian, in lebanon, even 50 years ago more than half of the population was christian, in Syria 100 years ago christians still made 30% of the population. Christians still made very large chunks of the former roman middle east population.
the crusades were first, a defensive war to help the byzantines whom turks had just beaten in manzikert, the byzantines had lost a lot of territory in the anatolian plateau. And a reconquista of the christian holy places.
the crusades failed, and eventually the tuks made it to the gates of Vienna twice, I dont see many christian nowadays who demand apologies for that.
In fact, the only place where the crusades were succesful is spain, the former christian territories were re-conquered, and the muslims forced to convert to christianity or expulsed.
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 14, 2005 16:28:12 GMT -5
I think the "conflict" is mainly due to the World War results and the Americans.
btw, the Crusades started before the Muslims went into the Balkans, and Al Andalus (Iberia) was n't bad under Umayyads caliphs (the ones who first went in)
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 14, 2005 16:36:06 GMT -5
it doesnt matter that it was before the muslims went into the balkans, they couldnt do that because the greek christian byzantine empire was in between and they were conquering it
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 14, 2005 16:48:19 GMT -5
btw, how was the relation between the Catholics and the Orthodox?
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 16:51:57 GMT -5
You still think in terms of Muslims, Chritians, ...etc. You should up-date your vocabulary. On the contrary, I'd say these words are still accurate enough in getting the point across.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 16:57:50 GMT -5
it doesnt matter that it was before the muslims went into the balkans, they couldnt do that because the greek christian byzantine empire was in between and they were conquering it Agreed, and regardless as to how one may view the Muslim conquest of Iberia, it was still involuntary. I'm pretty sure those Spaniards didn't choose to be invaded and conquered . The later Christian Reconquest is testimony to this. The fact that Al-Andalus may have tolerated other religions to a certain extent doesn't excuse the fact that they conquered another people and forced their rule upon them. Besides, Muslims were still number 1 in Moorish Spain.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 14, 2005 17:03:40 GMT -5
bad, the catholics and the orthodox separated in 1054 (before they were the same church)
only 17 years after that the byzantines lost in Manzikert to the Turks and started their decline, and the catholics saw that as Gods punishment to the greeks for their heresy.
It was th byzantine emperor who asked the pope for help against the turks, but the crusaders and the greek emperor didnt get along, the byzantines didnt help the crusaders after getting their territory back.
there was a lot of resentment, in the fourth crusade the crusaders sacked constantinople and put a catholic as patriarch, it only lasted like 50 years but they never recovered from that.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 17:04:08 GMT -5
I think that what many muslims dont realize is that North Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Syria were christian lands, the core of christianity, the most populated, wealthiest most christian lands. Europe was not the core of christianity, it was far less developed, and there were still many pagans. 4 of the 5 apostolic sees, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople were in the east, and to this day they are under muslim control, only the Pope in Rome saved himself. I was told that for example in Egypt or Syria kids in school dont study the period where the country was christian. And they discriminate the copts, when in fact every muslim in egypt has ancestors who were christian copts. And when the crusades happened, the ethnic make up of the middle east was not the same as nowadays, when the crusades happened, still more than half of the egyptian population was coptic christian, in lebanon, even 50 years ago more than half of the population was christian, in Syria 100 years ago christians still made 30% of the population. Christians still made very large chunks of the former roman middle east population. the crusades were first, a defensive war to help the byzantines whom turks had just beaten in manzikert, the byzantines had lost a lot of territory in the anatolian plateau. And a reconquista of the christian holy places. the crusades failed, and eventually the tuks made it to the gates of Vienna twice, I dont see many christian nowadays who demand apologies for that. In fact, the only place where the crusades were succesful is spain, the former christian territories were re-conquered, and the muslims forced to convert to christianity or expulsed. I agree that the main ideas behind the Crusades were, as you stated, the reconquest of the Holy Land for Christianity and to defend the Byzantine Empire, but I think it'd also be safe to say that one underlying reason may have been the simple fact that Europe was fed up with Muslim invasion, and certain countries feared that they would be next.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 14, 2005 17:08:31 GMT -5
they also thought that by helping the byzantines the orthodox/catholic shichsm, which, was quite recent back then, would be healed (of course, by the greeks adopting the catholic beliefs, not the other way)
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 14, 2005 17:20:52 GMT -5
it doesnt matter that it was before the muslims went into the balkans, they couldnt do that because the greek christian byzantine empire was in between and they were conquering it Agreed, and regardless as to how one may view the Muslim conquest of Iberia, it was still involuntary. I'm pretty sure those Spaniards didn't choose to be invaded and conquered . The later Christian Reconquest is testimony to this. The fact that Al-Andalus may have tolerated other religions to a certain extent doesn't excuse the fact that they conquered another people and forced their rule upon them. Besides, Muslims were still number 1 in Moorish Spain. I don't think it was better off under vidigoth at that time. when the muslims got it, it got to be a prime civilization at that time
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 17:22:05 GMT -5
I think the "conflict" is mainly due to the World War results and the Americans. btw, the Crusades started before the Muslims went into the Balkans, and Al Andalus (Iberia) was n't bad under Umayyads caliphs (the ones who first went in) In regard to the aftermath of WWII and the establishment of Israel, it's quite true that this can't be ignored, and I was sure to mention this in my first post as it's one of the primary causes, though I think the conflict also partially reaches back to the Middle Ages. In any case, this has to be the most biting conflict we're facing nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Dec 14, 2005 17:30:33 GMT -5
Agreed, and regardless as to how one may view the Muslim conquest of Iberia, it was still involuntary. I'm pretty sure those Spaniards didn't choose to be invaded and conquered . The later Christian Reconquest is testimony to this. The fact that Al-Andalus may have tolerated other religions to a certain extent doesn't excuse the fact that they conquered another people and forced their rule upon them. Besides, Muslims were still number 1 in Moorish Spain. I don't think it was better off under vidigoth at that time. when the muslims got it, it got to be a prime civilization at that time Oh I never said that the Visigoths were saints, and yes, there was a flowering of civilization in southern Spain, but the fact remains that they were the initial aggressors. It's just that the idea that the civilization that later flourished there existed is irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. Iberia was invaded nevertheless, as was Sicily, Italy, and southern France, and the people outside of Moorish control in central/northern Spain often found themselves under Muslim attack.
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 14, 2005 17:47:41 GMT -5
I think the "conflict" is mainly due to the World War results and the Americans. btw, the Crusades started before the Muslims went into the Balkans, and Al Andalus (Iberia) was n't bad under Umayyads caliphs (the ones who first went in) In regard to the aftermath of WWII and the establishment of Israel, it's quite true that this can't be ignored, and I was sure to mention this in my first post as it's one of the primary causes, though I think the conflict also partially reaches back to the Middle Ages. In any case, this has to be the most biting conflict we're facing nowadays. anyways, most ME people don't really dislike the christians, but rather specific countries/gov/people.
|
|