History of Islamic Hostility and an Analysis of Current Threat Potential

[Bob Hubbard]

Nice summary of 2000 years (actually way more) of 'stuff'

I spent a week trying to timeline things....it gave me a headache and I gave up.

 

[Twin Fist]

I dispute all 3.

So, lets see your proof.

Bob, you are embarrassing yourself in your refusal to tell the simple truth.

it is historical fact (thats #1)not opinion that the crusade were a direct result of muslim invasion into what were AT THE TIME Christian lands(thats #2).

yes

you can always play that "but it was someone elses before that" card, and it may be factually true, it is also irrelevant NOISE to smoke screen the truth. Who cares who lived there 100 years before. Thats like saying an Indian can break into your house cuz it was his people's house the last century........i dont think so

and as i have already posted the relevant suras where the muslim is commanded to go out, and convert BY FORCE everyone that isnt a muslim, thats 3.

I seriously dont get why people, ordinarily smart and reasonable people will jump backwards through thier own *** to avoid admitting the truth

the koran preaches violence, it commands violence, and it WORKS cuz GUESS WHAT???

they go out and DO VIOLENCE. Not all, not most, not by a long shot, but a LOT






now to be fair:

maybe the bible does to, but christians by and large do not go out and do violence. And even if they did, in fact, lets say that JUST AS MANY christians go out and blow **** up.

so ****ing what?

what does that have to do with the behavior of muslims?

NOTHING, it is just smoke to try and confuse and hide the truth

I cannot say for sure what another person's motivations are, but it seems pretty apparent that some people just cant admitt the truth

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know these are hated, but all I have is facts here.

• 332 BC A young Macedonian named Alexander conquered the "Holy Lands". He visits Jerusalem.
• 63 BC - Roman Republic conquers the 'Holy Lands'
• 5 BC - A boy is born to a carpenter and his wife. Too cheap to call ahead for reservations, they end up in a barn for the night.
• 30 AD - A Jewish carpenter is nailed to a tree for saying how nice it would be if people got along.
• 60 AD - Rome discovers an entertaining new way to feed lions.
• 313 AD - Roman Emperor Constantine I declares end of lion feedings with Christians.
• 380 AD - Roman Emperor Theodosius I establishes Christianity as official religion of the Empire.
• 610 AD - Beginnings of Islam.
• 614 AD - Jerusalem falls to the Sassanid Empire (Mixed religions including Christian) and their Jewish allies.
• 629 AD - Byzantine's retake Jerusalem.
• 637 AD - Caliph Umar the Great conquers Jerusalem. He was Muhammad #2 guy.
• 878 AD - Ahmad ibn Tulun, ruler of Egypt and founder of the Tulunid dynasty, conquers Jerusalem and most of Syria, four years after declaring Egypt's independence from the Abbasid court in Baghdad.
• 904 AD - The Abbasids regain control of Jerusalem after invading Syria, and the army of Tulunid Emir Harun retreats to Egypt where the Tulunids were defeated the following year.
• 1054 AD - Great Schism - the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. All Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades
• 1073 AD - Jerusalem is captured by Malik-Shah I's Great Seljuq Empire under Emir Atsiz ibn Uvaq, who was advancing south into the weakening Fatimid Empire following the decisive defeat over the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert two years previously and a devastating six year famine in Egypt between 1067-1072.[44]
• 1077 AD - Jerusalem revolts against the rule of Emir Atsiz ibd Uvaq while he is fighting the Fatimid Empire in Egypt. On his return to Jerusalem, Atsiz re-takes the city and massacres the local population.[45] As a result, Atsiz is executed by Tutush I, governor of Syria under his brother, Seljuk leader Malik-Shah I. Tutush I appoints Artuq bin Ekseb, later founder of the Artuqid dynasty, as governor.
• 1091-5 AD - Artuq bin Ekseb dies in 1091, and is succeeded as governor by his sons Ilghazi and Sokmen. Malik Shah dies in 1092, and the Great Seljuk Empire splits in to smaller warring states. Control of Jerusalem is disputed between Duqaq and Radwan after the death of their father Tutush I in 1095. The ongoing rivalry weakens Syria.
• 1095-6 AD - Al-Ghazali lives in Jerusalem
• 1095 AD - At the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II calls for the First Crusade
• 1099 AD - Siege of Jerusalem (1099) - First Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.

Oh, and this may be of interest...lots and lots and lots of ownership changes, revolts, reclamations, and all that stuff. Got lots of the above (minus the SAR's) from below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Jerusalem

So, a split in the Christian Church, results in the Catholic Pope launching a Crusade.

And the original 'loss' was to a Christian army, from a Christian army.
nice.

ok John, Bill, etc.
Debunk my timeline please.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now, let me shorten the time line here.

• 614 AD - Jerusalem falls to the Sassanid Empire (Mixed religions including Christian) and their Jewish allies.
• 629 AD - Byzantine's retake Jerusalem.
• 637 AD - Caliph Umar the Great conquers Jerusalem. He was Muhammad #2 guy. (This is the "Muslim Conquest")
• Over the next 400 years, it changes hands a significant number of times.
• 1054 AD - Great Schism - the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. All Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades
• TheChristian Church had split.
• 1095 AD - At the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II calls for the First Crusade
• 1099 AD - Siege of Jerusalem (1099) - First Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.

So the "good" Christians wage a series of wars, to 'regain' the Holy Land, 50 years after a religious split up within the Christian ranks, some -400- years after the "loss" to the Muslims. When the "good Guys" finally do capture the holy city, they then murder all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Whose families had lived there for generations. Who had more right to claim ownership than the Crusaders.

"Muslim Aggression". Yup. Also "Christian Aggression".
Both sides waged war. For power, for wealth, in the name of their faith, but really, for power, for wealth, and for an excuse to rape and murder.

The Crusades make as much sense as the Spanish Army invading Texas today, because they had claimed ownership of the land in 1690.

 

[granfire]

Now, let me shorten the time line here.

• 614 AD - Jerusalem falls to the Sassanid Empire (Mixed religions including Christian) and their Jewish allies.
• 629 AD - Byzantine's retake Jerusalem.
• 637 AD - Caliph Umar the Great conquers Jerusalem. He was Muhammad #2 guy. (This is the "Muslim Conquest")
• Over the next 400 years, it changes hands a significant number of times.
• 1054 AD - Great Schism - the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. All Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades
• TheChristian Church had split.
• 1095 AD - At the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II calls for the First Crusade
• 1099 AD - Siege of Jerusalem (1099) - First Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.

So the "good" Christians wage a series of wars, to 'regain' the Holy Land, 50 years after a religious split up within the Christian ranks, some -400- years after the "loss" to the Muslims. When the "good Guys" finally do capture the holy city, they then murder all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Whose families had lived there for generations. Who had more right to claim ownership than the Crusaders.

"Muslim Aggression". Yup. Also "Christian Aggression".
Both sides waged war. For power, for wealth, in the name of their faith, but really, for power, for wealth, and for an excuse to rape and murder.

The Crusades make as much sense as the Spanish Army invading Texas today, because they had claimed ownership of the land in 1690.

A handful of Aspirin can do wonders, I see!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, you are embarrassing yourself in your refusal to tell the simple truth.

I don't think I'm the one here refusing to see reality. I certainly don't feel embarassed.

it is historical fact (thats #1)not opinion that the crusade were a direct result of muslim invasion into what were AT THE TIME Christian lands(thats #2).

I think I debunked that and gee whiz, lookie there, you go and validate my point right away.

you can always play that "but it was someone elses before that" card, and it may be factually true, it is also irrelevant NOISE to smoke screen the truth. Who cares who lived there 100 years before. Thats like saying an Indian can break into your house cuz it was his people's house the last century........i dont think so

So, if 100 years doesn't work, 400 years sure don't either.

and as i have already posted the relevant suras where the muslim is commanded to go out, and convert BY FORCE everyone that isnt a muslim, thats 3.

And taking things -OUT OF CONTEXT- justifies the murder of homosexuals, the rape of children and the subjugation of women -IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE-. The -SAME- arguments you make by saying 'its in their book', can be and are made regarding the Christian Bible. Same arguments. Know why?

Because Islam is a spin off of Christianity.

I seriously dont get why people, ordinarily smart and reasonable people will jump backwards through thier own *** to avoid admitting the truth

the koran preaches violence, it commands violence, and it WORKS cuz GUESS WHAT???

they go out and DO VIOLENCE. Not all, not most, not by a long shot, but a LOT

And I don't get it either. The irony here is, I and others see you as being the one unable to admit the truth.

Hey, alot of blacks commit crimes. Not all, not most, not by a long shot, but a Lot.
Gee whiz, is that a racially bigoted statement?
Hey, alot of indians are drunks. Not all, not most, not by a long shot, but a Lot.
Gee whiz, is that a racially bigoted statement?

Guess what? When you have 2 BILLION of something, a few thousand is not A LOT!
$1,000 is not "real money" when you're talking about the cost of a modern bomber.
A couple thousand terrorist types is not a lot when you are talking about 2 Billion members of the overall religion.

Your insistence on ignorantly using that broad paint brush, blinds you to real facts.

now to be fair:

maybe the bible does to, but christians by and large do not go out and do violence. And even if they did, in fact, lets say that JUST AS MANY christians go out and blow **** up.

so ****ing what?

what does that have to do with the behavior of muslims?

NOTHING, it is just smoke to try and confuse and hide the truth

I cannot say for sure what another person's motivations are, but it seems pretty apparent that some people just cant admitt the truth

And here you prove my point that there is no good you will ever see under a Muslim banner.
1,000 Christian Terrorists = Eh, I can't control them, they don't speak for me, doesn't matter.
1,000 Muslim Terrorists = GAH!!!!!!! THOSE EVIL BASTIDS! PANIC! PANIC! PANIC! KILL! GAH!!!!!

John, if you're going to keep blanket blaming the religion, you only prove your own bigotry and bias.

You want to dig into specifics, find the reasons and rationals behind why each of these individuals made the choices to do what they did? Go for it.
But find something better than "The Book Made Them Do It".

Perspective. Understanding history, the big picture.

That education thing so many are against.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A handful of Aspirin can do wonders, I see!

At this rate I'll be mainlining scotch by dinner. LOL!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now, here's a question for our resident "Muslim Experts", you guys who are so loudly proclaiming how big a threat "They" are.

Which branch?
Which branch of Islam is behind all these terrorists you see behind every tree?

Sunni? Shia? Sufi?
How about any of these branches: Ahmadiyya, Berghouata, Kharijites, Quranists or Yazdânism

Which one's the one leading the charge to take over our lands, rape our women, kill our children and eat our still beating hearts?

You experts should know.

Hey, are there any Muslims that are condemning terrorism?
Do they count at all?
Or are they still "Bad"?



Now, on the "spreading Islam" thing.

The spread of Islam started shortly after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. During his lifetime, the community of Muhammad, the ummah, was established in the Arabian Peninsula by means of conversion to Islam and conquering of territory, and oftentimes the conquered had to either accept Islam, get killed, or pay tax for protection if they do not convert.

Increasing conversion to Islam paralleled the rapid military expansion of the Arab Empire in the first centuries after the Islamic prophet Muhammad's death.

(Source - Wikipedia)

So, Arab armies who followed Islam, as they conquered territory gave you a choice: Convert, Die, or Pay Up.

Better options than Catholic Missionaries gave the Aztecs, Mayans and Incan's.
They just got "convert or die".


So, back to the 'terrorism thing'

Islamic terrorism has been identified as taking place in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, and the United States since the 1970s.

(Source: Wikipedia)

So, "experts", can you answer the "Which branch?" question?
Or will it be another "It doesn't matter, they are all evil. Well, not all, not most, but a LOT"?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

BTW: It is a well known fact that the Texas Redneck is considered a bit of an extremist, even amongst other Southern Rednecks. This of course traces back to the US Civil War where Texas made a lot of noise but really didn't do much in the actual war, most of their men folk being incapacitated from the chili farts the 5 years of the war.



This is not to imply that anyone here of course fits any of these stereotypes.
Now if you'll excuse me, this Buffalonian has to go out and shovel some snow.

 

[Archangel M]

The real reasons for the Crusades are not that simple.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

It is now impossible to assess exactly why the First Crusade occurred, although many possible causes have been suggested by historians. The historiography of the Crusades reflects attempts made by different historians to understand the Crusades' complex causes and justifications. An early modern theory, the so-called "Erdmann thesis", developed by German historian Carl Erdmann, directly linked the Crusades to the 11th-century reform movements.[15] This first theory claimed that the exportation of violence to the east, and the assistance to the struggling Byzantine Empire were the Crusaders' primary goals, and that the conquest of Jerusalem was more a secondary, popular goal.[16]

Generally, subsequent historians have either followed Erdmann, with further expansions upon his thesis, or rejected it. Some historians, such as Speros Vryonis, have emphasized the influence of the rise of Islam generally, and the impact of the recent Seljuq onslaught specifically. Steven Runciman argued that the crusade was motivated by a combination of theological justification for holy war and a "general restlessness and taste for adventure", especially among the Normans and the "younger sons" of the French nobility who had no other opportunities.[17][note 3] Runciman even implies that there was no immediate threat from the Islamic world, arguing that "in the middle of the 11th century the lot of the Christians in Palestine had seldom been so pleasant".[18]

However, Runciman makes his argument only in reference to Palestine under the Fatimids c. 1029–1073, not under the Seljuqs.[19] Moreover, the source of his generally positive view of Palestinian Christians' lot in the later 11th century is unclear, as there were very few contemporary Christian sources from Palestine writing in this period, and surviving Christian sources deriving directly from Seljuq Palestine are virtually non-existent. In opposition to Runciman's argument, and on the basis of contemporary Jewish Cairo Geniza documents, as well as later Muslim accounts, Moshe Gil argues that the Seljuq conquest and occupation of Palestine (c. 1073–1098) was a period of "slaughter and vandalism, of economic hardship, and the uprooting of populations".[20] Indeed, drawing upon earlier writers such as Ignatius of Melitene, Michael the Syrian had recorded that the Seljuqs subjected Coele-Syria and the Palestinian coast to "cruel destruction and pillage".[21]

Thomas Asbridge argues that the First Crusade was Pope Urban II's attempt to expand the power of the church, and reunite the churches of Rome and Constantinople, which had been in schism since 1054. Asbridge, however, provides little evidence from Urban's own writings to bolster this claim, and Urban's four extant letters on crusading do not seem to express such a motive. According to Asbridge, the spread of Islam was unimportant because "Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity".[22] Asbridge, however, fails to note that the recent Turkish conquests of Anatolia and southern Syria had shattered the tense but relatively stable balance of power that a somewhat revived Byzantine Empire had gradually developed with earlier Islamic powers over the course of the 10th and early 11th century. Following the defeat at Manzikert in 1071, Muslims had taken half of the Byzantine Empire's territory, and such strategically and religiously important cities as Antioch and Nicaea had only fallen to Muslims in the decade before the Council of Piacenza.[10] Moreover, the harrowing accounts of the Turkish invasion and conquest of Anatolia recorded by such Eastern Christian chroniclers as John Skylitzes, Michael Attaleiates, Matthew of Edessa, Michael the Syrian and others, which are summarized by Vryonis, seem to contradict Asbridge's broad picture of equanimious "coexistence" between the Christian and Muslim worlds in the second half of the 11th century.[23]

Thomas Madden represents a view almost diametrically opposed to that of Asbridge; while the crusade was certainly linked to church reform and attempts to assert papal authority, he argues that it was most importantly a pious struggle to liberate fellow Christians, who, Madden claims, "had suffered mightily at the hands of the Turks". This argument distinguishes the relatively recent violence and warfare that followed the conquests of the Turks from the general advance of Islam, the significance of which is dismissed by Runciman and Asbridge.[24] Christopher Tyerman incorporates both arguments in his thesis; namely, that the Crusade developed out of church reform and theories of holy war as much as it was a response to conflicts with the Islamic world throughout Europe and the Middle East.[25] In Jonathan Riley-Smith's view, poor harvests, overpopulation, and a pre-existing movement towards colonizing the frontier areas of Europe also contributed to the crusade; however, he also takes care to say that "most commentators then and a minority of historians now have maintained that the chief motivation was a genuine idealism".[26]

The idea that the crusades were a response to Islam dates back as far as 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who began his chronicle with the fall of Jerusalem to Umar.[27] Although the original Islamic conquests had taken place centuries before the First Crusade, more recent events would have been fresh in the minds of the European Christians of the time. For example, in 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah; Pope Sergius IV supposedly called for a military expedition in response, and in France, many Jewish communities were even attacked in a misdirected retaliation. Despite the Church's rebuilding after al-Hakim's death, and pilgrimages resuming, including the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–1065, pilgrims continued to suffer attacks from local Muslims.[28] In addition, the even more recent Turkish incursions into Anatolia and northern Syria were certainly viewed as devastating by Eastern Christian chroniclers, and it is plausible they were presented as such by the Byzantines to the Pope in order to solicit the aid of European Christians.[23]

Again though...so what? The Christians are not currently calling for Crusade(Jihad) or running nations a la Iran who are salivating over the destruction of an entire nation (Israel) or imposing religious law (Sharia). Or funding and training terrorist groups for religious reasons on a national scale, with a large segment of the faith not making a hell of a lot of noise in protest.

Where the rubber meets the road who give a **** about 1000 year old history. What is the situation NOW?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Where the rubber meets the road who give a **** about 1000 year old history. What is the situation NOW?

Historical context, and to debunk the inaccurate misconceptions that were poste was my reason for the historical tangent.

Again though...so what? The Christians are not currently calling for Crusade(Jihad) or running nations a la Iran who are salivating over the destruction of an entire nation (Israel) or imposing religious law (Sharia). Or funding and training terrorist groups for religious reasons on a national scale, with a large segment of the faith not making a hell of a lot of noise in protest.

There are counter points to each of these that show Christianity to be a comparable threat to world peace. Many have previously been posted. Right now we have GOP candidates seeking to amend the US Constitution due to their religious (Christian) attitudes to impose religious based discrimination into US Law. Again, counterpoints to that all exist. Valid ones, not ones only found on some obscure blog with 20 viewers.

 

[granfire]

At this rate I'll be mainlining scotch by dinner. LOL!

oye...

the big bottle for you then, Sir?
Will you have your dinner in the study then?

 

[Archangel M]

There are counter points to each of these that show Christianity to be a comparable threat to world peace. Many have previously been posted. Right now we have GOP candidates seeking to amend the US Constitution due to their religious (Christian) attitudes to impose religious based discrimination into US Law. Again, counterpoints to that all exist. Valid ones, not ones only found on some obscure blog with 20 viewers.

I don't believe that there are valid CURRENT (yet) counterpoints of the same volume and scale. An abortion bomber is far from comparable to organized and funded terrorist cells. What a GOP candidate "seeks to do" (and would be doubtful to actually accomplish) is not the same as nations who impose the death penalty on rape victims out of their religious law. The same nations who fund and train terrorist organizations. People may want to make them comparable...but thats a different issue.

 

[billc]

I'm pretty sure the Aztecs didn't give their victims the option to convert, simply ripped out hearts and sat down to a nice dinner, kidney, liver and a nice native drink to wash it down...

 

[Archangel M]

And I don't believe that most of the people involved really have any better grasp on the actual history of the crusades than anybody else. Or even care what that history was. Osama liked to toss out the "C" word but conveniently ignored the role the Moorish invasions played in that history. It's all a stupid tit for tat game to gloss over the lunacy that is occurring RIGHT NOW.

 

[billc]

the mayans didn't convert their enemies because they sacrificed them to their gods...

 

[billc]

Incans and mayans: human sacrifice
Aztecs: human sacrifice with snacks

So, conversion wasn't really an issue with the early americans...

 

[billc]

Wahabi:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm

From the article:

er Al Saud rule, governments, especially during the Wahhabi revival in the 1920s, have shown their capacity and readiness to enforce compliance with Islamic laws and interpretations of Islamic values on themselves and others. The literal interpretations of what constitutes right behavior according to the Quran and hadith have given the Wahhabis the sobriquet of "Muslim Calvinists." To the Wahhabis, for example, performance of prayer that is punctual, ritually correct, and communally performed not only is urged but publicly required of men. Consumption of wine is forbidden to the believer because wine is literally forbidden in the Quran. Under the Wahhabis, however, the ban extended to all intoxicating drinks and other stimulants, including tobacco. Modest dress is prescribed for both men and women in accordance with the Quran, but the Wahhabis specify the type of clothing that should be worn, especially by women, and forbid the wearing of silk and gold, although the latter ban has been enforced only sporadically. Music and dancing have also been forbidden by the Wahhabis at times, as have loud laughter and demonstrative weeping, particularly at funerals.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I still stick to my position that some of those in the debate here...lack knowledge of history, comprehension of the same, a sense of perspective, or the ability to see a big picture. What we do see is a final conclusion "Muslims Bad", and the removal from consideration of all facts that would result in anything other than the predetermined conclusion.

Are there muslims doing and tring to do us harm?
Yup.
Now, put that in perspective. Out of 2.2 BILLION Muslims....how many are trying to hurt us? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1 million?
Experts? You guys know this. Come on. You keep going on about how big a threat "they is", so you must have some idea of the enemies strength, distribution, capabilities and equipment, right?
Lets see some cold-hard numbers to put this 'threat' into real perspective?

Or...is real perspective what scares you?

And no, this isn't a request to see lots of headlines. I see them too. I just read other headlines, which puts those in perspective.
A couple incidents a year, is NOT a vast threat.


And Bill...I meant the choices the Christians gave the indians. The indians welcomed them in friendship until the Spanish's greed got the better of them.

 

[billc]

I think it was the dinner invitation that initially turned off the spanish.