[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
That’s just silly, and think about my name if you think I am sympathetic to the Crusaders.
The Crusades were overwhelmingly a defensive war to repel muslim invaders in Europe or to reclaim land that the muslims took by conquest.
The muslims were literally stopped at the Gates of Vienna.[/quote]
Reclaim land that the West had previously conquered. And it was the Turks who were stopped at Vienna.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Reclaim land that the West had previously conquered. And it was the Turks who were stopped at Vienna. [/quote]
You mean reclaim lands previously held by the Byzantine Empire, which was located in the East?
If the West conquered this land (circa 141 BC) all western authority over it was ultimately ended with split of Rome in 330 AD and the fall of Western Rome in 476 AD.
The Turks were Muslims when they were stopped at Vienna.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m sure I did, you asked who’s to say it would be a bad thing to live in a Muslim land. [/quote]
Indeed, and you’re making the assumption that it would’ve been a terrible thing. I’m not so sure.[/quote]
Yeah, I’ll take current Muslim countries and assume they would be the same if Muslims controlled Europe.
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Why, because you like being mistreated?
A Muslim philosopher once mentioned that Muslims living in a Christian country were treated better than the same Muslims living in a Islamic country.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Sorry for posting such a bried comment but I was in a bit of a hurry at the time and didn’t have the chance to go into any detail.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. Christians were, for the better part, well treated and left to live life as they saw fit provided they paid the required tax (jizya). It wasn’t until the Seljuks invaded that the mistreatment started. You can’t really talk of muslim mistreatment of christians as it results in two very different groups being tarred with the same brush.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Sorry for posting such a bried comment but I was in a bit of a hurry at the time and didn’t have the chance to go into any detail.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. Christians were, for the better part, well treated and left to live life as they saw fit provided they paid the required tax (jizya). It wasn’t until the Seljuks invaded that the mistreatment started. You can’t really talk of muslim mistreatment of christians as it results in two very different groups being tarred with the same brush.
[/quote]
You misunderstand. Any country now that you’d live in as a non-muslim.
Now? Can’t honestly say I’ve given it any thought. Why do you ask?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Reclaim land that the West had previously conquered. And it was the Turks who were stopped at Vienna. [/quote]
You mean reclaim lands previously held by the Byzantine Empire, which was located in the East?
If the West conquered this land (circa 141 BC) all western authority over it was ultimately ended with split of Rome in 330 AD and the fall of Western Rome in 476 AD.
The Turks were Muslims when they were stopped at Vienna.[/quote]
Gkhan! I see you are still wasting time with those silly facts and stuff . . .lol good job!
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. [/quote]
I don’t know. It wasn’t very tolerant when they tore down Church of the Holy Sepulchre and destroyed all the Christian convents in Palestine.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Now? Can’t honestly say I’ve given it any thought. Why do you ask?[/quote]
Just curious.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. [/quote]
I don’t know. It wasn’t very tolerant when they tore down Church of the Holy Sepulchre and destroyed all the Christian convents in Palestine.[/quote]
Yep, very intolerant. That was during reign of Abu â??Ali Mansur TÄ?riqu l-ḤÄ?kim (996-1021) and does not give an accurate portrayal of what Fatimid rule was like at all. Fatimid rule (909 - 1171) was remarkably tolerant and they had non muslims holding high positions of government.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Now? Can’t honestly say I’ve given it any thought. Why do you ask?[/quote]
Just curious.[/quote]
I don’t think it would make too much of a difference where I lived to be honest. I don’t really look like the stereotypical muslim to be honest as my mum is English and I have taken after her side of the family. I used to get inquisitive stares/looks from co workers when they met me for the first time.
I used to train new instructors for a large language school in Japan and when the newbies arrived for training the conversation went a bit like this;
Me - Hi, I’m Mustafa. I’m going to be doing your training for the next three days.
Them - You’re Mustafa? I was expecting you to be a black guy.
This was more with the American trainees. The British trainees just used to make jokes about me being a kebab shop owner 
As for life in another country as a non muslim, I really have no idea where I would or wouldn’t want to live to be honest.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. [/quote]
I don’t know. It wasn’t very tolerant when they tore down Church of the Holy Sepulchre and destroyed all the Christian convents in Palestine.[/quote]
Yep, very intolerant. That was during reign of Abu â??Ali Mansur T�?riqu l-Ḥ�?kim (996-1021) and does not give an accurate portrayal of what Fatimid rule was like at all. Fatimid rule (909 - 1171) was remarkably tolerant and they had non muslims holding high positions of government.[/quote]
This is true spiderman, the caliphat had christian bureacrats in the administration of the former byzantin parts of the new arab empire and persians in the administration in the former persian parts of the empire. Why was this? is a natural question that pops up when talking about this. If you have a idealistic outlock on this matter, you can conclude that because they allowed non-muslims in theire administrations, then that is a evidence for muslim tolerance or in other words: Because the rulers where muslims it allowed for non-muslims in theire administrations. But if you see it from an materialistic point of wiew, there where other reasons for this phenomen. One reason that is possible from a materialit point of wiew: is practicality. When the Arabs conquerd the eastern parts of the byzantin empire and the persian empire, Theire is a possibility that they concluded it was more time-effecient and less costly to keep the old regimes bureacrats instead of training and creating a new group of muslim-arab bureacrats. So instead of concluding that they where extremely tolerant rulers, we can perhaps conclude that they where practical and pragmatic minded, and they probably where or else they would not have been able to create such a large empire in that short period of time. Offcourse you can say that to be a parctical ruler, you must be somewhat tolerant. just my 2cents about this. I might add some other examples of pragmatic policy of the muslim rulers.
ps. sorry in advance about bad spelling etc. and sorry for the long rant.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. [/quote]
I don’t know. It wasn’t very tolerant when they tore down Church of the Holy Sepulchre and destroyed all the Christian convents in Palestine.[/quote]
Yep, very intolerant. That was during reign of Abu �¢??Ali Mansur T�??riqu l-�¡�¸�¤�??kim (996-1021) and does not give an accurate portrayal of what Fatimid rule was like at all. Fatimid rule (909 - 1171) was remarkably tolerant and they had non muslims holding high positions of government.[/quote]
This is true spiderman, the caliphat had christian bureacrats in the administration of the former byzantin parts of the new arab empire and persians in the administration in the former persian parts of the empire. Why was this? is a natural question that pops up when talking about this. If you have a idealistic outlock on this matter, you can conclude that because they allowed non-muslims in theire administrations, then that is a evidence for muslim tolerance or in other words: Because the rulers where muslims it allowed for non-muslims in theire administrations. But if you see it from an materialistic point of wiew, there where other reasons for this phenomen. One reason that is possible from a materialit point of wiew: is practicality. When the Arabs conquerd the eastern parts of the byzantin empire and the persian empire, Theire is a possibility that they concluded it was more time-effecient and less costly to keep the old regimes bureacrats instead of training and creating a new group of muslim-arab bureacrats. So instead of concluding that they where extremely tolerant rulers, we can perhaps conclude that they where practical and pragmatic minded, and they probably where or else they would not have been able to create such a large empire in that short period of time. Offcourse you can say that to be a parctical ruler, you must be somewhat tolerant. just my 2cents about this. I might add some other examples of pragmatic policy of the muslim rulers.
ps. sorry in advance about bad spelling etc. and sorry for the long rant.[/quote]
^This
I agree with you mate. Maybe I should have expanded and said “pragmatic tolerance”. They were tolerant as long as it suited and benefited them.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I would rather have been a christian living in a muslim country than a muslim living in a christian country.[/quote]
Which country.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter the CHRISTIANS ARE EBIL!!![/quote]
Why are you being so defensive? Show me where I said Christians are evil? Have you still got a bee in your bonnet about my 1492 comment? It wasn’t meant as sarcasm. I was actually pointing out that the Catholic Church achieved a hell of a lot during that time. You could have just asked me if I was taking the piss rather than put up funny pictures of the Pope and mnake sarcastic comments.
Before the Seljuks rocked up, Christians had it pretty good under the Fatimids in Palestine. [/quote]
I don’t know. It wasn’t very tolerant when they tore down Church of the Holy Sepulchre and destroyed all the Christian convents in Palestine.[/quote]
Yep, very intolerant. That was during reign of Abu �??�?�¢??Ali Mansur T�??riqu l-�??�?�¡�??�?�¸�??�?�¤�??kim (996-1021) and does not give an accurate portrayal of what Fatimid rule was like at all. Fatimid rule (909 - 1171) was remarkably tolerant and they had non muslims holding high positions of government.[/quote]
This is true spiderman, the caliphat had christian bureacrats in the administration of the former byzantin parts of the new arab empire and persians in the administration in the former persian parts of the empire. Why was this? is a natural question that pops up when talking about this. If you have a idealistic outlock on this matter, you can conclude that because they allowed non-muslims in theire administrations, then that is a evidence for muslim tolerance or in other words: Because the rulers where muslims it allowed for non-muslims in theire administrations. But if you see it from an materialistic point of wiew, there where other reasons for this phenomen. One reason that is possible from a materialit point of wiew: is practicality. When the Arabs conquerd the eastern parts of the byzantin empire and the persian empire, Theire is a possibility that they concluded it was more time-effecient and less costly to keep the old regimes bureacrats instead of training and creating a new group of muslim-arab bureacrats. So instead of concluding that they where extremely tolerant rulers, we can perhaps conclude that they where practical and pragmatic minded, and they probably where or else they would not have been able to create such a large empire in that short period of time. Offcourse you can say that to be a parctical ruler, you must be somewhat tolerant. just my 2cents about this. I might add some other examples of pragmatic policy of the muslim rulers.
ps. sorry in advance about bad spelling etc. and sorry for the long rant.[/quote]
^This
I agree with you mate. Maybe I should have expanded and said “pragmatic tolerance”. They were tolerant as long as it suited and benefited them. [/quote]
yes it is a big possibility that they where tolerant when it suited and benefited them, but when we talk history and especially old history we can not be sure. It is also a possibility that they just where super tolerant and where the most humanitarian people around, but I dont think it is likely hehe. This is btw why it is a studium called history. If it was easy to understand the truth about our collectiv past then all historians had been out of work.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Now? Can’t honestly say I’ve given it any thought. Why do you ask?[/quote]
Just curious.[/quote]
I don’t think it would make too much of a difference where I lived to be honest. I don’t really look like the stereotypical muslim to be honest as my mum is English and I have taken after her side of the family. I used to get inquisitive stares/looks from co workers when they met me for the first time.
I used to train new instructors for a large language school in Japan and when the newbies arrived for training the conversation went a bit like this;
Me - Hi, I’m Mustafa. I’m going to be doing your training for the next three days.
Them - You’re Mustafa? I was expecting you to be a black guy.
This was more with the American trainees. The British trainees just used to make jokes about me being a kebab shop owner
As for life in another country as a non muslim, I really have no idea where I would or wouldn’t want to live to be honest.[/quote]
CHANGE YOUR NAME TO MUFASA OMG
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Now? Can’t honestly say I’ve given it any thought. Why do you ask?[/quote]
Just curious.[/quote]
I don’t think it would make too much of a difference where I lived to be honest. I don’t really look like the stereotypical muslim to be honest as my mum is English and I have taken after her side of the family. I used to get inquisitive stares/looks from co workers when they met me for the first time.
I used to train new instructors for a large language school in Japan and when the newbies arrived for training the conversation went a bit like this;
Me - Hi, I’m Mustafa. I’m going to be doing your training for the next three days.
Them - You’re Mustafa? I was expecting you to be a black guy.
This was more with the American trainees. The British trainees just used to make jokes about me being a kebab shop owner
As for life in another country as a non muslim, I really have no idea where I would or wouldn’t want to live to be honest.[/quote]
CHANGE YOUR NAME TO MUFASA OMG[/quote]
Hakunamatada