View Full Version : Why did the crusaders invaded the Muslim countries ?
Dark Project
27-05-06, 01:48 PM
Why did the crusaders invaded the Muslim countries ?
Yes the blame is always thrown at Muslim history and yet the West had the share in killing and burning and invading Muslim countries .. In a counter question of Blue Boy “ why Muslims invaded Spain “ The question is thrown back to him ! So tell me Sir why the crusaders invaded Muslim countries ..
sheik-al-Tort
27-05-06, 03:16 PM
For a bit of a laugh and because they heard about the sneaky plot to steal seville oranges
Dark Project
27-05-06, 03:40 PM
For a bit of a laugh and because they heard about the sneaky plot to steal seville oranges
LOL for real sheik-al-Tort dont forget the olives too .. But seriously why did they invade Muslim countries :)
Dark Project
27-05-06, 05:37 PM
Ops some Mod moved my thread without notifying me hmmm .. This is a religion based thread likewise the Thread Why did Muslim invade Spain .. I wonder why its moved in here ? I want to discuss this in a relegion point of view not political point of view !!
Dark Project
27-05-06, 06:02 PM
The Historians stated that Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote.
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms.
From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them.
Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."
What are your views ? Is it the same belief that the Jews are the living words of the scripture and they remind you of how Jesus suffered !!!. Very interesting theory if its still carried up to current times .
MorphaKnight
27-05-06, 06:42 PM
it didn't have anything to do with the holy grail did it??
Desert_Sloath
27-05-06, 09:11 PM
They came as far as Quriyat, Qalhat and Yiti. They demanded people of the region to pay tax for Portuguese King. When they refuse, their 'houses' were burnt down after rampage and looting of the precious wealth of the people. They even ended cutting an ear of one of 'our' citizen. As a sign of how far they could go in doing brutal thingis to the Arabs.
Oh my God. It just shows how a people could sleep ! Nothing has changed ! What is happening in Afghan & Iraq has always been around !
.
Good thread Dark Project...
The Muslims had one goal and that was to spread the message of Islam..Muslims invaded half the world back then but they never forced a single soul to become muslims nor did they degrade anybody from another faith.
I am not sure why the crusaders invaded so many countries bt I am sure why Christian ruled countries like the US and UK still invade and then degrade the innocent civilians of such countries. They do it to steal the wealth of some countries and they invade other countries in order to protect its ally Israel. And let me emphasize of Israel here.
The US has many allies but it wages wars only when Israel complaints. Why? Probably because Israelis rule the US government.
Peace
Muslims invaded half the world back then...
nothing more need be said.
MoonChild
28-05-06, 04:11 AM
Geez, Sting, you have ISSUES. Why is it that those who say inflammatory hate-filled things always sign off with "peace"??? :p
Study history. Islam was spread by the sword. So was Christianity. Muslims invaded Jerusalem, Christians invaded it back. Same as many other parts of the world - it's just that Jerusalem is "special" to 3 major religions who all (largely and for a large part of history) hate(d) each other, so it's been an obvious target.
The US has many allies but it wages wars only when Israel complaints. Why? Probably because Israelis rule the US government.
I missed that one earlier.
Apparently it's those nasty Jooos once again.
??
Study history. Islam was spread by the sword. So was Christianity. Muslims invaded Jerusalem, Christians invaded it back. Same as many other parts of the world - it's just that Jerusalem is "special" to 3 major religions who all (largely and for a large part of history) hate(d) each other, so it's been an obvious target.
Child I don't need to study history but you certainly need to wear your glasses and open your mind so you interpret texts you read correctly.
If swords is why Islam was spread then my I ask you why even today thousands convert to Islam every year although Muslimshave invaded no country!?!
Muslims did fight battles but only when they were not allowed to spread the message of Islam peacefully. My point was that Muslims, even when they invaded countries around the world, never used force to convert non-Muslims.
As for the crusaders, maybe they had The QUEEN in mind :D
Anyhow, I know it might be difficult for you to understand what am trying to say again, and I don't blame you for it, so I would end this post by giving you some examples:
Why is Turkey is a Muslim country? I don't see Arabs ruling it today. Yet the people of Turkey have embraced Islam. You can see the same thing in Parts of Spain and other European countries. And of course the non-Arab Muslims in South-East Asia (Philipines, Malaysia..etc) and South Asia (Pakistan and India) are clear examples.
But if we look at the western invasions, we will only see blood, degradation and an eventual shameless kick out.
Yes and one more thing, as for Al Quds Al Shareef (Jerusalem), I agree that all three religions consider it as holy but you can clearly see the most followed religion there.
Peace ;)
I missed that one earlier.
Apparently it's those nasty Jooos once again.
It seems you have been missing out on a lot of stuff lately :D
Anyhow, I know you sound so cool and stuff when you write Jooooos but sadly my cowboy slang is limited so please explain :os :o
Muslims did fight battles but only when they were not allowed to spread the message of Islam peacefully. My point was that Muslims, even when they invaded countries around the world, never used force to convert non-Muslims.
What is amazing is that you can post stuff like this and keep a straight face.
MoonChild
28-05-06, 09:13 PM
Hey,Sting, careful who you talk down to. You never know who might be holding several advanced degrees. Have you graduated from high school yet? Have you studied several religions or read history from several points of view for the past 20 years?
It's a big subject and not subject to shotgun analysis in a few paragraphs. But rather than insult anyone who disagrees with you, you might try providing some evidence of your claims. I'll be happy to do the same, of course. Perhaps a new thread is in order though, as this one is specifically addressing the Crusaders motivation.
Please refrain from insulting members- Lym
I think the crusader were doing what their messiah taught them, which is: the use of sword
Hey, "Child" Sting, careful who you talk down to. You never know who might be holding several advanced degrees. Have you graduated from high school yet? Have you studied several religions or read history from several points of view for the past 20 years?
Insults are not allowed Sting. Lym.
It's a big subject and not subject to shotgun analysis in a few paragraphs. But rather than insult anyone who disagrees with you, you might try providing some evidence of your claims. I'll be happy to do the same, of course. Perhaps a new thread is in order though, as this one is specifically addressing the Crusaders motivation.
That sounds very noble but I do not insult anybody who disagrees with me. Perhaps you and your friends should follow that advise. As for me, I do my best to treat everybody as well as I can. But when limits are crossed, I treat them the way they treat others.
Now gather all your books and call all your old teachers and then open any thread you want. I will be happy to participate as much as I can. But please, make sure you don't believe everything you read in books. Make sure you use some logic as well.
Peace and may Allah show you the right path :)
I think the crusader were doing what their messiah taught them, which is: the use of sword
HITMAN are you saying that messiah was not a peaceful man :os ?
sheik-al-Tort
29-05-06, 02:31 AM
Lot of verbal diarrhoea today Sting - blast can't spell that damn word
Sting Said
Why is Turkey is a Muslim country? I don't see Arabs ruling it today. Yet the people of Turkey have embraced Islam.
And this brings us back to the Crusades. Byzantium was a Christian Empire that was invaded by Muslim Turks. The Emperor in Constantinople made an appeal to the Pope to help fight the Turks and to make safe passage for Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land thus the crusdases were born.
And the Turks converted to Islam after centuries of fighting with the Arabs, they gave up and converted.
MoonChild
29-05-06, 04:29 AM
This quote has been deleted by me because it was offensive - Lym
I do not insult anybody who disagrees with me.
Oh, so I'm special? I'm soooo flattered :rolleyes: The only thing I have done is disagree with you on your assertion that islam was spread peacefully despite muslims invading many other countries (your words), and you call me both a child and a "educated illiterate". I can only assume that these "limits" you refer to are woefully short of reasonable.
Now, are you interested in teaching and learning or just in flinging around insults to people you don't know because you feel powerful behind the anonymity of a keyboard? :zzz:
Make sure you use some logic as well.
ROFL. Ask anyone who's been around a while, I am the most logical person you will ever meet.
En garde!
Moonchild, please don't involve other members' names into your conflict. Thank you - Lym
HITMAN are you saying that messiah was not a peaceful man :os ?
Of course he was not
Sting Said
And this brings us back to the Crusades. Byzantium was a Christian Empire that was invaded by Muslim Turks. The Emperor in Constantinople made an appeal to the Pope to help fight the Turks and to make safe passage for Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land thus the crusdases were born.
And the Turks converted to Islam after centuries of fighting with the Arabs, they gave up and converted.
Thanks for the informative post dear Kara. But the question is, why do so many non-Arabs follow Islam today? Do you know the countries with the largest number of Muslims in it are non-Arab countries?
So again, lets keep history books aside and tell me why do Turks, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangalis, Malaysians and Westerners from Europe and America follow Islam today?
Lym, I apologise if I insulted anybody but I am happy to know that atleast you are not biased. You can clearly see I only replied :)
MoonChild, I will wait for the threads you promised to open. I have decided to Lym's sack not to use your language to communicate with you. I will respect Sabla Rules and Myself.
Lets get back to the topic :)
That's off topic Sting. If you want to discuss why such countries follow Islam today, open a separate thread for it. This issue in this thread is "Why did the crusaders invade Muslims countries?or If you want me to split the thread with your post and initiate one, tell me so via PM.
Of course he was not
Your post made me thing a bit more about the whole issue. By definition, a CRUSADE means:
Religiously motivated effort: a war or campaign that is religiously motivated, for example, one with papal sanction.
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Now we all know the Crusaders were Christians so can we therefore conclude that the Christian Religion, and therefore the Messiah, support war and terrorism? Can we conclude that the Messiah ordered his followers to shed the blood of innocents in the name of Christianity?
CrazyReD
29-05-06, 04:06 PM
According to our History proffessor: They had to many people to deal with, not enough land to give away so needed to come up with something to distract people of the internal issues and get rid of some people.
if anyone wants to debate that or slam the proffessor pm me and i'll give u his e-mail =)
From an earlier topic :
from some time i have stopped discussing religion with others...
i never ask ppl what faith they follow..
i think all faiths lead to the supreme divine force...
we must learn how to respect each other, respect mankind, and value the human life...there is nothing more precious than life...
well all must live in peace and harmony, without racial prejudice and hatred,without disrespecting other faiths!!
wudjab and sheik,
Is it so difficult to answer a simple question posed by HITMAN? Why did the messiah order the crusaders to invade nations and shed their blood? Why did he support terrorism? Was he a terrorist?
*Irrelevant comments and accusations* - Lym
Messiah was a man of sword, thus the crusade took place
sheik-al-Tort
30-05-06, 01:46 AM
I think the crusader were doing what their messiah taught them, which is: the use of sword
you are confusing him with Mohammed
No dude, I was referring to Christ, he was a man of sword :)
sheik-al-Tort
30-05-06, 01:54 AM
Back that up Hitman
*Sheikh, stop insulting members* -Lym
Read the new testament carefully
Pineapple Thief
30-05-06, 02:14 AM
I still think that the history of colonial Europe is particularly vile. But that was civilization building, I suppose.
Dark Project
30-05-06, 02:30 AM
No dude, I was referring to Christ, he was a man of sword :)
Ok here is the verse Shiek Al-Tort ...
The exact verse reads, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.” (Mt 10:34
MoonChild
30-05-06, 04:53 AM
I still think that the history of colonial Europe is particularly vile. But that was civilization building, I suppose.
I'm not sure it was worse than the Mongols or the Japanese empire period, or any other empire-building activity - what the Japanese did during their occupation of China made Hitler look like a mild-mannered librarian, for instance. But, sadly, humans have been slaughering each other for the flimsiest of reasons for all of written history. Perhaps it just "seems" worse more recently because the old histories were written by the winners!
Dark Project
30-05-06, 09:27 AM
For 200 years, Palestine was dominated by the Crusaders, who, following an appeal by Pope Urban II, came from Europe to recover the Holy Land from the infidels. In July 1099, after a five-week siege, the knights of the First Crusade and their rabble army captured Jerusalem, massacring most of the city's non-Christian inhabitants. Barricaded in their synagogues, the Jews defended their quarter, only to be burnt to death or sold into slavery: . During the next few decades, the Crusaders extended their power over the rest of the country, through treaties and agreements, but mostly by bloody military victories. The Latin Kingdom of the Crusaders was that of a conquering minority confined mainly to fortified cities and castles.
When the Crusaders opened up transportation routes from Europe, pilgrimages to the Holy Land became popular and, at the same time, increasing numbers of Jews sought to return to their homeland. Documents of the period indicate that 300 rabbis from France and England arrived in a group, with some settling in Acro (Akko), others in Jerusalem.
After the overthrow of the Crusaders by a Muslim army under Saladin (1187), the Jews were again accorded a certain measure of freedom, including the right to live in Jerusalem. Although the Crusaders regained a foothold in the country after Saladin's death (1193), their presence was limited to a network of fortified castles. Crusader authority in the Land ended after a final defeat (1291) by the Mamluks, a Muslim military class which had come to power in Egypt.
The Eight Crusades
The First Crusade: 1096-1099
Alexus Comnenus asked for mercenaries to defend Constantinople. Instead he received perhaps 12,000 commoners intent on liberating Jerusalem. The European nobility marched on Jerusalem.
The Second Crusade: 1147-1149
Originally preached by Bernard of Clairvaux. Only a few Greek islands were taken.
The Third Crusade: 1189-1192
Led by Frederick Barbarosa, Richard I of England and Philip II of France. Results in a truce which gives Christians access to Jerusalem and the Holy Places.
The Fourth Crusade: 1202-1204
Instead of marching on Jerusalem, this crusade was diverted to Constantinople. The city remained in Latin hands until 1261.
The Albigensian Crusade: 1208
Preached by Pope Innocent III against the Albigensian heretics in southern France.
The Children's Crusade: 1212
Preached by Stephan of Vendome and by Nicholas of Koln. One group reached Marseilles and was sold into slavery; the other turned back.
The Fifth Crusade: 1218-1221
An attack on Egypt.
The Sixth Crusade: 1228-1229
Led by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. He negotiated a treaty which led to Christian control of several important holy sites, including Jerusalem. Jerusalem was retaken by Muslim mercenaries in 1244.
The Seventh Crusade: 1248-1254
Led by King Louis IX of France (Saint Louis). He captured the Egyptian city of Damietta, but was himself taken captive in the battle for Cairo. He was eventually ransomed.
The Eighth Crusade: 1270
An unsuccessful attack on Tunis.
Sources: Israeli Foreign Ministry and the WebChronology Project
Wow Dark Project..I did not know they supported such blood shed and terrorism! :os
MoonChild
31-05-06, 02:04 AM
Huh, yeah, and when the Catholic Church got tired of trying to keep Jerusalem, they decided to torture and kill their OWN subjects, and thus began the Inquisition.
I can't imagine how an institution so steeped in blood can be held as the Keeper of the True Faith of the most pacifist prophet ever known ... :rolleyes:
sheik-al-Tort
31-05-06, 02:47 AM
Dark Project your interpretation is wrong. The messiah was expected to come and kick out the Romans and be king then there would be peace. Jesus knew that given the primitive state of the world, peace would not come but the sword. He didn't offer a path of glory, but one of trial and tribulation.
He also said;
''Love Thine enemies''
''turn the other cheek''
''Love thy neighbour as thyself''
Islam today is very similar to Christianity 700 years ago.
On the one hand you have those who keep faith with the priniciples of islam and on the other those who seek to kill, dominate and impose their evil interpretation of Islam.
It's time muslims stopped looking outside islam for the causes of evil and started addressing the corruption of Islam within.
The enemy within is always far more dangerous than the enemy without.
sheik-al-Tort
31-05-06, 02:55 AM
Moonchild the trouble with institutions is that they are all corrupt.
Unfortunately man seeks the comfort of institutions or 'clubs' be they as large as the Catholic Church 1.1 billion members or just a small local gathering.
The voice of Christ is often hidden by the clamour of noise
it's a mean world, strong nations forget their fundamentals and their goals when they have the power....n that what makes then collapse, n make other nations take the lead and power, until the other nation collapse and others take their place, and it goes on in a cricle that has no end
sophis^catrina
31-05-06, 07:34 AM
No dude, I was referring to Christ, he was a man of sword :)
Do you sincerely believe in that, Christ (PBUH) of all people? :rolleyes:
Unless you're just being sarcastic of the much altered Bible.
And Sheikh, the Prophet Mohd (PBUH) was not a man of the sword, and Jesus (PBUH) was not either.
Sheik, just reminding you in case you've forgotten, Muslims believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Yes I believe that Christ was a man of sword & I'm not being sarcastic :)
There are many interpretations for "man of sword"
Mr Tickle
31-05-06, 12:55 PM
Hitman,
Do you believe that Mohammed was a man of the sword?
PS Do you really want to open up a debate on this?
As a heads-up, we'll start off with an easy one. Which of Jesus or Mohammed went into battle?
Hitman,
Do you believe that Mohammed was a man of the sword?
PS Do you really want to open up a debate on this?
As a heads-up, we'll start off with an easy one. Which of Jesus or Mohammed went into battle?
The discussion is not about the greatest creation of ALLAH almighty, prophet Muhammad http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i96/HitmanCalgary/pbuh.gif
It's about the crusade & why did it occur
So according to my personal opinion, it is because of:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
(Matthew 10:34-37)
sheik-al-Tort
31-05-06, 03:04 PM
Pity you don't understand what that means Hitman. Jesus was saying that his way is no easy path but will create tensions in the family and amongst friends - especially when going against the 'mob attitude ' or inbuilt prejudices.
As an example in my pub in the North of England, there is a lot of prejudice against Pakistanis. When I have risen to their defence I have been ridiculed and tempers have risen on both sides. The easy way is to nod quietly and pretend one is in agreement. The hard way is to challenge those prejudices.
Jesus knew this and suffered as a result.
Mr Tickle
31-05-06, 03:14 PM
Hitman,
Read the whole chapter and you will understand the context of Jesus telling his disciples that they should expect the Word of God to cause division and war
i.e Jesus's message of peace will be delivered to a hostile world and the disciples should not expect their mission to be easy
i.e. Jesus was not promoting violence......he was warning his disciples that they should expect violence from those unwilling to accept the Truth. Nowhere in this chapter does Jesus order his disciples to harm anyone
And if you knew anything about what Jesus stood for.........and all that he said, you would not have made such an error
sophis^catrina
31-05-06, 05:49 PM
Yes I believe that Christ was a man of sword & I'm not being sarcastic :)
Hitman, of all people, Jesus used to say "turn the other cheek". Taking verses out of context, does not prove that he was a man of the sword.
but christians do believe that there will be killings when Jesus comes back again! I guess you agreed on that earlier sheik
would there have been crusaded if moslems had not invaded and captured christian land ?
lol r u telling us that they were having revenge ? pleeeeeaaase!
no, the root cause is always referred to as the reason behind all the moslem violence today.
Would there haven been a Crusaded is moslems had not invaded and conquered Christian lands ?
Just as... if there was no 9/11 would there be wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ?
Just as... if there was no 9/11 would there be wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ?
And Iraq?
How is Iraq related to 9/11?
Not related.
But if moslems had not messed majorly with the US on 9/11, neither Iraq or Afghanistan would be in their current positions.
After 9/11 the US actively went after terrorists.
I thought they invaded Iraq hunting WMD's which eventually they admitted were not found, US & Brititsh admitted that already
However, Afghanistan was a hide out for Al-Qaeda fundamentalists, I would like the add that president Bush once mentioned "CRUSADE" before the war in Afghanistan
Once you took the fight to US soil, the US decided to hunt out and destroy it's enemies, wherever they may be - Afghanistan, Iraq or possibly Iran.
WMD was the justification and that was a threat that was believed to exist.
Even though WMD's have not been found as yet, there is nothing to say that they do not exist, or have not been found as yet, or have been shipped to a neighbouring country.
CRUSADE :
campaign: a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"
exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for; "The liberal party pushed for reforms"; "She is crusading for women's rights"; "The Dean is pushing for his favorite candidate"
any of the more or less continuous military expeditions in the 11th to 13th centuries when Christian powers of Europe tried to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims
Whats wrong with the word crusade ? If we called it JIHAD would it sound better to you ?
Whats wrong with the word crusade ? If we called it JIHAD would it sound better to you ?
No it wont
The UN was overlooked while invading Iraq & the inspectors did not find anything back then, nor did the invaders find any WMD's as yet
So thats sounds like a christian crusade
OK guys ( Hitman & wudjab ) would you please stick to the topic.
Abu Bakr
01-06-06, 01:28 AM
the crusaders invaded Palestine because they thought it was 'their' holy land
same with the zionist
it obviously belongs and will continue to belong to the Palestinians
Abu Bakr
01-06-06, 02:53 AM
Why did the crusaders invaded the Muslim countries ?
Yes the blame is always thrown at Muslim history and yet the West had the share in killing and burning and invading Muslim countries .. In a counter question of Blue Boy “ why Muslims invaded Spain “ The question is thrown back to him ! So tell me Sir why the crusaders invaded Muslim countries ..
in a nut shell: zionist invaded palestine to steal it
USRael invaded iraq in support of zion
maybe you need a lesson or two in history wudjab, during the time of saladin, a christian lord used to rule Jerusalem and Saladin could have controled it any time he wanted but he let it under the christians control provided that they pay the jezya and let all people live together, and then christians started on killing moooslems (dont know if they killed jeeews too) n that what made saladin take control of Jerusalem...
I've deleted ALL off topics. Abu Bakr, insulting members would not be tolerated, the same goes to Wujdab. Please remain within the topic. Any off topics would be deleted again.
Mr Tickle
02-06-06, 02:52 PM
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
The Crusades were in response to the conqureing of Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks - this had been Christian since the time of St Paul.
In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
I think you'll find that it was the advance of Islam by the sword that caused the crusades
Wait for it Mr. P.
It was Islams right to spead Islam and if some nasty little country didn't roll over and play dead, then it as perfectly acceptable for them to invade and take over the country.
Dark Project
02-06-06, 06:51 PM
The Crusaders’ Animosity
One of the French learned writers Count Henri Decastri wrote in his book entitled ‘Islam’ in 1896, "I cannot imagine what the Muslims would say if they heard the tales of the mediaeval ages and understood what the Christian orators used to say in their hymns; all our hymns even those which emerged before the 12th century emanated from one concept which was the cause of the crusades, these hymns were filled with hatred towards the Muslims due to the total ignorance of their religion. As a result of those hymns and songs, hatred against that religion became fixed in people’s minds, and the erroneous ideas deeply rooted, some of which are still carried nowadays. Everyone used to regard the Muslims as polytheists, disbelievers, idol worshippers and apostates."
This is how the Christian clergy in Europe described the Muslims and their deen. The allegations in the mediaeval ages were horrible and these were used to incite the feelings of hatred and animosity against the Muslims. The Christian world became affected and the crusader wars took place. After lasting two centuries resulting in the defeat and the humiliation of the Christians, the Muslims began to reconquer the West in the 15th century when the Islamic State entered Constantinople. Then in the 16th century the Muslims swept across southern and eastern Europe and carried Islam to its peoples. Millions of the inhabitants of Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and other countries embraced Islam in the process. Once again the crusader animosity was revived and the Orientalist concept emerged, which was concerned at the time with resisting the Muslim armies, halting the Islamic conquest and lessening the threat of the Muslims. This deeply rooted animosity in the minds and hearts of the Europeans prompted all Christians in Europe to send their missionaries to Muslim land in the name of science and culture. The missions took the shape of schools, clinics, associations and clubs. The Europeans devoted almost unlimited resources and huge efforts to the missionary work. They combined their efforts and methodology despite their differences in policy and interests. Peoples and states were united behind the missionary effort since it was conducted by their consuls, ambassadors, delegates and missionaries.
The crusader hatred harboured by the Westerners, especially in Europe and more so by Britain, and their deeply rooted animosity and wicked malice were the cause of our eventual humiliation in our homeland. General Allenby said in 1917 when he entered al-Quds,
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_41.html
Mr Tickle
02-06-06, 07:09 PM
that's a lovely story DP
but its got northing to do with this thread
Hizb al Tahir ? The organization looking to bring back the Khalifat ? You know, the universal islamic empire ?
Abu Bakr
03-06-06, 02:50 AM
great post
thanks
The Crusaders’ Animosity ,
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_41.html
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/images/ayah8_36.gif
"The disbelievers spend their wealth in blocking the way of Allah, and will go on spending still more of it. But in the end, these very efforts of theirs will become a cause of their regret; and they will be overcome." [TMQ 8:36]
Dark Project
03-06-06, 09:44 AM
that's a lovely story DP
but its got northing to do with this thread
:) But it is about the Crusaders dear !
Draconus
19-06-06, 05:42 PM
i think the Crusades were at heart a world-conquest experiment that failed. i dont know why, but Europe always wants to rule the world. this was made very clear in the colonial era. indeed, world conquest gets a different pretex everytime. first its religion, then to make the world one (mongol horde, not europian, but i thought they deserve recognition) then its to colonize the world (as if no one was there in the first place), then its to promote the white blood (that would be Nazi Germany), and now its to protect the world and freedom. the last pretex was around since the Coldwar, but the USSR collapsed too soon. thats why we have terrorism. if you dont have a reason to conquer the world, then make one.
i do consider the USA to be a proxy Europe.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.