The General Political Thread

[Toffee]

Religous War has always happened. It's not easily traceable back to the first instances of who started what and that doesn't mean you can go around killing innocents because "he started it". If you believe the crusades were justified then I really don't know what to say. 30 to 70 thousand innocent civilians dead and you think that's okay?

Oh and btw I don't know why you're trying to show Islamic conquests on a map as though Christians haven't done the same thing for centuries.

[Dark_Knight]

Buddhisme is the future 

[Edwin]

Religous War has always happened. It's not easily traceable back to the first instances of who started what and that doesn't mean you can go around killing innocents because "he started it".

... what?

[Toffee]

I'm saying "he started it" is not a valid excuse for killing thousands of civilians. Obviously it happened both ways but don't make Islam out to be the only religion with a violent past.

[Edwin]

It was an expression of disbelief more than an actual question. Anyway, the Crusades were justified in the same sense that the Allies' actions during WW2 are justified. Fighting off an oppressive ideology costs lives, but the end justifies the means when saving future generations from living under said oppressive ideologies.

[Toffee]

So civilian deaths are fine then? I guess we've reached the point in this thread where killing little children is okay because we're freeing them from an oppressive regime. What do you say to the fact that many inside Jerusalem were Christian and ended up being killed by followers of their own religion who were in a blood lust. Or maybe the fact that Constantinople (a Christian city) was looted and pillaged by a Christian army on its way to the fourth crusade.

Oh and I've read that Christians were actually treated quite well in the Muslim held holy land (which had been held by them since the 600s) at the time. I also forgot to mention the Christian treatment of Jews in the Rhineland.

[Edwin]

What do you say to the fact that many inside Jerusalem were Christian and ended up being killed by followers of their own religion who were in a blood lust. Or maybe the fact that Constantinople (a Christian city) was looted and pillaged by a Christian army on its way to the fourth crusade.

Oh and I've read that Christians were actually treated quite well in the Muslim held holy land (which had been held by them since the 600s) at the time. I also forgot to mention the Christian treatment of Jews in the Rhineland.

Constantinople was lost because the Crusaders abandoned it sure, but I think you're forgetting that Mehmet allowed Constantinople to be freely raided and pillaged by his soldiers for a short period after the city was overtaken by Ottoman forces.

You're digressing from my response to your claim that Islam is suddenly just as violent as Christianity, despite the fact the Invasion of Banu Qurayza was overseen and commended by the Islamic Prophet where as the early Crusades were directed by the Pope, not Jesus.

Your claims that Christians are treated well under Muslim rule is quite hilarious given the weekly slaughter of Christians by Boko Haram in addition to the fact that Christians have almost been driven out of the Middle East completely.

[Toffee]

I'm showing that Christianity has been just as violent as Islam do to label one being violent whilst the other not is ridiculous. I'm not really sure what you mean saying that the crusaders abandoned Constantinople since they didn't abandon it in the thirteenth century but full on sacked it and carved their own territories out of the Byzantine empire.

You do realise that Christians believe that the Pope is God's representative on earth so in many ways he is a prophet, he is their religous head so your point about their leader not being Jesus is flimsy to say the least.

And I wasn't talking about modern times. You should have noted the past tense 'were'. As I said it was just something I've read. But I suppose it doesn't matter either way because killing children is okay since we're overthrowing a violent regime (see the irony?).

[Karth]

Who cares about the crusades.. people care about what affects them the most in the real world.  Extremist views of Islam is the greatest religious threat to civilized society that we have TODAY.  I don't think any other religion compares, again TODAY

[Edwin]

I'm showing that Christianity has been just as violent as Islam do to label one being violent whilst the other not is ridiculous. I'm not really sure what you mean saying that the crusaders abandoned Constantinople since they didn't abandon it in the thirteenth century but full on sacked it and carved their own territories out of the Byzantine empire.

You've been so eager to scapegoat Christianity that you've just presumed I've claimed Christianity is not violent. Christianity does have a violent past, but certainly not on the scale of that of Islam.

You do realise that Christians believe that the Pope is God's representative on earth so in many ways he is a prophet, he is their religous head so your point about their leader not being Jesus is flimsy to say the least.

You do realise that neither the Pope nor Jesus Christ was travelling with an army set on expansionism and persecution of anyone who was not a follower of their religion. In contrast to Mohammed, who was objectively a conqueror.

And I wasn't talking about modern times. You should have noted the past tense 'were'. As I said it was just something I've read. But I suppose it doesn't matter either way because killing children is okay since we're overthrowing a violent regime (see the irony?).

This entire "discussion" is based upon you contesting that Islam isn't a religion of peace in both a historical and modern sense. I think we can conclude that it isn't and never has been "peaceful" throughout history to the present day. I've met many Muslims who were good and peaceful people themselves, but that does not disregard the simple truth that Islamic principles were founded by a conqueror and are reflective of that at their core - from the treatment to religious outsiders to the treatment of specific groups that Mohammed was hostile towards, such as Jews.

[Toffee]

I'm not using Christianity as a scapegoat at all, I'm a baptised Christian myself. Sure the pope didn't travel with the army but he did call for the crusade in the first place with the intention of conquering Muslim territories. You don't have to be leading an army to be a conqueror. He was the original reason these armies existed and why they travelled so far to fight the Muslims in the name of God. Christianity is one of the most violent religions in the world and even if Islam has slightly higher numbers of deaths as a result that doesn't make it not so. I could find a huge list of atrocities committed with Christianity used as a perceived excuse.

I'm not contesting that Islam has a violent past, just that they were no more violent than the world that they lived in and the other groups of people that surrounded them, such as the Christians. If you label Islam a religion of violence then you should label Christianity one too. You even admitted that you have met many peaceful Muslims so surely it is an insult to them to label them as violent simply because there are other Muslims who commit atrocities. That proves that Islam is capable of peacefully coinciding with society just as Christianity is. We have an issue in the modern world with radical Islamic extremism not Islam.

And Karth many people view Islam as a religion solely for violence as a result of past atrocities so surely it is only fair to bring up the things that other religions have done, such as the Crusades. You're just proving what I'm saying, it's not Islam but Islamic extremism that is the issue. Islamic followers can be peaceful. We need to help them combat views of extremism within their societies rather than label them all violent when that is clearly not true.

[BabyJesus]

Doesn't Islam still support honor killings?

[Toffee]

Doesn't Islam still support honor killings?

Some Muslims may do but some don't. The bible says that women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death but we don't all do it,

[Conway]

Doesn't Islam still support honor killings?

Some Muslims may do but some don't. The bible says that women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death but we don't all do it,

But a large amount of Muslims do, or at least support it. In some Islamic countries its the law. Christian nations have become civilized and their people follow the secular laws of each nation rather then their own personal religious laws. Where as in most Muslim nations religion is the law. I don't see how the you compare a religion where people worship a peaceful and gentleman to a religion that was founded by a blood thirsty warlord.

[Toffee]

Doesn't Islam still support honor killings?

Some Muslims may do but some don't. The bible says that women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death but we don't all do it,

But a large amount of Muslims do, or at least support it. In some Islamic countries its the law. Christian nations have become civilized and their people follow the secular laws of each nation rather then their own personal religious laws. Where as in most Muslim nations religion is the law. I don't see how the you compare a religion where people worship a peaceful and gentleman to a religion that was founded by a blood thirsty warlord.

Christianity has had many warlords over the years I assure you. Once again you're referring to Radical Islam which I agree is a problem but there are many Muslims who also don't believe in that and live peacefully within our societies and also abide by the laws of the nation. They prove that being Muslim doesn't nessecarily make someone as you've described. Islam is capable of being peaceful just as much as any other religion.