the history of Islam

[Greg Jennings]

I am not confusing anything

it started in 634
and
it is still going today

You're correct that Muslim expansion began in 634. However the crusades (which is what you claimed were necessary) were an attempt to take Jerusalem many centuries later by Christian armies. It wasn't a provoked response, otherwise the fighting would've been focused on important Middle Eastern cities and on defense of Europe. Saying it was a response to Muslim aggression is like invading Germany now because the Nazis started there, except instead of 70 years between conflicts we're talking about several hundred years. The first crusade was a result of Pope Urban II desperately wanting what he thought was by rights his (Jerusalem), and it subsequently caused all of the other crusades.

In the end, what was accomplished (besides a huge death toll, of course)? They lost Jerusalem and gained no significant lands. The death toll was massive and included a high percent of children. In fact there was a disastrous peaceful movement at the time called the children's crusade. They died

 

[Greg Jennings]

no, no :darwinsm:
you're on a roll - keep going! :darwinsm:

Glad you recognize greatness when you see it. I was starting to wonder

 

[bybee]

You're correct that Muslim expansion began in 634. However the crusades (which is what you claimed were necessary) were an attempt to take Jerusalem many centuries later by Christian armies. It wasn't a provoked response, otherwise the fighting would've been focused on important Middle Eastern cities and on defense of Europe. Saying it was a response to Muslim aggression is like invading Germany now because the Nazis started there, except instead of 70 years between conflicts we're talking about several hundred years. The first crusade was a result of Pope Urban II desperately wanting what he thought was by rights his (Jerusalem), and it subsequently caused all of the other crusades.

In the end, what was accomplished (besides a huge death toll, of course)? They lost Jerusalem and gained no significant lands. The death toll was massive and included a high percent of children. In fact there was a disastrous peaceful movement at the time called the children's crusade. They died

Many of the children were enslaved and used in prostitution by their Muslim captors.
The Crusades were an abomination yesterday. The Islamic Crusade against Christianity today is an abomination!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Many of the children were enslaved and used in prostitution by their Muslim captors.
The Crusades were an abomination yesterday. The Islamic Crusade against Christianity today is an abomination!

All true

 

[chrysostom]

You're correct that Muslim expansion began in 634. However the crusades (which is what you claimed were necessary) were an attempt to take Jerusalem many centuries later by Christian armies.

that is just one part, one piece of the puzzle
you are missing the big picture
they had to be stopped at
vienna in 1683
tours in 732
constantinople in 666
etc
etc
etc

 

[rexlunae]

Many of the children were enslaved and used in prostitution by their Muslim captors.
The Crusades were an abomination yesterday. The Islamic Crusade against Christianity today is an abomination!

That's all true. But it should be recognized that Christians have lived throughout the Middle East for centuries will fairly little interference from the Muslims who make up the majority of the population until very recently. And it is only a minority of Muslims today that are attacking Christians, those of a particular form of Islam.

 

[brewmama]

I'm going from what I learned in my history of western civ class more than a decade ago. But it seems like Wikipedia vaguely suggest that this is one possibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria). It's the first I've heard any differently, honestly. Do you have a source?

Paganism was made illegal by an edict of the Emperor Theodosius I in AD 391. The temples of Alexandria were closed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391.[32] The historian Socrates of Constantinople describes that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed, including the Serapeum.[34] Since the Serapeum housed a part of the Great Library, some scholars believe that the remains of the Library of Alexandria were destroyed at this time.[32][35] However, it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction, and contemporary scholars do not mention the library directly.[36][37]

In any case, that wasn't the main point. The main point is that Muslims preserved some of the ancient classics, which deserves to be figured into any history of Islam.

So...how did Muslims, who didn't come onto the scene until late in the 7th century, save books that had been burned in the 4th century? Especially since they were initially a band of terrorist pirates that took by force all the Byzantine culture they conquered and built on that.

 

[brewmama]

Many of the children were enslaved and used in prostitution by their Muslim captors.
The Crusades were an abomination yesterday. The Islamic Crusade against Christianity today is an abomination!

The Crusades were defensive, and have been presented in a false manner that modern historians are correcting. They were not really an abomination.

 

[bybee]

The Crusades were defensive, and have been presented in a false manner that modern historians are correcting. They were not really an abomination.

I will have to do some more reading on the subject.

 

[brewmama]

In order to get more land the Europeans in some cases actually gave out blankets laced with smallpox to native tribes. As you would expect, that killed off the population pretty quick.

I don't think bubonic plague was a huge deal in the New World, and it seems unlikely that Native Americans had never encountered influenza before Europeans arrived, though it was certainly a different strain.

And yet this was before germ theory existed. So maybe they were trying to just keep them warm!

 

[brewmama]

You mean the word "algebra", of course.

"In Renaissance Europe, he was considered the original inventor of algebra, although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources."
(source: Wikipedia: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī)

Yep. They built their "culture" on conquered Byzantine achievements.

 

[brewmama]

I'm not sure if you know any Muslims, but I can assure you that the non-extremists (97+% of all Muslims) don't feel this way. Particular those who've been Americanized. I have several Muslim friends who are just as disgusted by the things ISIS is doing as you and I are

LOL! 97%! That sounds a lot like the mythical 97% of global warming fame! Y'all like making up that number don't you!

 

[rexlunae]

So...how did Muslims, who didn't come onto the scene until late in the 7th century, save books that had been burned in the 4th century? Especially since they were initially a band of terrorist pirates that took by force all the Byzantine culture they conquered and built on that.

Not "saved" as in rescued the books from a burning building. Saved as in preserved the texts historically, copied, translated, interpreted, and later passed into Europe through Spain. There's a not trivial chance that without the actions of Muslims, the ancient works would have been lost to Europe, either forever, or for much longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics#Arab_translations_and_commentary

 

[brewmama]

You're correct that Muslim expansion began in 634. However the crusades (which is what you claimed were necessary) were an attempt to take Jerusalem many centuries later by Christian armies. It wasn't a provoked response, otherwise the fighting would've been focused on important Middle Eastern cities and on defense of Europe. Saying it was a response to Muslim aggression is like invading Germany now because the Nazis started there, except instead of 70 years between conflicts we're talking about several hundred years. The first crusade was a result of Pope Urban II desperately wanting what he thought was by rights his (Jerusalem), and it subsequently caused all of the other crusades.

In the end, what was accomplished (besides a huge death toll, of course)? They lost Jerusalem and gained no significant lands. The death toll was massive and included a high percent of children. In fact there was a disastrous peaceful movement at the time called the children's crusade. They died

Since all the Middle East was part of Christendom pre-Islam, and Muslims took it by force, at a time when the western part of the Roman Empire was unable to respond, it was a defensive move made when they were capable of it, and at the pleas of the Byzantine emperor.

 

[brewmama]

Not "saved" as in rescued the books from a burning building. Saved as in preserved the texts historically, copied, translated, interpreted, and later passed into Europe through Spain. There's a not trivial chance that without the actions of Muslims, the ancient works would have been lost to Europe, either forever, or for much longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics#Arab_translations_and_commentary

You really don't know much about the Byzantine Empire do you? You know, the Greeks. Not to mention how monasteries kept precious manuscripts protected and passed down.

 

[bybee]

You're confusing the Crusades with the Ottoman Empire. The crusades were begun when Christian armies invaded Jerusalem on the orders of Pope Urban II. It was not a conflict that occurred in Europe, only in the Middle East. Europe was never under threat of invasion except for a couple islands off of the Italian coast

You are in error. Go back to your history books.

 

[chrysostom]

You really don't know much about the Byzantine Empire do you? You know, the Greeks. Not to mention how monasteries kept precious manuscripts protected and passed down.

I think I like you

 

[brewmama]

I think I like you

Aw, thanks! Same to you! :wave:

 

[chrysostom]

Europe was never under threat of invasion except for a couple islands off of the Italian coast

“In this inquiry I shall unfold the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbours of Gaul, from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran; that protected the majesty of Rome, and delayed the servitude of Constantinople; that invigorated the defence of the Christians, and scattered among their enemies the seeds of division and decay.”

The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

 

[brewmama]

"During the Middle Ages you could not find a Christian in Europe who did not believe that the Crusades were an act of highest good. Even the Muslims respected the ideals of the Crusades and the piety of the men who fought them. But that all changed with the Protestant Reformation. For Martin Luther, who had already jettisoned the Christian doctrines of papal authority and indulgences, the Crusades were nothing more than a ploy by a power-hungry papacy. Indeed, he argued that to fight the Muslims was to fight Christ himself, for it was he who had sent the Turks to punish Christendom for its faithlessness. When Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and his armies began to invade Austria, Luther changed his mind about the need to fight, but he stuck to his condemnation of the Crusades. During the next two centuries people tended to view the Crusades through a confessional lens: Protestants demonized them, Catholics extolled them. As for Suleiman and his successors, they were just glad to be rid of them.

It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born."

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp