Kevin: You are a poorly-read right winger who speaks the politics of hate.
And you’re just the run-of-the-mill sciolist who cannot argue points intelligently so you have to resort to these emotionally charged assertions. Gee, who would have ever predicted bigot-baiting from a left winger?
Poltics of hate? What in Sam Hill did I say that could possibly be understood as “hate.”
Aside from the initial conquest by Islam
You’re misinformed. The Islamic conquests lasted centuries, it was not some “initial” swoop that took place and then abruptly ended. Islam was always knocking on the door of Christian territory, having finally been held back at the gates of Vienna.
I could say something about Constantine's army; the Crusades
Then go for it. Embarrass yourself further if you must. The Crusades represented a defensive attempt to reclaim by the sword what Islam had taken by the sword. This is a fact. Christianity was on the verge of annihilation on at least one occasion. Unlike Islam, there was no such thing as a “Christian army” so the pilgrimage was called by the Pope, at the behest of Byzantine rulers, to defend the kingdom from annihilation as well as free Palestinian Christians from oppression.
Islam proved to be a fairly peaceful religion
It is difficult to rationalize how a religion constantly at war – waging war - trying to conquer new territories, could be deemed a “peaceful” religion. But ignoring history is usually what people like you have to do to maintain this silliness.
permitting Christian and Jewish visitors free access to their respective holy places.
I guess you’re completely unaware of the fact that Islam frequently built Mosques on sites where Synagogues or Cathedrals initially stood. The symbolism is obvious: your religious has been replaced. The grandest church of Byzantium, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, for centuries a mosque and now a museum, should be made available for Christian services but it isn’t. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is built over a Byzantine church and to this day contains a shrine said to contain the head of John the Baptist. Christians are not allowed to pray there either. Yet, Israel refuses to tear down the famous Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem because it would offend Muslims; even though it was beforehand the Temple mount for Jews, and for Christians, the Church of the Holy Wisdom. In 1009 A.D. the Fatimid Caliph Hakim had ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This was one of the many atrocities which prompted the belated defense we know as the crusades.
And what you fail to mention is that Jews and Christians were forbidden to practice their faith publicly, although the Popes granted Jews that privilege on several occasions. Even worse, Jews and Christians had to abide by dhimmitude laws, which usually precluded any construction of new chapels or synagogues and refusing the privilege of making renovations to older buildings. The idea was to let the existing generation rot away as their offspring were compelled to convert to Islam due to the overwhelming economic/social burden that was foisted upon them as dhimmis. And of course, polytheists did not initially qualify for dhimmi status so they were given two choices only: convert or die. Only later did some of the Caliphs realize it was more beneficial for them, economically speaking, to grant them dhimmi status. The taxes paid by non-Muslims provided the life-line for the Islamic economy. Why kill a cow when you can milk it?
But hey, Islam was peaceful right? At least that is what we keep hearing from the historical revisionists who refuse to hear the testimonies of those who were subjugated by Islam’s laws.
The fact is Jews were granted more privileges by the Pope than they were under Islamic rule. But the problem was the Byzantine rulers, who never did represent Christianity.
At one time, Arab scholars were the height of knowledge, preserving many of the classical texts we now enjoy today.
Sure, a natural result of conquest, especially the conquest of such a vast territory, is the inheritance of scientific accomplishments of the host societies. Muslim scholars built upon the works of others but that benefit faded relatively quickly. Many accomplishments are assumed to be Islamic when they actually aren’t. But the golden age is mainly a myth. There is nothing “Islamic” about much of it, and in fact, many contributors were anything but Islamic.
For example, Islam is credited with the first hospital, but nobody seems to mention the fact that because of Islam, medical science immediately hit a brick wall. Why? Because they were not allowed to dissect the human body nor were they allowed drawing designs of the human body for medical books. Even today you have Muslims creating a health hazard because they refuse to wash their hands in hospitals that use soap containing alcohol.
The Christian crusades changed things.
Do you have any idea how ignorant this statement is? So the crusades are to blame for the collapse of their so-called golden age? You have it all backwards. Centuries of Islamic aggression prompted the Crusades, not vice-versa. The crusades were a relatively short-lived, weak attempt that accomplished little. The number of non-combatants killed during Crusade raids doesn’t even begin to compare to Islam’s invasion of India where scholars estimate 100 million people were killed. But hey, Islam is a religion of peace right? Be sure to keep rehearsing that in your mind or else you might be compelled to face reality.
Not only did these Crusade kings massacre entire villages of Christian dissidents and Jews, they brutalized the Moslem population and refused Moslem worship.
Very true, but that is what happens when you call a bunch of people from all corners of the continent to unite in battle with not organization and leadership. The Crusades were a big mistake, but Christianity was desperate to say the least. The atrocities you speak of were not ordered by the Church.
Today, we have so-called "experts" such as the one Richard points to in his post, Robert Spencer, who tell us what Muslims believe by quoting 1000-year-old texts.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Those 1000 year old texts are cherished in Islam and knowledge of them pretty much distinguishes the layman from the expert. What do you think those Imams are relying upon when counseling Muslims? The ahadith is what. The biographies of Muhammed as well. You think knowledge of these texts mean nothing to Muslims? They represent the official interpretation of the Quran for crying out loud.
Spencer, described by Richard as a world-class scholar, lacks a doctorate in any field and wrote his Master's paper on Christian History.
Which means his commentary on the Crusades should be given its proper respect, and of course, he disagrees with anything you would probably have to say on that matter. If you’re desperate for Ph.Ds to corroborate Spencer, then how about Daniel Pipes (Ph.D Harvard) Martin Kramer (Ph.D Princeton) or David Cook (Ph.D., University of Chicago).
No doubt Islam has now transformed itself into a brutal religion
No it hasn’t. It is simply going back to its roots. Muhammed was unlike Christ in that he created a theocracy from the start whereas Christ taught the separation of Church and State. Render under God what is God’s and to Caesar what is his.
But, you should ask why? How would you feel if British troops appeared on your doorstep in the 1940s and forced you from your home in Palestine at the point of a bayonet?
Oh no, another Hamas apologist. Here it is folks, the famous “It is because of America and Israel that some Muslims are violent!” Osama bin Ladin’s mission had little or nothing to do with Palestinian cause. He is fed up with the US presence in the Gulf. The Palestinian suicide bombers are only a small fraction of the Islamic terrorism that has spawned across the globe, most of which has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. You sound like that idiot Juan Cole who tried to say bin Ladin’s actions were in response to an event in the region which hadn’t even taken place yet.
Now, living in refugee camps outside of your homeland, for decades no less, you see that the United States provides more foreign aid to Israel that to any other nation on earth? How should you feel?
I would be pissed off at my parents for having so many children living as refugees. I would further be pissed that they left the country in hopes to see Israel destroyed by the Arab nations. Then when Israel won the war, they were dumb enough to think they could just walk back in after their own Muslim brothers refuses to grant them citizenship into their countries (except Jordan). Would you allow immigrants to come to America who were hell bent on seeing its destruction? Get your facts straight.
The problem could be resolved by renouncing monetary support for Israel.
Uh huh.
After all, how was this any different than the Soviet support of Cuba?
Cuba was not a new country that was facing hostilities from every corner at the beginning of its creation.