War on white people?

[The Land of Truth]

As for the second question, those North African Christians converted to Islam in the generations after the conquest, as they did in Spain. The Islamic conquerors places societal and economic constraints on non-Muslims. When it became obvious that there was not going to be a Christian resurgence, that the Empire was not, in fact, going to strike back, people did the sensible thing and converted. You need to go along to get along, after all.

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

[Scholmeria]

.
How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

[Condunum]

As for the second question, those North African Christians converted to Islam in the generations after the conquest, as they did in Spain. The Islamic conquerors places societal and economic constraints on non-Muslims. When it became obvious that there was not going to be a Christian resurgence, that the Empire was not, in fact, going to strike back, people did the sensible thing and converted. You need to go along to get along, after all.

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

This is a pretty shitty argument.

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

He's trying to make fun of "Islamic apologizer" arguments when none are being made. It's pretty sad.

[Condunum]

.
How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

Historians don't claim that the Islamic Golden Age was peaceful for non-muslims. In fact, Historians are generally among the most outspoken critics of historical romanticizing.

Because they are in fact historians, having the easiest access to first hand information of the time, many of which are war documents because documenting the wars we fight is more important to us than anything in recorded history.

[The Land of Truth]

Depends on what you mean by "originally" (as in, what date are you using as the 'origin'?). Nothing happened to them, there were plenty of Christians in North Africa prior to the Muslim conquests.

Where are they today? It is just that they had a dhimmi status so the Muslims rulers set untolerance on them and forced them to convert.

Chiristianity is more native to Africa and Spain than Islam. That was my point as it was there before Islam.

You obviously don't understand what dhimmi status entails (either that, or you think that the only reason someone would ever convert to Islam is because they were forced--which, as I've already explained--is bullshit).

Right, because people can only convert when forced? There were many socioeconomic and political reasons for converting to Islam, too, you know (like, for instance, lower taxes, more political freedom, more social mobility, marriage opportunities with Muslim royalty, etc.)? (And that's ignoring the people who converted because they, you know, actually believed in the religion.)

Good, now we fanilly admitted that the religious tolerance in the so-called Islamic Golden AGe is notginh more than a liberal myth.

Wow...this statement is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...

First off, I haven't "admitted" anything. Secondly, you don't seem to understand that tolerance is relative. Jews and Muslims were forced out of their homes in Europe by Christians (and those who wouldn't leave were slaughtered)--and this happened on a mass-scale numerous times (Inquisition, anyone?). (Also, who was it that took the Jews in after Ferdinand and Isabella threw them out? Oh, right, the Ottomans.) Now, compare that to being able to live your life relatively freely for a mere tax (granted, it was a higher tax than you had to pay if you were Muslim, but it was still better than being forcefully thrown out of your home). (If you'll look back through the Muslims' Golden Age--and it was a Golden Age for more reasons than just 'tolerance' (like, for instance: algebra, astronomy, biology, taxonomy, language, philosophy, art, culture, etc.)--you'll notice that persecutions of Christians and Jews was sporadic and done by very zealous leaders, rather than the systematic and all-too-common manner carried out by Europeans).

As for your "liberal myth" bullshit, I'm sorry but, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

[The Land of Truth]

.
How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.

Again, tolerance is relative (and, therefore, subjective). Hence why comparing historical peoples to modern peoples in such categories is considered asinine.

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.[/quote]

Or, your brain is just reaching biased conclusions based on Islamophobia (hmm, I wonder which one's more likely?). No, the First Crusade was waged because Muslim raiders were harassing Christian pilgrims (without the consent of the government), the rest were waged because they forgot what a 'garrison' was and that hurt their pride.

Also, no, the land was originally Jewish (you are aware that Judaism is a lot older than Christianity, right?).

[The Land of Truth]

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.


You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

Historians don't claim that the Islamic Golden Age was peaceful for non-muslims. In fact, Historians are generally among the most outspoken critics of historical romanticizing.

Because they are in fact historians, having the easiest access to first hand information of the time, many of which are war documents because documenting the wars we fight is more important to us than anything in recorded history.

Indeed. I further feel the need to clarify: No one's denying that non-Muslims were persecuted. It simply was not the mass, full-scale persecution that many Christians like to claim it was.

[Condunum]

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.

Again, tolerance is relative (and, therefore, subjective). Hence why comparing historical peoples to modern peoples in such categories is considered asinine.

You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

Or, your brain is just reaching biased conclusions based on Islamophobia (hmm, I wonder which one's more likely?). No, the First Crusade was waged because Muslim raiders were harassing Christian pilgrims (without the consent of the government), the rest were waged because they forgot what a 'garrison' was and that hurt their pride.

Also, no, the land was originally Jewish (you are aware that Judaism is a lot older than Christianity, right?).

The only thing that matters is that White Christian Europeans were hurt, who cares about the Jews?

[The Land of Truth]

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

This is a pretty shitty argument.

How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)


What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

He's trying to make fun of "Islamic apologizer" arguments when none are being made. It's pretty sad.

I agree, delusion is sad.

[The Land of Truth]

Again, tolerance is relative (and, therefore, subjective). Hence why comparing historical peoples to modern peoples in such categories is considered asinine.



Or, your brain is just reaching biased conclusions based on Islamophobia (hmm, I wonder which one's more likely?). No, the First Crusade was waged because Muslim raiders were harassing Christian pilgrims (without the consent of the government), the rest were waged because they forgot what a 'garrison' was and that hurt their pride.

Also, no, the land was originally Jewish (you are aware that Judaism is a lot older than Christianity, right?).

The only thing that matters is that White Christian Europeans were hurt, who cares about the Jews?

Oh, of course, how could I be so silly?

[Condunum]

The only thing that matters is that White Christian Europeans were hurt, who cares about the Jews?

Oh, of course, how could I be so silly?

I think what should go without mentioning, but does not, is that Jewish Europeans were heavily prosecuted against during the time of the Islamic Golden Age, to the point that they had to create an entire language to keep themselves secure in their communities.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As for the second question, those North African Christians converted to Islam in the generations after the conquest, as they did in Spain. The Islamic conquerors places societal and economic constraints on non-Muslims. When it became obvious that there was not going to be a Christian resurgence, that the Empire was not, in fact, going to strike back, people did the sensible thing and converted. You need to go along to get along, after all.

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

Well, some of the crusades were justified in their view, somewhat. I mean, their primary goal was to take over the Holy Land (or the state of Israel/Judaea) and to do so they figured they needed to get rid of the Muslims.

However, how does the sacking and destruction of Constantinople has anything to do with Islam? Constantinople, mind, was the practical target of Western Europe during the 4th crusade instead of Jerusalem as originally intended.

[Scholmeria]

You obviously don't understand what dhimmi status entails (either that, or you think that the only reason someone would ever convert to Islam is because they were forced--which, as I've already explained--is bullshit).

So you are aware that non-Muslims were discriminated yet still has the courage to defend them as a "Golden Age"?

You see how do you get nervous once you realising that your "knowledge" is nothing more than propaganda?


Wow...this statement is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...

First off, I haven't "admitted" anything. Secondly, you don't seem to understand that tolerance is relative. Jews and Muslims were forced out of their homes in Europe by Christians (and those who wouldn't leave were slaughtered)--and this happened on a mass-scale numerous times (Inquisition, anyone?).

So, were Christians out from Sicily yet to fail that to judge.

(

Also, who was it that took the Jews in after Ferdinand and Isabella threw them out? Oh, right, the Ottomans.

)
The Ottomans were genocidal maniac who killed many people in the Balkans just because they are of wrong faith. Where do you have this courage to even justify them?

Now, compare that to being able to live your life relatively freely for a mere tax (granted, it was a higher tax than you had to pay if you were Muslim, but it was still better than being forcefully thrown out of your home). (

You are opverlooking that the Byzantines were more richer and civiliser than the Muslims so it is logical they would first exploit them than kill them.

If you'll look back through the Muslims' Golden Age--and it was a Golden Age for more reasons than just 'tolerance' (like, for instance: algebra, astronomy, biology, taxonomy, language, philosophy, art, culture, etc.)--you'll notice that persecutions of Christians and Jews was sporadic and done by very zealous leaders, rather than the systematic and all-too-common manner carried out by Europeans).

Inqisitution killed less than 15 000 tousand people. The Ottomans and Muslims dislaced over several nations. Yet you are two faced and hypocritical to realise that.

Also, the Middle Ages were not so undevelop as you want to potray them. It has also its development in algebra and philosophy, literature (Latin language) and so on

As for your "liberal myth" bullshit, I'm sorry but, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Sure, for self-hating complexed Westerners.

Historians don't claim that the Islamic Golden Age was peaceful for non-muslims. In fact, Historians are generally among the most outspoken critics of historical romanticizing.

Because they are in fact historians, having the easiest access to first hand information of the time, many of which are war documents because documenting the wars we fight is more important to us than anything in recorded history.

Yeah, my ass. Than please explain this post, where does people get this impression that the Islamic Golden Age was something wonderful?

Look just the post after your.

[Othelos]

I like how you add "non-hispanic" to the white option.

There are white Hispanics....

[Soldati Senza Confini]

.
How are constrains impossible? Ever heard of the jizya? That's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay while living under Muslim rule. Not to mention everything I listed in my previous post (i.e. marriage/political opportunities, socioeconomic status, etc.)

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.

What?...What does this have to do with anything? (And yes, they were villains--starting wars over religion tends to make you seem like a bit of dick.)

You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

[Scholmeria]

Well, some of the crusades were justified in their view, somewhat. I mean, their primary goal was to take over the Holy Land (or the state of Israel/Judaea) and to do so they figured they needed to get rid of the Muslims. to liberate from Muslims.

However, how does the sacking and destruction of Constantinople has anything to do with Islam? Constantinople, mind, was the practical target of Western Europe during the 4th crusade instead of Jerusalem as originally intended.

I will admitt that was the failure of Christians that they did not held together. To be more precisely it was the faulth of Venice and a little bit of the Byzantine (the same army that destroyed Constitantinople destroyes the city of Zadar and conquerred it for Venice which was btw a Catholic city back than) side as they just looked they own interest. But that does not change the liberating character of the Crusader wars. Even the Muslims tribes had their quarrels between themselfs so it is not something unusuall.

Than again it is impressive how they manage to stand so long in the Holy land despite being sourounded by Jihadist. In one case they even look like Israel today, alone standing against hostile tribes.

[Condunum]

You obviously don't understand what dhimmi status entails (either that, or you think that the only reason someone would ever convert to Islam is because they were forced--which, as I've already explained--is bullshit).

So you are aware that non-Muslims were discriminated yet still has the courage to defend them as a "Golden Age"?

You see how do you get nervous once you realising that your "knowledge" is nothing more than propaganda?


Wow...this statement is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...

First off, I haven't "admitted" anything. Secondly, you don't seem to understand that tolerance is relative. Jews and Muslims were forced out of their homes in Europe by Christians (and those who wouldn't leave were slaughtered)--and this happened on a mass-scale numerous times (Inquisition, anyone?).

So, were Christians out from Sicily yet to fail that to judge.

(

Also, who was it that took the Jews in after Ferdinand and Isabella threw them out? Oh, right, the Ottomans.

)
The Ottomans were genocidal maniac who killed many people in the Balkans just because they are of wrong faith. Where do you have this courage to even justify them?

Now, compare that to being able to live your life relatively freely for a mere tax (granted, it was a higher tax than you had to pay if you were Muslim, but it was still better than being forcefully thrown out of your home). (

You are opverlooking that the Byzantines were more richer and civiliser than the Muslims so it is logical they would first exploit them than kill them.

If you'll look back through the Muslims' Golden Age--and it was a Golden Age for more reasons than just 'tolerance' (like, for instance: algebra, astronomy, biology, taxonomy, language, philosophy, art, culture, etc.)--you'll notice that persecutions of Christians and Jews was sporadic and done by very zealous leaders, rather than the systematic and all-too-common manner carried out by Europeans).

Inqisitution killed less than 15 000 tousand people. The Ottomans and Muslims dislaced over several nations. Yet you are two faced and hypocritical to realise that.

Also, the Middle Ages were not so undevelop as you want to potray them. It has also its development in algebra and philosophy, literature (Latin language) and so on

As for your "liberal myth" bullshit, I'm sorry but, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Sure, for self-hating complexed Westerners.

Historians don't claim that the Islamic Golden Age was peaceful for non-muslims. In fact, Historians are generally among the most outspoken critics of historical romanticizing.

Because they are in fact historians, having the easiest access to first hand information of the time, many of which are war documents because documenting the wars we fight is more important to us than anything in recorded history.

Yeah, my ass. Than please explain this post, where does people get this impression that the Islamic Golden Age was something wonderful?

Look just the post after your.

The Islamic Golden Age was wonderful. For Muslims. That's generally implied considering it was their golden age. I'm suspecting you've never actually talked with a historian if your proof for historians claiming the golden age was great for non-muslims is a post in this thread.

[Scholmeria]

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

True, but the Jews had no power there [in the Holy land] and were also discriminated by Muslims. From their point of view it was egal who ever was charge of the land.

[Condunum]

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

True, but the Jews had no power there [in the Holy land] and were also discriminated by Muslims. From their point of view it was egal who ever was charge of the land.

As they were in Christian Europe. In fact, worse so in Europe. Jewish people have a long history of being discriminated against by everyone ever.

[The Land of Truth]

So you are aware that non-Muslims were discriminated yet still has the courage to defend them as a "Golden Age"?

Yes. The fact that you don't know what "Golden Age" means doesn't mean others can't.

You see how do you get nervous once you realising that your "knowledge" is nothing more than propaganda?

You see how asserting something is true doesn't make it true?

So, were Christians out from Sicily yet to fail that to judge.

What? This question literally makes no sense. (I mean that. The syntax and grammar are almost non-existent.)

The Ottomans were genocidal maniac who killed many people in the Balkans just because they are of wrong faith. Where do you have this courage to even justify them?

Source?

You are opverlooking that the Byzantines were more richer and civiliser than the Muslims so it is logical they would first exploit them than kill them.

Um, what? I never mentioned the Byzantines, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Inqisitution killed less than 15 000 tousand people. The Ottomans and Muslims dislaced over several nations. Yet you are two faced and hypocritical to realise that.

Source?

Also, the Middle Ages were not so undevelop as you want to potray them. It has also its development in algebra and philosophy, literature (Latin language) and so on

Never said anything remotely close to that.

Sure, for self-hating complexed Westerners.

Again, syntax and grammar.

Yeah, my ass. Than please explain this post, where does people get this impression that the Islamic Golden Age was something wonderful?

Look just the post after your.

It's called Romanticism.

[Farnhamia]

So, we agree that the islamic civilisation was never tolerant unlike the modern-day western "unbiased" historians are telling us. It is just a myth.


You see, your brain does not let you to make non-biased conclusion due to your long-year propaganda. To be precisely they started the war to liberate Christians which was there fully acceptable given that the land was originally Christian.

I am just busting thoose myth that I often hear on this forum, so dont use it personal.

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

You left out the Bar Kochba Revolt in the 130s, after which the Jews were expelled from Judaea and the area renamed Syria Palaestina. This is considered the beginning of the Jewish diaspora. Did Jews remain in Palestine? Yes, some, but as a distinct minority. After the Empire became Christian the majority of the people throughout the Levant were Christians. There wasn't a majority Jewish state there until the creation of Israel.

[Scholmeria]

As they were in Christian Europe. In fact, worse so in Europe. Jewish people have a long history of being discriminated against by everyone ever.

They were discriminated in Europe, but not worse than in the Islamic world (another example of the bias). The fact that they managed to live in Europe in a larger number than in the Islamic world (also saying for the pre-WW2 period) just prooves that the Islamic rule was not worser or better than the Christian rule.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yeah, my ass. Than please explain this post, where does people get this impression that the Islamic Golden Age was something wonderful?

Look just the post after your.

Yeah, my ass. Than please explain this post, where does people get this impression that the Islamic Golden Age was something wonderful?

Look just the post after your.

The Golden Age doesn't mean what you think it means.

A Golden Age usually means a period of prosperity for a nation or group of people in which there's also many advances in science and technology and the study of the humanities. It denotes an era in which the people spoken about are at their peak and there will not be any other period we can compare such levels of prosperity in their history.

Even America has a Golden Age (I put it along the lines of the late 1940s to early 1950s because of our impressive power after World War 2, but other Historians may disagree). But a Golden Age doesn't mean it was good for everyone, it just means it was the best period of time for a given people we study. Nothing more.

[The Land of Truth]

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

You left out the Bar Kochba Revolt in the 130s, after which the Jews were expelled from Judaea and the area renamed Syria Palaestina. This is considered the beginning of the Jewish diaspora. Did Jews remain in Palestine? Yes, some, but as a distinct minority. After the Empire became Christian the majority of the people throughout the Levant were Christians. There wasn't a majority Jewish state there until the creation of Israel.

Wow, the Romans basically fucked the Jews out of a country of their own for over a millennium...

Psh, pansies, I'm sure they had been let by the light of God (which they would be about two centuries later, anyway, but we don't need to talk about that) it would've been two millennia! Then the Jews would've seen the error of their ways. *nods*

[The Land of Truth]

As they were in Christian Europe. In fact, worse so in Europe. Jewish people have a long history of being discriminated against by everyone ever.

They were discriminated in Europe, but not worse than in the Islamic world (another example of the bias). The fact that they managed to live in Europe in a larger number than in the Islamic world (also saying for the pre-WW2 period) just prooves that the Islamic rule was not worser or better than the Christian rule.

That's a non sequitur. (Saying that there were more Jews in Europe--which I'd like a source for--because they were treated better is like saying there are a lot of black people in the US because the US treats black people so well.)