Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

[koshergrl]

The established Christian populations of the Middle East cried out for European assistance when the invading Muslims began to persecute them. For some reason, today's non educated idiots seem to think that the Christian populations in Byzantium and other areas were TRANSPLANTS from Europe. That is complete bogus claptrap. The Middle East was the seat of Christianity. The Christian populations were established from the time of Christ, and had replaced the (invading) Roman paganism when Rome withdrew via a natural, grass roots Christian conversion movement.

Then came the muslims on waves of jihad. The civilized and established Christian governments begged for help from their (newer Christian convert) Europeans.

That was what prompted the crusades. It wasn't "European Christians" invading to oust the native muslim population. It was the native Christian population being attacked by foreign muslims, and crying out for help from their Christian brethren, who responded.

"Beginning in the 11th century, Christians in Jerusalem were increasingly persecuted by the city’s Islamic rulers, especially when control of the holy city passed from the relatively tolerant Egyptians to the Seljuk Turks in 1071. Late in the century, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comenus, also threatened by the Seljuk Turks, appealed to the West for aid. In 1095, Pope Urban II publicly called for a crusade to aid Eastern Christians and recover the holy lands. The response by Western Europeans was immediate."

Dumbfucks who don't know history shouldn't argue it. None of this is *contested* history.

Jerusalem captured in First Crusade - Jul 14, 1099 - HISTORY.com

 

[koshergrl]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

Another idiotic lie.

They hadn't been living under Muslim rule for centuries. They were Christian BEFORE MOHOMMED WAS BORN.

Fucking idiot.

 

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

your statement does not make much sense, alang 1000 years ago----
things did not happen---THE NEXT DAY. The barbaric Islamic sweep
thru Christian middle east and Europe was an ONGOING AFFAIR-----for
"CENTURIES" ---------it took time for REACTION in some places---like
"CENTURIES" Living under the filth and stench of Islamic oppression
is not something people "get used to...." just because it went on for CENTURIES. In the Americas-----black slavery went on for CENTURIES----
it was never any good

 

[alang1216]

"The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

"The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics."

I'm not sure why anybody would try to deny an accepted reality that the muslims themselves are quite proud of.

Who's denying history? Show me a conquest that was not fueled by greed and politics. Religion often provides a convenient rationale.

The answer...leftist pos whitewash the nature of muslim by lying to American students about the nature and history of Islam, in order to facilitate the destruction of the US.

I think similar things were said of Irish and Italian Catholics when they began to arrive in the US.

 

[koshergrl]

"The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

"The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics."

I'm not sure why anybody would try to deny an accepted reality that the muslims themselves are quite proud of.

Who's denying history? Show me a conquest that was not fueled by greed and politics. Religion often provides a convenient rationale.

The answer...leftist pos whitewash the nature of muslim by lying to American students about the nature and history of Islam, in order to facilitate the destruction of the US.

I think similar things were said of Irish and Italian Catholics when they began to arrive in the US.

Nonsense..and irrelevant.

The Irish and Italian Catholics did not slaughter people or engage in jihad.

Nice try.

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

Another idiotic lie.

They hadn't been living under Muslim rule for centuries. They were Christian BEFORE MOHOMMED WAS BORN.

Fucking idiot.

You should read the history you post you'd learn something. Muslims conquered Palestine in the 600's, the Crusaders showed up more than 400 years later. The Christians and Jews living in Palestine were under Muslim rule for those centuries.

 

[irosie91]

The answer...leftist pos whitewash the nature of muslim by lying to American students about the nature and history of Islam, in order to facilitate the destruction of the US.

I think similar things were said of Irish and Italian Catholics when they began to arrive in the US.[/QUOTE]


nope-----different things were said

 

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

Another idiotic lie.

They hadn't been living under Muslim rule for centuries. They were Christian BEFORE MOHOMMED WAS BORN.

Fucking idiot.

You should read the history you post you'd learn something. Muslims conquered Palestine in the 600's, the Crusaders showed up more than 400 years later. The Christians and Jews living in Palestine were under Muslim rule for those centuries.

so? what is your point? they should have become USED to the filth of
dhimmia?-------FOLLOWING the unfortunate fall of the BYZANT to Islamic
invasion------hordes of muslims MOVED ON ------into the Iberian peninsula and
even into more northern parts of Europe----even into Southern France and into Sicily-------etc etc

 

[alang1216]

so? what is your point? they should have become USED to the filth of
dhimmia?-------

No one likes being a second class citizen but please tell me how being a dhimmi was worse than being a serf in Europe?

 

[koshergrl]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Muslims brag about it:

"...the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

"According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

"The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

"The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death."


Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

"... as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad)."


The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

You said "European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians". These Christian communities had been living under Muslim rule for centuries. Who were the European Christians defending them from?

Another idiotic lie.

They hadn't been living under Muslim rule for centuries. They were Christian BEFORE MOHOMMED WAS BORN.

Fucking idiot.

You should read the history you post you'd learn something. Muslims conquered Palestine in the 600's, the Crusaders showed up more than 400 years later. The Christians and Jews living in Palestine were under Muslim rule for those centuries.

Oh I understand that...originally, then, as today, Muslims lied about their intentions and their methods. But as soon as they had infected the area sufficiently, all bets were off.

My point is that they invaded Christian strongholds, and when they became oppressive and abusive the Christians asked for help to oust them.

Then, as now, they lied in order to establish a presence, then they started killing people.

 

[koshergrl]

so? what is your point? they should have become USED to the filth of
dhimmia?-------

No one likes being a second class citizen but please tell me how being a dhimmi was worse than being a serf in Europe?

Omg.

You are truly nauseating.

 

[irosie91]

so? what is your point? they should have become USED to the filth of
dhimmia?-------

No one likes being a second class citizen but please tell me how being a dhimmi was worse than being a serf in Europe?

Omg.

You are truly nauseating.

well----in a sense he is RIGHT k-girl------being a dhimmi is very much
like being a serf in Europe. Both serfs and dhimmis are TIED to a
particular area with a particular ruler who gets to do to them and with
them whatever he wants. Of course serfdom was ENDED in Europe---
the filth of dhimmia persists till today in Islamic law ------and muslims ARE
ACTUALLY PROUD OF THE FILTH. I have never heard of anyone
claiming who WONDERFUL was the system of serfdom

 

[irosie91]

What is happening today is a tad more relevant than what occurred a thousand years ago.

The OT, NT, and Koran are all more than a thousand years old, if they are irrelevant we should not be talking about them.

who is talking about the OT, NT and Koran?

 

[alang1216]

What is happening today is a tad more relevant than what occurred a thousand years ago.

The OT, NT, and Koran are all more than a thousand years old, if they are irrelevant we should not be talking about them.

who is talking about the OT, NT and Koran?

In your #135 Post you said: "Islam is even practicing slavery today here in the 21st century"

You didn't say 'Arabs are even practicing slavery today' so, since the Koran is the source of Islam, that was what you were blaming. I just wondered, if the Koran was more than a thousand years old was it still 'relevant' and if so what about other ancient scripture?

 

[irosie91]

What is happening today is a tad more relevant than what occurred a thousand years ago.

The OT, NT, and Koran are all more than a thousand years old, if they are irrelevant we should not be talking about them.

who is talking about the OT, NT and Koran?

In your #135 Post you said: "Islam is even practicing slavery today here in the 21st century"

You didn't say 'Arabs are even practicing slavery today' so, since the Koran is the source of Islam, that was what you were blaming. I just wondered, if the Koran was more than a thousand years old was it still 'relevant' and if so what about other ancient scripture?

Of course ancient scriptures are RELEVANT-------if you want to know HOW they relate to the practice of this or that religion------ie Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
Islam, Buddhism etc. ----take a look at how EACH OF THOSE GROUPS interpret their scriptures. I read lots of them---Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim-----but I do not INTERPRET them-----I do not DECIDE on my own how hindus or jews or Christians of muslims INTERPRET their scriptures-------I take a look as to how they do so -------both in the past and in the present time

 

[irosie91]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

you got a citation for your allegation that the SPANISH conquerors in North and South America forced native americans to convert to Catholicism ----or FACE
DEATH. ? Its news to me. Try not to tell me about what muslims who ruled
the various lands in which jews had lived even before rapist pig of Arabia was born. My very own husband is an escapee from a SHARIAH SHIT HOLE----his community of jews lived in the land of his birth for more than 1000 years before the rapist pig of Arabia was born. You know very little about islam. Your Imam forgot to tell you what the pig did in Khaybar. The details of the disgusting
PACT OF OMAR have never been repudiated by the followers of the rapist pig

Citation. Neither Khaybar nor the PACT OF OMAR seem so terrible for their time. If Muslims had been fighting Pagans at Khaybar would you be so outraged? Arabs have been living in Palestine for more than 1,000 years so I don't think that's much of an argument. Maybe we should find the Philistines and give the whole area back to them?

sunni agrees-----poor kid. The Philistines never lived in the land called Israel/Judea aka Palestine.
They lived in the area around northern Gaza ----on the shore of the Mediterranean-----sunni habibi-----
find smarter friends They were not "arabs" ----they were Aegeans and they LEFT. Philistia was
actually a small outpost of Aegeans----not much there---so they left. What is "not much of an
argument" about what?

 

[irosie91]

Fought between 2 Christian groups, try again.

Fought between 2 groups that wanted to impose what they considered Christianity on each other.

sectarian conflict between Christian groups is NOT-----as you falsely claim----a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE CHRISTIANITY ON THE NON CHRISTIAN WORLD.
Today-----when muslimah sluts tie bombs to their whorish asses as SUNNI MUSLIMS in order to murder SHIITE children------the issue is SECTARIAN VIOLENCE----not the imposition of the filth of islam on BUDDHISTS

I see no difference between a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE CHRISTIANITY ON THE NON CHRISTIAN WORLD and a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE A PARTICULAR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE CHRISTIAN WORLD. Both are based on religion. The Sunni-Shiite violence is, at least in part, based on religious differences. The violence in Northern Ireland had many causes but it was easy to identify the two sides as their religions differed.

Try again-----the Islamic age of conquest was not an issue of SECTARIAN violence-----it was an issue of the conquest of "OTHER" (read that kaffir)
peoples for the purpose of Islamic DOMINANCE and included the imposition of
the filth of DHIMMIA----on the "others"----(read that as kaffirin)----people were
murdered wholesale just for BEING "others". Their lands and wealth was
confiscated and lots were either enslaved outright or made tributaries via
the perversion of DHIMMIA. ----Sadly, the "UMMAH" has never repudiated the
practice and even presents it as something which the conquered people "welcomed" (quite a perversity---this crap is still touted in mosques and muslim
schools by your "scholars)

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. You are right, Islamic age of conquest was an issue of conquest. Spreading Islam was an incentive for many but so was the benefits of being a conqueror. If that was not the case all internal warfare would have ceased once a region was converted. It did not. Were the Ottomans more interested in spreading Islam or conquest? The Spaniards in the New World were brutal in their conversions. If the Bible is to be believed, genocide and terror were an Israelite tactics.

you never read "the bible"----you are parroting bits and pieces of khutbah jumaat shit

 

[alang1216]

you never read "the bible"----you are parroting bits and pieces of khutbah jumaat shit

I have read the Bible (OT & NT), it is the Koran that I have never managed to read completely. Have you read it?

 

[Picaro]

Did your husband have any problems living as a Dhimmi under the Koran or under the local interpretation of it?

On other threads Irosie has stated that her husband's family migrated from the muslim land where he was born when he was still a baby.

Yet, she still insists on disingenuously casting him as a first hand eye witness in her nonsense posts about Islam and muslims. ......

Well, at least many educated Muslims are less racist than most Orthodox Jews, whom with Rosie claims she felt the most comfortable with, hence why she always just starts calling everybody 'Nazis' in these threads if they don't kiss her ass.

Re Orthodox Jewish racism and bigotry, and why they tended to be unpopular for centuries , some examples:

Maimonides: Islam Good, Christianity Bad, Muslims Bad, Christians Good | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Yori Yanover | 12 Kislev 5774 – November 15, 2013 | JewishPress.com

Jews had more status under Islam, and liked to abuse Christians whenever possible. This is also why the Spaniards and Portuguese thought it was a good idea to get rid of them along with their Muslim allies. It was merely self-defense, as were the Crusades. As for modern Orthodox, this interview with Rabbi Schiller highlights some of the issues and racist nature of Orthodox Judaism, only this guy is intelligent and isn't afraid to ask questions about the problems raised for many of the Orthodox, and the hypocrisy of some liberal Jews in their alleged 'anti-racism' motivations. Conservative and most Reformed Jews don't have the same problems as the Orthodox do.

Judaism, Culture and the Gentile World: A Conversation with Rabbi Mayer Schiller

The self-isolation and arrogant superiority of many of the Orthodox isn't an endearing quality, so yeah, a lot of people didn't like them, especially in the West.

 

[Picaro]

Fought between 2 groups that wanted to impose what they considered Christianity on each other.

sectarian conflict between Christian groups is NOT-----as you falsely claim----a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE CHRISTIANITY ON THE NON CHRISTIAN WORLD.
Today-----when muslimah sluts tie bombs to their whorish asses as SUNNI MUSLIMS in order to murder SHIITE children------the issue is SECTARIAN VIOLENCE----not the imposition of the filth of islam on BUDDHISTS

I see no difference between a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE CHRISTIANITY ON THE NON CHRISTIAN WORLD and a CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE A PARTICULAR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE CHRISTIAN WORLD. Both are based on religion. The Sunni-Shiite violence is, at least in part, based on religious differences. The violence in Northern Ireland had many causes but it was easy to identify the two sides as their religions differed.

Try again-----the Islamic age of conquest was not an issue of SECTARIAN violence-----it was an issue of the conquest of "OTHER" (read that kaffir)
peoples for the purpose of Islamic DOMINANCE and included the imposition of
the filth of DHIMMIA----on the "others"----(read that as kaffirin)----people were
murdered wholesale just for BEING "others". Their lands and wealth was
confiscated and lots were either enslaved outright or made tributaries via
the perversion of DHIMMIA. ----Sadly, the "UMMAH" has never repudiated the
practice and even presents it as something which the conquered people "welcomed" (quite a perversity---this crap is still touted in mosques and muslim
schools by your "scholars)

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. You are right, Islamic age of conquest was an issue of conquest. Spreading Islam was an incentive for many but so was the benefits of being a conqueror. If that was not the case all internal warfare would have ceased once a region was converted. It did not. Were the Ottomans more interested in spreading Islam or conquest? The Spaniards in the New World were brutal in their conversions. If the Bible is to be believed, genocide and terror were an Israelite tactics.

you never read "the bible"----you are parroting bits and pieces of khutbah jumaat shit

Says the poster who thinks Constantine wrote the New Testament, and is forever citing verses with no clue as to their meanings and context, as if it's just a list of isolated verses with no connection to any other verses or points.. lol what a hoot.