A Religion of Terror?

Hmmm...since when was it only Muslims? For everytime someone brings this up im always going to bring up the Crusades and what not. So before u bring this up, know that I will bring that up. No one else is exactly innocent. So i think you are the biggest hypocrite. "It might sound offensive" :rolleyes: but its true.

format_quote Originally Posted by justahumane

Good to know ur views about democratic governments. I disagree.

Ur belief regarding Islamic laws is obvious, and permit me to add that not even non-muslims but muslims dont seem to agree with Islamic laws. All muslims states in the world are perfect example of it.

I appreciate muslim's double speak regarding Islamic laws, which other community can make so much noise about something which they dont believe in themselves. It may sound offensive, but in my views muslims are undoubtedly the biggest bunch of hypocrites considering the fact how shamelessly they disobey ALLAH and at the same time miss no chance to create a drama in the name of holy quran. Indeed something unimaginable.

yes, muslim states that aren't even Muslim States..

I'm no expert on the crusades, but weren't they in response to a Muslim action?

Ummm it wasn't.
lol funny how u cut out half the history starting with what someone did wrong. Your quite good at twisting. You deserve an award Would u like one?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

I don't see that happening, just look around the world. Even the passive people continuously are attacked. [from both sides]
Peace.

Dear friend,
I'm imagining based on the simple message you convey, that you are deeply saddened, as am I, at the carnage, continuing, seemingly unabated. Like myself, you are no doubt "in the middle," and as you put it, "passive."

Though I myself have the capacity to respond quite vigorously when provoked, it is my nature to remain "passive," and pacifistic until there is no other option.

It seems that reasonable, calm, compassionate, and loving folks like you and me are caught in a catch-22. It is my only hope that my role, whether it is through communication or action, will contribute in some small way to eventual sustainable peace and mutual coexistence for Islam and non-Islam, a prospect which seems so unlikely in the current context in which Sunni and Shia kidnap, torture, and murder one another with impunity.

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

I'm no expert on the crusades, but weren't they in response to a Muslim action?

In the 7th cent., Jerusalem was taken by the caliph Umar. Pilgrimages (see pilgrim) were not cut off at first, but early in the 11th cent. the Fatimid caliph Hakim began to persecute the Christians and despoiled the Holy Sepulcher. Persecution abated after his death (1021), but relations remained strained and became more so when Jerusalem passed (1071) from the comparatively tolerant Egyptians to the Seljuk Turks, who in the same year defeated the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV at Manzikert.

Jews were being killed in Germany and Poland on there way to Jerusalem before even a drop of Muslim blood was spilled in the Crusades. The Muslims let the Jews and Christian worship there. I think you should see the Islamic History link provided by fi-sabilillah and see this:

http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=111

format_quote Originally Posted by justahumane

No sister, it hasnt sounded least offensive to me, reps to U for being so personal and blunt.

Well perhaps my comments about muslims being hypocrite agitated U and rightly so, but that wasnt personal comment at all sister, it has a valid reason behind it, I m gonna explain to U.

I can bet that muslims themselves have killed more muslims rather than non-muslims. Crusade happened, and stopped, may ALLAH punish crusaders till eternity in hell. but killing of muslims by muslims is still in progress, its time that present time killing should be stopped and than crusade should be discuessed. Coz I feel that we cant change history and only take few lessons from it. I hope U dont agree with it.

Let a news of alleged insult of holy quran by any non-muslim break out, U will see whole muslims Ummah on the roads, shouting their heart out, as if they are deeply hurt and in anger. But ask them to follow the laws of the book they recite, parrot, and make drama out of it........they will simply look the other way. Isnt this action amounts to hypocricy to U?

I bet U wont find a pork shop in any muslim nation, but U can find pleanty of banks paying interest to their muslim customers. isnt this amount to hypocricy? All being done under proctection of muslim government.

There is much more to emphasize my POV, but I feel this suffice, if not, than plz ask for further reasons why I term muslims as biggest bunch of hypocrites. Let me make it clear that not all but majority of muslims are like this, so its nothing personal and benifit of doubt is given to each and everyone.

Thanks.

Personal or not, u "generalized." The way u said it referred to every Muslim. Please dont expect me to sit and let ur comments fly under my nose. I respect everyone, but i wont let someone make a comment about all Muslims instead of the few and let it pass. My reason is just as valid as yours. If i wanted too i could have generalized that all hindus are racist and hate Muslims, but I wont cuz i dont know that. So next time, chose your words wisely and be clear as what u want to say.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

I'm no expert on the crusades, but weren't they in response to a Muslim action?

In the 7th cent., Jerusalem was taken by the caliph Umar. Pilgrimages (see pilgrim) were not cut off at first, but early in the 11th cent. the Fatimid caliph Hakim began to persecute the Christians and despoiled the Holy Sepulcher. Persecution abated after his death (1021), but relations remained strained and became more so when Jerusalem passed (1071) from the comparatively tolerant Egyptians to the Seljuk Turks, who in the same year defeated the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV at Manzikert.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...amic%20history

Islamic history
Refutation to 'The Real History of the Crusades'
By : kadafi (www.islamicboard.com)

All praise is due to Allah, and Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon His Final Messenger, his pure family, his noble Companions, and all those who follow them with righteousness until the Day of Judgment.

The historical distortion perpetrated on historical thinking by Thomas F. Madden is not a new fallacious concept introduced by contemporary Christian revisionists but has been prevalent since the emergence of Islam on world stage. For many centuries, the Christian historians and orientalists directly promulgated lies and fabrications about Islam in order to instil prejudice against the Muslims. And yet in the modern age, Christian fundamentalist historians still continue to carry the flag and propagate indirectly their revisionist theories regarding Islam. A summarised article of Thomas F. Madden's book entitled A Concise History of the Crusades has been published attempting to debunk the old-aged “misconceptions” of the Crusades. He chronologically discusses the major events of the initial Crusade until the 5th Crusade. I will Insha’Allah (God-willing) address the deceptive methods riddled in his article. He writes:
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.
Here, Thomas F. Madden asserts and attempts to justify that medieval Christians were defending themselves from the Muslim “aggression”. Furthermore, he also allegedly states that Islam was born in a war giving the reader the impression that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the early Muslim community provoked the war between the Arab pagans and the Muslims. This is far from the truth. Prophet Muhammad peacefully proclaimed the Message of the One True God and gained many followers. These early Muslims consisted of sons and brothers of the richest men in Makkah and also included slaves and the poor. As a result of their firm belief in Allah (God in Arabic), they were subjected to persecution. The Quraish (Arab tribe) restricted the people from buying or selling anything to the Muslims. They imposed economic and social boycott on them. They even prohibited Makkans from entering into marriages with them. Since Makkah was the land of the trade, the early Muslims couldn’t endure this hardship. Consequently, the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) send the Muslims to Abyssinia where a just Christian king ruled. The Quraish soon discovered the place that they emigrated to and thus send one of their tribesmen to the court of Najashi in order to ask the king to hand over the Muslims. Ja’far, who was one of the Muslims, was permitted to refute the accusations of the Quraish. He said:
"O King of Abyssinia! We worshipped idols in the past and let our lives be consumed by fun and sport. To inflict cruelty upon the weak and the poor was our pastime. We were wrapped in abysmal darkness when Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)" bin Abdullah was born among us. He led us to righteousness and instructed us to shun idolatry. He called us to Allah Almighty. He showed us to be merciful and told us to abstain from evil and shelter the weak and poor".
"O King, we were a people steeped in ignorance, worshipping idols, eating un-sacrificed carrion, committing abominations, and harming the weak without reason until Allah sent us a Messenger from out of our midst, one whose lineage we knew well. His veracity, worthiness of trust and his integrity was also known to us. He called us unto Allah, that we should testify to His Oneness and worship Him and renounce what we and our fathers had worshipped in the way of stones and idols; and he commanded us to speak truly, to fulfil our promises, to respect the ties of kinship and the rights of our neighbours, and to refrain from crimes and from bloodshed. So we worship Allah alone, setting naught beside Him, counting as forbidden what He hath forbidden and as licit what He hath allowed. Our people turned against us, and have persecuted us to make us forsake our religion and revert from the worship of Allah to the worship of idols.
"We believed him, but O King! these, who have come to arrest us are idol-worshippers. They worship idols of stone and wood, inflict barbarism upon the weak. These people have persecuted, pelted and injured our Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)".
The above quote indisputably proves that the early Muslims where rather peaceful servants of God who only promoted peace and only defended themselves from the pagan aggressions. Thomas F. Madden then further claims that the expansion of Islam was only achieved through the use of the sword. Not only was this myth prevalent in the Frankish Europe, but it is still prevalent in the present age in the minds of many Christians. The well known author, James Michener, writes:
No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.[1]
This misconception is also addressed by K. S. Ramakrishna Rao who writes:
My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.[2]
And Lawrence E. Browne who states:
Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.[3]
Professor Arnold Thomas addresses this widely-held belief in one of his books. He writes:
To give any account of these campaigns is beyond the scope of the present work, but it is important to show that Muhammad, when he found himself at the head of a band of armed followers, was not transformed at once, as some would have us believe, from a peaceful preacher into a fanatic, sword in hand, forcing his religion on whomsoever he could.[4]
The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity states:
Christianity has largely misunderstood the nature of Islamic militancy. The fiction that Islam was preached by the sword and Christianity by the lamb and the dove appeared early in Christian writings and still exercises a powerful influence upon the popular perception of Islam. Christian polemicists were quick to contrast the idealized life of Christ with that of Muhammad and his followers, ‘who ceased not to go forth in battle and rapine, to smite with the sword, to seize the little ones, and ravish wives and maidens’.[5]
So in the light of the above mentioned evidence, was the mean of the Muslim expansion always the sword? Ira Zepp Jr, who is another Non-Muslim author, answers the aforementioned question:
It is unfortunate that Islam has been stereotyped as the 'religion of the sword' or that Islam was 'spread by the sword.' The historical reality is that the expansion of Islam was usually by persuasion and not by military power. In any case, Islam cannot be forced on anyone; if profession of the shahadah [i.e. the declaration of Islam] is forced on someone, it is not true Islam.[6]
Thomas F. Madden further writes:
But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
Thomas here conceals the status of Byzantine Empire and the corruption that was predominately during that period. The Muslims never introduced the expansion for the sake of grabbing lands but they conquered the other nations so that they could free the oppressed inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire and exterminate the ignorance and promote free-thinking. And once they conquered these nations, they never imposed their beliefs on the inhabitants since it contradicts the principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion. Edward Gibbon who is regarded by many as the best contemporary historian comments on the Islamic expansion by describing it as:
one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.[7]
Dr. Lebon stated:
"The early Muslim conquests might have blurred their common sense and made them commit the sorts of oppression which conquerors usually commit, and thus ill-treat the subdued and compel them to embrace the Faith they wanted to spread all over the globe. Had they done so, all nations, which were still not under their control, might have turned against them, and they might have suffered what had befallen the Crusaders in their conquest of Syria lately. However, the early Caliphs, who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples ofSyria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practise their laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Muslims."[8]
He further adds,
"The mercy and tolerance of the conquerors were among the reasons for the spread of their conquests and for the nations' adoptions of their Faith and regulations and language, which became deeply rooted, resisted all sorts of attack and remained even after the disappearance of the Arabs' control on the world stage, though historians deny the fact. Egypt is the most evident proof of this. It adopted what the Arabs had brought over, and reserved it. Conquerors before the Arabs -- the Persians, Greeks and Byzantines -- could not overthrow the ancient Pharaoh civilization and impose what they had brought instead.[9]
This is also evidently in the statement of Count de Castri. He writes:
"The spread of Islam and the submission to its authority seem to have another reason in the continents of Asia and North Africa. It was the despotism of Constantinople which exercised extreme tyranny, and the injustice of rulers was too much for people to bear...[10]
So thus, it was due the abundance of good in medieval Christendom that opened the doors of Islamic Expansion. This also resulted to a mass conversion to Islam under no coercion
Professors Thomas Arnold again comments that:
"This misinterpretation of the Muslim wars of conquest has arisen from the assumption that wars waged for the extension of Muslim domination over the lands of the unbelievers implied that the aim in view was their conversion."[11]
One example to note is the conquest of Spain. In 711 CE, an oppressed Christian chief named Julian went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Christian Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick. Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops, burned their fleets, and defeated the 30,000 Visigoths. One of his remarkable speech was after burning his fleet -- "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you, and you have no escape but the truth and patience." A new atmosphere of toleration began for the Jews. The Muslims had few men and needed help in every city they conquered to maintain their rule. The Jews helped the Muslims because they represented an opportunity to free themselves from the Visigoths. The Christians and Jews were liberated in Al-Andalusia. The Syrians welcomed the Muslims as their liberators since they liberated from their religious trouble and also relieved them of the burdensome taxes that that were placed on their backs. They praised the Muslims by announcing publically, “Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and put us under the rule of the Muslims”. A great amount of them converted to the Islamic faith. This liberation goes in accordance with the Quranic verse:
And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourside one who will protect; and raise for us from Your side one who will help!') (An-Nisaa' 4:75).

The First Crusade

The First Crusade was launched by Pope Urban II by announcing that Muslim forces were taking over Christian nations. He further prepared the Christians to bring back the lands under the Christian by retaliate a Crusade against the Muslims. The Pope attempted to deceive the masses that they were fighting for a good cause but only a handful responded to his call whilst joined the ranks to pillage and plunder, or to escape their feudal lords. Professor of History, Joel T. Rosenthal, contributed an article at Encarta Encyclopaedia stating:
They knew little about the Byzantine Empire or its religion, Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Few Crusaders understood or had much sympathy for the Eastern Orthodox religion, which did not recognize the pope, used the Greek language rather than Latin, and had very different forms of art and architecture. They knew even less about Islam or Muslim life. For some the First Crusade became an excuse to unleash savage attacks in the name of Christianity on Jewish communities along the Rhine.[12]
But Thomas negates this significant detail and persists on praising the so-called chivalry knights which reveals his psychological mechanism, namely denial to affirm the true nature of the crusaders.
He then cites quotations of another revisionist named Jonathan Riley-Smith who is known for his islamophobic works. Riley-Smith argues that “crusading” was understood as “an act of love” but according to the ‘The Catholic Encyclopedia’, the crusading was understood as:
wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication.[13]
Thomas also concealed the speech by Pope Urban II who started the first Crusade by calling for colonization of the Muslim world:
For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked. For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them I exhort you with earnest prayer - not I, but God - that, as heralds of Christ, you urge men by frequent exhortation, men of all ranks, knights as well as foot soldiers, rich as well as poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it. And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be remitted. Oh what a disgrace, if a race so despised, base, and the instrument of demons, should so overcome a people endowed with faith in the all-powerful God, and resplendent with the name of Christ. Let those who have been accustomed to make private war against the faithful carry on to a successful issue a war against the infidels. Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who fought against brothers and relatives now fight against these barbarians. Let them zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord.[14]
Compare this with the claim of Thomas who asserted:
It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion.
It is quite an essential detail to leave out the genocide preached by Pope Urban II. Especially if it discredits the whole argument that the Crusades were acts of righteousness. When these “righteous” Crusaders arrived at Jerusalem, they had no mercy on the inhabitants, whether Muslims, Jews or their Christian brethren. Philip Schaff writes:
The scenes of carnage which followed belong to the many dark pages of Jerusalem's history and showed how, in the quality of mercy, the crusading knight was far below the ideal of Christian perfection. The streets were choked with the bodies of the slain. The Jews were burnt with their synagogues.... As if to enhance the spectacle of pitiless barbarity, Saracen (i.e. Muslims) prisoners were forced to clear the streets of the dead bodies and blood to save the city from pestilence. "They wept and transported the dead bodies out of Jerusalem," is the heartless statement of Robert the Monk. ... "They cut down with the sword," said William [archbishop] of Tyre, "every one whom they found in Jerusalem, and spared no one. The victors were covered with blood from head to foot." In the next breath, speaking of the devotion of the Crusaders, the archbishop adds, "It was a most affecting sight which filled the heart with holy joy to see the people tread the holy places in the fervor of an excellent devotion."[15]
This horrendous description automatically refutes the claim that most Muslims were spared. They did not stop at the Muslims but advanced further by exterminating the Jews and the Orient Christians who lived peacefully under the Muslim rule. They took the Muslim women as captives and raped them. Philip Schaff further writes:
The illegitimate offspring of the Crusaders by Moslem women, called pullani, were a degenerate race, marked by avarice, faithlessness, and debauchery.[16]
In Daimbert's comments in the Official Summary of the 1st Crusade, he notes that many crusaders boasted how they rode in the blood of their enemies, whether they were children or women:
And, if you desire to know what was done about the enemy whom we found there, know that in the portico of Solomon and his Temple, our men rode in the blood of the Saracens (i.e. Muslims) up to the knees of the horses.[17]
One witness observed:
...there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes, and after that "happily and crying for joy" our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude.
In the words of The Archbishop of Tyre, he wrote:
It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished.[18]
Havoc was wreaked in the city. Philip Schaff notes:
The Christian occupation of Palestine did not bring with it a reign of peace. The kingdom was torn by the bitter intrigues of barons and ecclesiastics, while it was being constantly threatened from without. The inner strife was the chief source of weakness.[19]
Encyclopaedia of Britannica states:
The great Muslim sanctuaries became Christian churches, and in 1149 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as it exists today was consecrated. Muslims and Jews were barred from living in the city.[20]
So thus in the light of the above cited evidence, Muslims and Jews were barred from living in the city. Their intolerant policies alienated the local populace. One of the sons of Islam recaptured Jerusalem and announcing that the Jews are allowed to return and live peacefully under the rule of the Muslims. The German-Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz stated that the Sultan, opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice.[21] The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207 CE, described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Saladin :
God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [Saladin], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace.[22]
The British Historian Karen Armstrong said regarding the capture of Jerusalem:
On 2 October 1187 Saladin and his army entered Jerusalem as conquerors and for the next 800 years Jerusalem would remain a Muslim city... Saladin kept his word, and conquered the city according to the highest Islamic ideals. He did not take revenge for the 1099 massacre, as the Koran advised (16:127), and now that hostilities had ceased he ended the killing (2:193-194). Not a single Christian was killed and there was no plunder. The ransoms were deliberately very low...[23]
P.H. Newby stated:
The Crusades were fascinated by a Muslim leader who possessed virtues they assumed were Christian. To them to his Muslim contemporaries and to us, it still remains remarkable that in times as harsh and bloody as these a man of great power should have been so little corrupted by it."[24]

The Second Crusade

The second crusade was initiated by Bernard of Clairvaux in direct reply to the Seljuk Muslims who liberated the the town of Edessa. Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade, “The Christian glorifies in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified”. [25]
The Seljuk Muslims saved the whole Islamic domains from total extinction in regard to the wholesale slaughter propagated by the crusaders of populations in Maarat Al-Numan, Antioch and Jerusalem. When they (i.e. Crusaders) conquered the town of Tanis in the Nile delta, they literally slaughtered the inhabitants who happened to be the Coptic Christians. Even their brethren couldn’t escape their spree of murder and rapine. More atrocities were commited against the Jews in Mainz, Worms, Cologne, Speyer and Strasburg. The collapse of the second Crusade caused a deep dismay. They attempted to attack Damascus but due the lack of trust between their allies, it failed dramatically. Their wholesale atrocities continues to prove why the Crusades are noted as one of the most egregious wars

The Third Crusade

Before the advent of the third Crusade, Jerusalem was liberated by Saladin who restored peace to the Holy Land and allowing the persecuted Jews to return. Richard and Philip besieged the Muslim city Acre and the city surrendered in 1191. Richard imprisoned the Muslim soldiers alongside with their wives and children and announced a prisoner exchange. A failure of communications in the negotiations resulted in Richard ordering the executions of 3000 Muslim soldiers and their wives and children in front of Saladin and his army. This ferocious act committed by Richard reveals how below the Christian rulers were in comparison with the ideal Christian character.

The Spanish Inquisition

Thomas once again conceals the Spanish Inquisition which primary target were the Jews and the Muslims. They were coercively, and insincerely, converted to Christianity. It does not come as a suprise since Christianity gained most of its followers through forced conversions. Compton's Concise Encyclopaedia states:
This was a quasi-ecclesiastical tribunal established in 1478 by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella primarily to examine converted Jews, and later converted Muslims, and punish those who were insincere in the conversion.... The Spanish Inquisition was much harsher than the medieval Inquisition and the death penalty was more often exacted, sometimes in mass autos-da-fe. It judged cases of bigamy, seduction, usury, and other crimes, and was active in Spain and her colonies. Estimates of its victims vary widely, ranging from less than 4,000 to more than 30,000 during its existence...[26]
Encyclopaedia Britannica, states:
The Inquisition's secret procedures, its eagerness to accept denunciations, its use of torture, the absence of counsel for the accused, the lack of any right to confront hostile witnesses, and the practice of confiscating the property of those who were condemned and sharing it between the Inquisition, the crown, and the accusers—all this inspired great terror, as indeed it was meant to do.[27]
The only sole reason why the Muslims surrendered peacefully was due the fact that the Christian officials made a binding treaty with the Muslims which is also known as the ‘treaty of 1492’. In that treaty, the Christian officials promised religious tolerance to the Muslims and the Jews. It was an attempt to win religious tolerance for all the Muslims and Jews left in Spain. Since the Muslims were no longer the rulers of Andalusia, they hoped at least that they would be permitted to worship their Lord, The One God, in the manner presented by the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). However, in 1499 CE, Ximenes initiated a campaign to coerce the Muslims of Southern Muslim Spain to Christianity. P. de Gayangos writes:
As a result of his endeavours, it is reported that on 8th December 1499 about three thousand Moors were baptized by him and a leading mosque in Granada was converted into a church. 'Converts' were encouraged to surrender their Islamic books, several thousands of which were destroyed by Ximenes in a public bonfire. A few rare books on medicine were kept aside for the University of Alcala.[28]
The Muslims were dragged through the streets of the Muslim quarter for rejecting to adopt the Christian faith. Consequently, the Muslim initiated a riot protesting that the treaty was not honoured. P. de Gayangos further writes:
Ximenes immediately denounced the uprising as a rebellion, and claimed that by this the Moors had forfeited all their rights under the terms of capitulation. They should therefore be given the choice between baptism and expulsion. The government agreed with his arguments, and Ximenes then began the mass baptism of the population of Granada, most of whom preferred this fate to the more hazardous one of deportation to Africa. The speed with which the baptisms were carried out meant that there was no time in which to instruct the Moors in the fundamentals of their new religion, so that inevitably most of the new converts became Christian only in name.[29]
Additionally, it has been estimated that at least 50,000 Muslims were forced to convert in the mass baptism of Granada by Ximenes. A small amount of Jews and Muslims were deported to North-Africa. The tolerance of the Muslims for the Jews never decreased, so they aided the Jews in the progress of the deportation. In spite of the circumstances, a new Golden Age flourished in North-Africa. In Andarax, mosques were blown up with gun-powder and at Belfique, all the Muslim men were put to the sword whilst the women were taken as slaves. The Muslim children were separated from their parents and handed over to the Church in order to be brought up as Catholics. The Arabic books including the Glorious Qur’an were collected and burnt. H. Kamen writes:
Since the majority of Muslims had been 'converted', the offer of emigration was an empty one, and the 'legal equality' granted by Ferdinand was but a mockery of the terms of the Treaty of Granada which he had so blatantly permitted to be broken. Behind the words of conciliation and peace, the general intention of the Church to eliminate the practice of Islam was unmistakable, and now that the Muslims of southern Andalusia, or the Moriscos as they were called, were within the jurisdiction of the Spanish Inquisition, the Inquisitors embarked on the task of detecting 'relapsed heretics' and secret Muslims. The communities of Muslims which had survived the suppression of the rebellion, or reformed after it, were repeatedly harassed by the Inquisitors.[30]
Thomas writes:
The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished.
On the contrary, Christianity advocated the support of slavery. The Encyclopaedia of Britannica states:
Judaic and Islamic canonical texts refer frequently to slavery and treat it as a natural condition that might befall anyone. But they view it as a condition that should be gotten over quickly. Islamic practice was based on the assumption that the outsider rapidly became an insider and consequently had to be manumitted after six years. New Testament Christianity, on the other hand, had no prescriptions that slaves be manumitted. Canon law sanctioned slavery. This was attributable at least partially to Christianity's primary focus on spiritual values and salvation after death rather than on temporal conditions and the present life. Under such a regime it mattered little whether someone was a slave or a free person while living on earth.[31]
In regard to how women are viewed in the Christian tradition, Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem produced an authentic comparison of the treatment of women between the Christian and Islamic tradition.

Conclusions

It is quite clear that the nature of this article is based on wishful thinking rather than concrete evidence. A thorough analysis of every evidence pertained to the Crusades would conclude that the Crusades were a colonial venture motivated by greed, lack of opportunity in Frankish Europe and territorial expansion. Thomas attempts to justify the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people during the Crusades by basing his opinions on fictitious evidence. It is time for the Christian revisionist historians to step out of denial and acknowledge that Christians are not on a moral high ground. And Allah knows best!

References

[1] James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, p. 68-70.
[2] Mohammed the Prophet of Islam, Riyadh 1989-p.4
[3] Lawrence W. Browne, The Prospects of Islam, London, 1944, p.14
[4] T.W. Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World, p.34
[5] John McManners (Ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Oxford University Press, 1992, p.174
[6] Ira Zepp Jr., A Muslim Primer (1992), Wakefield Editions, US, p. 134
[7] Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
[8] Dr. Gustav LeBon, Civilization of the Arabs, p.30
[9] Ibid, p.30
[10] Count de Castri, Islam: Impressions and Studies
[11] T.W. Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World, p.52
[12] Joel T. Rosenthal, Encarta
[13] Catholic Encyclopaedia
[14] August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye Witnesses and Participants, (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1958)
[15] History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 7
[16] Ibid
[17] In Krey, op. cit., 275.
[18] F. Turner, Beyond Geography (New York, 1980)
[19] History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 7
[20] Encyclopaedia of Britannica
[21] Graetz in his Geschichte der Juden [History of the Jews], vol. 11, published in 1853
[22] F. E. Peters, Jerusalem, p. 363.
[23] Karen Armstrong, Holy War, p. 185
[24] Newby, P. H. Saladin in his Time, 1992. Dorset Press, New York.
[25] Haught, Holy Horrors: p26
[26] Compton's Concise Encyclopedia, Inquisition
[27] Encyclopædia Britannica
[28] P de Gayangos, "Muhammadan Dynasties in Spain," Vol. II.
[29] Ibid
[30] H. Kamen, "The Spanish Inquisition."
[31] Encyclopaedia Britannica

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Stranger~

u have indeed showed ur ignorance and stupidity thank u very much

my advice to u is.............
next time u want to talk about islam- just do ur homeworks and dont make a fool of urself in public.

Such patience, moderation, humility, and compassion are breathtaking to behold.

I have one question about the Crusades that I would like to address to all readers of this thread.

Have you ever met anyone who personally suffered in the Crusades? Have you ever met anyone whose mother, or father, or even grandmother or grandfather suffered in the Crusades.

Given that the last Crusade happened, what, 300 years ago, my questions are of course rhetorical, but my purpose is simple. My point is that, as long as history is used as a reference for legitimizing vindictive violence, any event, no matter how long ago, will serve as a basis for violence. Such an unwillingness to reconcile, and such a strong insistence on punishing people for the behavior of their long dead ancestors is not only archaic, but unjust in terms of contemporary international law.

http://www.ipu.org/conf-e/110/110-1.htm

Sure we have met lots of people who have suffered from the crusades and continue to suffer today......... Stickinh Muslims into prison camps for no reason and holding them on no charges (Guantanamo ), When waging war against covered up Muslim women and passing laws enforcing nakedness and degeneration of thought as the norm ...... when killing and maiming and torturing people in chechnya, Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan for crimes committed by your Govt. to establish its dreams of world domination in the name of the Christian Bush who is deluded somehow that Jesus was a white Republican..... we call it a crusade........ all all them folk are Muslims last I checked... ..... please don't come here and speak of how tolerant the West has been against a minority of people......... I think the West has been pushing so far.... everyone even moderates are just about ready to explode........want to speak of international laws being broken, look at how many Generva convention laws being challenged and ignored by the U.S, your whole new plethora of legislative changes are rendering Americans themselves into criminals..... really man broaden your horizon a little... where do you live? in a bubble with a few pseudo-intellects who share your view and can attest to it? This reminds me of your 70% of the population are anti-Islamic head cover, for which you seem to have missed the point entirely........... so we'll walk you through it in one last time ..........
1-1.4 billion Muslims... surely can't be anti head cover
2-2 billion xtian if they were to follow their book it would be incumbent upon them to sport the same head cover... "The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head."
3-15 million Jews who again must cover by religious law and usually do........
4- A billion Hindu, I am not sure what their opinion is on the matter... the two hindus I do know are semi-conservative in their dress.
so in which cluster pf people did you get your fecund little consensus from.....hypocrites anonymous ???????
Nothing is as dangerous as little knowledge.......


Brace yourself for a man-made apocalyptical event to hasten the coming of the WASP Christ......

on this note...... I would like to call it quits and go into a Sabbatical of prostration these last few days of Ramadan
peace to all........ and Eid Mubarak to my fellow Muslims
May Allah yatqabal sya'mana wa syamkoum Insha'Allah......

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba

Personal or not, u "generalized." The way u said it referred to every Muslim. Please dont expect me to sit and let ur comments fly under my nose. I respect everyone, but i wont let someone make a comment about all Muslims instead of the few and let it pass. My reason is just as valid as yours. If i wanted too i could have generalized that all hindus are racist and hate Muslims, but I wont cuz i dont know that. So next time, chose your words wisely and be clear as what u want to say.

Peace

Well sister sorry if my words gave u a feeling of generalization. My comments were not for each and every muslim. Rather I wanted and still want to restrict my comment for majority of muslims today. If U think that I m wrong, than plz ask, I will try to prove and if I cant, than I will tender my sincere apology for my comments.

Permit me to repeat that ur personal remarks didnt offend me at all, rather I was comfortable and happy with them.

I hope this time I m clear with my message, not all muslims, no way, but a majority of them are like what i said.

BTW I would have appreciated if U had refuted the arguments I made to support my POV. But hope U are looking the other way.

I appreciate your words justahumane InshAllah we can have more understanding

Salaam Alaikum