(CNN) -- the Iraq War was a war for oil

[Futuwwa]

I am flabbergasted that you believe the words of kufar and not from the muslims, especially during that day or age.

Okay, care to cite any Muslim primary source from that age which supports your position?

It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades. I dont have to post any source which rebuttles your thinking, with simply logic you will know that the muslims protected christians and jews who lived in al-andalus and provided, gave them money for their pilgrimage to jerusalem. Their caravans were even protected by muslim soldiers, so how comes abuse there into play? The jews and christians were enitrely thankful of the muslims.

What "simple logic". Sorry bro, it doesn't work that way. If it's so simple, then show me the logic. Make a simple logical deduction showing that it must be so.

What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.

All this time you're making statements and claiming them to be simple matters of fact, claiming them to be "widely researched". Can you show some of that research?

Are you also going to believe the words of them to justify their wars on afghanistan, iraq, mali, somalia et cetera?

Irrelevant and undignified of a response. Can you stop insinuating that people who disagree with you must be stooges of propaganda?

 

[GuestFellow]

LOL with the use of the word bro.

I read somewhere that Muslims protected Jews and Christians from Christian crusaders.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

What "simple logic". Sorry bro, it doesn't work that way. If it's so simple, then show me the logic. Make a simple logical deduction showing that it must be so.

What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.

All this time you're making statements and claiming them to be simple matters of fact, claiming them to be "widely researched". Can you show some of that research?

Lectures, books. Infact read the book of islam and the west, also watch these lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU58A2Vh5rl9mYQGILRxFWUiq3Fc4gLGl

What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.

Foolish statement, al-andalus fits in this picture, because of the treatment the jews and christians recieved. They never were tortured nor subjugated by the muslims. But its alright, you can believe the kufar sources. May Allah protect you from ignorance. Ameen.

The abuse claims were easily to be disproved because of the muslim protection the pilgrims recieved. So you think that the muslims would abuse them and at the same time protect them? Genius! and now you are going to twist things around and ask for sources, well i gave. lectures and a book for you to read, how nice is it?

Irrelevant and undignified of a response. Can you stop insinuating that people who disagree with you must be stooges of propaganda?

Actually, if you believe these things then you are also vunerable to the propaganda made by the zionist-led west crusades happening today. Never said you were, however its your own disorted view of these crusades that you get painted like that.

Anyway, dont reply till you have read the book and watched the lectures.

Assalam alaykum.

there are other lectures as well which mention this. Lectures about the life of salahuddin(Ra).

here is a small series/lecture on salahuddin(Ra):

You simply ask for me to prove anything, but why wont you do some effort and say ''hey maybe i am wrong, and maybe he is right, let me find some series or lectures and come back to rebuttle him, if he is right then i will accept it and say it to him'

 

[Futuwwa]

Lectures, books. Infact read the book of islam and the west, also watch these lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU58A2Vh5rl9mYQGILRxFWUiq3Fc4gLGl

Your own lectures. How nice. Since they are yours, how about skipping directly to the evidence? I'm not going to spend almost two hours watching lectures that I don't have any reason to believe will be educational in the slightest. If you're capable of making an argument for your case in your lectures, you are capable of copypasting it here. Same for that book.

Foolish statement, al-andalus fits in this picture, because of the treatment the jews and christians recieved. They never were tortured nor subjugated by the muslims. But its alright, you can believe the kufar sources.

How does the fact that Jews and Christians were treated well in Al-Andalus prove that they were treated well in Palestine, which is on the opposite end of the Mediterranean and under a completely different regime?

May Allah protect you from ignorance. Ameen.

May Allah help you realize how utterly in error you are and inspire you to bow down before my superior intellect and wisdom

The abuse claims were easily to be disproved because of the muslim protection the pilgrims recieved. So you think that the muslims would abuse them and at the same time protect them? Genius! and now you are going to twist things around and ask for sources, well i gave. lectures and a book for you to read, how nice is it?

Pray tell, which Islamic state or other polity provided protection to Christian pilgrims in Palestine during the late 11th century? We're talking about the time period of about 1080-1095, the time window during which the alleged pilgrim abuse would have taken place.

The fact that some particular Islamic state at a specific time in a specific place would have provided pilgrim protection (if it indeed did) does not prove that all Islamic states always would have, or that no Muslims anywhere ever could have abused them.

 

[Independent]

The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it.

As Futuwwa has said, the reality is less important than what they believed. The Crusaders wanted Jerusalem back on principle, the same way Muslims would if Christians held the city today, no matter what the terms of access. And the Muslim record is any case not spotless - there were events such as the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and interruptions to both pilgrims and trade by the Seljuks.

The First Crusaders were a highly divided force with no overall leader. It is impossible to see any 1,000 year masterplan in this. The whole mission was insanely risky and should have failed, but astonishingly succeeded.

The Normans themselves are at least notable for their wars against the Byzantines and the First Crusade did permanent damage to the East-West relationship. Following the fall of Jerusalem attention was transferred to Egypt and this was the focus of most later crusades, which never set foot in Palestine.

It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades.

Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???

 

[GuestFellow]

Don't you guys get a headache doing this?

 

[Futuwwa]

Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???

One really has to ask which of these two is more plausible

1. The aggressive expansionist Normans managed to pull off a propaganda campaign of outrage manufacturing and managed to dupe all of Western Europe into believing Christian pilgrims were abused, a propaganda effort that was so successful that the whole thing got out of hand, and the people whom the propaganda campaign was aimed at spontaneously went on a crusade of their own initiative, instead of enlisting in or supporting the Norman crusade.

2. There actually was significant pilgrim abuse during the decade or so before the First Crusade.

:hiding:

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Your own lectures. How nice. Since they are yours, how about skipping directly to the evidence? I'm not going to spend almost two hours watching lectures that I don't have any reason to believe will be educational in the slightest. If you're capable of making an argument for your case in your lectures, you are capable of copypasting it here. Same for that book.

If you are relucant to watch these things, then this discussion is done, thanks for granting me victory These lectures are only uploaded by our productions, but the scholars are just scholars learned in these matters.

How does the fact that Jews and Christians were treated well in Al-Andalus prove that they were treated well in Palestine, which is on the opposite end of the Mediterranean and under a completely different regime?

Because during that time there was not even the slightest incident of muslims killing a jew or christian since the rule of umar ibn khattab(Ra)

May Allah help you realize how utterly in error you are and inspire you to bow down before my superior intellect and wisdom

You realize that you made a dua in a joking manner right? I dont bow down, i bow down to Allah only. May Allah save you from your arrogance. ameen. your superior intellect and wisdom? Gah! Dua's to only make people accepting your selfish notion is a sin right? Dua's are to be made seriously and to be made humble. its the Lord you are praying to, the almighty, the most powerful.

Pray tell, which Islamic state or other polity provided protection to Christian pilgrims in Palestine during the late 11th century? We're talking about the time period of about 1080-1095, the time window during which the alleged pilgrim abuse would have taken place.

The fact that some particular Islamic state at a specific time in a specific place would have provided pilgrim protection (if it indeed did) does not prove that all Islamic states always would have, or that no Muslims anywhere ever could have abused them.

The fatimid caliphate even though shia and conspiring with the crusaders werent abusing the pilgrims. On the other hand, palestine was in muslim hands since the rule of umar ibn khattab(RA). The christians and jews were in full protection and they even sided with the muslims against the crusaders. The kindness and tolerance of the muslims during that time helped them win the hearts of the christians and jews. palestine was peacefull, and no secterian incident was ever recorded since the muslims conquered it.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???

LOL no by hired christian preachers like peter the hermit and the leaders.

 

[Futuwwa]

If you are relucant to watch these things, then this discussion is done, thanks for granting me victory These lectures are only uploaded by our productions, but the scholars are just scholars learned in these matters.

Too bad for you, there is no rule saying that unless I trudge through all sources you post, no matter how long, you win. On the contrary, under established rules of academic debate, you are obliged to show me the evidence directly, on a silver platter, either by direct quote or by a reference that is narrow enough that I can know exactly where to find the evidence. You are obliged to serve me the evidence, I am not obliged to trudge through tons and tons of material to look for something that might or might not be there.

You realize that you made a dua in a joking manner right? I dont bow down, i bow down to Allah only. May Allah save you from your arrogance. ameen. your superior intellect and wisdom? Gah! Dua's to only make people accepting your selfish notion is a sin right? Dua's are to be made seriously and to be made humble. its the Lord you are praying to, the almighty, the most powerful.

ProTip: If you are going to insult and denigrate others' intelligence or understanding, don't disguise it in righteous garb by adding clauses such as "May Allah grant you wisdom".

The fatimid caliphate even though shia and conspiring with the crusaders werent abusing the pilgrims. On the other hand, palestine was in muslim hands since the rule of umar ibn khattab(RA). The christians and jews were in full protection and they even sided with the muslims against the crusaders. The kindness and tolerance of the muslims during that time helped them win the hearts of the christians and jews. palestine was peacefull, and no secterian incident was ever recorded since the muslims conquered it.

During the relevant time period, Palestine was controlled by the Seljuk Turks, not the Fatimids.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Too bad for you, there is no rule saying that unless I trudge through all sources you post, no matter how long, you win. On the contrary, under established rules of academic debate, you are obliged to show me the evidence directly, on a silver platter, either by direct quote or by a reference that is narrow enough that I can know exactly where to find the evidence. You are obliged to serve me the evidence, I am not obliged to trudge through tons and tons of material to look for something that might or might not be there.

Dont have to show the evidence directly, infact these lectures contain informations which will benefit you in your studies of the crusades. If you are relucant to not watch the information posted, then its no point debating or discussing. If you engage in a debate you are obligated to watch or read every piece of information being given to you. If you are relucant to do so, its a lose-lose situation and the debate will just go on and on.

ProTip: If you are going to insult and denigrate others' intelligence or understanding, don't disguise it in righteous garb by adding clauses such as "May Allah grant you wisdom".

Never done so alhamdulillah, thats how you percieve it. I only made dua to Allah that HE may protect you from ignorance insha'Allah. Isnt that good? Propaganda has always been used to justify wars, in the past and today. When the enemies of Allah(SWT) and the muslims demonize us then they do it through these lies. May Allah(SWT) protect us from the tricks and deceptions of our enemies. Ameen

During the relevant time period, Palestine was controlled by the Seljuk Turks, not the Fatimids.

I know, but the pilgrims who came from spain needed to travel through north-africa and egypt was currently controlled by the fatimids.

Don't you guys get a headache doing this?

I have bro lol but it seems like its going to end now since bro futuwwa is relucant to watch and read certain pieces of information i gave

Therefore i will end the debate now, sis islamica wont be happy when she reads the topic and neither will the mods.

May Allah forgive me from upsetting some people during this debate and may HE grant victory to us. Ameen

 

[Futuwwa]

If you engage in a debate you are obligated to watch or read every piece of information being given to you.

Really now? Let's see where this notion of yours will lead us.



I assert that Saladin was a baby-eater.

As proof, I present the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, will you read through the entire 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, or will you forfeit and agree with me that Saladin was a baby-eater? Because under the rules of debate you assert that I should follow, you will have to do either or, there is no third option.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Really now? Let's see where this notion of yours will lead us.



I assert that Saladin was a baby-eater.

As proof, I present the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, will you read through the entire 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, or will you forfeit and agree with me that Saladin was a baby-eater? Because under the rules of debate you assert that I should follow, you will have to do either or, there is no third option.

These lectures i provided aren't long, i agree you have a point. But the lectures i provided are not long and the documentaries i placed. These are still different than from books. So the example you gave is kind of weak. If you want to have knowledge of a certain subject you should watch lectures about it. I only say to you, that gaining knowledge about the start of crusades, the end and how it fits today is not wrong and hence i suggest you to read articles, excerpts from books and documentaries about it. What i said was not a small thing, i just gave some facts about the start of the crusade.

What were the Crusades?
The Crusades were fought during the middle ages by the Catholic Church in western Europe against heretics or in other words, Muslims because their belief differed from that of the official church. The first Crusades was launched by Pope Orban the second in 1095. This was the longest and largest Crusade of the Christian church and lasted for over 200 years, It was fought in the Middle East against Muslims and Islam. The apparent aim was to take the holy land of Palestine which was revered by Christians and was a place of pilgrimage for them. The Pope claimed that the land was controlled by Infidels', which is what they called the Muslims. But the more implicit political agenda was to militarily attack the ever expanding Islamic State, due to fear and horror that Islam may eventually enter Europe. It had already reached the gates of Vienna and France, so the Church inevitably felt threatened.
Crusade Fever
During the Middle Ages Europe was a feudal society controlled by the monarchy, clergy and 'knights'. The church in Europe at this time had the upmost authority, the Pope being the head of the church had the most power and therefore he had political interest in society. The Crusades where part of the church's wish to expand its empire. At the time of his call to destroy Islam in the Middle East, the Pope realised that the church's political interests could be furthered as the Byzantine Empire (controlled by the Greek Orthodox Church) was requesting help against the Muslims, from Rome. If the Crusades where fought and won, it would mean geographical expansion of political power and authority for the Church.
The whole of Europe was gripped by "Crusade Fever ". The military venture was seen as a confrontation between the truth of Christianity against the supposedly demonic and ignorant face of Islam which had been painted by the church. This propaganda Included attacking the authenticity of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who were both tagged imposters, sorcerery, satanic, evil, and pagan. Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was considered sexually promiscuous and lewd, an alcoholic, gambler and pimp. From this wretched fabrication, the church concluded that all Muslims were despotic and evil, to the extent where not only did they resemble beasts in their behavior, but also in their looks. So ridiculous were all these allegations, yet they were unquestioned and lapped up by the people, and added to the justification of attacking the Muslim world. These essentially became the roots of the long and continuing attack on Islam by the west, especially from its development into Orientalism. Years later, when the Crusades were subject of huge romanticisation, Chateaulri and would write about how the Crusades were the
'glorious Christian attempt to liberate the Muslims from the only thing they knew which is force.
This is ironically more accurate a picture of the Crusades rather than the Muslims.
The church had little worry of acquiring the military force that would be needed for the war; the religious hysteria which the church had evoked by using the above and similar depictions of Islam and the Muslims was enough to fund and haul support for the cause of the Crusades. Additionally this was one of the first times in history when European countries successfully mobilised against a common enemy further strengthening the Christian position. Driven by the Church's promise of eternal paradise and martyrdom, and seething, blind hatred for the 'barbaric' Muslims, a mass exodus of knights and peasants left Europe particularly from France, Germany and England, to conquer and ruthlessly kill the Muslims and take Jerusalem.
Muslims Divided
After three years of traveling, encountering Muslims and fighting, pillaging, raping, for example in Constantinople, the kuffar reached Jerusalem and took control. Why did they enjoy such a success? This was due to the fact that the Muslims at the time were deeply divided as a result of the dispute over the Khliafah (Islamic State); there was a division between the Abbasid and Fatimid families. Palestine was the place where the conflict between the Muslims took place, making them weak and the land easy to occupy. After occupying Palestine, the kuffar founded new states which where called "Outremer" (a French word meaning overseas). A king was established in Jerusalem and military expansion occurred when more knights where recruited from Europe, such as the knights Templar. The Muslims closed off the north and Outremer became like a fortress. Anyone coming Into Outremer from Europe had to do so by the sea. Eventually the Templar Knights became rich and powerful and by 1187 they where the biggest land owners in the Middle East. However the Crusaders' power could only be maintained while the Muslims remained divided, the policy they applied to achieve this was divide and rude.
Salah Ud-Din's Rise to Power.
Amidst the turmoil, a strong group of Muslims arose to challenge and defeat the power of the Outremer. In 1144 a Muslim by the name of Zengi took control of Edessa the most northern of the Outremer states, his son Nur Ad Din also participated in the jihad against the crusaders and the weakness of their states became more evident. An officer of Nur AdDin, Salah Ud-Din Ayubi overthrew the Crusaders and united the Muslims. Salah Ud-Din overthrew the kuffar in many areas such as Damascus ( 1174 ) Aleppo ( 1183 ) and Mosud ( 1186 ), these areas surrounded the Outremer. Salah Ud-Din led an army against the Christians in Tiberias, the king of Jerusalem sent knights to attack the army but failed and the Muslims recaptured Jerusalem without killing a single person in the city.
The church in Europe was shocked at the fact that they had lost Jerusalem to the Muslims. The church started to organise a further Crusade and requested the assistance of European riders (or butchers) such as Frederick Barbarossa, the German Holy Roman Emperor who had taken part in the earlier Crusades Philip Augustus of France and (the barbaric) Richard 1 of England known as Richard the Lionheart, who was responsible for the massacre of Muslims at Acre. It was reported that the streets were covered with Muslim blood. Nonetheless, the Crusaders failed to regain their previous stature and capture Jerusalem, and Salah Ud-Din maintained power.
The Decline
It became clear to the Crusaders after a long war which spanned generations that they where not a military match to the Muslims. European leaders left the Middle East after having their own power and authority threatened in their homelands, such as Richard 1 of England who left his brother John on the throne in England realizing that John was reluctant to hand the authority back. Military allies of the Pope lost confidence in the churches loyalty after the Greek Orthodox Church offered money to the church to help them place Alexius, son of the former emperor of Greece in power which meant they had double crossed the Greeks. After the murder of Alexius the Crusaders where sent to capture Byzantium instead. Byzantium later fell to Muslims in 1453. As we can see, the Crusaders had to cope with much political dissension and corruption on their own territory, which made it increasingly difficult to wage military campaigns against the Muslims as Islam was expanding at a rate which they could not stop, or where not willing to take on. More accurately, though victory is in the hands of Allah or He (SWT) says:
We hurl the truth against the falsehood and it knocks out it's brain and behold, the falsehood does perish." (Quran 21:18)
Europe did gain many things as a result of the Crusades against Islam. As a result, Europe progressed materially, they advanced their knowledge in science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, navigation and trade. Many new textiles such as silk reached Europe because of this new trade route established by the European presence in the Middle East, as well as spices and fruit. Many books where translated by Muslims from Arabic into Latin and used in European universities. This period in European history was called "The Enlightenment ". Unfortunately for Europe they only took materially from the Muslims and not the complete Deen of Allah (SWT). The military Crusades where the beginning of the long attack against Islam in the west.
Today Europe relishes in the propaganda against Islam, creating myths and stereotypes and perpetuating them in order to create a climate of Islamophobia. Words like Saracens, barbaric and Infidels where created in the past to negatively and wrongly stereotype Muslims and today they have been replaced by words like Terrorist, Fundamentalist or Extremist as we often see in the western media.
The crusading continues but manifests differently today Allah (SWT ) says in the Qur'an:

"...Hatred is revealed by the utterance of their (the kuffar's) mouth, but that which their breast hides is greater..." (Quran 3:118)​

… and so Muslims must wake up and take responsibility of their situation and educate themselves in Islam, so that they do not feel apologetic about the slander and crusade against Islam, but can stand up and defeat it, like Salah Ud-Din and his army did. Islam is the Truth, we should take pride in that, and remember that the Truth will always prevail. over the falsehood, by the Will of Allah (SWT).

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/crusades.htm

''The Crusades were a series of wars taking place in Asia Minor and the Levant between 1095 and 1291, in which Western European nations engaged using the propaganda of religious expeditionary wars. The first crusade was called by Pope Urban II of the Roman Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to theholy places in and near Jerusalem. The background to the Crusades was the centuries of Arab–Byzantine Warsand the Seljuq-Byzantine Wars and the recent decisive defeat of the Byzantine army by Seljuk Turks at Manzikertin 1071. The Norman conqueror Robert Guiscard's conquest of Byzantine territories added to the problems of the Byzantine Empire. In an attempt to curtail both dangers, its Emperor Alexios I sought to align Christian nations against a common enemy, requested western aid, and Pope Urban II in turn enlisted western leaders in the cause of taking back the Holy Land.[SUP][1]''

[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

It shocks me that muslims like you are not taking examples of history to justify their crusades back then and to justify the crusades of today.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

The Prophet (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a home in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud]

So therefore i stop this now.

 

[Futuwwa]

What were the Crusades?
The Crusades were fought during the middle ages by the Catholic Church in western Europe against heretics or in other words, Muslims because their belief differed from that of the official church. The first Crusades was launched by Pope Orban the second in 1095. This was the longest and largest Crusade of the Christian church and lasted for over 200 years, It was fought in the Middle East against Muslims and Islam. The apparent aim was to take the holy land of Palestine which was revered by Christians and was a place of pilgrimage for them. The Pope claimed that the land was controlled by Infidels', which is what they called the Muslims. But the more implicit political agenda was to militarily attack the ever expanding Islamic State, due to fear and horror that Islam may eventually enter Europe. It had already reached the gates of Vienna and France, so the Church inevitably felt threatened.

Vienna? Already? This is in 1095. The only Islamic power to reach and attack Vienna would have been the Ottoman Empire, which tried to capture it in 1529 and 1683, several centuries after the Crusades to Jerusalem.

That whoever wrote that piece managed to get such an elementary fact wrong should be sufficient reason to reject it as garbage with, at best, utterly incidental correlation with actual historical facts. Are you going to uncritically accept anything you read simply because it's written by a Muslim and happens to conform to a pre-established idea of the Muslims as the Good Guys of history?

Not that there's anything there contradicting the notion that pilgrim abuse happened prior to the First Crusade, mind you.

 

[Independent]

Jedi, you have given a wholly one-sided view of history which makes one set of people out to be 100% bad, and another set to be 100% good. How is that balanced?

Your overview (a 1000 year anti Muslim conspiracy) is entirely conjectural. Above all, it's the absurdity of the idea that western Europe in the 11th century could ever conceive of such a world domination master-plan, when simply getting through the next decade was a constant challenge.

it's a hugely anachronistic account, written with the benefit of knowing what the west would one day become, not what it was in the 1100s.

 

[جوري]

^^ you'd benefit reading more and writing less in general- even if for no political reasons at least historical ones, you know in lieu of the folder they hand you in your cubicle with ready made answers!

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/201302/the.r.lamb.mission.htm

best,

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Thought this was a nice summary of what the Iraq war was about.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Some analysis

 

[IAmZamzam]

Salaam

Thought this was a nice summary of what the Iraq war was about.

That was so moving it actually made me feel ashamed. All I did at the time was basically just march in a single anti-war parade and participate in a few internet protests and and now, ten years later, this blazing voice from the past has made me suddenly come over all sheepish about not contributing more.