Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions.

[duskiness]

edit:

If the purpose was to "liberate" "Christ birthplace" then why murder Jews en route as well as in Palestin/Israel to the point of near extinction? for they were not in control of any government!

Do you think than that the main aim and purpose of Crusades was to slaughter Jews?
There were many reasons for Crusades - social, economical, political, some were low, and some a bit higher (although put into action in very, very cruel and ungodly way).
But idea of liberating (or for you "liberating") Jerusalem was the main one.

as a side note: I don't believe in any "holy war", violence in the name of religion or God. "blessed are the peacemakers"; "turn the other chick"; "put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword". I bet, you've heard it many times....
btw: can you also say that that conquer of North Africa, Palestine, Persia, Spain was also wrong? Violence and sword were used here and here, people were killed here and here...

and to end:

Let us forgive and ask forgiveness!
While we praise God who, in his merciful love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbour, we cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.

Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries.

We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church.

At the same time, as we confess our sins, let us forgive the sins committed by others against us.

apology by John Paul II on Ash Wednesday 2000

 

[- Qatada -]

I found something interesting:

In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.


This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.

What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.


​

Anyway, give it a read.


“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone

 

[Keltoi]

The brutality of the Crusades was part of my point. Holy War is in no way in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church, whether knowingly or unknowingly, spawned a massive army of knights and men-at-arms, men whose very purpose was war and death. The Crusade began as a "holy" endeavor, if you can call it that, but those who carried out the mission set out by the Church were not "holy" men. This points to the obvious fact that theology and the reality of men(and women) are two different things. Whether the "holy war" is Christian, Muslim, or whatever, there is nothing holy about any of it.

 

[Redeemed]

Which would explain why the Crusaders also killed all of the Jews who were living in Jeruasalem.




Source:http://www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/history_9.html







Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades


Now what set off the Crusade?



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Piacenza

IN 627 the Muslims killed at the command of Muhammad 800 Jews because they were left defenseless by the Meccans that the Muslims put to flight. The excuse was the Jews conspired with the Meccans. The slaughter started in the morning and continued till late in the evening. Muhammad also killed a writer because someone said his writings were more interesting than the Qur'an. In fact, the writer said, "Oh Muhammad if you kill me, who will care for my children? He responds "Hell's fire." Now I know that all is fair in love and war philosophy, and both the Crusades and the Muslims committed atrocities. However, it is now a question of the leader’s worthiness; for example, Jesus never ordered such a slaughter. Therefore you cannot compare the Crusades murderous acts who disobeyed Scripture to the mandates of Muhammad. Do you see my point?

 

[Woodrow]

IN 627 the Muslims killed at the command of Muhammad 800 Jews because they were left defenseless by the Meccans that the Muslims put to flight. The excuse was the Jews conspired with the Meccans. The slaughter started in the morning and continued till late in the evening. Muhammad also killed a writer because someone said his writings were more interesting than the Qur'an. In fact, the writer said, "Oh Muhammad if you kill me, who will care for my children? He responds "Hell's fire." Now I know that all is fair in love and war philosophy, and both the Crusades and the Muslims committed atrocities. However, it is now a question of the leader’s worthiness; for example, Jesus never ordered such a slaughter. Therefore you cannot compare the Crusades murderous acts who disobeyed Scripture to the mandates of Muhammad. Do you see my point?

One thing I would like to see you do is post sources for your accusations. this not only gives them credibility but also kepps us all out of trouble from copy right laws. It is also only polite to give credit to original authors.

Needless to say there are always 2 sides to every story.

To argue that the Prophetic treatment of POWs was in fact violent, Mr. Bostom quotes from W.H.T. Gairdner, who tells us about "the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness" at the end of the Battle of Badr, which took place between Muslims and pagan Meccans in the year 624. Although Gairdner vaguely tells us there was some killing and "The Prophet checked these excesses," he doesn't explain that killings POWs after a battle was the standard Arab custom of the day and Prophet Muhammad intervened to preclude that norm. Karen Armstrong, a British historian and former nun, writes about the aftermath of the fighting at Badr:

The Muslims were jubilant. They began to round up prisoners and, in the usual Arab fashion, started to kill them, but Muhammad put a stop to this. A revelation came down saying that the prisoners of war were to be ransomed. He also stopped the Muslims squabbling over the booty, and the 150 camels, ten horses and pile of armour and equipment were divided up equally. Then the victorious army began the trek home with seventy prisoners of war . . . On the way home, Muhammad received a revelation for the prisoners themselves:

O Prophet, say to the prisoners in your hands: 'If God knows of any good in your hearts, He will give you better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you. Surely, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.' (8:70)[ii]

Thus "the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness" that Mr. Bostom's source attributes to Islam was in fact a pre-Islamic practice stopped by the Prophet of Islam.



It is known that the Prophet allowed the execution of two specific POWs at Badr. These were Nadr bin el-Haris and Ukba bin Ebi Muayt, who were notorious for repeatedly persecuting Muslims and insulting Islam in Mecca. In today's terms, this would be tantamount to an execution of war criminals.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15416

D - Harmony is a Goal for Every Muslim
In the year 627 CE, Quraysh of Mecca marched with thousands of men and women of Quraysh along with many other Arabian tribes to attack the Prophet Muhammad in Medina and wipe out the Muslims for good. As you have seen earlier, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes had agreed to protect their city against Quraysh.

Learning about Quraysh preparation to attack their city, the Muslims decided to dig a trench around the city to slow and confuse the enemy. After Quraysh and its allies arrived and camped outside Medina, they sent one of their tribal leaders, Huyay bin Akhtab Alnudairy to the Jewish tribe of Qurathah to entice them to break their agreement with the Muhammad and to join them in attacking the Muslims. Knowing Quraysh's intention, the Jewish tribe of Quraythah closed their castle gates and did not allow Huyay to enter the castle. Calling the tribe leader, Ka'ab bin Asad from outside the walls of the castle and insisting to speak to him proved to be another failure. Determined to speak to Ka'ab over the next several days, Huyay was finally permitted to enter into the castle. The tribe leader Ka'ib, however, told him" You are a cursed man, and I have an agreement with Muhammad that I am not breaking. I have not seen of him any thing other than trustworthiness and fulfillment of promise". Upon this Huyay had left disappointed.
It was reported , however that Huyay was not contended by this, but insisted on returning to Ka'ab with lucrative proposals and protection from Quraysh against Muhammad, until he changed his mind. See Ibn Katheer, Albidayah Wa Alnihayah, Volum 4, page 84.
Although it is unfortunate that Ka'ab broke the truce with Prophet Muhammad (p), this example is a proof of the extent of cooperation and good relation that took place between the Muslims and the Jews during this early period. Furthermore, this example is representative of the good relation, not hostility that both the Jews and Muslims experienced during this period of the rise of Islam.

Source: http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%20Denounces%20Violence.htm

 

[barney]

Islam expanded by diplomacy and by the sword.
The sword parts are explained away by "fighting against oppression".
Apparently you have to go into that persons country and take over it for 600 years to fight oppression.

you see as a "christian" or even just as a westerner, I can say that in times past, we have built empires and conquored by the sword and the lever action rifle. This was a wrong thing to do. When it was religiously motivated, then christianity was wrong.

Muslims cant say that. theyre 100% perfect 100% of the time, and they have never never never done anything wrong ever.

The expansion from Spain to China was totally peaceful, hardly anyone died, and if they did die, they were oppressers and it was all self defence.

Correct?

 

[barney]

The brutality of the Crusades was part of my point. .

In 500 years we fought half a dozen Crusades and killed 300000 muslims.

In 6 years muslims have killed well over a half Millon muslims just in the Sudan and Iraq.

600 years on from the crusades, it's pretty much all a lot of Muslims talk about. In 600 years time, they will still talk about it.

As it's still ongoing, the Massacer of muslim's by muslims isnt mentioned at all.
in 600 years time. It still wont be.

 

[Redeemed]

One thing I would like to see you do is post sources for your accusations. this not only gives them credibility but also kepps us all out of trouble from copy right laws. It is also only polite to give credit to original authors.

Needless to say there are always 2 sides to every story.




Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15416



Source: http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%20Denounces%20Violence.htm

Ibn Ishad. Sirat Rasul, The life of Muuhammad, trans. A. Guillaume (NY:Oxford UNI. Press 1980.) 106
surah6 :25 "fight and slay the pagans where ever you find them." I know that Muhammad did lots of merciful things as well, but it cannot be denied that he left a bloody trail as well. And as I mentioned, it is a question of worthiness. Jesus never told us to do such things! If they did it, it was on them, but Muhammad commanded such things as if they were an edict from God.

 

[barney]

he left a bloody trail as well. .

Meh, they prolly deserved it.

 

[Redeemed]

Meh, they prolly deserved it.

WHY:?

 

[barney]

Oppressing Muslims..



From Spain.



Anyway, Reminds me of the UK in the 1840's. We toddelled about with our missionaries blasting African Impi's with volley fire. Then we built churches.
Missionary to Villagers:
"Jesus says Love everyone, By the way can you bury those family members, theyre starting to rot, I'll do the service".

Politically driven sure, but much of a muchness.

 

[evangel]

Meh, they prolly deserved it.

The world is sure lucky to have such a gracious and charitable person such as yourself to encourage and exhort us condemning and vicious Christians.

 

[barney]

The world is sure lucky to have such a gracious and charitable person such as yourself to encourage and exhort us condemning and vicious Christians.

Sheesh! Sarcasm mate, Sarcasm. I was being Ironic.:skeleton:

 

[evangel]

Sheesh! Sarcasm mate, Sarcasm. I was being Ironic.:skeleton:

Yeah, I figured. It's just that I couldn't see the sparkle in your eye and the joy in your heart on my screen.

 

[barney]

I do have a deadpan delivery.

Anyroad up, I still havnt heard a muslim veiwpoint on my comment that Islam has never ever done anything wrong and it's all been peaceful. In the abcence of that, as a christian , can you hold your hands up and say "Yeah, Christianity has , in the past, got a lot of blood on it's hands.....we're trying to do better?"

 

[vpb]

here we have a bunch of kaffirs talking about jihad, lollllllllllllllll

such a loss of time on this thread.

 

[evangel]

I do have a deadpan delivery.

Anyroad up, I still havnt heard a muslim veiwpoint on my comment that Islam has never ever done anything wrong and it's all been peaceful. In the abcence of that, as a christian , can you hold your hands up and say "Yeah, Christianity has , in the past, got a lot of blood on it's hands.....we're trying to do better?"

Brother we all have blood on our hands to one extent or another and to quote Paul, "I am the chief of all sinners."
What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar. The only difference is some accept the gift and others leave it on the table.
But as far as the blood we're talking about here, yeah the church body has more than enough to convict us. Look at the Reformation and the Inquisition or North and South Ireland or the KKK and you'll see that we have committed atrocities worse than war on fellow believers. The only thing I can say is that whoever you are out there that the chuch (myself included) has run roughshod over, I for one would ask your forgiveness.

 

[vpb]

What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar

;D;D;D what a silly post. ;D;D loll

actually I can't remember quit clearly, I though it was jut De Ja Vu, but it seems to be true. I was definitely there. ;D;D

Wodroow, do u remember anything? or it's just me?

 

[barney]

Brother we all have blood on our hands to one extent or another and to quote Paul, "I am the chief of all sinners."
What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar. The only difference is some accept the gift and others leave it on the table.
But as far as the blood we're talking about here, yeah the church body has more than enough to convict us. Look at the Reformation and the Inquisition or North and South Ireland or the KKK and you'll see that we have committed atrocities worse than war on fellow believers. The only thing I can say is that whoever you are out there that the chuch (myself included) has run roughshod over, I for one would ask your forgiveness.

I Diddnt do it! I SWEAR!, I was Fishing!

However, I'm not surprised that as a christian you can accept infallability and have humility.

<Hugs> You guys are great. Nuts...but Great.

 

[evangel]

;D;D;D what a silly post. ;D;D loll

actually I can't remember quit clearly, I though it was jut De Ja Vu, but it seems to be true. I was definitely there. ;D;D

Wodroow, do u remember anything? or it's just me?

Proverbs 17:21
He who begets a scoffer does so to his sorrow, And the father of a fool has no joy.
Proverbs 24:9
The devising of foolishness is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men.