The Crusades

Gold medal in semantics.

When the crusaders fought muslims:

When the crusaders slaughtered white balts, white christian russians and white christian byzantines:

Active only between 1420-1430 AD approximately.

That was me.

The traditional, conservative perspective saw the crusades as an retaliation against Muslim aggression, with the Arab wars of conquest being the precursor, and the Ottoman aggression being the retaliation to the crusades themselves. Right-wing historians therefore concluded that Islam is the inherently more aggressive religion, whereas Christianity is "soft", but the only thing they got right was that Islam associated expansion with political conquest, while Christianity incorporates proselytism from the bottom up, with missionaries, etc. - however, this view of the Crusades as an episode in the eternal culture wars between Western and Middle Eastern civilization, to which Zig Forums but also liberal IdPolers adhere to, is flat-out false. The Crusades weren't about exporting Western civilization, pre-colonial experiments or wars of conquest in general. The crusaders themselves didn't even saw themself as crusaders; "crusade" is a modern term, what they called it was "pilgrimage under arms". It was merely an attempt at securing a passage for pilgrims to visit the Holy Sepulchre. The Byzantine landgrabs, which consequently happened, didn't matter to the crusaders, and also, they didn't even know what Islam was. In the Gesta Francorum, the word "Saracens" is used interchangeably with "heathens", "pagans" or "polytheists". They clearly didn't care whom they were fighting, just that what they are fighting are barbarians who kill peaceful Christian pilgrims on their way to the holy land. This doesn't mean that empire-building, plundering and power struggles didn't happen, but for the medieval person, such is an integral part of life itself, only we modern people try to draw a line in our heads between those. Being a tyrant and a Christian was no contradiction, and this is a complex problem which I'm going to delve in in a bit.

Why was pilgrimage so important for the people? Because medieval life was centered arround transcendence. Medieval people thought of themselves living in the end times, that eschatological salvation is just arround the corner. To paraphrase that, a medieval peasant would not walk up a hill to enjoy the view. Life is suffering - only in humanism this view could be overcome, which also coincides with the end of the crusades. The so-called "Baltic Crusades" by the Teutonic order were really just the stratification of a Prussian military state, one that would last till 1945, and the crusades against the Ottomans, like the Battle of Varna, were simply defense wars against Turkish expansion. As feudalism developed, the crusades were institutionalized, organized by kings and their officals, used for political leverage, but that wasn't their original cause. What it really comes down to in analyzing this phenomenon is too look into the western concept of knighthood and how it was born out of the material conditions of that time.

Attached: bohemond_mounts_rampart_of_antioch.jpg (792x1055, 245.8K)

The usual concept of "estates of the realm", dividing society into the working people, the fighting people and the praying people is actually a result of the decline of feudalism and a product of the Early Modern Age. Only when the feudal mode of production declined, the ruling classes had to formalize social relations into some sort of "natural order", capitalism did emerge, but it could not get off the ground, the grip of the feudal ruling class was still too powerful, and social relations were organized by feudal right, not by bourgeois right. However, we need to investigate how these relations came to pass. Originally, in the early middle ages the only division made in society was that one between laboratores and miles, which means working men and fighting men - except that here, "fighting" actually means "fighting with your mind", so we are not talking about warriors, but monks and priests. This idealistic Christian conception of a peaceful society was soon outdated with the collapse of the post-Roman bureaucracy and deterioration of Roman roads. If you want a hot take: The development of feudalism can be measured solely with the decreasing condition of Roman roads. As this happened, mounted warriors and bandits, which would later be called "knights", seized control over isolated areas, starting to extort labor products from people in exchange for their protection. These resident sociopaths were initially hated by the church, as the spilling of Christian blood was deemed unacceptable under any circumstance. As this issue became a political one, with Charlemagne being crowned Roman Emperor, it took a few smart popes to realize that the political strata has already broken bread with this new class, as they have given them fiefdoms, originally just for administration, which eventually became hereditary. Their mobility, regional presence and multi-functionality was too valuable for kings, so the church started working on a theoretical legitimization of these warriors, once they realized they too have been incorporated into the emerging feudal mode of production (the pope himself would be granted the State of the Church through a tenure contract). So they would come up with their image of a "Christian knight", valiant fighter for Christ, sinful but on the road of redemption. The ultimate peak of this movement was the creation of the Order of chivalry, such as the Knights Templar or the Knights Hospitaller. Here we have the literal merging of miles as monks but also fighters. However, the Church still hated those knights and the reality of feudalism. This is why Urban II. came up with the ingenious concept of the crusades, which were used to "drain" Europe of these barbarians, wield them as a meatshield to protect pilgrims. They never gave two fucks about the losses of the Byzantine Empire, which was the official reason. And it did work. Europe did indeed experience a short episode of peace, about 90 years, and the original materialist theory, that the crusades were just a way to get rid of second sons who wouldn't inherit anything and were too expensive to cater for, which came up in the 60s, is false. In the First Crusade, we see the who-is-who of European nobility, like Raymond of Toulouse, who could match the power of the weak French king, or Bohemond of Taranto, powerful Norman prince (which the Church particularly hated and still saw them as viking raiders, and the feudal contract they made with them over Sicily was really just more of a hostage situation for the Holy Chair). Going on a crusade was expensive as shit, it makes no sense that a family would afford this for their second son when giving them a dower would be cheaper.

I guess those are just my general thoughts on that, ask me if you have any particular questions.

Attached: priests_exhorting_crusaders.jpg (792x979, 244.95K)

This was more of Venetian debt bondage then anything. Also, comparing "stopping an advance" with "destroying an empire" is poor arguing.

Attached: 13151641_1604570203193660_5979933034224519906_n.png (750x730, 126.98K)

you may as well say NO, U. Zig Forums infograph tier.

Attached: pol.png (1280x720, 21.4K)

based history-poster

Attached: 22308847_1777845722280353_6886246642999482220_n.jpg (274x283, 76.91K)

There are links in the lower left corner, let's see what it's worth
brittannica.com/event/Siege-of-Constantinople1453

Oh boy it's going to be fun…

Actually scrap that, i misread the link, brittanica.com/ got blocked by my antivirus LMFAO

Great post

I'm particularly interested in the transition from classical society to feudalism. My understanding of the situation was that the basis of feudalism started as the Roman empire fell apart and individuals began to carve out pieces to call their own which seems to be in line with what you are describing would this rough sketch be correct?
Also, if you have any books or articles that cover the topic, I would really appreciate it.

We get it, it's a rebuttal. You could have just responded.

wtf I love the crusades now

youtube.com/watch?v=bcQlOTyLSrs

Attached: Genocide Denying Christian Scum.webm (640x360, 10.53M)

Check out Perry Anderson's book "Passages From Antiquity to Feudalism"
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=D506850919AFB63C856850E82780EF31
He's really something of a "Eurocentrist" but only in the best sense of that work. He thinks the linear progression of class relations: slavery>feudalism> capitalism only really occurred in Europe.

I'm not sure I agree with that but his work is well-worth reading.

Youtube does things to a man…

He really let himself go since then.

anything to read on this?

Rightist are pathological liars.

Exposed again!

Attached: 20180415_121819.jpg (492x691, 251.91K)

You seem to have skipped over some highly important details. Firstly, the reason Charlemagne et al needed the support of those knights. As the roads crumbled and the empire collapsed, Islam was freshly birthed and expanding out from the Levant. The Moors didn't hang about and weren't stupid, they attacked the collapsing Roman state immediately. The Muslims poured into Europe and had been halted by a desperate battle at Tours in northern France. Given that the Saracens were practically on his doorstep in the west and the existential threat that they posed to the pontiff and his bishops, keeping the Muslims busy at Byzantium stopped them from trying another attack from Al-Andalus.

Sweet, thank you very much comrade.

literally retarded

Attached: 1b1fa2e793121edccb3de1c9e74c4f5542a2e32b044f50c25a3f120e974709cc.jpg (471x720, 65.39K)

The reconquista was anti-imperialist.

Perhaps she's not quite the shitty goddoss I've come to know her as.
I'm willing to reconsider my attitudes.

Attached: 65b095f767381339b1e96c11e548bab92361b4da29fabde33c2a252ab8883823.jpg (663x700, 141.04K)

They weren't Christian, they were Catholic

Attached: 1359868667413.jpg (200x261, 26.63K)

They are one and the same.

Where are the arguments, please?

Saved.
I have no idea what OP was possibly thinking.
Of course some of the crusades were against northern European countries, but by far the largest and most significant ones were stopping the advancing Muslim hoardes, who had raped and pillaged all the way to Vienna.

it doesn't "debunk" anything whatsoever

It expanded out of Arabia
by 800 it was almost 200 years old
You mean Arabs, retard? Moors didn't attack the Iberian peninsula. An army commanded by Arabs with moorish (berber) soldiers did.
What "collapsing roman state?" lmao. If you mean Byzantine North Africa, it only "collapsed" because the Muslims attacked it and took over 30 years to conquer it. It was divided in religious controversies but it was still a prosperous region. Berbers actually aided the Byzantines against the Muslims (Battle of Vescera). Visigoths of Spain also aided with troops against the Muslim siege of Carthage.
After this the Arabs would attack the Visigothic Kingdom from North Africa and destroy it. But Visigothic Spain wasn't part of the roman state, nor was the Frankish kingdom.
An overrated battle blown out of proportion.
Whose doorstep? Charlemagne's? Are you aware that Tours was fought by Charlemagne's grandfather, not charlemagne himself? This was before Carolingians even ruled the Frankish kingdom.
How does this make sense? The Siege of Constantinople was in 1717 and Tours was in 732. They weren't in any way connected. Your pulling shit out of your ass. Your statement also implies that the East and Western parts of the Caliphate were integrally connected and coordinated, which can't be further from the truth. Also this statement contradicts your previous one that the Roman state was "collapsing"

what

the Muslims don't get to Vienna until the sixteenth century. early islam's spread has more to do with roman ossification and incompetence than "rampaging Muslim hordes"

Yes. Initially into the Levant.
The Rashidun Caliphate didn't get established until ~650. In terms of history, that's fresh. Consider that it's a similar time gap between the present and the US civil war. The societal effects of events would still be felt with the expansion of the Caliphate in much the same way as the modern US is still dealing with the fallout of the civil war.
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moor
So you profess to know something about ancient history and are incapable recognizing references to the Western empire who spoke Latin as opposed to the Greek speakers in the East. Worthless psued trash.
Given your demonstrated utter ignorance of the history late antiquity, we can treat this utterance with the value it deserves.
You might want to look at a map. An-Andalus is quite near Italy, where Urban II lived. You knew that though, which is why you're trying to change the subject.
Read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli. The Great Schism happened fifty years earlier. By keeping the Muslims attentions focused on attacking fortified Byzantium it keeps them from considering an attack through Frankish territory. Constantinople is conveniently home to those upstarts who denied papal authority so it is also no bad thing for Rome if war devastates their lands.
Nigger, the Ottomans had been running the place for nearly three centuries at that point. Honestly your grasp of history is so poor I'm wondering if you're going to start talking about panopticons and AIDS conspiracy theories…

good post

if it makes you feel any better he was a troll retard and banned now

You seriously banned me?

Welp, now it's confirmed I'm not banned

I'll give you that
wat. Rashidun were the immediate succesors of Mohammed, starting from Abu Bakr' succession after Mohammed's death in 632 AD.
It really isn't. Islam was a new force on the scene but it wasn't uniquely diabolical or demonic force. To the Byzantine Romans the Muslims were simply another threat. They had already been battling non Christian slavs and sassanids since the previous century. The only thing unique about the Muslims was that they were effective conquerors, and even that was a result of their preying on an Empire recovering from wars with the Sassanids.
The islamic success was already enabled by cultural and societal schisms in byzantine society between monophysites in egypt/the levant/north africa and the chalcedonians in constantinople. The Egyptians and Syrians actually hailed the Islamic victories and put up no resistance on account of their tolerance for their Christian Confession vis a vis Constantinople's attempt to impose uniformity on the Empire. With or without the Muslims, the Byzantines were just as likely to think about religious divisions among themselves than foreign threats. as history demonstrates the monophysite controversy is followed by the centuries long Iconoclastic controversies and civil wars.
Also, your Civil War metaphor is awful considering your comparing eras with radically different logistics/infrastructure, mediums of communication and such.
>dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moor
Dictionaries aren't always right, you know that? Moors did not rule Spain until specific Moorish dynasties arose after the fall of the Ummayad on the peninsula in the Taifa era or with the North African almohads and almoravids.
THE WESTERN EMPIRE COLLAPSED IN 476. THATS 150 YEARS OR MORE BEFORE ISLAM. Your compressing time because you have no sense of the historical scale and development of the early medieval period.
No arguments here. I sense deep butthurt of someone whose holy cow has been slaughtered.
And? The Ummayad navies were concentrated in the Eastern Mediterranean and were irrelevant by Tours. Again your sense of medieval history is brainlet tier because you're under the assumption that people could magically "fast travel" like some fantasy RPG. Can you show me evidence that the Pope actually saw Islam as an existential threat without making speculation based your uneducated reading of maps? You also realize that at this time Byzantines controlled Southern Italy (until 1000s) and Sicily (until 900) and effectively defended that area from the Muslims for centuries?
so more retarded speculation that makes wild assumptions about what Papal policies, whose policies toward Constantinople changed drastically depending on the pope and on the period of medieval history we are looking at.
Schism happened in 1054 you brainlet. The Pope used the Franks to play off against the Byzantines but this didn't mean that the Pope wanted the Byzantine Christians destroyed.
You obviously have a dog in this fight and are not taking an objective historical approach that would recognize the nuance of the disputes of the Christian church.
I obviously meant 717 AD siege. The fact that you couldn't recognize that date is a huge red flag.

Also I take this back because Arabs conquered Levant in the 630s and Egypt in the 640s. So it's just as proper to say that Muslims expanded out of Egypt or North Africa to Europe considering there's a hiatus between Arab conquest of Egypt in the 640s and the conquest of North Africa in the 690s followed up closely by the Visigoths in 711

It was an important mark in European and Christian History .

Attached: DOXtzNsWAAAP6OU.jpg (509x286, 20.56K)

Why do Zig Forumstards cling so hard onto the Crusades? Don't they know that Hitler himself bemoaned (what he saw as) the defeat of Islam by Christianity in Europe?

You are first implying that Zig Forums adderes to any view that is not "make people mad"

...

They actually destroyed last bastion of true Christianity, Constantinople, 2nd Rome, and have enabled the emergence of Islam in Europe.

Attached: 4th-cursade.jpg (4254x2649, 4.8M)

Yes. You can't just pull a state our of your ass like your posts. It takes time to subjugate populations and establish a ruling administration.
Disagree all you want. Lurkers shall decide for themselves.
Where did you google this from? This isn't entirely unreasonable. It's certainly true that for many of the populations conquered by the Rashidun, they found the Muslims far more agreeable than their old rulers, hence the comparatively rapid expansion of the Caliphate. It is, however, entirely unrelated to my statement.
The organism in question hasn't changed radically. In both cases, while those who took part in the events are dead, their children and grandchildren are still around.
You were disputing usage of a word. Not history.
Demonstrating your utter ignorance of late antiquity again. The western empire underwent a slow disintegration. It did not suddenly get turned off. You'll also note that I had specified it was disintegrating and hence made easy prey, idiot.
So, we're discussing the Crusades, with vast population movements across Europe. We're discussion earlier points in history when Muslim armies moved across northern Africa and into southern Europe. I suggest the Muslims could repeat the process and you engage in autistic screeching.
The angry ad-hom here is because you know there are almost no sources for Urban's motivations…
Oh no, I used a conversational generalism! Woe is my argument! Clearly, your incessant pedantry will convince others that my ideas are incorrect and not that you're an angry autists agonized anus.

That's enough, anyway.

A bunch of excommunicated mercenaries are not christian.

Interpreting the Crusades as a "clash of civilization" is a 19th-century construct. Crusaders saw Muslims as just another non-Christian group just like pagans or heretics to the point that some wrongly assumed Islam to be polytheistic.

Attached: 0646ec29bd3a8309223d37ba498691c6.jpg (427x640, 95.83K)

You are sounding exactly like the average twitter an-cap getting mad over "not true communism lel "

They were excommunicated and even warned beforehand that doing this would lead to them having said faith.

Some groups even refused to take part yet you guys know just as well how money sometimes speak louder to those that have no value.

Money speaks louder even to those who have "values" — miss me with that idealist shit.

Attached: 02364b4e9d8360781f3b1f6256009108fa861f1013d42fd5166c1d38d8f1b6ca.jpg (239x255, 12.67K)

Nah fam compared to me Hegel was a materialist, I am under 20 layers of Plato and Aquinas metaphysical thought

Attached: DX8oG-IV4AAe_Ri.jpg (1076x610, 65.12K)

Beautiful evasion. You were absolutely wrong about the Rashidun being established in 650 when you missed 20 crucial years that saw the conquest of Egypt and the Levant. But somehow Muslim Spain and North Africa are born fully formed and treated as mortal threats to the Papacy.
Another non argument. The legacy of the Monophysites and the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars were absolutely essential events leading up to and intertwined with the Islamic conquest. Your saying they were "unrelated" is another example of your idiocy. Your additional failure to understand that the Muslims successes were seen by the Byzantines as a punishment by God for their sins rather than a result of Muslim invincbility in itself is another strike against you.
Warren Treadgold, Byzantine State and Society. He shows that some early Arab successes removed Heraclius' claims to divine favor and this empowered the Egyptians and Levantines.
It isn't. Your statement was
While it's undeniable that the loss of territory had cut off rich economic and social ties to these regions, to imply that the islamic conquerors were interpreted as an existential threat to Europe and Christianity is false. The Byzantines interpreted it as a punishment by god and didn't see islam in itself as some existential threat. Former Byzantine subjects in the Levant, Egypt and North Africa were also left in peace by the Arabs.
I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Iconoclasm and Monophysitism has more in common with the ACW than the Arab conquests.
No its a demonstration of your unclear writing. Your first post implies that the Arabs attacked almost immediately after the fall of the Western Empire. You ignore the crucial 150 years of history in between when German successor kingdoms consolidate and the Eastern Roman Empire conquered Italy and North Africa. The West had already disintegrated by 475.
No we're not discussing the Crusades. Your first post implied an Charlemagne, the conquest of Spain, the Battle of Tours, the fall of the WRE and the Sieges of Constantinople were all contemporaneous when these were events scattered across 100 years with no clear causation between them. This is again a sign of your ignorance that you think that you can jump between the Crusades of the 1100s and the Islamic conquests of the 600s as though there is causation between the two.
No you didn't. And if you did you'd STILL be wrong. Arab Sicily was weak and fell to the Normans. The Ummayad Caliphate in Spain had collapsed in the early 1000s. There was nothing to suggest that Muslim powers were poised to begin conquering Italy, France or the Spanish Christian kingdoms. The situation is the same in the East where the Arabs had splintered into rival states and the Turks were the main threat to the Byzantines.
I realize misinterpreted this part of your post. It's even MORE retarded than I thought. You jumped from Charlemagne in c. 800 AD to Urban II's Pontificate in 1088 as though 288 years of history suddenly disappeared and the Muslim onslaught was continuous.
We actually can gauge his motives pretty well by his actions.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-18 at 9.06.19 PM.png (527x691, 169.21K)

Generalization is absolutely awful when you talk about history, and as you constantly have demonstrated, you use it because you have no familiarity with historical facts and events as they happened. Your basing most of what you say on extrapolation and a lot of assumptions and it shows.
No I just don't make up shit and conflate events and conveniently forget hundreds of years of historical developments because it doesn't suit my narrative.

Reminder that non-Muslims were better off under Muslim rule than under Christian rule. One of the first things Catholic monarchs did after the Reconquista was burn Jews who refused to convert or leave on the stake.

You are implying that the muslims didn't just execute them before-hand did you forget about what happened to the Qurayza Jews?

this is peak fundamentalism. you have centuries of islamic states at the very least tolerating jews and you cherry pick the event in the quran as though that is representative of what happened afterward. kys. also muhammed didn't kill them because they were jewish but because they betrayed him.

What the fuck do the Banu Qurayza Jews have to do with the Jews of the Iberian peninsula under Muslim rule?

Taxing people based on their religion, restricting most of their rights in regards of what they can do business wise, and forcing conversions over time is only marginally better then being killed.
Can people stop with this meme already? Burnings were actually very rare.

That is like saying the USA tolerated African-Americans after 1867

Just like under Christian rule jewish people were also persecuted under Muslim rule

This is also correct the records for torture and punishment on the Portuguese side show that most of the time they expropriated the goods of the jews

Attached: 1501538208247.jpg (974x506, 110.96K)

To our contemporary standards it obviously is, but back then this was actually remarkable. Being taxed was better than being outright murdered.
Because most of the Jews fled. Those who didn't were subject to summary execution, including burning at the stake.

In the case for Portugal most of them didn't fled, those that did stay were most of the time subject to being forcebly converted and got their religious goods expropriated.

And again do you think I am just cherry-picking or events like the Massacre of Granada , maybe the conquest of Fez ?

Just like Christianity Islam is deeply anti-zionist if not antisemetic.

I never disputed that Jews could be tolerated by Christians or persecuted by Muslims; I was merely dispelling the myth that Muslim rule implied Jewish suffering any more so than Christian rule. It is a fact that Jews were usually better off in al-Andalus than they were under the Catholic monarchs.

You're making unwarranted comparisons between historical events so far removed from each other that applying the same standards to both of them is flat out anachronistic.

Yeah just ignore how it was British Christian Zionists who got Israel established in the first place.

I should have underlined anyone but prots

You had Pius XII criticizing such event and many sedevecantists still agree with him, even then the history of Catholicism is full of anti-semitism and later on some anti-zionism.

They were not any better , they were equally the same.

And it is a comparison

Again, this is stems from the mythologization of the inquisition and the Reconquista. Burning at the stake was relatively uncommon at the time, most people when executed were simply hanged or beheaded. Burnings almost never happened except in certain cases. This sounds like a small clarification, but I feel I have to remind everyone of this because it is a huge misconception.

wtf I love the inquisition now

Inquisition but for capitalists

what does this analogy even mean?
The portuguese expelled the jews soon after spain. To have jewish heritage was also a stain on your social status even if some hid their heritage.
were not talking about ghettos and confinements but expulsions and increasing tempo of persecution from 1390s to 1492. you'd be better to argue that some parts of Europe treated jews just as well as the muslims did at certain points in their history.
it really depends on what part of history we talk about. its hard to make simplifications, but on the whole I'd say jews suffered less persecution under muslim rule. it's really a stupid argument to begin with though tbh.

zionism wasn't relevant to the late 19th century

user any good books on what you two are arguing about?

it depends on what you want to learn about. the arab conquests, early islamic spain, the crusades?

Crusades or Arab conquest. Other subject I’m really interested in is the expulsion of Jews throughout European history.

Thomas Asbridge's book is a good start. Heres an audiobook of it:
mega.nz/#!F0JlzKhJ!C9ZdcYdgDSefF4lS4KzFT6dPVnCK9kNHuYlrjzMRvtk

if you check free book downloads in here
mega.nz/#F!A0RSxIgD!bZ-C2JliolboPg_LgTB1mg
Tyerman's "god's war" and Riley-Smith's "crusades a short history" are also good places to start if you don't mind reading on your computer.

for the arab conquests Fred McGraw Donner's book "the early islamic conquests"
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=81A6CA78A4F062BAD0AAC0251DDD95B1
if your interested in the byzantines too this book covers that, though i can't attest to how good or bad it is. I've read an article by Kaegi whose argument is (as i've argued above) that Byzantines saw the conquests as divine retribution
that article:
sci-hub.tw/10.2307/3162702
book:
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=F034AE73002304C7EBAE93F3DC8658AC

me too. it's a common talking point Zig Forums falls back upon but I haven't found a very in depth book that takes on the mystique around these events.
one of the first expulsions of jews in europe was in late 13th century england. this book is the definitive work on it
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=CC88BC53202B9B8B42CC996918D9B2BF

Thanks famo. Good job btfoing the Zig Forumstard though.

Is there seriously no broad histories of the European Jews?

there are histories of the european jews i can find you, but I'm not aware of a book that focuses on the expulsions across history.
this might be a good start to show how judaism has changed drastically across history.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=6D5B6777F933F069E45D30727BA2452E

also antisemitism a short history by steven beller.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=ED207198CADDCA53661E6725E1FC9ADF

That's dope I'll probably read this and the other one this summer while I grind out some theory.

hope you enjoy fam

Morning

That there was no real tolerance safe for what was written in the law ( Pact of Umar )

Yes but did some care?No , why? Because they had the position in court ranging from financial advisors to health professionals that were protected by other nobles due to how skilled they were.

I don't understand this point , I literally said that it is right to say we both treated them the same and commited genocides and progroms to them from time to time

And why would you say that ? They both suffered the same treatment

Yes because at that time what you had was actual anti-semitism

But let us hear what the historians and orientalists have to say about this shall we:

“The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”

-Bernard Lewis “The Pro-Islamic Jews,” Judaism, (Fall 1968), p. 401.

"It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms" - G.E. von Grunebaum "Eastern Jewry Under Islam," Viator, (1971), p. 369.

The first Jewish Ghetto was built on cairo (Harat Al-Yahud) for fucking self-defence you know why ? Because the guard turned a blind eye to the persecutions the people did .

I didn't do this, but as you seem to think irrelevant pedantry and deliberate lies are a good substitute for argument, feel free to keep claiming it. You'll notice I'd already stated I'd had enough of talking to you in the previous post. In short, you're wrong, you're full of shit and you're a waste of time to talk to. Feel free to declare victory and think yourself oh so clever. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on you.

lol

...

It's probably worth mentioning that Muhammad himself had a pop at the Byzantines in the days before he popped his clogs if you want to point to a persistent pattern of Islamic expansionism.

Thank you for the added point

pedantry is literally an ad hom to deflect from the fact that you have no clue about history
your argument had huge distortions.
and yet… you feel the need to reply because you want to save face by attacking my character and distract from your historical ignorance.
are you sure your old enough for this board?
If you actually had the answers and rebuttals you wouldn't have written this whiney post to begin with. You're absolutely pathetic. I'm more than willing to concede a point if it's argued well.

So, tell you the conversation is over and you keep ranting. You chose to deliberately misrepresent my arguments and are continuing to do so. Do you that if you want, but that means the conversation is pointless as you're not interested and therefore ended last post. Continue your autistic ranting and accusations if you like and you think you'll find it gratifying. I shall continue to post to only reiterate that you have engaged in deliberate misrepresentation and that the conversation is over. Carry on.

cry harder. for all the time you've spent whining you could have pointed out where i've "misrepresented" your arguments. your refusal to do so betrays either ignorance or cowardice to put forth arguments.

The conversation is over. You chose to engage in misrepresentation. Continue ranting if you wish.

I don't think you know what "ranting" means. I've consistently attacked you for failing to put forth arguments, for lacking historical knowledge and lobbing ad hominems. That hardly classifies as "ranting". But, by all means, keep unilaterally attempting to shut down debate and claim victory. You seem to take pleasure in outing yourself as a fool.

The conversation is at an end.

The Battle of Tours is a minor military campaign that was blown out of proportion for political reasons.

It was the start of something bigger and it was one of the two battles that stopped the Muslim forces from ever crossing those mountains again, it allowed the reinforcements to be sent to the Asturias and begin the Reconquista