How do I refute Islamic claims that Christianity is the most violent religion in history? He uses the crusades, inquisitions against Jews and Albigensians, and the Protestant-Catholic wars as example, and also witch hunts. How do I show Islam is more violent? Because he makes the point that Christians and Jews were treated well under the Caliphates and notes that Europe was a shit hole.
How do I refute Islamic claims that Christianity is the most violent religion in history? He uses the crusades...
Point out that the founder of their religion was a literal warlord, that their religion was spread by the sword and that the prominent early Muslims died as kings while Jesus' disciples died gruesome deaths as martyrs.
Reaction to repeated islamic invasions.
They had it coming
Don't know who they are.
Both were subject to extreme and exorbitant taxes, forbidden to own land, prohibitted from performing maintenance on temples and churches, and their children were subject to drafting into the islamic hoardes at young ages.
Islam conquered the majority Christian Asia Minor and North Africa
Islam conquered by the sword
The Crusades only were for reclaiming the Holy Land
The Inquistion barely killed any people considering how long it lasted–and the Inquistion itself wasn't supposed to put people to death (instances of that are an abuse of the system)
(Northern) Europe was a shithole before Christianity and yes, those in the Middle East/Asia Minor/North Africa were more advanced… before Islam. Name something Muslims have invented in the last 400 years.
Albegensians are disgusting gnostic heretics. They think this material world is evil and would murder children in order to "save" them from it. The unrepentant ones that were too far gone down the gnostic hellhole had it comming. They are a danger to society and I'm glad they were crusaded agianst.
And their legacy should have stayed gone
Bring up the centuries leading up to the crusades. Spain being taken over, how Islam spread by the sword, Muhammed being a warlord. Then point out the tipping point for the crusades, when the Muslims invaded Rome and sacked the basilicas of Old St Peter's and St Paul's. That's when a proper crusade was formed. And the first couple of crusades were completely justified in protecting Christendom.
Literally just do some proper reading on the inquisition. Jewish sources, secularist sources, an honest Protestant source anyone who actually does their due diligence admits the inquisition has been GROSSLY overplayed. They ended the witch hunts, were much more fair then the Kingdom laws (to which criminals or accused would seek the inquisition for a more fair trial), and historically records show that only a few thousand were killed over its course. As opposed to the millions people like to say. (I can't remember if this just applies to Spanish Inqusiiton or all, do your research I believe the latter)
Protestant-Catholic wars, a lot of this shit is just political with Christianity as a guise for it all. Can easily counter with the sunni vs shia muslims and the like. Hell a kid had his throat slit a couple of months ago for being the wrong sect of muslim in front of his mum.
I use four simple words: It's not a competition.
Christ didn't commit any war crimes and we are imperfect followers of His word.
Ah, I see you are a man of taste and culture as well
Justified reaction against the Seljuk Turks who were going apeshit and attacking everyone at the time.
inquisitions against Jews
The Jews sided with the Muslims during the Reconquista. Were the Spanish just supposed to pretend that never happened? Besides, the Inquisition wasn't nearly as violent as most people make it out to be. It was more like the McCarthy trials than anything else.
They were murdering their own children.
While they definitely had religious motivations, they were mostly political. Just look at the the Thirty Years War, the bloodiest "religious war." The two main beligerants were France and the Hapsburgs, both of which were Catholic.
Also, the wars were almost always started by Catholics. Protestants, at the time at least, rejected the concept of Just War and believed that starting wars for religious reasons was contrary to the Gospel.
For most of the medieval period the Church taught that magic didn't exist so there were no witch hunts. However, around the late middle ages it came out that "witches" were sacrificing children as part of their rituals. So witch hunts were revived from the Roman era because the general assumption was that if someone was messing with occult shit, they would probably be involved with sacrificing children as well. Not exactly perfect reasoning, but they were understandable at the time. Later on they were abused by thots who wanted to kill other thots for the same reasons that thots have been fighting each other over since the dawn of time. It was never just mindless violence based on superstitious fears.
Live Leak should do the trick.
Making them pay massive taxes, stripping away most of their rights, and making them live under the constant threat of violence and slaver isn't exactly treating them well. And speaking of slavery, is this guy just going to ignore the fact that the Islamic world was home to the largest and most violent slave market in history? Literally hundreds of millions of slaves died because of the infections caused from being castrated by the Muslims.
How? In terms of agriculture, architecture, and medicine(especially in the Byzantine Empire) Europe was far ahead of the Middle East. Even Muslim writers who traveled to Christian lands noted how much more prosperous Christian farmers were than Muslim ones.
You almost had me moshie
They conquered two thirds of the christian world, and never by evangelizing of course, cant evangelize with something that has nothing to offer, so by the sword it is.
Jesus, i'm not Catholic, but God bless his Soul. His points, were just so on target, against the nonsense from modern day progressives. They're the real fools.
The Inquisitions were responsible for about 3000 deaths over 400 years. Half of those were deaths from disease in medieval dungeons while awaiting trial, which compared to contemporary dungeons was pretty good. They were massively overhyped by British and US protestants who just so happened to despise Catholicism and the Spanish.
By the way, you were only under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition if you claimed to be Catholic. If you said you weren't they'd let you go (to be fair usually to other authorities).
Bump and saved
He makes some good points, but he goes a bit too far in the other direction. While the medieval wars weren't as bloody as what was to come, they weren't as clean as he makes them out to be either and you can see the moral decay in Europe beginning long before the Reformation(compare writings from the 12th century with writings from the 14th century.) Also, saying that there have never been any major or bloody wars in Latin America and giving the impression that it's a peaceful place is misleading. There have been plenty of major conflicts in Latin America, just nothing on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars or the World Wars. And that's not even getting into all of the cartel and gang related violence that's going on constantly down there.
Of course medieval wars weren't always clean. He's painting a big picture with broad strokes and everything he says is basically true. Latin America is a shitshow because of the indigenous blood, not because of Catholicism or the Spanish/Portuguese empires. But that video is solid gold and everything he said is right on the money, it's a shame it isn't more popular.
no bearing on truth whatsoever unless ur a cück pacifist
Good to know they were wiped out.
Think of it this way; the last time Islam came to Europe it was 1683 at the Battle of Vienna. When Europe was entering the Enlightenment, Islam was still waging a holy war against us. The Turks spent until the 1832 religiously oppressing the Greeks when independent Greek statehood was created.
Now Islam comes smiling and multicultural, but it's the same bloody thing it was in 1683.
By pointing to islam?
This. Not only the founder was a warlord, the following Califs were too. The Quran was redacted under the Calif Umar choosing the revelations of the prophet that he liked the most.
Now, the key to all this is (IMO) "Dar al-Harb" and "Dar al-Islam". Islam is the religion of peace. "Dar al-Islam" translates as "home/territory of peace". It's where the sharia law is observed and everyone is in communion with Allah. "Dar al-Harb" is the "territory/home of war/chaos" where people don't follow the teaching of the prophet and thus can only be war.
"Yihad" means "effort". Following the teaching of the prophet and making sure you live by them is yihad, and it brings you closer to Allah. One of the many ways to do yihad is to make sure there's no peace in Dar al-Harb. Those who make this spiritual effort ("yihad") are the muyahidin (singular: muyahid) and they're are exalted by the Quran as if they were almost saints.
Islam IS the religion of peace… if you're muslim. It's a peace imposed by the sword, by blood and fire. It seeks peace by destroying everything that can oppose it. That's why Islam can be translated as "peace", but it's also translated as "submission".
Now, a lot of people have tried to make Islam more palatable, and a lot of muslims scholars have written pretty decent theology and talked about peace (real peace). As with any religion (any proper religion, not mere superstition) , there's a lot of of value within Islam. That does not, however, change the fact that, at it's core, it's an extremely violent religion.
Is this bait?
By Islamic standards that does count as being well-treated.
Bismillahi rahman al raheem
Over 200 crusaders killed including americans and anglo by the Islamic State allies.
All praise is due to Allah (SWT) lord of the worlds.
And all curse upon the christians and jews as they have taken the graves of their prophets as places of worship.
Takbir, Allahu Akbar!