Who believe the Crusades has ended ?
-
There were members of the British Empire who actively promoted continued separation of the Muslim world in the 20th century. I wouldn't be so surprised if this continues to be the case in various states as US, UK and Russia. Its not so much a religious element but political though.
-
Its not so much a religious element but political though.
Yes and in fact , I believe it got nothing to do with religions . . .
What would happen to society if everybody in Christendom actually practiced the teachings of Jesus? What if everybody in the Buddhist world actually practiced the teachings of Siddharta Gautama? And everybody in Hinudstan practiced the teachings of Krishna & the Sages? And everybody in the Sikh world practiced the teachings of the Guru Nanak Sahib? And everybody in the Taoist world practiced the teachings of Lao Tzu? And everybody in Islam practiced the teachings of the Muhammad and the Faqirs? And everybody in the Bah??? Faith practiced the teachings of Bah??u?ll?h? What would happen if everybody in ?godless? liberalism actually practiced the teachings of Emma Goldman and Henry David Thoreau and Karl Marx and all their unknown heralds who were assasinated for social justice? ; Suelo
If everybody practiced these things, there will be love and peace throughout the world. . .
-
Its not so much a religious element but political though.
Religion was, is and always will be a political tool.
Christianism, Islamism, Judaism etc.. is a political ideology.
Invented to reach certain political objective by political and military institution.
There's always a clear definition of us and them plus the suggestion to kill/oppress the Pagan,Kuffar,Goy because they deserve it and they're not among us.From the tracing of history we can also see that the religious is the true trouble maker.
They burned Abraham, beheaded John and crucified Jesus.
All for political reason, because they didn't share what the society supposed to believe a.k.a having different ideology than the authority .
Abe, John and Jesus were considered as threat to the authority's power, that is controlling the mind of the people. Or should I say "Polluting the faith of the people"?As thus war among religion is not surprising at all because that's why religion being invented in the first place.
From Christianism vs Judaism, Christianism vs Islamism, Islamism vs Hinduism, Islamism vs Judaism, Catholicism vs Anglicanism, Catholicism vs Protestanism, Catholicism vs Orthodoxism, Sunniism vs Shiaism up to Communism vs CapitalismI do believe that the idiocy and aggressiveness of the religious shall not end.
Although as human species generally evolve to become more 'intelligent', the growth rate and population of the religious, in terms of the percentage out of total human population is diminishing.
A very good sign.Salam / Peace
-
"Religious" wars have never been "religious-2 at all but very very earthly and moved by worldly power thirst. From the very beginning. Christianhood might have been fed a relegious zeal, but the goal of the promoters, Rome and the sacred empire was never any spritual attainment but world power, brute world power. The Roman Church and the Sacred Emppire conspired all through the middle ages to destroy and anhilate all Iberian kingdoms basec on plurality. It meddled in everything, it sent european soldiers by the thousands to fight against muslims kingdoms int he peninsula and to weaken and get power for itself within the chirstian kingdoms. It forced the kings of expel the jews and the "converted" muslims out of their country. Isabella I she opposed to the end and never signed the decree of expelling the Jews, Rome threatened them kings and rebuked, but she protested, however finally it was imposed on them.
The Iberian kingdom were a pain in the neck for the power drugged of Rome and the Sacred empire with their mixed and populations and good neighbourly living inside the kingdoms, whether ruled by christian kings or muslim kings. There was also a vernacular Iberian church with different uses than the Roman church and it was also done away with, with a liturgical token survival in Toledo Cathedral.
Very, very much worldly power. Nothing religious or sincere about it. But it has been a masterpieace of subverting history, as is regularly done by the victors, to make out of Isabella the villain in the whole business, when inf act she was very much for traditional Iberian goodneighbourliness amongs all subjects and against trampling on the rights of the peoples. Ferdinand was opportunistic and although he was also against, he did not try to be a heroe of resistance.
That is not to say that there have not been sincere people within the catholic Church, which on the other hand is logical, because there are no barriers to sincerity. But it is also a fact that worldly power uses the good beople amongst their midst to further still their worldly aims using that goodness as a weapon. You feel a wretch if you are against the things that those good people "represent". That is, the good ones are used as moral nlackmail against the target.
Salaam
-
"Religious" wars have never been "religious-2 at all but very very earthly and moved by worldly power thirst. From the very beginning. Christianhood might have been fed a relegious zeal, but the goal of the promoters, Rome and the sacred empire was never any spritual attainment but world power, brute world power.
Correct.. but please be objective.
And so does Islamism when they invaded Anatolia, North Africa, Spain, Persia, Egypt, Central Asia, Pakistan+India and other area.
That's why religion was invented in the first place.Religion was invented for power, the lust for power drive the need of a religion.
Through religion, the power holder (Sultan, Caliph, King, Caesar) can drive their subject to die in the battlefield for their own cause.And that's why Religion became sect, the driver is also power.
The Roman Church and the Sacred Emppire conspired all through the middle ages to destroy and anhilate all Iberian kingdoms basec on plurality. It meddled in everything, it sent european soldiers by the thousands to fight against muslims kingdoms int he peninsula and to weaken and get power for itself within the chirstian kingdoms. It forced the kings of expel the jews and the "converted" muslims out of their country. Isabella I she opposed to the end and never signed the decree of expelling the Jews, Rome threatened them kings and rebuked, but she protested, however finally it was imposed on them.
And so does Islamic Caliphate when they invaded Persia, Pakistan + India and other areas..
The most hilarious part about Catholicism + Islamism conflict a.k.a "The Holy Crusades" happened during the fourth crusade.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_CrusadeThe Fourth Crusade (1202?1204) was originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, in April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and sacked the Orthodox city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire.
So actually the fourth crusade was not between Catholicism vs Islamism, it turns out to be Catholicism vs Orthodox
rotfl rotfl rotflThe reason is clear, after so much in-fighting, there's hardly anything left in Jerusalem to loot for.
While there's so many wealth to plunder in Constantinople. (Today's Istanbul)
It's indeed a religious war.. where religious war = war among religion.Salam / Peace
-
You say whatever you like Jafar, you hate islam and Arabs. You cannot tolerate that something is said bad about anybody without at the same time utting anything muslim or arab at the same or worst level. What I said I said. There was no "imperial" caliphate in Spain, except for a very short time, if there ever was which is doubtful. What there was a restricted califate which was not imperial in Cordoba, sor a short time a many kingdoms afterwards, and the important thing which you lay by side in your quest to apply all evils "unbiasedly" to Arabs or islamists or whatever you choose to call your bete noire, is that not jews or muslims prohibited any religion in Spain or did away with whole populations, nor even christian kings, but the Roman Empire under the guise of the catholic church and the Sacred empire. So nothing was religious, the christian kings were believers but never dreamed of emptying their kingdoms of those not christian or of making life a hell for them, that was dear old imperial Rome having adopted sheep or church clothing over the old ruthless wolf.
You seem to always close anything by making it a matter of faith that as bad as anybody may have been, the arabs, muslims whatever are just as bad and not one inch less, not matter wheter it fits or it does not.
What I do know and do say is that christians in Spain during the middle ages were no worse than the others, but the church ruled from Rome was much worse than the others, it was the wolf in sheep cloth and no even with that much cheep clothe many times. Not the Christians bu the Roman Empire with catholic clothing did everything it needed to do to convert believers of every country in its weapons of dominion, nothing to do with religion, unless Shaytan is a religious figure, in which case, yes, plenty of Shaytan in that imperial church.
Using religion is not the same as making religion the primal cause. Just the same as using people does not make people into the cause of its being used. Religion is not the cause, it is its use by scrupleless demons what is wrong "with religion". And it is exactly the same when it is not a religion but an ideology that is kidnapped to serve satanism like nowadays those redeemers of countries which is the Anglo-saxon-Nato empire, who by the way, are the ones fabricating muslim fanatics following the imperial wisdom that if you do not have the enemy you need you just create it. That is your fanatics and alqaida and other idiotic mosnters the created enemy the empire needs which itself has created for its exclusive use.
I hate your way of putting everything down and not acknowledging any virtue ever to anybody and confuse wisdom and unbiasedness with preconceived ill thinking.
Isabella I was not less of a believer that the Roman clic which wanted to destroy her kindoms, in fact she was believer, the roman lique was not. and both were opposed, but you say it is religion. Your uniformism is intelectually useless and rests on lies and maligning everybody equally (some more equeal than others) so as to make a semblance of impartiality. You are not convincing and I find that negativism lacking any justice for those who do their best or who at least do not do their worst.
And your prejudice against Arabs and muslims is not a millimiter better than the prejudice of some people in their favour and certainly more disgusting.
I do not know whay you have that compulsion to do that but you convince nobody.
Salaam
-
You say whatever you like Jafar, you hate islam and Arabs. You cannot tolerate that something is said bad about anybody without at the same time utting anything muslim or arab at the same or worst level.
Nope I don't hate anyone. and certainly I don't hate you even if you hate me.
I'm just telling you to always be objective.
And to always distance yourselves from any social identity when you analyze history.What I said I said. There was no "imperial" caliphate in Spain, except for a very short time, if there ever was which is doubtful. What there was a restricted califate which was not imperial in Cordoba, sor a short time a many kingdoms afterwards, and the important thing which you lay by side in your quest to apply all evils "unbiasedly" to Arabs or islamists or whatever you choose to call your bete noire, is that not jews or muslims prohibited any religion in Spain or did away with whole populations, nor even christian kings,
Be objective, and you got your 'fact' wrong, it was The North Africans (Berbers/Moors) who invaded northward to the Visigoths area (Spain).
During their invasion they also murdered and massacred thousands or even millions of the Visigoths and raid their belongings/wives/children.
Afterwards The North Africans were also being massacred by the Franks and few centuries later by the Spaniards.
And early before the North African's invasion, the Visigoths has also ransacked and plundered Rome in Italian peninsula.I'm sorry but nobody is good based on the above fact, they all just rightfully deserved what they get.
And I believe there were some minor percentage of the population among Islamist, Visigoths, Catholics, Franks etc.. who did rejected the invasion and refuse to participate in the massacre. But their role and deed will never be recorded in history. As history was written by the winner.
Will history recorded Muhammad Ali because he rejected the US invasion to Vietnam? (for example)
The US invasion to Vietnam was a 'holy crusade' to fought "The Communist Infidel".but the Roman Empire under the guise of the catholic church and the Sacred empire. So nothing was religious, the christian kings were believers but never dreamed of emptying their kingdoms of those not christian or of making life a hell for them, that was dear old imperial Rome having adopted sheep or church clothing over the old ruthless wolf.
Correct and so does the Islamist and Caliphate, they performed the exact same thing.
That's a common pattern among the religious up until today.
And that's why they eventually meet their ill-fate.And specifically in Iberian peninsula, The Christians performed the most infamous torture of all, known as The Inquisition.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_InquisitionTo get rid of "THEM" thus only "US" are left in the area.
You seem to always close anything by making it a matter of faith that as bad as anybody may have been, the arabs, muslims whatever are just as bad and not one inch less, not matter wheter it fits or it does not.
Islamist and other Religionists are bad while muslims (without the capital) are not.
And I always valued self-criticism compared to other-criticism.What I do know and do say is that christians in Spain during the middle ages were no worse than the others, but the church ruled from Rome was much worse than the others, it was the wolf in sheep cloth and no even with that much cheep clothe many times. Not the Christians bu the Roman Empire with catholic clothing did everything it needed to do to convert believers of every country in its weapons of dominion, nothing to do with religion, unless Shaytan is a religious figure, in which case, yes, plenty of Shaytan in that imperial church.
You should rethink about 'religion', traced by it's history nearly all religion are driven by political power.
That include Christianism, Catholicism, Islamism, Judaism, Suniiism, Shiiaism etc..Or to put it in another sentence, political entity needs a religion to become powerful.
Using religion is not the same as making religion the primal cause. Just the same as using people does not make people into the cause of its being used. Religion is not the cause, it is its use by scrupleless demons what is wrong "with religion". And it is exactly the same when it is not a religion but an ideology that is kidnapped to serve satanism like nowadays those redeemers of countries which is the Anglo-saxon-Nato empire, who by the way, are the ones fabricating muslim fanatics following the imperial wisdom that if you do not have the enemy you need you just create it. That is your fanatics and alqaida and other idiotic mosnters the created enemy the empire needs which itself has created for its exclusive use.
Religion is a political ideology.
It's a fact and there's nothing holy about religion.Once somebody makes an effort to differentiate between "Them" and "Us".
Then be careful, because that's how Evil works initially.How Evil Works / The Psychology of Evil
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606011.0The way to 'fought' that evil works is to always apply the same thing we apply to them to ourselves.
And religious fanatics such as Islamist fanatics, Catholic fanatics were not created by Anglo-Saxon-Nato.
Your statement above is not based on fact.They were there even before Anglo-Saxon-Nato was in existence.
The Catholics vs Islamist vs Orthodox war a.k.a The Crusades is a good evidence for that.
And none of the participating parties are good.I hate your way of putting everything down and not acknowledging any virtue ever to anybody and confuse wisdom and unbiasedness with preconceived ill thinking.
Don't hate, don't use feelings when observing something, be objective..
Of course not everyone is bad just like not everyone is good.
But the good guys usually were not being recorded in (conventional) history.And your prejudice against Arabs and muslims is not a millimiter better than the prejudice of some people in their favour and certainly more disgusting.
I don't have any prejudice against anything, especially the social identity that my environment commonly bestowed upon me.
Again be objective... when you apply X criteria to others, apply the X criteria to yourselves or your favorite social identity.I've highlighted the stupidity and the devilish works of The Catholics above, using historical fact of the 4th crusade.
Thus "Why you're not accusing me of having prejudice against the Catholics and Western Europe???"Although the answer to the above question is obvious
Because you're not associating yourself with Catholics or Western Europe identity.Salam / Peace
-
You are completely wrong as to the history of Spain and North Africa. Yes, the official history written by the Roman church and preserved and imposed by the Nationalcatholicism tells that nonsense about so many thousands soldiers coming from north Africa, which by the way was the same state as the one in the Iberian peninsula. There was no invasion but there had been a very long internal stricfe already between the trinitarians and the most followed branch of christianity, unitarian, persecuted by the trinitarians. I know my history, or at least I try, but you blabber the indisputed nonsense that has been fed to the Europeans, pandering to the ideas of the superiority and the indisputability of the Catholic history, now incorporated as part of the "WEST'S" holyness.
Don't waste your time trying to teach me lessons. Unfortunately your "knowledge" is uncommonly shallow. You think you know far more than you in fact know. And you seem to think that since you already have everything right, you can go on spitting the same classical garbage over and over and rubber stamping the inventions of panegirists for the greater glory of the some time past All powergful Roman church? You do seem to need very, very much thousands upon thousands of massacred and raped Iberians, whether they were there or not, to sustain your church of the "human are garbage because of religion" church.
To start with, how could there be any invasion when on the north and the south of Gibraltar it was the same state and had been the same state for quite some time? Nobody had to invade anything, and the people was the same south and north. And then you put in four lines of clishes the whole of history. Please, please, do not serve the same vomit over and over. It may impress somebody but not those who have bothered in going beyond the eternal Roman historical legends served as history for the greater glory o "European" self-enrightment.
I have not read your message to the end because just with the start you spew the usual clishees and I have better things to do that go through the same clishees another more time in my life, particularly when the objection I raised was not about history, because you are not qualified to discuss that, not for my benefit anyway, but my objection was of another kind and that you are too bent on your own petty ideas on religion and history to see through.
But I will repeat for the readers' sake, if there is any the use of religion as a weapon by scrupless poweraddicts does not describe religion, it describes the power addicts, just the same as the use of a person by another person does not describe the used but the user. The used may be a willing or unwilling or ignorant of the fact but it is not the doer of the thing, the deliberate user is. The power addicts use everything, religion, ideology, blood relationships, anything to further their addiction. but the identity of the things they use, are not the their use, they are different from their being used.
I guess you are such staunch believer in religion as power itself since you use it yourself to eject your own emotional attachments to certain petty ideas, like using the Qur'an to disparage your own "hates" of peoples, or whatever you want to call them, since you do not "hate". Manias, may they be?
Do not attempt to make yourself a heroe inventing hates, just because I dare dispute your overbearing sense of moral highhand in questions such as these.
If somebody dares dispute you, he or she hates you? Don't be silly and don't delude yourself on your importance. I do not take the trouble of hating anybody I do not know. In fact, I do not take the trouble of hating anybody, least of all somebody I do not know. But what you write I do know and I do not hate it, I plain deny it. Get your facts straight and do not mix self pity and selfrighteousness with polemics. It does not fit and it is not the proper attitude for adults.
And update and clean your history, it is pitiful, although I can't deny and I don't deny that it is this kind of clish? history the one that gets popularity and support, not the real, hard facts supported history. So in fact you serve whom you serve, that is, the current power-addicts, furthering their aims with historical fabrications. As it turns out, your moral grandstanding has its uses, which are not innocent.
Salaam