>>7335463 Because the Crusades run deeper than "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" and the Muslins of then were actually worth some thing and had a interesting culture and the whole political background had influences for centuries later.
>>7335474 Crusades were a reaction to the threat of Islam. I can imagine it seems a far-fetch to see the people of Europe as religious zealots. Nonetheless, many people fought for the faith and thought that fighting in the promised land would give them penance and a place in Heaven. We too were ISIS like once.
>>7335530 >>7335548 Wouldn't necesarrily say it was pro-islam. It was more anti fanaticism which for some reason did not apply to the Muslims in this movie (quite peculiar). In that sense one might call it pro-islam but imo that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. It was once again one of those 'WE CAN ALL BE FRIENDS IF WE TRY' movies that are totally devoid of actual reality and human nature. But hey, if it sounds good it must be good right? Would be so much more interesting to just have a movie that doesn't try to shoehorn postmodern ideologies into its narrative.
>>7335547 >yfw you realize Christians hated other Christians more than they did Muslims, and actually traded with Muslims and lived in a tense tolerance (C. MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East)
>>7335530 The leader of the Christian nation was a decrepit weakling stricken with leprosy who hid his decaying face behind a fake mask, while the leader of the Islamic nation was a shining golden hero, strong and wise, who's come to supplant the rotting Christian Kingdom.
Many are forgetful of just how deep the hate between those of different christian denominations truly go. For example, the East-West Schism of 1054 caused intense hatred between followers of Eastern Orthodox church & the Roman Catholic church. If anything, this would have only helped to trigger an historical event such as the crusades, as the various churches were eager to do anything, even participate in mass scale war, to solidify their denomination as being viewed as the One True Church of Our Savior Christ.
>>7335633 Which is what happened in real life. Governments grow weak and feeble and are then supplanted by stronger ones. This was especially true in the Middle Ages. It seems as though you aren't offended over any particular stylistic weakness or factual inaccuracy, but over historical facts.
The campaigns of Richard Coeur de Lion and Saladin are the most culturally significant events of the Crusades. You might as well accuse Sir Walter Scott of anti-Christian and pro-Muslim bias for writing about it, or Dante for placing Saladin alongside Caesar and Socrates.
Mostly medical science and mathematics. As for philosophy, Ibn-Sina is fucking based. He did The Floating Man thought experiment, which is extremely similar to the Cogito Ergo Sum some six centuries before Descartes.
We live in a tumultuous time where there are conflicts in the ME and Western governments have occupied nations, established governments and extremist groups, and fought extremists and civilians alike in the ME.
Here's the director's mindset--use the current zeitgeist of fear and the focus on the ME in the media to sell a movie about a historical event. Use the piece to have a feel-good moment about religious tolerance and establishing peace so that people will like it coming out of the theaters and tell other people to watch it to make more money.
It was just exploiting people's concerns about current events then to sell a product. It's not some conspiracy to destroy Western civilization.
>>7335369 Well contrary to popular belief, the crusades can't really be called definitively "Christian" once you get into the nitty gritty details of the whole thing, and how the catholic church felt about it.
>>7335774 It was a movie in support of the Chrislam, one world, one religion, one government, one culture kind of leftist ideology that calls for the dissolution of national sovereignty and the state in favor of a new world government.
Anachronism: The movie Seriously, how can you not cringe at crusaders being presented as having a 20th century liberal's views on religious tolerance? Just to give the faggot audience a hero they can relate to.
>>7335369 Well the Crusaders were by every definition invaders of a foreign land. Besides the request for help against the Turks by the King of Byzantium, Pope Urban II pretty much lied his ass off about how Christians were being mistreated in the middle east.
>>7335554 >It was more anti fanaticism which for some reason did not apply to the Muslims in this movie
Because muslims throughout history in all ages have always been dominated by fanaticsm right?
>“Moslems seem to have been better gentlemen than their Christian peers; they kept their word more frequently, showed more mercy to the defeated, and were seldom guilty of the brutality as marked the Christian capture of Jerusalem in 1099.” (The Age of Faith (1950), Will Durant, p. 341)
>>7335832 >Pope Urban II pretty much lied his ass off about how Christians were being mistreated in the middle east. Damn, I guess being a Dhimmi was not considered mistreatment. Yeah, not paying extra taxes for being a Christian or a Jew would have resulted in being sold into slavery, but they weren't being mistreated at all.
Just because Muslims behaved better overall, allegedly, doesn't mean they were void of any fanaticism or barbarous behaviour whatsoever. Nonetheless, it did kind of bother me that the Templars were shown as the archetype of evil. Even the antagonist Guy de Lasignon was portrayed as a karikature of evil despite him being nothing of the like in History
>>7335847 It's sad that you can only resort to childish memes due to your cognitive deficiencies and obstinacy.
>>7335841 >which he was Well he did do some bad things under Nur al-Din's Fatimid Egypt, such as book burning and his shady dealings to subvert that government, although it did lead to tax, legal, and military reform as the Fatimids were relatively weakened at this point in all manners save economic.
>>7335847 Comparatively speaking, yeah, they didn't.
>>7335864 It's no doubt that Islam held the favoritism in the Middle East. But that's not the same as saying the Christians in particular were being abused. How well would expect a Moor to be treated in 12th century France?
Either way, what little legitimate grievances there were to be had, Urban II exaggerated all of it shamelessly.
>>7335864 Taxation upon all groups, including Muslims, in several periods of various dynasties have been corrupt and against Islamic jurisprudence. The concept behind jizya is to serve as an allegiance to a caliph or imam who has only political authority but not spiritual authority over a group and so the jizya serves as a means of bayyat and a specific portion of it is used to provide support to military to protect those groups and their institutions.
Of course, like I said, it didn't always turn out that way for obvious reasons.
>>7335585 A very brief interest in History shows this plenty of times. Bartholomew is what comes to mind most prominently, not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum or other happy and tolerant episodes in Christian history.
>>7335623 Interesting theory, but I don't really seem how this would gain favor with the masses if executed merely by the sword.
How divided was the Christian world actually pre 1517? More specifically: how much was it divided in the days of the Crusades other than the commonly known schism between East and West?
>>7335902 Islam is entirely based upon preaching against particular sins while they actively commit them themselves, but claim they have no responsibility over those particular groups and doing nothing about it
>>7335596 Not really though, at the end when the protagonist asks Saladin what Jerusalem is worth Saladin first tells him that it is worth nothing. Later on he tells him that it is worth everything however. What he precisely means by this can be debated but it seems that Saladin, in Kingdom of Heaven, cares for earthly rewards such as gold, prestige, and conquest. This portrays the man as a megalomanic man void of virtue
>>7335904 This anon is saying there was nothing the Muslims were doing around Jerusalem which justified the whole of Western Europe to send armies towards it. Mind you, when Urban II ignited this nonsense, Christians in Europe that were unable to travel to the middle east began massacring local Jews. Meanwhile, it wasn't until after the second Crusade when Islam began fighting with a unified goal under Jihad.
>>7335910 Thanks for that information. I really appreciate it when people who have studied Islamic theology as rigorously as you have can reduce it to such an unbiased and pure way so that laymen like myself can understand.
Also, I would ask you to please submit your analysis to some institutions like al-Azhar or the various hawzas of Iraq and Iran so they can realize what their religion is established upon.
>>7335625 The point I was trying to make was that Europe has had its fair share of overzealous fanatics who believed every world of the Bible and were willing to fight in the Holy Land to secure their place in Heaven.
I have a tendency for romantics and loosely based patterns which never seem to do my argumentation any good...
>>7335678 Probably also responsible for the tenets and institutions that would enable Muslim civilizations to become shit for centuries to come
>>7335809 >>7335774 I really don't see how these two arguments counteract one another. If anything, they support it.
>>7335877 >A generally renowned figure who happens to be a Muslim, a religion I am not particularily fond of, happens to have done a few bad things thus disregarding him completely
>>7335814 Mutual respect and even admiration between medieval Christians and Muslims was rare but hardly nonexistent. And religious tolerance isn't an exclusively modern thing. It was the norm in the Roman Empire until the rulers adopted Christianity and started persecuting other faiths.
A crusader who lacks strong Christian convictions and who sympathizes with Muslims would've been something rare, but it's not at all inconceivable that such crusaders existed.
>>7335864 >Yeah, not paying extra taxes for being a Christian or a Jew would have resulted in being sold into slavery, but they weren't being mistreated at all. Compared to the persecution Jews faced in Christian Europe (not to mention the persecution that Muslim citizens in European countries would've faced, had they existed), that's nothing. Forcing people to pay extra taxes because of their religion is hardly tolerant by today's standards, but there's a reason why even serious historians emphasize the tolerance practiced by medieval Muslims towards conquered non-Muslims.
>>7335949 It had fuck all to do with whatever the French were doing in 1050. Islam didn't have this plan of Christians=;_; It was a chaotic map of rival Muslim factions who were already fighting against each other when the first Crusaders arrived. Which is almost the sole reason why they had so much military success initially.
>>7335969 >entire cultures of people Are you talking about the mawala? Because several Islamic scholars and political opponents lambasted the Umayyads for this practice. This is also a different time period
>>7335960 I like how people turned "Shi'a Muslims can dissimulate their beliefs if the Shi'a are being persecuted" (as happened many times in history, especially the Umayyad period) and "Muslims in general believe that if someone threatens a Muslim with death unless they leave Islam, they can feign apostasy" (as happened in the days of early Islam) into "Muslims can lie about anything to anyone for any purpose."
>>7336000 >By "people" do you mean Muslims? Muslims don't interpret either of those concepts in that way. The majority of Sunni fiqh books don't even mention kitman (largely because becoming a ruling majority early on rendered it irrelevant). The only extensive references to dissimulation concerning Sunnis that I have found are related to the situation of the Spanish Morsicos during the time of the inquisition.
As for taqiyya, it exists as an institution specifically because there were many times in Islamic history where being Shi'a in a Sunni majority country was considered politically subversive.
>Just how like the Islamic State in the Middle East right now has nothing to do with Islam, right? You know literally nothing about the Nizaris aside from the etymology of the word "assassin," don't you?
>>7336033 You mean besides all the Muslims that do interpret them that way and use this methodology against the enemies of Islam right? It's nobody except those guys, who actively fight for Islamic domination but don't have anything to do with Islam, but aren't stopped by Islamic leaders.
What is it that you think I don't know about the Hashashins anon?
>>7336019 Well, I'm sorry we haven't be able to see eye to eye thus far. But if you're going to seriously proclaim that Urban II was justified in calling for a crusade, we have nothing else to talk about.
>>7336072 Do you honestly think humanity wages war because of justice anon? Justification doesn't factor into what I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that your hatred of France shouldn't make you spit shine Islam's boots, with your assertion that the proud, strong Muslim Caliphs only lost ground because the evil white devils from Europe caught them off guard
>>7336056 Muslims who want to bring down the west are pretty open about it bro. The idea that all the Muslims who live peacefully are just practicing taqiyya or whatever is paranoia from shitheads.
>It's nobody except those guys, who actively fight for Islamic domination but don't have anything to do with Islam, but aren't stopped by Islamic leaders. I'm not even sure what you're asking now.
>What is it that you think I don't know about the Hashashins anon? Anything. You're using a medieval esoteric neo-Platonic group that lived in a tiny commune on a mountain as evidence for the beliefs of the majority of Muslims today.
>>7336102 The majority of Muslims do not make the decisions on the direction of the future of Islam. Islam is directed by its religious hegemony, who inform what the rest of the population believe in and do. The people that actively fight the enemies of Islam are also not a part of the majority of the population.
What I'm telling you is that the smiling faces of the general masses of Muslims don't reflect the actual people who fight against the enemies of Islam. I know you want to reduce it to the most innocent Muslim child that you can, but that is not who we're talking about.
You probably actually don't think the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam, do you?
Your post implies that you think ISIS is actually what it imagines itself to be (the rightful leaders of all Muslims worldwide), rather than a bunch of ex-soldiers and disaffected youth.
The major, recognized scholars of Sunni and Shi'a Islam don't espouse this idea you have about dissimulation. Even ISIS (who you keep referring to as though they are relevant to the interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence) don't believe the things you're saying (they are very, very open about hating the west and wanting to destroy it).
It also seems lost on you that ISIS's attacks are almost solely directed toward other Muslims (they even fight other jihadists, for God's sake!).
>>7336157 Then why was it constantly used for reasons that defied everything they said it was for? Do you think maybe they are dishonest about what they're doctrine of dishonesty is used for?
>>7336159 I'm actually implying that a group like the Islamic State is used by Islamic leaders as a scapegoat to allow the consolidation of the nation's of the Middle East into a united Caliphate that they envision becoming a global superpower
>>7336180 >Then why was it constantly used for reasons that defied everything they said it was for? Do you think maybe they are dishonest about what they're doctrine of dishonesty is used for?
Gives actual examples for this.
>I'm actually implying that a group like the Islamic State is used by Islamic leaders as a scapegoat to allow the consolidation of the nation's of the Middle East into a united Caliphate that they envision becoming a global superpower
"A terrorist group hellbent on fighting every single government, ethnic group, and even other terrorist groups is actually a conspiracy to turn the Middle East into a united superpower!"
>>7336249 Sure but the civilians who lived in Nazi Germany or Hirohito's Japan worried about putting bread on the table, whether they can still afford grandpa's medical care, and how their son was doing in school.
I keep asking you questions to get a better understanding of what you mean, but instead of answering those questions, you keep piling on insane conspiracy shit without explaining your basis for believing it.
1. Who are the Islamic leaders you keep speaking of? The ones you say are using ISIS to conquer the world. 2. Who are the deceptive subversives you keep speaking of? For the most part, terrorism supporters in the west are vocal to the point of idiocy (pic related). Even Ali Mohamed (a CIA agent who was a Jihadist mole) was open about his extremist beliefs to his colleagues and was caught telling extremist groups that he was an agent and that they were being investigated. Jihadis tend to be loudmouth dipshits, not subversive. smooth operators.
>They aren't the ones who lead their nation and fight it's enemies though
ISIS isn't leading a nation either, and its enemies include essentially all Muslims outside of its membership (including other Salafi Jihadist groups).
Before you accuse of saying this, I am not saying "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam." ISIS is an Islamic extremist group that is devoted to a certain interpretation of Islam. However, that interpretation is so marginal that even Al-Qaeda regards ISIS as too extreme.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.