Logic dictates that there is a God!

[demon7896]

ive noticed that jay isn't posting much now...

[Guiscard]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

Ouch.

EDIT: Are you referring to a specific Hillenbrand work or just in general?

The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives was what I was specifically referring to, but her work on Islam in general is top notch (although I've by no means exhausted her bibliography).

[taterman]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

[Neoteny]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

Ouch.

EDIT: Are you referring to a specific Hillenbrand work or just in general?

The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives was what I was specifically referring to, but her work on Islam in general is top notch (although I've by no means exhausted her bibliography).

Whew, that one's pricey. Before I drop 50-125 bucks on a book that is already not in my field, do you have any other suggestions that may be more appropos to our previous argument, or do you feel that one applies there too?

[Guiscard]

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

Were the crusades a religious or a political 'group' then?

Both, a religous group at the time justified going to war for religous reasons (I'm not saying I either agree nor disagree with the groups reasoning) and it was a powerful diplomatic tool for a monarch (a political figure) to get involved in the war. Reason in a monarchs eyes for going into the Crusades included, favor with the Pope, more land, religous control to the land, making others pay heavy taxes for pilgramage rights, high popularity with the people for winning a 'holy war' and securing their 'holy land', and pretty much guarentying a high legacy in history. Yes you could obvieously offer reason why it was not a good idea, but history shows that the political rulers of the time thought the benefits were worth it.
Also, to save myself some time for an inevitable reply from, at the very least someone, I'm not saying that the so called 'Jihads' did not have these double reasonings too. As my original reply was only saying that if a war is being encouraged by a religous group, it is for religous reasons, unless of course the religous group also has political power, in which case the group is now more than just a religous group.

I think you really are ignoring religious motivation as the primary motivation for crusade. The. primary. motivation.

Your reasonings for monarchs going on crusade are fairly dubious. Favour with the Pope, maybe. I'll give you that one. More land? Monarchs were offered the kingdom of Jerusalem on many occasions. They never took the crown. Once they had taken the cross and gone on crusade they returned home. There was no monetary or landed value in a crusade. Indeed, it cost such an inordinate amount that they often had to raise specific taxes with which to crusade. Richard I both raised a 'Saladin tithe' and sold off political offices to fund his expedition. I don't really understand 'religious control to the land', but if you mean control of the Christian church in the Holy Land that came after the First Crusade, which had no monarchical involvement whatsoever. No Kings to begin with, when the risk was highest. Heavey taxes on pilgrimage rights again went to the Palestinian barons or the King of Jerusalem. Not the monarchs going on crusade. Legacy in history? Perhaps, but thats not political or religious.

Religion was the primary motivation, the major cause and the continuing inspiration for the crusades. As you say, you cannot draw any differences between Islam and Christianity in that regard. There may be political elements to both, but not to a significantly different degree. The Islamic world was both political and religious, as was the Christian world. At the heart of the crusade was not money, not the acquisition of land for power's sake, but the conquest of Christian holy sites. There was little to gain for your average crusader other than religious fulfillment and papal indulgence.

[Frigidus]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

Welcome to the conversation. We're kind of off topic right now, but I'm sure someone can explain it away.

[Guiscard]

Whew, that one's pricey. Before I drop 50-125 bucks on a book that is already not in my field, do you have any other suggestions that may be more appropos to our previous argument, or do you feel that one applies there too?

Its probably the best treatment, with F. Gabrieli's 'Arab historians of the Crusades' the best collection of primary sources (again, well worth a read).

[2dimes]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

Welcome to the conversation. We're kind of off topic right now, but I'm sure someone can explain it away.

Is there a lot of dinosaurs in your area?

[Neoteny]

Whew, that one's pricey. Before I drop 50-125 bucks on a book that is already not in my field, do you have any other suggestions that may be more appropos to our previous argument, or do you feel that one applies there too?

Its probably the best treatment, with F. Gabrieli's 'Arab historians of the Crusades' the best collection of primary sources (again, well worth a read).

Alright, I'll check into them. I guess I'll get back with you in a month or two and tell you if I still think you're wrong.

[Guiscard]

Whew, that one's pricey. Before I drop 50-125 bucks on a book that is already not in my field, do you have any other suggestions that may be more appropos to our previous argument, or do you feel that one applies there too?

Its probably the best treatment, with F. Gabrieli's 'Arab historians of the Crusades' the best collection of primary sources (again, well worth a read).

Alright, I'll check into them. I guess I'll get back with you in a month or two and tell you if I still think you're wrong.

No problem. Don't think Hillenbrand will entirely agree with me, it would be a shame if she did, but still its a great monograph.

[Neoteny]

Whew, that one's pricey. Before I drop 50-125 bucks on a book that is already not in my field, do you have any other suggestions that may be more appropos to our previous argument, or do you feel that one applies there too?

Its probably the best treatment, with F. Gabrieli's 'Arab historians of the Crusades' the best collection of primary sources (again, well worth a read).

Alright, I'll check into them. I guess I'll get back with you in a month or two and tell you if I still think you're wrong.

No problem. Don't think Hillenbrand will entirely agree with me, it would be a shame if she did, but still its a great monograph.

Well, if nothing else, it'll broaden my horizons. Honestly, my only experiences with the subject has been through the American media (well known for their fair and balanced analysis, so I try to ignore that altogether), and Warraq's treatise. I rely heavily on it because he is very well referenced and his arguments were logically sound to me. However, the academic side of me knows that I need to expand my own references. I recognize how easy it is to slip into a biblical state of mind and rant about one biased source (might I be becoming like Jay? ::shiver::) So that's why I've enquired, and I appreciate the titles.

[Napoleon Ier]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

This is plain outrageous! I have already explained that the nature of Islam must be seen more in the light of analysis of its belief system as preached by Mohammad, its primary independant prophet; a matter falling into the category of Theological study:You cannot say you're a historian so you're better and more intellligent than me, the nasty evil racist (please tell me where you get this accusation from, or rather dont, you'll detract from the post).
You in fact answered me I should post a rebuttal. And you, smelling defeat a mile away, yet wanting to retain your little title of intellectual defender of political correctness, simply dismiss my arguments with a bizarre and unexplained reference to Alesia; then simply, by saying "Im ahistorian, Im better than you", and "your wacist!! stupid wacist!". Frankly, it is just pathetic and rude to insult people in this way.

[Iliad]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

This is plain outrageous! I have already explained that the nature of Islam must be seen more in the light of analysis of its belief system as preached by Mohammad, its primary independant prophet; a matter falling into the category of Theological study:You cannot say you're a historian so you're better and more intellligent than me, the nasty evil racist (please tell me where you get this accusation from, or rather dont, you'll detract from the post).
You in fact answered me I should post a rebuttal. And you, smelling defeat a mile away, yet wanting to retain your little title of intellectual defender of political correctness, simply dismiss my arguments with a bizarre and unexplained reference to Alesia; then simply, by saying "Im ahistorian, Im better than you", and "your wacist!! stupid wacist!". Frankly, it is just pathetic and rude to insult people in this way.

actually you have shown your racist attitute quite clearly with your attitude towards muslim immigrants and that is still quite fresh in my mind.

[Napoleon Ier]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

This is plain outrageous! I have already explained that the nature of Islam must be seen more in the light of analysis of its belief system as preached by Mohammad, its primary independant prophet; a matter falling into the category of Theological study:You cannot say you're a historian so you're better and more intellligent than me, the nasty evil racist (please tell me where you get this accusation from, or rather dont, you'll detract from the post).
You in fact answered me I should post a rebuttal. And you, smelling defeat a mile away, yet wanting to retain your little title of intellectual defender of political correctness, simply dismiss my arguments with a bizarre and unexplained reference to Alesia; then simply, by saying "Im ahistorian, Im better than you", and "your wacist!! stupid wacist!". Frankly, it is just pathetic and rude to insult people in this way.

actually you have shown your racist attitute quite clearly with your attitude towards muslim immigrants and that is still quite fresh in my mind.

If you're unable to dissociate a desire preservation of autochtonal culture and opposition to uncontrolled immigrationism from advocating white supremacy I can;t say you're worth debatig with.

[MeDeFe]

Nappy, use english in your posts, please.

[unriggable]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

It's not like the two go hand in hand with each other (god and noah).

[MelonanadeMaster]

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

Were the crusades a religious or a political 'group' then?

Both, a religous group at the time justified going to war for religous reasons (I'm not saying I either agree nor disagree with the groups reasoning) and it was a powerful diplomatic tool for a monarch (a political figure) to get involved in the war. Reason in a monarchs eyes for going into the Crusades included, favor with the Pope, more land, religous control to the land, making others pay heavy taxes for pilgramage rights, high popularity with the people for winning a 'holy war' and securing their 'holy land', and pretty much guarentying a high legacy in history. Yes you could obvieously offer reason why it was not a good idea, but history shows that the political rulers of the time thought the benefits were worth it.
Also, to save myself some time for an inevitable reply from, at the very least someone, I'm not saying that the so called 'Jihads' did not have these double reasonings too. As my original reply was only saying that if a war is being encouraged by a religous group, it is for religous reasons, unless of course the religous group also has political power, in which case the group is now more than just a religous group.

I think you really are ignoring religious motivation as the primary motivation for crusade. The. primary. motivation.

Your reasonings for monarchs going on crusade are fairly dubious. Favour with the Pope, maybe. I'll give you that one. More land? Monarchs were offered the kingdom of Jerusalem on many occasions. They never took the crown. Once they had taken the cross and gone on crusade they returned home. There was no monetary or landed value in a crusade. Indeed, it cost such an inordinate amount that they often had to raise specific taxes with which to crusade. Richard I both raised a 'Saladin tithe' and sold off political offices to fund his expedition. I don't really understand 'religious control to the land', but if you mean control of the Christian church in the Holy Land that came after the First Crusade, which had no monarchical involvement whatsoever. No Kings to begin with, when the risk was highest. Heavey taxes on pilgrimage rights again went to the Palestinian barons or the King of Jerusalem. Not the monarchs going on crusade. Legacy in history? Perhaps, but thats not political or religious.

Religion was the primary motivation, the major cause and the continuing inspiration for the crusades. As you say, you cannot draw any differences between Islam and Christianity in that regard. There may be political elements to both, but not to a significantly different degree. The Islamic world was both political and religious, as was the Christian world. At the heart of the crusade was not money, not the acquisition of land for power's sake, but the conquest of Christian holy sites. There was little to gain for your average crusader other than religious fulfillment and papal indulgence.

I assure you I wasn't trying to downplay the religous aspect, I was only focusing on the political aspect because I thought that was more important in proving, since I wasn't expecting debate on it being religous side which of course I predicted correctly. I agree with you that it was primarily religous reasons for the war.
I was only pointing out in my original post that it wasn't 'muslims' going to war it was Arabs, (correct me if I'm wrong on the Arabs part) they may have very well been Muslim Arabs, but a religous source can't send a military off to war, only a political group can. If a so called 'reliogous' group can send off a military it is no longer just a religous group.

And just to clarify where I'm currently standing is this, all wars are a political one, as all wars are started by politicians. Thus a religous group, though it can provoke, inspire, and encourage a war, can not be the only source for it (the war.)

By the way a friend of mine, who has much stronger views on the issue then me, told me, on the topic of violence in the Qu'aran, that the the 'peaceful' verses are all found earlier in the book, and the more violent verses found later on, implying theologicaly that Allah was changing his revalation to man, and the newer revalation, would be the purer one for man to follow. (I am by no means implying the the Koran its self contradictory only that, not to different from the Christian Bible, does have a new revelation to the people.) Also he took these words from a Muslim theologian so although you could argue he isn't mainstream, (the theologian)but you can't argue he's putting words in a Muslim's mouth (my somewhat radical friend).

[flashleg8]

By the way a friend of mine, who has much stronger views on the issue then me, told me, on the topic of violence in the Qu'aran, that the the 'peaceful' verses are all found earlier in the book, and the more violent verses found later on, implying theologicaly that Allah was changing his revalation to man, and the newer revalation, would be the purer one for man to follow. (I am by no means implying the the Koran its self contradictory only that, not to different from the Christian Bible, does have a new revelation to the people.) Also he took these words from a Muslim theologian so although you could argue he isn't mainstream, (the theologian)but you can't argue he's putting words in a Muslim's mouth (my somewhat radical friend).

I'm sorry but thats just wrong. The Koran doesn't follow a chronological structure like the Christain Bible does. Earlier Sutras are not necesseraly written earlier than the later ones.

[Guiscard]

And just to clarify where I'm currently standing is this, all wars are a political one, as all wars are started by politicians. Thus a religous group, though it can provoke, inspire, and encourage a war, can not be the only

This is what I have a problem with. The crusades were a direct result of religion. They were inspired by, promoted by and essentially created by the Pope. Those that went out and got people involved were Priests. At what point did it stop being religious? Religion was always its core, even if not in the case of papal motivation (there is certainly a case for the extension of the peace of God among unattached young nobles and also a wish to control the church in the east, both political to an extent) then certainly in the motivations of both your average crusader and their leaders. Categorically. Perhaps the only example I can think of would be Philip on the Third Crusade but that's still very much debatable.

You're original statement seemed to imply that the Islamic wars of reconquest were religious, but the crusades political. Thats quite simply absurd, especially if all wars are political. I would go so so far as to argue that the crusades were more religious in their motivation than the Islamic efforts to push them back.

And I'm not quite understanding the Muslim / Arab point. It certainly was Muslims going to war. Not just Arabs but Turks and Persians. Although there were Arabs who were, for example, Syrian Orthodox or Monophysite, they didn't really play any major part in warfare.

[MeDeFe]

I'm sorry but thats just wrong. The Koran doesn't follow a chronological structure like the Christain Bible does. Earlier Sutras are not necesseraly written earlier than the later ones.

Well, the bible isn't exactly famous for being sorted with the oldest books at the beginning and the newest towards the end.

[Napoleon Ier]

By the way a friend of mine, who has much stronger views on the issue then me, told me, on the topic of violence in the Qu'aran, that the the 'peaceful' verses are all found earlier in the book, and the more violent verses found later on, implying theologicaly that Allah was changing his revalation to man, and the newer revalation, would be the purer one for man to follow. (I am by no means implying the the Koran its self contradictory only that, not to different from the Christian Bible, does have a new revelation to the people.) Also he took these words from a Muslim theologian so although you could argue he isn't mainstream, (the theologian)but you can't argue he's putting words in a Muslim's mouth (my somewhat radical friend).

I'm sorry but thats just wrong. The Koran doesn't follow a chronological structure like the Christain Bible does. Earlier Sutras are not necesseraly written earlier than the later ones.

No, they're arranged in length, but they were written over a period of time, the discrepency alluded to by MM is well documented. No doubt Guiscard the historian will tell you I'mwrong and that he should know end of story, however.

What is clear throughout is that Islam is intended to be used as a political model for muslim states and fails to make the spiritual/temporal divide.

[Neoteny]

By the way a friend of mine, who has much stronger views on the issue then me, told me, on the topic of violence in the Qu'aran, that the the 'peaceful' verses are all found earlier in the book, and the more violent verses found later on, implying theologicaly that Allah was changing his revalation to man, and the newer revalation, would be the purer one for man to follow. (I am by no means implying the the Koran its self contradictory only that, not to different from the Christian Bible, does have a new revelation to the people.) Also he took these words from a Muslim theologian so although you could argue he isn't mainstream, (the theologian)but you can't argue he's putting words in a Muslim's mouth (my somewhat radical friend).

I'm sorry but thats just wrong. The Koran doesn't follow a chronological structure like the Christain Bible does. Earlier Sutras are not necesseraly written earlier than the later ones.

No, they're arranged in length, but they were written over a period of time, the discrepency alluded to by MM is well documented. No doubt Guiscard the historian will tell you I'mwrong and that he should know end of story, however.

They are organized longer to shorter, but the chronology can usually be determined. Warraq mentions that the "peaceful" verses are found earlier chronologically than the "violent" verses, and that the later verses always take precedecence, according to specific quotes. But that's always open to interpretation.

[Snorri1234]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

Faith. =)

[Napoleon Ier]

Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days

Faith. =)

M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L

[Napoleon Ier]

By the way a friend of mine, who has much stronger views on the issue then me, told me, on the topic of violence in the Qu'aran, that the the 'peaceful' verses are all found earlier in the book, and the more violent verses found later on, implying theologicaly that Allah was changing his revalation to man, and the newer revalation, would be the purer one for man to follow. (I am by no means implying the the Koran its self contradictory only that, not to different from the Christian Bible, does have a new revelation to the people.) Also he took these words from a Muslim theologian so although you could argue he isn't mainstream, (the theologian)but you can't argue he's putting words in a Muslim's mouth (my somewhat radical friend).

I'm sorry but thats just wrong. The Koran doesn't follow a chronological structure like the Christain Bible does. Earlier Sutras are not necesseraly written earlier than the later ones.

No, they're arranged in length, but they were written over a period of time, the discrepency alluded to by MM is well documented. No doubt Guiscard the historian will tell you I'mwrong and that he should know end of story, however.

They are organized longer to shorter, but the chronology can usually be determined. Warraq mentions that the "peaceful" verses are found earlier chronologically than the "violent" verses, and that the later verses always take precedecence, according to specific quotes. But that's always open to interpretation.

20/20 Neoteny. Spot on...Mohammad as he found Jews and Christians more troublesome garnred support by claiming Allah wanted him to fight them.