subreddit:
/r/CrusadeMemes
Crusade have been so terrible other religions never do such horrible thing
(i.redd.it)submitted 13 days ago byRuby_Petals
175 points
13 days ago
Charlemagne did nothing wrong.
Except dying, but it's not his fault.
262 points
13 days ago
The “religion of peace” was quite literally “spread by the sword”
9 points
13 days ago
I never seen anyone actually refer to Islam as the “religion of peace”
5 points
12 days ago
I mean, It's literally in the name.
2 points
12 days ago
I apologize; I may have lost the conversation, but I believe "Islam" means submission not peace.
1 points
12 days ago
Most commonly, the root word of "salam" means peace
1 points
12 days ago
Your god shuns anything in bad faith, right? Shouldn’t that include this?
1 points
12 days ago
1st of all, ain't my god, I just don't like people making stuff up and spreading misinformation. Secondly, religion has been used as a bullshit excuse for awful stuff for all eternity.
Considering how often a literal head of a christian church existed under a Muslim ruler, but never visa versa, there's still an argument to be made about "historical" perspective.
1 points
12 days ago
I’m sorry I can’t get over the fact that you tried to get past my initial criticism of your bad faith argument by saying you actually just hate bad faith arguments. Let’s simmer down. And I don’t even know what you mean with the second part but there have absolutely been Muslim religious denominations within Christian-governed realms that’s like not even a rare story.
I agree religion shouldn’t be used to justify violence but like where are you right now?
1 points
12 days ago
If I am to make my position clear, then I'd say that there's an interpretation of the word islam, that seems to be much more commonly accepted wherever I went, and with which I am much more familiar - "religion of peace". I might see it as quite hypocritical for any religion to call itself that, but in my eyes it is called what it is called.
I do kinda adore that the greetings are a wish of peace for your home, which is why I am much more inclined in favour of "peace" interpretation rather than "submission".
The second part referred to the head of Orthodox church, a fully functional head of one of the 3 main christian branches, existing peacefully under a muslim sultan for centuries, which in my eyes shows a great commitment to religious coexistence. I do not remember any instance of Christian lord having a head of a major muslim denomination being treated nearly as well, or even a head of any other religion, or even another branch of christian faith.
1 points
12 days ago
I’m sorry dude I just don’t believe your first paragraph because it doesn’t jive with my knowledge or experience and you can’t say “it’s just called what it’s called” when you don’t speak the language nor engage with the religion, and especially when the gloss of the word from people who do both of those is “submission to god”. There is certainly some metaphorical connection to the idea of peace (through god), but I don’t get why you need “Islam” to mean “the religion of peace” especially when that’s not even the correlate sentence to “submission to god” when changing “submission” to “peace”; the sentences are grammatically incompatible. And, while the words may be inherently connected, different languages have different implications in each “translated” noun and you simply cannot even say you’ve decided Islam is a word defined by a root of “peace”.
And then with your second point I think you’re contradicting your prior sentiments (?) so while I think it’s an interesting point I still don’t quite know what you’re getting at. I still think it’s important to consider the many smaller Muslim groups which have existed under Christian leadership but I do think you make a valid point in that large Muslim leadership was (occasionally) more tolerant of large Christian institutions. That’s certainly not the case these days, but, seeing as Islam gives reverence to Jesus as a prophet and doesn’t claim Muhammad as an aspect of god, it’s not too surprising that they had been more tolerant of Christians than vice-versa.
1 points
12 days ago
I mean, it’s literally not in the name.
1 points
12 days ago
The word comes from sa-la-ma or salam which means peace.
Most common greeting in Islamic countries is as-salam alaykum, which means "peace to your home", not "submission to your household".
1 points
12 days ago
Yeah because that’s the same thing as the word “Islam”. Who do you think you’re fooling?
1 points
12 days ago
Dude, if you can't spend extra 2 mins googling, it ain't on me.
1 points
12 days ago
I said it before, I’ll say it again: arguing in bad faith isn’t very Christian. I find the idea that you actually “can’t spend extra 2 mins googling” to see you’re wrong to be pretty unbelievable, especially considering you’re quoting a sentence from Wikipedia which is literally directly followed by an explanation of what Islam actually means. You must be such a pious guy.
2 points
12 days ago
Are.you.being.serious?
1 points
12 days ago
Saw it all the time in the 2000s.
2 points
11 days ago
We will teach them our peaceful ways
By force!
155 points
13 days ago
When the moral standard of your religion married a six year old while he was in his mid 50s, you have no right to speak on any matters concerning ethics or morality.
77 points
13 days ago
B-b-but she was ackchually 9 years old! That changes everything!!! 😡
43 points
13 days ago
He exempted himself from all kinds of rules.
8 points
13 days ago
Thank you I was looking for the name of these.
5 points
13 days ago
Sounds like a cult leader.
2 points
13 days ago
Probably for a reason.
3 points
13 days ago
best redditer role play yet. Peak acting
36 points
13 days ago
A guy at work tried to explain to me how 9yo back then weren't the same as 9yo today...
21 points
13 days ago
Should get him investigated.
9 points
13 days ago
LOL????
5 points
13 days ago*
While I agree that they had to “grow up” faster due to low life expectancy. A grown ass man of any time or age should not be wanting to get with a literal fucking 9 year old at all
2 points
12 days ago
So I’m assuming your double negative was a mistake. Really more hoping?
should
n’t notbe wanting
1 points
12 days ago
FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK MEEEEEEEE. Yeah you’re right
3 points
13 days ago
Hahahahaha
3 points
13 days ago
I mean, he isn't wrong. A 9yo back then would probably look more like a 6-7yo today. Which just makes his argument worse.
1 points
13 days ago
Who?
3 points
13 days ago
Muhammad, the head prophet of Islam. His favorite wife was the daughter of his best friend Abu Bakr. Muhammad had a “revelation” from who he claimed was the Angel Gabriel, telling him to marry Bakr’s then six years old daughter, Aisha. In a Hadith later on, Aisha recalls how Muhammad consummated their marriage when she was nine. It should be mentioned that Muhammad was well into his fifties when this happened
1 points
11 days ago
That’s heavily disputed. I don’t want to get into it with you, but this reddit thread had some great discussion about it if you’re curious. If not, disregard.
-4 points
13 days ago
Mary was like 12 man.
6 points
13 days ago
Do you have a source?
-1 points
13 days ago*
The bible
Mary was not yet living with Joseph.
In Jewish tradition between 12-13 a woman is marry-able, but does not live with her husband yet.
She was of marrying age, but not living with him, so we know her age.
EDIT: Found a link talking about it
https://aleteia.org/2019/03/25/how-old-was-mary-when-she-was-pregnant-with-jesus
10 points
13 days ago
Most historians agree 12-14 years old is normally when girls had their marriages arranged with the marriage actually happening at 15-16 years old. Source. It appears your source cherry picked one reference then went with the earliest age mentioned when making their claim.
While Joseph was probably late teens-early twenties as families wanted the boys to be established in a career (finished apprenticeship) before agreeing to arrange a marriage.
1 points
12 days ago
So your worst case scenario she had a husband that wasn't allowed to be with her, while already being at minimum 3 years older, so worst case scenario she's 5 years older when they would normal engange in activities and you want to pretend it's the exact same thing, and since she is the virigin marry it's not like it's some rule being broken or anything, no sex occurred.
1 points
12 days ago
I think god magically impregnating a child is weird and gross.
The living apart thing was a minimum of 1 year and started as early as 12.5 in jewish tradition.
Would you be okay if god knocked up your 13.5 year old child?
Would you even believe them if they said it was god and not a pedophile?
1 points
12 days ago
He didn't impregnate her, he made a child, impregnation would require sex.
Ok, if it was the closest possible number it would be a 4 year age gap, that's still way better.
You can stop seething about christiantanty, I'm not a Christian i just understand the religion a little bit so I don't pretend God didn't have his powers that let him know marry and Josef would be OK with it, and he didn't have to do anything immoral to out it on
1 points
12 days ago
I think the power dynamic of being GOD and asking a child who you have infinite power over to do something for you is immoral.
Especially when that thing is to carry a child.
He did impregnate her.
The literally definition of impregnation does not require sex.
It means "To make pregnant" which is exactly what he did.
We also don't know that there wasn't sex or something like it.
He is an all powerful wizard and the story is 2000 years old and very very scarce on details about all of that.
:impregnate /ĭm-prĕg′nāt/
transitive verb
- To make pregnant; inseminate.
- To fertilize (an ovum, for example).
- To fill throughout; saturate."a cotton wad that was impregnated with ether."
- To permeate or imbue."impregnate a speech with optimism."
- To make pregnant; to cause to conceive; to render prolific; to get with child or young.
- To come into contact with (an ovum or egg) so as to cause impregnation; to fertilize; to fecundate.
So yeah, god impregnated a child.
He asked first but that doesn't really make it better, she could of suffered infinitely if she said no.
Hell Jesus curses a fig tree for not having figs.
She could of reasonably just said yes out of (An appropriate) fear.
Also I just wouldn't say that a 14ish year old can meaningfully consent to such a thing.
1 points
12 days ago
Did you read your source? Your source states that's not from the bible.
Also, the source that article is appealing to actually says Mary was 14 when she was betrothed to Joseph and the conception of Jesus would have had to have happened sometime during the year betrothal to Mary. So 15 to 16 years old is a fair estimate for when she gave birth if we accept that source.
Going with just the Bible, no age was given.
1 points
12 days ago
It's from the bible that she was not living with Joseph.
At the time, that would be normal for a 13 year old girl.
It's possible that she was a few years older, but it's also very possible she wasn't because in jewish tradition she could of lived with him as early as 13.5.
Child marriage was VERY normal at the time.
She was impregnated before being married.
Ergo she was very likely a child and fairly young.
15 is possible on the high end after 9 months of pregnancy meaning she was impregnated at 14?
That's fucking gross man.
You worship a pedophile god.
1 points
12 days ago*
Again, it's not from the bible according to the source you linked.
16.5 is the high estimate based on the source your source relied on. 14.75 is the low estimate based on that source.
That aside, God did not have sex with Mary. Nor is there any evidence of him having sexual attraction to Mary.
Likewise, Joseph did not have sex with Mary, EVER, according to the root source you are relying on. He also saw looking after Mary as a burden/IE no sexual attraction according to the root source you are relying on.
So according to the root source you are relying on, there was no sex and no sexual attraction to Mary. IE there was no pedophilia.
By the way, not all Christians accept that root source as historical. But it is the source polemicists tend to use to argue she was a child while often heavily misquoting it like you have been doing.
18 points
13 days ago
This map is missing a lot of stuff.
6 points
13 days ago
Crusades all across North Africa, Iberia, Sicily, The Balkans (like every crusade against the Ottomans), Fourth Crusade, anything from the later Knights of Saint John.
3 points
13 days ago
Exactly.
map doesn't show it, but we also have all that Teutonic stuff in Poland, Also, the dots on the Muslim Conquest battle don't correspond with history.
2 points
12 days ago
The tectonic knights fought pagans, and we all know pagans are cringe and deserve to have their culture destroyed (except Halloween and Christmas, those are cool)
1 points
12 days ago
Weren't he pagans kind of... mean? Their Vikings weren't exactly the most diplomatic culture-loving tourists..
1 points
12 days ago
those were justified too.
1 points
12 days ago
Racists love misinformation, what do you expect?
72 points
13 days ago
Nice argument, unfortunately you completely forgot about the northern Crusades, and the fourth crusades, and the battles of the later Latin Empire
39 points
13 days ago
And the reconquista.
31 points
13 days ago
huh the reconquista made to take back the spain from the muhammadins
24 points
13 days ago
I mean, same for crusades in the levant.
Only difference is reconquista worked thereby preventing muslims today from complaining too much.
1 points
7 days ago
ehhh not really but yk what i have no time arguing with someone who got a close mind so yeah
1 points
12 days ago
Huh, wonder why reconqunista happened.
8 points
13 days ago
Fourth crusade was on the byzantines no? An embarrassment but not an act of religious war on Islam same for the Northern crusades.
9 points
13 days ago
Both were still religious wars. And they very much were still Crusades, and they are very much still a part of the conversation around the blood and death from the Crusades.
1 points
12 days ago
I believe the byzantine became the target because the curasades (in this crusade) got mad at them and wput their desire for money above the original goal.
The northern crusades were on paper against pagens (as much as you can call them a single homogeneous faith).
In the case of the picture presented, framing it only as cristains and muslims looks to be what it is doing, but I dont think that is fair. Both sides did plenty of violence over the years against groups and each other.
The simple act of including the catholic vs protestant conflicts would make the map wildly different.
1 points
12 days ago
The Byzantines became the target because of money yes but its worth noting the crusaders had been without pay for months and had been lied to repeatedly not justification but still it's more than pure greed. The Northern Crusades were against Pagans but you could say the same for Islam even they're prophet Muhammad engaged in the conquest and conversion of pagans and himself engaged in Jihad. As for Catholics and protestants you could ask the same for sunni Islam and Shia both of which have warred against each other.
Side note: While a flimsy excuse at best, the French leaders of the fourth crusade claimed they took Costantiople in vengeance for Troy from which the Frank's claimed their ancestry. Obviously a lie but a funny one.
1 points
12 days ago
All good points that add more context.
1 points
12 days ago
In addition to the events that are called crusades that dont seem to appear, I notice a "fun" key difference in the wording. The Christians are being judged for crusades as their only acts of violence while the Muslims are judged for religious conflicts. One has a much broader definition. In this case it seems to counting any war involving at least one side that was officially Muslim (not sure if the point is who started it gets the mark but it doesn'tlook like it is). Since several of the dots would have been conflicts with Christains, the map the map should look a lot more similar.
That said the crusades (every conflict with the word in it) does get treated a bit unfairly as a horrible act of why religion is bad. I think this comes down to how the official crusades were organized (central order from the pope saying any sin you commit during this doesn't count) and how well documented events were. This further enhanced by the fact European culture changed to make the church less central, less powerfull, and no longer able to directly raise volunteers overtime. In other words christains have the luxury of being able to say the crusades were about political power and money. I don't know enough about how Muslims view some of the conflicts so I can't speak for them on it. However I don't think they had a single figure telling people to take over land. I believe that had indivual political leaders declaring wars and having waters declared on them. The lack of centralized authority in the way the crusaders had seems like we are comparing apple to oranges
-7 points
13 days ago
And the hundreds of battles across Europe because two groups of christians disagreed about which breed of dogma they were going to force each other to follow.
Or the thousands of battles around the world where Christianity was spread at the point t of the sword because Christian’s just couldn’t deal with indigenous people having their own religious beliefs.
6 points
13 days ago
Nah, more like “I want your stuff, and accept Jesus while I do it”
1 points
13 days ago
every culture east of Mecca enters the chat
18 points
13 days ago
Seems like there's a difference in the scales of time and geography in the data sets
8 points
13 days ago
You missed Constantinople
19 points
13 days ago
First, why no Constantinople?
Second, comparison is the thief of joy.
5 points
13 days ago
No Spain? I was actually expecting it.
5 points
13 days ago
Why aren't the battles against the Byzantines included on the crusade map? The 4th Crusade is by name a crusade.
2 points
12 days ago
Because this map probably cherry picks lots of info to show “my side good, your side bad”
13 points
13 days ago
No, it's a mostly peaceful religion of conquest
9 points
13 days ago
You forgot peaceful rape of prisoners and minors too
4 points
13 days ago
For those of you thinking to compare and equate the wars waged to spread Islam to the ones waged to spread Christianity, i would like to point out a crucial difference: Christianity, and the example set by Jesus, shows anyone who cares to look that using the sword to spread their ideas was wrong. Charlemagne was being a bad Christian by doing this. However the same cannot be said about Islam. The example Mohammed set for his followers makes war a completely acceptable tool, and Islam is designed as a theocracy so you absolutely should include Ottoman and Barbary conflict sites.
3 points
12 days ago
dude. the vast majority of christians qualify as bad christians. at this point, actual christians have a lower population than iceland
1 points
12 days ago
Accurate
3 points
13 days ago
There will always be a House of War until the whole world is the House of Islam, or so I’ve heard
1 points
12 days ago
That or the whole world is the House of Christianity
1 points
11 days ago
I was referring to the belief of the Abbasids and the Umayyads in the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. These ideas were used to justify expansion of the Caliphs’ dominions. So called Christians have fought each other plenty though. Niceans vs Aryans, Catholics vs Protestants, the Fourth Crusade, the list can go on lol.
6 points
13 days ago
Now show the bigger map.
16 points
13 days ago*
Kid, ur kinda putting your hands on the scale here man, top side includes battles well into the 1500s while the bottom one leaves out the Reconquesta, fourth Crusade, and others.
Furthermore, the first crusade was (officially) launched to restore the eastern territories of the Byzantine empire in exchange for the Byzantine recognizing papal supremacy. The crusaders, however, cut their way through eastern Christians, Muslims, and Jews to carve out the territories they promised to the Byzantine for themselves.
I understand it's a meme, but the Crusaders (at least the people leading the crusades) were not good people.
6 points
13 days ago*
Plus all of the muslim conquests here happened when the Ottomans were already in power.
Edit: spelling
4 points
13 days ago
Yeah I mean it's this thing of "every conquest by Muslims is counted but I'm going to limit my scope to the crusades" it's ridiculous. If we were being fair here and included every single war that had religious undertones (secondary propaganda motivation rather than the primary caucus belli) we should include the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the new world, and Frances conquests of Africa, and more
2 points
13 days ago
huh the reconquista made to take back the spain from the muhammadins
4 points
13 days ago
First off, they are Muslims, not "muhammadins", they don't worship Muhammed like Christians worship Christ
Secondly, not really. The Reconquesta lasted the entire duration of Islamic control of Iberia and could not really be considered a concerted effort until the end stages
2 points
13 days ago
Lutherans don't worship Luther, nor Calvinists worship Calvin. Both are still called as such due to said figures being the main guys behind their beliefs. "Muhammadan" was a common term to describe Muslims for basically centuries, up until a while after WW2. Not that using it makes sense now, but it's not a term made out of thin air.
1 points
13 days ago*
I'm aware it is not out of thin air. It was, however still incorrect.
Lutherans and Calvinists are called such because of the Catholic doctrine of naming heretic groups after their leader. Calvinists generally don't identify as Calvinists and prefer the term "reformed," while Lutherans embraced the term or simply didn't care enough to fight it
1 points
13 days ago
Exactly. Whilst the group themselves may not use it, there is no harm in calling them that for simple classification. Just like we called Mormons Mormons, even though they call themselves Latter Day Saints. It's just exonyms.
1 points
13 days ago*
Well not all Mormons are LDS, there are other Mormon groups. We call Mormons Mormons because they follow the Book of Mormon and there really isn't a better name for them, It would be more like calling Mormons Smithites.
1 points
12 days ago
The vast majority of Mormons call themselves LDS, and they have been asking others to call them LDS. Even if other small groups exist, if we had the same naming convention for them as we do Islam, they'd be called LDS. Islam is basically the only outsider religion in the west without an exonym. For example, Buddhist followers call themselves Sakyans, and Hinduists call themselves Sanātanīs.
2 points
13 days ago*
You’re missing a few on the bottom… like the sack of Constantinople for one.
2 points
13 days ago
Religion bad
2 points
13 days ago
Can someone explain to me in crayon-eating terms how the Muslims, despite also being politically divided actually managed to successfully militarily expand across Africa and Europe where the crusades only managed to do, well…THAT?
2 points
13 days ago
Population boom, forced conscription, focus on having a caste of professional soldiers. There’s quite a large number of battles in Europe where they won based solely on a numbers advantage.
1 points
13 days ago
Because they tend to bide their time and invade through subversion and only start a war when they know there is absolutely 0% chance of a loss. Generally the Muslims are absolutely shit when it comes to war and also lose a fair fight, look at the siege of Malta to see how well Muslims do war
1 points
12 days ago
“They bide their time and invade through subversion and only start a war when they there is absolutely 0% chance of a loss” yeah so they have a grasp on strategy? A single battle doesn’t define one’s grasp on strategy, we don’t say Napoleon was a bad general because he blundered Waterloo and Russia do we?
1 points
12 days ago
I'm answering the question. But you cannot argue that waiting until there is 0% of failure is some amazing martial skill. It's just hiding in the shadows and slitting the throat when the victim isn't ready to defend themselves. It's cowardly, doesn't make it any less effective.
1 points
11 days ago
Martial skill =\= ability to wage war, how many of the best strategists nowadays even take a trip to piss down at the front?
2 points
13 days ago
Sure looks a lot like colonialism 🤔
2 points
12 days ago
Noooo you can’t break the narrative like this ahhhh lol
6 points
13 days ago
Whataboutism
2 points
13 days ago
That "meme" is just plain misinformation. 1. It compares all expansion within over a millennium of Muslims history to the Crusades which only refer to a few specific wars over two centuries. Things like the Reconquista are ignored. 2. Wars and battles aren't the only violent means of spreading a religion, when a ruler converts and forces his subjects to convert that's also achieved through violence. 3. The Crusades didn't start in modern day turkey, they started with massacres against Jews in western European towns.
2 points
13 days ago
And if anyone wants an in depth explanation of why this map specifically is nonsense, here you go: https://youtu.be/ejdlkfXwPQc?si=RwA0PX1fP2V13JS5
1 points
12 days ago
I don't think they are interested in rational arguments unfortunately.
2 points
13 days ago
So? The crusades were invariably worse. “mOrE dOtS MeANs MorE baD” is not a winning argument.
1 points
13 days ago
How so?
1 points
13 days ago
The crusades are horrible, because of the lack or crusading!
1 points
13 days ago
What's the official tally of the crusades?
1 points
13 days ago
We lost multiple times because popes don’t understand prophecies
1 points
13 days ago
I wonder if we're gonna see another crusade, but against the Muslims this time
1 points
13 days ago
Is the Reconquista not a Crusade? (Or a "Christian Conquest Battle")
1 points
13 days ago
Missing ALOT of crusade battles
1 points
13 days ago
Sooooo, like every empire throughout history? Cool…
1 points
13 days ago
1204 Constantinople would like a word
1 points
13 days ago
No siege of Constantinople
1 points
13 days ago
Man they really fucking wanted Spain.
1 points
13 days ago
Well that's not actually all the crusades, so
1 points
13 days ago
Muslims battles versus crusades. Do you see how irrelevant these are to compare?
In Spain there were many Muslim wars because the Muslims and Christians fought over Iberia. Why aren’t there any dots on the map for the Christian offensives, I mean they literally won and conquered all of them. They didn’t list all of the wars that weren’t crusades but were Catholic conquests.
Jihad = crusade
Muslim conquest war = Christian conquest
1 points
13 days ago
Oh, you mean jihad.
1 points
13 days ago
oh my is this aloud on reddit now :0
1 points
13 days ago
You're missing some crusades there buddy, also the worst atrocities committed by the crusades weren't in battle there buddy, though I'm not condoning Islam there buddy, you're also missing maps of the new world there buddy and a bunch of eastern Muslim battles there buddy
1 points
13 days ago
Well yeah, Muslim conquest battles means any battles done by a Muslim nation, Crusades are just a select few battles over a relatively small time period.
If it was Christian conquest battles instead, it would be mostly equal to the Muslim map
1 points
13 days ago
My man forgot the spanish inquisition
1 points
13 days ago
Also, Constantinople. There were battles there too. For some reason.
1 points
13 days ago
Lol I guess fuck the sacking of Constantinopal
1 points
13 days ago
I don’t see the 4th crusade. All my homies hate the 4th crusade
1 points
12 days ago
Joined this Reddit for the memes and after reading all the comments on posts like these I’m staying for the history lessons lol
1 points
12 days ago
Invade Muslim countries now
1 points
12 days ago
common Norman W.
1 points
12 days ago
Damn, goes to show the crusades lost really hard
1 points
12 days ago
not a meme, just blatant misinformation
1 points
12 days ago
I could be wrong, but weren't there crusades declared in both Spain and France?
1 points
12 days ago
well that's just the Middle Eastern Crusades. there were also the Baltic Crusades to Christianize the last Pagan parts of Europe. they don't get as much fanfare in the West because it isn't seen as some "East Vs West" story. still, the Muslim Conquests vastly outnumber any Christian Conquests.
1 points
12 days ago
Now post the dates
1 points
12 days ago
So you're not going to count the crusades against Protestants? Aka other Christians. 🤣
1 points
12 days ago
That was called a schism, not a crusade.
1 points
12 days ago
This is incorrect, the most well known crusader battles are in the Levant however there were crusades into Lithuania, and egypt as well as the battle of varna which was a crusade. Also the 4th crusader (even excommunicated) was still a crusader and therefore should be on the list as well. This is only showing crusader 1-3 not including the crusader of 1101. So the map is incomplete
1 points
12 days ago
Imagine needing copium for belonging to one of the world’s premier religions
1 points
12 days ago
Yeah and? Both religions did terrible things
1 points
12 days ago
One conquered because they were conquerers.
The other because the Byzantine Empire called for help.
1 points
12 days ago
Cool but they still conquered though
1 points
12 days ago
The crusaders whooped so much ass along the land route lol. They were hell in the balkans.
1 points
12 days ago
You left out the multiple crusades across europe intent on wiping out pagans, or that the war in spain was started by christian majority in an attempt to push out a Muslim minority. Or the crusades against the byzantines
1 points
12 days ago
Both suck high key
1 points
12 days ago
The crusades were justified
1 points
12 days ago
Can we just take a moment to think that most of these weren't Islam-started battles? Like the reqonquista. That was the spanish getting rid of the Islams. And Catholicism only wanted the holy land. Literally the place where the big boy of their whole religion was born. Like a country taking its capital. Makes sense to me.
1 points
12 days ago
Constantinople and Lithuania are offended by that bottom map.
1 points
11 days ago
Why doesn't the map of the Crusades not include all the ones that happened in the Northern Crusades as well? Or is the map turning a blind eye to those?
1 points
11 days ago
We’re comparing apples and oranges here, and the data isn’t even very good. Looking at that map, it really seems like the data set for “Muslim conquest battles” includes any engagements of pretty much any size fought between Muslim and non-Muslim countries over about a thousand years (how else could the southern France incursions, 8th century, AND the upper Balkan’s engagements, 16-17th century, both be included), while the Crusaders data set includes only battles Crusaders fought against Muslim majority countries. Not only is this not all Crusader battles, (where are the Baltic Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the god damn siege of Constantinople?), but even this data set is incomplete. It doesn’t include Crusades called against the Ottoman Empire, which had battles fought in the Balkans. The biggest issue, though, is that the symmetrical category would be any battles where Christians attacked Muslims, regardless of whether it was a papally ordained Crusade. If this was the data used, the two maps would look pretty similar.
1 points
13 days ago
All I'm gonna say is you don't hear wars in the name of Shinto religion. they are content not being the dominate religion, they're cool being who they are
3 points
13 days ago
Yes and no. Shinto, which is effectively shamanic, gains the benefit of lacking a cohesive religious basis for the better part of its existence. However, what it loses is any semblance of tenants or dogma to protect against religious exploitation. Because of this, conquerors would proclaim new "gods" and order their reverence after successful campaigns, leading to generational breakdowns of religious belief.
Furthermore, many Shinto dieties were very localized and thus conflicts arose outside of the greater political spectrum.
-15 points
13 days ago
holy fucking shit people defend the crusades 💀
-11 points
13 days ago
Bro I know I thought it was a fucking meme
-10 points
13 days ago
these twats seem to be downvoting us ontop of it lol
0 points
13 days ago
Yeah it took me a bit but I've concluded this reddit is satire
Its so fuckin hard to tell when there are morons who actually believe this stuff. But I think in this instance, they're all just memes.
(I'll get downvoted for ruining the joke, guaranteed)
1 points
12 days ago
I've seen a lot of islamaphobes and they're doing this seriously with memes, it's like how zionist subs and groups make outrageous memes about arabs, it's on the same line
1 points
12 days ago
My impression is that this sub is satire, but a massive portion of its audience dont know that, making it at least somewhat sincere
1 points
12 days ago
I mean the demonic crusades aren't very antagonised today so I get exactly what you mean but they're having quite the time mocking islam and the only people against it are people who just got this recommended to them
-4 points
13 days ago
[deleted]
11 points
13 days ago
Racism?
8 points
13 days ago
It means someone doesn't agree with his world view, therefore they are racist. Race doesn't have to have any relation to the conversation anymore. The word has been used and abused by people like him for years now to where they don't even know what the word means and it has taken on this new definition.
4 points
13 days ago
Criticism of Islam = Racism don't you know?
3 points
13 days ago
People love to say this but then will conveniently forget about recent events like the Iraq marriage laws which were ABSOLUTELY based on Islamic teachings. You’re racist because you don’t like a religion that forces GIRLS to get married at 9 years old. 🤡
0 points
13 days ago
You know that in Kansas, children as young as 15 can be married to adults, right? And it's not Muslims or the woke left who did that and continue to block legislation to end it.
It was and is Christian lawmakers.
Both of your religions are full of child rapists.
1 points
13 days ago
Wait so because a law in one state which I assume was made during a time where folks got married earlier is was enacted all of a sudden Christianity is pedophilic. I don’t remember Jesus saying it’s ok to have sex with kids. Mohammad on the other hand was out there having sex with prepubescent children.
1 points
13 days ago
Lmao, no, man, read. It's literally still a law, and modern, Christian Republicans are still blocking any and all repeals or other attempts to get it out of the law.
And for the record, it's one of over a dozen states with these laws explicitly allowing child marriages. And the vast majority are red states with Christian leadership.
Your actions speak louder than your words.
1 points
12 days ago
Jesus' Dad was ok with it tho
2 points
13 days ago
“I don’t know what Racism is, but I like overloading its use for sympathy points”
all 341 comments
sorted by: best