Early Islam and healthcare

[WinterHold]

That's not really WHY the Crusaders come to the Holy Land, but there's no question that atrocities occurred on both sides once they arrived.  Don't confuse motivation with opportunism.

Boru

It's hard to commit atrocities against an invading army. I mean 99% or so were Christian Jihadists attacking Muslim cities full of civilians.

But what do you think the real reason was, aside from the literal words of the issuer of the war; the Pope?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's not really WHY the Crusaders come to the Holy Land, but there's no question that atrocities occurred on both sides once they arrived.  Don't confuse motivation with opportunism.

Boru

It's hard to commit atrocities against an invading army. I mean 99% or so were Christian Jihadists attacking Muslim cities full of civilians.

But what do you think the real reason was, aside from the literal words of the issuer of the war; the Pope?

Religious fanaticism on the part of the Westerners.  Urban's well-known cynicism and mendacity aside, the Crusades were ruinously expensive for the Christian kingdoms who promulgated them.  The motive (at least on the part of the leaders in the West) wasn't economic, it was religious.

Boru

[Deesse23]

So; Crusaders came to destroy and loot, they were a barbarian horde disguised in metal armors, they came to Muslim lands to kill and rape.

No, they didnt. They came to claim back the holy land for christianity, and thats exactly what they did.* Of course they were well motivated up to the extreme(ism) by propaganda about the muslim world. As a result the crusaders were ruthless in the way they conducted themselves. This however wasnt unique to them, but common to ANY movement as well motivated (ad misled) as the crusaders were.

Lets also not forget that the great success (at first, not in later stages) was partially due to the muslim world being divided and making pacts with christians vs other muslims. The muslim world of the crusades was, by and large, not much morally better than the crusaders. You really need to stop subscribing to this Crusaders= devils vs muslims = Ghandi program. Its ridiculous. If anything there were single persons on both sides who realized that, once parts of the levant were occupied, a live and let live would be of much more benefit, to both sides. You can clearly see this happening in those (rulers) who were born there and who were always in infights with the new arrivals from europe who were much more confrontational. Just have a look at the alliance of Jerusalem with Damascus, which would possibly would have lasted longer, if the leaders of the second crusade would not have pushed an agressive agenda.


*ok, the Normans predominantly looking for loot and personal gains

It's not racism against Europeans since I am admitting the noble role of Rome and Greece in building civilization, but crusaders were a savage rabble that used Christianity to loot and escape poverty.

...which is an oversimplification and painting the crusades with a broad brush, trying to paint them in a worse light than contemporary muslims, who were no different in plotting against their own kind with the religious enemy or waging war within (the muslim community). In other words: [u]Yes, its prejudice against crsaders on your part.

Their relationship to Islamic healthcare was so obvious: Crusaders and Mongols burned down Muslim civilization.

Which is untrue, blatantly so.

The crusades finally failed, resulting in backlash from the muslim world, ending up at the gates of Vienna
The Mongols were stopped (by Mamluks) before they could reach Cairo, and later the Ilkhanate even adopted muslim religion. Hardly a defeat for Islam.
By the time the crusaders arrived, the muslim world was already divided long ago*. Same for the Mogols. If the Muslim world would have been such amazing people they wouldnt have been so weak from the inside that the mongols or crusaders could hurt them.
What did the muslim world do while the Mongols destroyed the Choresmian empire? What did Damascus do when the crusaders faced off Nur ad Din?

*Ummayads vs Abbasids. Taifas in Al Andalus, infights with Almohads, Almohavids, etc.. They didnt need Crusaders and Mongols to kill and persecute each other.

Today, Muslims are under the control of the sons of Crusaders

Bullshit. The crusades are gone 800y now, and there isnt much that connects a modern european to the crusades. Bull-shit. Drop your "i am special and persecuted" complex, for the upteenth time.

who evolved through the Illumination era to turn against Christianity and advocate secular laws, local criminals are always chosen intentionally to guard and deliver the interests of their employers.

More bullshit.
Not my (modern, secular, illminated, european) fault that you and your culture is stuck in the late medieval, refusing to realize that separation of religion and state is necessary for evolution of your society to the better. Islam (-ic culture) had made steps in the righ tdirection in the past, that is correct, but then took the wron way. Stop blaming ayone but yourself (religion/culture) for your own mistakes. Its pathetic.

[WinterHold]

It's hard to commit atrocities against an invading army. I mean 99% or so were Christian Jihadists attacking Muslim cities full of civilians.

But what do you think the real reason was, aside from the literal words of the issuer of the war; the Pope?

Religious fanaticism on the part of the Westerners.  Urban's well-known cynicism and mendacity aside, the Crusades were ruinously expensive for the Christian kingdoms who promulgated them.  The motive (at least on the part of the leaders in the West) wasn't economic, it was religious.

Boru

But the words of Urban were clear in the speech: he told the hungry Europeans who were suffering the aftermath of the ice age about Arabian fortunes in return of fighting his war.

It wasn't even the only time hordes of Europeans come from the west looking for the warmth of the Middle Eastern climate and riches of other nations. The world suffered from invasions coming from the west until America was conquered, also in the name of the cross.

Christianity was a mere cause used to justify the lust for the riches of others. When crusaders were desperate from conquering Muslim land, they moved their cannons to America; where weaker cultures existed.

---

So; Crusaders came to destroy and loot, they were a barbarian horde disguised in metal armors, they came to Muslim lands to kill and rape.

No, they didnt. They came to claim back the holy land for christianity, and thats exactly what they did.* Of course they were well motivated up to the extreme(ism) by propaganda about the muslim world. As a result the crusaders were ruthless in the way they conducted themselves. This however wasnt unique to them, but common to ANY movement as well motivated (ad misled) as the crusaders were.

Lets also not forget that the great success (at first, not in later stages) was partially due to the muslim world being divided and making pacts with christians vs other muslims. The muslim world of the crusades was, by and large, not much morally better than the crusaders. You really need to stop subscribing to this Crusaders= devils vs muslims = Ghandi program. Its ridiculous. If anything there were single persons on both sides who realized that, once parts of the levant were occupied, a live and let live would be of much more benefit, to both sides. You can clearly see this happening in those (rulers) who were born there and who were always in infights with the new arrivals from europe who were much more confrontational. Just have a look at the alliance of Jerusalem with Damascus, which would possibly would have lasted longer, if the leaders of the second crusade would not have pushed an agressive agenda.


*ok, the Normans predominantly looking for loot and personal gains

? European knights were so savage and uncivilized even in their own continent; they leveled up their savagery when they went abroad because Arabian gold blinded their eyes.
You didn't hear about the War of the Roses for example?
Let's not forget the torture machines they built to force people into Christianity.
They were extreme long before Urban's speech. He only used Arabian riches to attract warriors -just like you would attract an animal to a pile of meat-.

Crusaders were devils; just like any imperialist savage ready to kill thousands for gold and fame. They even shook hands with the Mongols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance

Several attempts at a Franco-Mongol alliance against the Islamic caliphates, their common enemy, were made by various leaders among the Frankish Crusaders and the Mongol Empire in the 13th century

Only devils who sold their humanity would shake hands with the disgusting Mongol empire.

which is an oversimplification and painting the crusades with a broad brush, trying to paint them in a worse light than contemporary muslims, who were no different in plotting against their own kind with the religious enemy or waging war within (the muslim community). In other words: [u]Yes, its prejudice against crsaders on your part.

No. Crusaders -with historic evidence- were poor man eating savages with a grudge against richer civilizations,

Which is untrue, blatantly so.

The crusades finally failed, resulting in backlash from the muslim world, ending up at the gates of Vienna
The Mongols were stopped (by Mamluks) before they could reach Cairo, and later the Ilkhanate even adopted muslim religion. Hardly a defeat for Islam.
By the time the crusaders arrived, the muslim world was already divided long ago*. Same for the Mogols. If the Muslim world would have been such amazing people they wouldnt have been so weak from the inside that the mongols or crusaders could hurt them.
What did the muslim world do while the Mongols destroyed the Choresmian empire? What did Damascus do when the crusaders faced off Nur ad Din?

*Ummayads vs Abbasids. Taifas in Al Andalus, infights with Almohads, Almohavids, etc.. They didnt need Crusaders and Mongols to kill and persecute each other.

Tu quoque fallacy . Having internal strife an civil wars does not give anybody the right to invade others.

Bullshit. The crusades are gone 800y now, and there isnt much that connects a modern european to the crusades. Bull-shit. Drop your "i am special and persecuted" complex, for the upteenth time.

Europe -and America- are holding me by the balls. Thankfully the illumination period made them secular or else I'll be dead by now.

More bullshit.

Not my (modern, secular, illminated, european) fault that you and your culture is stuck in the late medieval, refusing to realize that separation of religion and state is necessary for evolution of your society to the better. Islam (-ic culture) had made steps in the righ tdirection in the past, that is correct, but then took the wron way. Stop blaming ayone but yourself (religion/culture) for your own mistakes. Its pathetic.

Isn't Sykes-Picot a European treaty?
Isn't Israel a European-made land?
Who supported Saudi Arabia long ago and who protected it today and who gave it a seat in the UN ?
Who is supporting every Arab dictator today?
Who is flooding the Middle East with weapons?

[Deesse23]

No, they didnt. They came to claim back the holy land for christianity, and thats exactly what they did.* Of course they were well motivated up to the extreme(ism) by propaganda about the muslim world. As a result the crusaders were ruthless in the way they conducted themselves. This however wasnt unique to them, but common to ANY movement as well motivated (ad misled) as the crusaders were.

Lets also not forget that the great success (at first, not in later stages) was partially due to the muslim world being divided and making pacts with christians vs other muslims. The muslim world of the crusades was, by and large, not much morally better than the crusaders. You really need to stop subscribing to this Crusaders= devils vs muslims = Ghandi program. Its ridiculous. If anything there were single persons on both sides who realized that, once parts of the levant were occupied, a live and let live would be of much more benefit, to both sides. You can clearly see this happening in those (rulers) who were born there and who were always in infights with the new arrivals from europe who were much more confrontational. Just have a look at the alliance of Jerusalem with Damascus, which would possibly would have lasted longer, if the leaders of the second crusade would not have pushed an agressive agenda.


*ok, the Normans predominantly looking for loot and personal gains

? European knights were so savage and uncivilized even in their own continent; they leveled up their savagery when they went abroad because Arabian gold blinded their eyes.

Europeans constantly fought europeans? What did the Muslim world do? The fucking same. Please stop pretending.

You didn't hear about the War of the Roses for example?

Civil war about who is the *real* legitimate successor.
Why is Shia and Sunni a thing again? Please go ahead, explain to us uncivilized european crusader sons.
Umayyads vs Abbasids? Ayyubids and the rise of Mamluks? Baibars vs Qutuz? Want me to go on?
Its what fucking humans do, all the time, every-fucking-where. Muslims, Arabs are no exception. Sorry to burst your bubble, you son of very *special* people, neither your people nor you are special, only in your imagination.

Let's not forget the torture machines they built to force people into Christianity.

Nobody was forced to become a christian by torture. Torture was used to make unbelievers confess their heresy. It was also used in general as an interrogation tool during a trial of crime. What is the punishment for heresy in Islam again? Death afaik. How much more civilized!
But lets not stop here at heresy and its punishment according to your holy book. How about stoning? 100 or 200 lashes with awhip? Chopping hand off? What do you think about this?
Oh, i got a gem for you are real gem: Crucifiction. What has your holy book to say about crucifiction? Please educate us sons of crusader cannibal barbarians.

Or maybe are you done throwing shit at the wall just in the hope something will stick? You know of all the blatant bullshit i read form you, the Sykes-Picot is the only real interesting thing. Would be really interesting to discuss the background etc, but not with someone who constantly throws hysterical accusations of "sons of uncivilized cannibal crsuaders" around. Sorry, thats not my niveau, not by far.

Only devils who sold their humanity would shake hands with the disgusting Mongol empire.

Are you talking about the muslim Ilkhanate which persecuted christians? Yeah, disgusting.

No. Crusaders -with historic evidence- were poor man eating savages with a grudge against richer civilizations,

Would you please stop that disingenuous cannibalims BS? You are really embarassing yourself here.

Which is untrue, blatantly so.

The crusades finally failed, resulting in backlash from the muslim world, ending up at the gates of Vienna
The Mongols were stopped (by Mamluks) before they could reach Cairo, and later the Ilkhanate even adopted muslim religion. Hardly a defeat for Islam.
By the time the crusaders arrived, the muslim world was already divided long ago*. Same for the Mogols. If the Muslim world would have been such amazing people they wouldnt have been so weak from the inside that the mongols or crusaders could hurt them.
What did the muslim world do while the Mongols destroyed the Choresmian empire? What did Damascus do when the crusaders faced off Nur ad Din?

*Ummayads vs Abbasids. Taifas in Al Andalus, infights with Almohads, Almohavids, etc.. They didnt need Crusaders and Mongols to kill and persecute each other.

Tu quoque fallacy . Having internal strife an civil wars does not give anybody the right to invade others.

No its not. Read my first sentence: "You are wrong" does not mean "Your people did the same as mine, terefore its ok". I didnt justify anything anyone did (unlike you do, by applying selective reading). I pointed out that neither crusades nor Mongols destroyed the islam world. The crusaders were expelled and the Mongols converted (partially) to Islam. Even if we accept that crusades and Mongols did significant damage to the muslim world, its because the muslim world was already heavily divided. I am not blaming the muslims for what happened to them, but without internal division, this could not have happened. These are the cold, hard facts. I am just trying to teach you a lesson that humans are humans, and savages, even Muslims. Looks like i failed, since you seem to ignore all the bad things a muslim ever did, and shift the blame to someone else. Good way to have your culture stuck in the medieval if i may add (and already pointed out).

Bullshit. The crusades are gone 800y now, and there isnt much that connects a modern european to the crusades. Bull-shit. Drop your "i am special and persecuted" complex, for the upteenth time.

Europe -and America- are holding me by the balls. Thankfully the illumination period made them secular or else I'll be dead by now.

You ran out of arguments it seems and now just took your ball and left the field.

Isn't Sykes-Picot a European treaty? Isn't Israel a European-made land?

Exactly. And what the fuck has that do do with the crusades 800y ago and their motivations? Ab-so-fucking-lutely-nothing.
Its an effect of colonialism, particularly french and british. I am german, so dont look at me. We fucked up a lot, but certainly not this part of the world and history. You know there were even european nations that werent colonialist at all. So, equating colonialism with all of Europe is laughable...at best.

Who supported Saudi Arabia long ago and who protected it today and who gave it a seat in the UN ?

Who helped the (christian, colonialist!) british to fight the (muslim!) Ottomans during the Arab revolt in 1916? Time for you to own the people who have done bad things in your name and that of your religion.

Who is supporting every Arab dictator today?
Who is flooding the Middle East with weapons?

And that has what exactly to do with crusades again? Or with the oh-so-peaceful and always persecuted muslims boo-fucking-hooo?

How much more often need one to say that you need to drop your persecution complex?


You keep painting history in black and white and are looking for "victims" and "bad boys" constantly. With this idiocy you will never learn to appreciate the colorful history of mankind.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[Brian37]

The Muslim Umma -nation- gave healthcare as early as 805 and supported the families of the sick and the crazy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of..._hospitals

Muslims knew hospitals from a very early time. This carries a shocking answer to the false lies that says early Muslims were savages; matter in fact the world they built is very close to our modern day world.

By borrowing the luxeries that existed for the royals in Rome and Persia; Muslims made them available for everybody.
They even gave salaries to the families of the sick.

---

Compare between a crusader living in the darkness and a Muslim living in Baghdad in 700 ad.
No wonder the crusaders ate the flesh of Muslims in the crusades.

I hate it when anyone of any religion makes arguments like this.

Caring isn't a patent owned by one religion. Our species evolved to socialize and caring is an expression of empathy which creates bonds within the family and society. 

And for that matter, our species ability to be cruel to each other, is also not a patent owned by one religion. Unfortunately humas fight and conflicts happen. Religion isn't a cure for that.

Our species behaviors are not relegated by old books or fictional super natural beings. Our species behaviors, good or bad, are a result of our evolution. 

There are good people in every religion in the world, and bad people in every religion in the world. There is not one nation, friend or foe alike that does not have hospitals and prisons. 

Religion does not automatically make one good. Actions are in the individual, and it is still up to us how we interact with each other. There is nobody upstairs helping humanity. We are the only ones who can help each other.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Muslim Umma -nation- gave healthcare as early as 805 and supported the families of the sick and the crazy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of..._hospitals

Muslims knew hospitals from a very early time. This carries a shocking answer to the false lies that says early Muslims were savages; matter in fact the world they built is very close to our modern day world.

By borrowing the luxeries that existed for the royals in Rome and Persia; Muslims made them available for everybody.
They even gave salaries to the families of the sick.

---

Compare between a crusader living in the darkness and a Muslim living in Baghdad in 700 ad.
No wonder the crusaders ate the flesh of Muslims in the crusades.

I hate it when anyone of any religion makes arguments like this.

Caring isn't a patent owned by one religion. Our species evolved to socialize and caring is an expression of empathy which creates bonds within the family and society. 

And for that matter, our species ability to be cruel to each other, is also not a patent owned by one religion. Unfortunately humas fight and conflicts happen. Religion isn't a cure for that.

Our species behaviors are not relegated by old books or fictional super natural beings. Our species behaviors, good or bad, are a result of our evolution. 

There are good people in every religion in the world, and bad people in every religion in the world. There is not one nation, friend or foe alike that does not have hospitals and prisons. 

Religion does not automatically make one good. Actions are in the individual, and it is still up to us how we interact with each other. There is nobody upstairs helping humanity. We are the only ones who can help each other.

Don't be so silly, Brian.  Don't you know that Muslims invented everything, have never committed an atrocity, and are the most persecuted people in the history of the world?

Boru

edit: The above reply is intended as sarcasm.  Thank you in advance for not snapping.

[The Valkyrie]

I hate it when anyone of any religion makes arguments like this.

Caring isn't a patent owned by one religion. Our species evolved to socialize and caring is an expression of empathy which creates bonds within the family and society. 

And for that matter, our species ability to be cruel to each other, is also not a patent owned by one religion. Unfortunately humas fight and conflicts happen. Religion isn't a cure for that.

Our species behaviors are not relegated by old books or fictional super natural beings. Our species behaviors, good or bad, are a result of our evolution. 

There are good people in every religion in the world, and bad people in every religion in the world. There is not one nation, friend or foe alike that does not have hospitals and prisons. 

Religion does not automatically make one good. Actions are in the individual, and it is still up to us how we interact with each other. There is nobody upstairs helping humanity. We are the only ones who can help each other.

Don't be so silly, Brian.  Don't you know that Muslims invented everything, have never committed an atrocity, and are the most persecuted people in the history of the world?

Boru

edit: The above reply is intended as sarcasm.  Thank you in advance for not snapping.

Infidel!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Don't be so silly, Brian.  Don't you know that Muslims invented everything, have never committed an atrocity, and are the most persecuted people in the history of the world?

Boru

edit: The above reply is intended as sarcasm.  Thank you in advance for not snapping.

Infidel!

For as long as I can remember, luv.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The crusades were a great way to get bickering w. euro factions to export violence. There wasn't any need to level up the savagery. They had it cranked to eleventy-two already. It just needed to go somewhere else.