(August 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Militant Muslims are simply following in the footsteps, both actual and written, of the founder of their religion.  They can appeal to Muhammad's words and actions, both at the same time.

So not all Muslims, just a select few.

Not that different from Christian Crusaders.

Their leader, the founder of their religion, Muhammad, and his subsequent successors, were violent men, with armies which killed and executed people.  Jesus was also violent, but in a different way; he believed that "the Son of Man" (likely, an angelic being), would come from heaven to destroy Rome.

(August 14, 2016 at 5:44 pm)abaris Wrote: Again, look at the rivalry between Mekka and Mediana.

You don't know the first thing about being critical of your sources. Which basically means, don't believe them unless you have solid evidence of them to be true.

You know what one of the first lessons in history school is? You're presented with a text. There's no author, no date, no point of origin. Just the text. Your task is to find out when, why and by whom this text was written. And most importantly why. In my case it was one of the former GDR, which still existed at the time. It was an easy one, since it had many hints pointing to that origin. So I could take it from there, and knowing that the author had a communist agenda, it was also easy to not take it as gospel.

That's how you go about texts. You have to know who, why and when.

I don't think that two armies with tens of thousands of men face-off on a battlefield for over 7 days unless there is a good reason for them to be fighting.  The Franks, under Charles, were there to defend their kingdom; the Muslim army was there to conquer it.  It's that simple.

(August 14, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Historians themselves don't know, but I would invite you to find any credible author who says that it was less than 40K, both sides included.

Once again, and for the last time. Look at the overall population, look at medieval logistics, look at the possibility of that number of troops, which isn't supported by the overall population number, being fed. 30.000 t0 60.000, that's more than Wallenstein led into battle 800 years later, during the 30 years war in one of the most populated regions of the world back then.

30.000 to 60.000 is utter bullshit given the time and the region. Probably blown up by a factor of ten, which is usual for medieval writers.

(August 14, 2016 at 5:46 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It's that simple.

No, it's not. But for that you'd have to have some basic knowledge of history. Which you obviously have not. And you refrain from listening to someone who has. It's that simple.

(August 14, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm)Irrational Wrote: So not all Muslims, just a select few.

Not that different from Christian Crusaders.

Their leader, the founder of their religion, Muhammad, and his subsequent successors, were violent men, with armies which killed and executed people.  Jesus was also violent, but in a different way; he believed that "the Son of Man" (likely, an angelic being), would come from heaven to destroy Rome.

Jesus was not the only leader the Crusaders looked up to in the Bible.

Quote:abaris

Quote:       Jehanne


       Historians themselves don't know, but I would invite you to find any credible author who says that it was less than 40K, both sides included.

   Once again, and for the last time. Look at the overall population, look at medieval logistics, look at the possibility of that number of troops, which isn't supported by the overall population number, being fed. 30.000 t0 60.000, that's more than Wallenstein led into battle 800 years later, during the 30 years war in one of the most populated regions of the world back then.

   30.000 to 60.000 is utter bullshit given the time and the region. Probably blown up by a factor of ten, which is usual for medieval writers.

There are scholars who support those numbers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/36...nd-ibrahim

Quote:At the head of some 80,000 Muslims, primarily mounted Moors....

(August 14, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:10 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Why wouldn't I be an atheist? Atheism is a lack of belief in deities; it has nothing to do with a lack of belief in my aviation ability.

I would say that in a world dominated by theistic thought (unless, you're living somewhere in northern Europe) where atheists (at least in the US) are the most distrusted minority that your atheism (whether "weak" or "strong") has its foundation in some underlying principles (or, "stances".)

... but you have no right to say that. You know nothing about why I'm an atheist.

Look: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just hate it when people don't understand what the word "atheism" actually means.

(August 14, 2016 at 6:05 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I would say that in a world dominated by theistic thought (unless, you're living somewhere in northern Europe) where atheists (at least in the US) are the most distrusted minority that your atheism (whether "weak" or "strong") has its foundation in some underlying principles (or, "stances".)

... but you have no right to say that. You know nothing about why I'm an atheist.

Look: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just hate it when people don't understand what the word "atheism" actually means.

It's okay to disagree.  And, I was not singling you out, in particular.  

(August 14, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Their leader, the founder of their religion, Muhammad, and his subsequent successors, were violent men, with armies which killed and executed people.  Jesus was also violent, but in a different way; he believed that "the Son of Man" (likely, an angelic being), would come from heaven to destroy Rome.

Jesus was not the only leader the Crusaders looked up to in the Bible.

You'll get no argument from me!  By the way, Charles, a Catholic, was successful at Tours precisely because he was violent and knew how to teach violence!

(August 14, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Jehanne Wrote: There are scholars who support those numbers:

Oh, please. Don't give me Raymond Ibrahim if you want to be taken seriously. That's tinfoil material, to put it mildly.