what about the genocidal massacre of christian armenians by muslim turks?

To repeat lots of barbarism by both muslims and Christians over the years, although the genocide against Armenians was more accurately described as being done by Turkish nationalists-- along with the mass murder and expulsion of Greek Christians and Muslim Kurds in the same period.

But the interesting point is that there were so many Armenian Christians to kill at that point in what had been the muslim Ottoman Empire for centuries.

There were no similar muslim populations in Spain or other areas that had once had large numbers of muslims, because they had all been murdered, forcibly converted or driven out centuries earlier from Christian lands.

Thank you for posting about this issue, Nathan.

Speaking of native Christian populations in the Near East, one interesting fact is that, in general, they preferred the rule of the Muslims to that of the Crusaders. While the Muslims didn't really care what heterodox (or orthodox) form of Christianity they practiced, the Crusaders attempted to enforce Catholicism on the Orthodox, Maronite, Jacobite, and Armenian Christians who formed the majority of the population of the region.

hm. well, the moriscos were not finally expelled out of christian spain until about 1600, because they refused to convert christianity and remained crypto-muslims. as far as sicily goes-my impression was that the norman conquerors of the island existed in a state of modus vivendi with native muslims for centuries. but in both of these regions, it is not conclusive that muslims were the majority, they might have been at the peak of al-andalus....

now, with the dar-al-islam, you start with a different position, populations that were 100% christians whose position eroded towards a 5-10% minority today. the crusades were the reverse of jihads that conquered the lands of eastern christianity-and yes, there was some disaffection between schismatic sects and orthodoxy as promulgated by constantinople, but the migration of christians from syria that occurred during the caliphal period indicates that they were in no paradise (they were called 'maardites' and contributed several emperors and dynasties to byzantium).

the general point-that medieval islam was more tolerant of minority faiths than medieval christian seems hard to dispute, but why should you artificially stop the clock at 1600, because after that point, you have a push back toward pluralism in the west. by 1650, jews were allowed back into england. by 1800 reactionaries in the ottoman empire were concerned about french influence, because they realized that their traditional allies were now exporting a new and pernicious ideology, nationalism & the propositional polity....

crusade has multiple meanings-the narrow historical sense, and a broader moral sense. muslims and liberal commentators always assert that we should interpret jihad as spiritual struggle, rather than smiting the infidel, so why should crusade be different? (tell the hindus that my ghazi ancestors enslaved and enserfed that jihad was spiritual struggle) me thinks that we hold post-christendom to a higher standard of sensitivity than the dar-al-islam.

Medieval Islam has much to commend itself. That having been said, Baibars and Hakim were just as much a feature of Medieval Islam as Saladin. It is rather disingenuous to say, "When Godfrey's armies entered Jerusalem they slaughtered everyone, whereas when Saladin entered there was no sack," without mentioning that by the time Baibars was through with Antioch in the late 13th c., there was not a Christian left alive in the city (to this day Antioch has never fully recovered from Baibars). And let's not forget that Frederick II peacefully entered Jerusalem in 1229 (thought admittedly that this was done peacefully horrified the Latin Patriarch, Latin Clergy, and the Pope).

Even in Umayyad Spain, so often put forward as a model for Islamic tolerance, the penalty from converting from Islam to Xianity or Judaism was death. If you've got a religion that is the Definitive Revelation, yeah, dhimmi status is probably the best way to handle, "We are absolutely right but want to let those who are wrong but almost there live in peace." Indeed, dhimmi status is probably the only way you can have some sort of tolerance with the given assumption that there is one single revelation from God and those who believe and practice otherwise are damned. In the 21st c., though, we have the option of saying, "We don't know whether God is triune or One and indivisible, so how about according the same rights and priveleges to everyone?"

That is the big problem with taking medieval Islam and then talking about the 21st century. It would be as if I said, "Sinn Fein is made of some pretty messed up #/$%@'s," and then I was told words to the effect of, "Oh yeah? Well Ireland was the greatest intellectual center of all Europe in 600. So there!"

And the Christians haven't been the ones hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings lately . . .

When you mentioned Spain I immediately thought of Toledo. Islamics, Jews, and Christians have lived there together for centuries. I'm no expert on the Templars or the Crusades (or Toledo, for that matter), but I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe someone lurking knows more about the history of Toledo than I do.

Trish- Don't know much about Toledo Spain, but found this on the web.- "Toledo was known for a long time for its peaceful coexistence of the three cultures of the Jewish, Muslims, and Christians. This occurred under Moorish rule and persisted for sometime afterwards. Sadly, the Jews were expelled in 1492 and the Mudejars in 1502."

Mudejars means the muslim inhabitants-- all expelled as part of the Christian ethnic clensing of Spain after 1492.

I'm sorry I just found this discussion and it may well be done but I would like to add one more comment. Speaking in general terms, history shows us that the worst thing that can happen to any religion is to gain political power. At that point religion becomes nothing more than an institution who primary reason for being is to maintain control (power). Yet even though a majority of the "faithful" followers of a religion in power will use whatever force is necessary to maintain that power, there remains a "remnant" of the faithful who understand that faith is about service and community, not about power and control.
Christianity has certainly followed that path.

...a religion is not its people. A religion is a set of prescribed guidlines by an assumed or believed creator. There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam: Jesus instructed his neighbors to, "Love your enemies as yourself and do good to those who would persecute you." Islam and the teachings of Mohammed in the Koran instruct Moslems that non-followers of Islam are infidels and worthy of being put to death.

Therefore, anyone who kills in the name of "Christianity" cannot be considered a Christian, but rather should be considered a hypocrite or heretic. Anyone who kills in the name of Islam is following their prescribed moral code.

Therefore, most of the posted arguments are ireelevant and uninformed. The bottom line is that Christianity is a religion of peace because of Christ's teachings...even if you consider its teachings about Heaven and Hell, at least it leaves this determination up to the Creator. Islam teaches justified murder here on earth.

receive I CF the.