American Muslims Pretty Darn Tolerant of Homosexuality

[Worffan101]

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

The religious-fanatic mindset's been a thing as long as religion has; the Crusades just codified it on a larger scale thanks to the Pope deciding to mash up pilgrimage and holy war into a "go kill some infidels and drown their babies in their own blood" ideological mishmash that's basically been a thorn in the side of humanity ever since. "far more advanced" is pushing it but Dar-Al-Islam had many prominent centers of learning, yes.

Saladin was, by medieval standards, a pretty good guy, which means he was only a bit of a bastard. He would still be considered a war criminal by modern standards, but he was a damn sight better than the psychopathic savage Christian-supremacist fanatics he was fighting.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

You are wrong. The jihadist mindset was in Islam from its beginning. Which is how the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coasts were wrested from the Eastern Roman Empire in the first place and there was plenty of raping, pillaging, murdering and enslaving during that bloody bit of conquest. Unfortunately, that tends to be glossed over in Western European history texts, and the Crusades are treated as if they were the first major armed contact between Islam and Christendom.

[Worffan101]

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

You are wrong. The jihadist mindset was in Islam from its beginning. Which is how the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coasts were wrested from the Eastern Roman Empire in the first place and there was plenty of raping, pillaging, murdering and enslaving during that bloody bit of conquest. Unfortunately, that tends to be glossed over in Western European history texts, and the Crusades are treated as if they were the first major armed contact between Islam and Christendom.

That...really isn't the case, dude.

What actually happened was, the Byzantines and the Sassanids got into a pissing match, they were evenly matched, Khosrau II thought he was as good as his granddaddy Khosrau I (he wasn't), the (Easter) Roman Emperor thought he was as good as Justinian (he wasn't), the outlying provinces got sick and tired of Ctesiphon and Constantinople's combined bullshit, this new evangelist guy showed up, his people weren't THAT concerned about heretics in the administration, the Byzantines and Sassanids ground each other into the dirt so badly that their militaries were basically demoralized mobs barely willing to march let alone fight, and the Arabs had defecting provinces and angry peasants and motivated fanatics on their side, they got really lucky and took basically the entire Middle East and Iran in a couple decades, then it started to fall apart because the Persians and Egyptians realized they didn't like taking orders from Arabs, either, and the caliphate descended into infighting because the Ummayads took over from Muhammad's family and then they screwed the pooch and by the time it was all over the Ummayads were in Spain and a bunch of North Africans had decided to get in on this new Islam thing for the trade perks and these new Abbasid guys were running Arabia and Persia, until they fucked up and the Persians said "you know what, fuck this, we're better than you sand monkeys" and set up their own country again, with blackjack and hookers, and that's why the Iranians and Arabs have historically had some legendary levels of bad blood and the Iranians have a whole lot of super-racist right-wing early 20th century assholes who wrote about how they thought Arabs were subhuman.

The Arab conquerors were actually slightly LESS dickish than the Byzantines and Sassanids. Not great by modern standards, sure, but it was the 7th century. Slavery was considered a mercy to defeated foes. Looting a city was perks of combat. Rape was just something that happened and only became a problem if it happened on a large scale. At least the Arabs didn't backstab people the way the Byzantines and Sassanids had a habit of doing.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

You are wrong. The jihadist mindset was in Islam from its beginning. Which is how the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coasts were wrested from the Eastern Roman Empire in the first place and there was plenty of raping, pillaging, murdering and enslaving during that bloody bit of conquest. Unfortunately, that tends to be glossed over in Western European history texts, and the Crusades are treated as if they were the first major armed contact between Islam and Christendom.

That...really isn't the case, dude.

What actually happened was, the Byzantines and the Sassanids got into a pissing match, they were evenly matched, Khosrau II thought he was as good as his granddaddy Khosrau I (he wasn't), the (Easter) Roman Emperor thought he was as good as Justinian (he wasn't), the outlying provinces got sick and tired of Ctesiphon and Constantinople's combined bullshit, this new evangelist guy showed up, his people weren't THAT concerned about heretics in the administration, the Byzantines and Sassanids ground each other into the dirt so badly that their militaries were basically demoralized mobs barely willing to march let alone fight, and the Arabs had defecting provinces and angry peasants and motivated fanatics on their side, they got really lucky and took basically the entire Middle East and Iran in a couple decades, then it started to fall apart because the Persians and Egyptians realized they didn't like taking orders from Arabs, either, and the caliphate descended into infighting because the Ummayads took over from Muhammad's family and then they screwed the pooch and by the time it was all over the Ummayads were in Spain and a bunch of North Africans had decided to get in on this new Islam thing for the trade perks and these new Abbasid guys were running Arabia and Persia, until they fucked up and the Persians said "you know what, fuck this, we're better than you sand monkeys" and set up their own country again, with blackjack and hookers, and that's why the Iranians and Arabs have historically had some legendary levels of bad blood and the Iranians have a whole lot of super-racist right-wing early 20th century assholes who wrote about how they thought Arabs were subhuman.

The Arab conquerors were actually slightly LESS dickish than the Byzantines and Sassanids. Not great by modern standards, sure, but it was the 7th century. Slavery was considered a mercy to defeated foes. Looting a city was perks of combat. Rape was just something that happened and only became a problem if it happened on a large scale. At least the Arabs didn't backstab people the way the Byzantines and Sassanids had a habit of doing.

Yes, atrocities were the order of the day in any warfare during this time period. I never quite understand the motivation to minimize atrocities inflicted by Muslims relative to everyone else's.

I suppose the Caliphate's campaign ofconquest that climaxed in the Battle of Yarmouk was not a holy war for them? That was my point. Jihad did not start after the Crusades, the Crusades were Western Christendom's counteroffensive to the centuries of Jihad preceding them. Jihad was the mindset of Islam from its inception.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

You are wrong. The jihadist mindset was in Islam from its beginning. Which is how the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coasts were wrested from the Eastern Roman Empire in the first place and there was plenty of raping, pillaging, murdering and enslaving during that bloody bit of conquest. Unfortunately, that tends to be glossed over in Western European history texts, and the Crusades are treated as if they were the first major armed contact between Islam and Christendom.

That...really isn't the case, dude.

What actually happened was, the Byzantines and the Sassanids got into a pissing match, they were evenly matched, Khosrau II thought he was as good as his granddaddy Khosrau I (he wasn't), the (Easter) Roman Emperor thought he was as good as Justinian (he wasn't), the outlying provinces got sick and tired of Ctesiphon and Constantinople's combined bullshit, this new evangelist guy showed up, his people weren't THAT concerned about heretics in the administration, the Byzantines and Sassanids ground each other into the dirt so badly that their militaries were basically demoralized mobs barely willing to march let alone fight, and the Arabs had defecting provinces and angry peasants and motivated fanatics on their side, they got really lucky and took basically the entire Middle East and Iran in a couple decades, then it started to fall apart because the Persians and Egyptians realized they didn't like taking orders from Arabs, either, and the caliphate descended into infighting because the Ummayads took over from Muhammad's family and then they screwed the pooch and by the time it was all over the Ummayads were in Spain and a bunch of North Africans had decided to get in on this new Islam thing for the trade perks and these new Abbasid guys were running Arabia and Persia, until they fucked up and the Persians said "you know what, fuck this, we're better than you sand monkeys" and set up their own country again, with blackjack and hookers, and that's why the Iranians and Arabs have historically had some legendary levels of bad blood and the Iranians have a whole lot of super-racist right-wing early 20th century assholes who wrote about how they thought Arabs were subhuman.

The Arab conquerors were actually slightly LESS dickish than the Byzantines and Sassanids. Not great by modern standards, sure, but it was the 7th century. Slavery was considered a mercy to defeated foes. Looting a city was perks of combat. Rape was just something that happened and only became a problem if it happened on a large scale. At least the Arabs didn't backstab people the way the Byzantines and Sassanids had a habit of doing.

Yes, atrocities were the order of the day in any warfare during this time period. I never quite understand the motivation to minimize atrocities inflicted by Muslims relative to everyone else's.

I suppose the Caliphate's campaign ofconquest that climaxed in the Battle of Yarmouk was not a holy war for them? That was my point. Jihad did not start after the Crusades, the Crusades were Western Christendom's counteroffensive to the centuries of Jihad against Christian peoples preceding them. Jihad was the mindset of Islam from its inception.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Again, good to know. Slash, Mickey, you're entire belief set and argument is "Muslims are evil! If they're not evil, they're not really Muslims!"

That said, Slash, I can't believe you went so far as to say "the founding fathers never predicted anything as bad as THIS!"

Ya'll? Please remember this when Slash or Mickey argue in any subject about bigotry, xenophobia, racism, homophobia or preconceptions.

[Worffan101]

I think you're missing the point, Mick my boy.

The specific ideology of religious crusade DID NOT EXIST until developed by the Pope (Urban II) to unify the Catholic world and shore up his own moral authority after it had been severely challenged by rising German power (this is before German central authority disintegrated as everybody else realized that the eastern half of the Frankish Empire had suddenly become really big but also really unstable), by setting the bloodthirsty assholes who made up the nobility of Europe on the weakened Islamic world, which had suffered increasing instability from the ethnic conflicts that I mentioned in my last post. There was by this point a large class of armed and trained warriors with little to do hanging around western Europe thanks to the disintegration of the Carolingian empire, which tended to vent their urges by brutalizing the peasantry--the peasantry whose support the papacy drew a lot of its legitimacy from. Giving those assholes an outlet was a major problem for the Church, and setting them against the Holy Roman Emperor in Germany didn't really work as intended because it led to Rome getting attacked, the Counts of Tusculum setting themselves up as Popes, multiple German anti-Popes, and most humiliatingly of all the entire papacy of Benedict IX (or all THREE of his papacies, rather), in which Benedict IX eagerly indulged in every vice known to man and quite a few that aren't, sold the papacy, and generally did his damndest to destroy papal legitimacy and shit on its remains.

So basically, Urban II was desperate, he needed to deflect attention and shore up the Church's position, so he came up with this idea that grabbing land from people with a different religion wasn't just OK, but the explicit command of god, an idea that hadn't really been invented before and then led to hundreds of years of disastrous wars, not to mention a shitload of pointless deaths. Par for the course for medieval European wars, tbh.

The Islamic invasions of the 7th century were essentially the Arabs smelling blood and going in for the kill, not unlike literally every other imperial war since the Assyrians invented the very concept of imperial hegemony. There was not the organized slaughter of civilians that took place under Crusading ideology, it was a land grab pure and simple from weakened imperial powers by the new kids on the block.

Where did you study history, if I may ask?

[Karha of Honor]

Then you're just declaring them "culturally inferior," even back then, aye? I hear they had much more sophisticated infrastructure. Post offices that ran to cities thousands of miles away. Where did you get that in Europe? And from what I can tell, the church was very much anti-science and anti-astronomy and anti-math. All of which they had back then. They invented the telescope before Europe had it. Imagine what European Knights or Kings could have done with that? Point being they were ahead of the Western World at the time.

Yeah, they were dope and grreat. Based onmy memory they had the greater civilisation, might had treated the commmoners just a bit better. Okay. The idea that they are morally superior to a 21 century army from the West is insane.

Actually not true. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the jihadist mindset came about during the crusades. The Muslims were far more advanced than medieval Europe at the time. They had a post office, were studying astronomy, and could do math. Hell, didn't Saladin treat his prisoners well? And when he seized Jerusalem, he wanted to be seen as a savior, not a barbarian horde. A far cry from some modern armies who come in guns a-blazing raping, pillaging, murdering, what have you.

You are wrong. The jihadist mindset was in Islam from its beginning. Which is how the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coasts were wrested from the Eastern Roman Empire in the first place and there was plenty of raping, pillaging, murdering and enslaving during that bloody bit of conquest. Unfortunately, that tends to be glossed over in Western European history texts, and the Crusades are treated as if they were the first major armed contact between Islam and Christendom.

That...really isn't the case, dude.

What actually happened was, the Byzantines and the Sassanids got into a pissing match, they were evenly matched, Khosrau II thought he was as good as his granddaddy Khosrau I (he wasn't), the (Easter) Roman Emperor thought he was as good as Justinian (he wasn't), the outlying provinces got sick and tired of Ctesiphon and Constantinople's combined bullshit, this new evangelist guy showed up, his people weren't THAT concerned about heretics in the administration, the Byzantines and Sassanids ground each other into the dirt so badly that their militaries were basically demoralized mobs barely willing to march let alone fight, and the Arabs had defecting provinces and angry peasants and motivated fanatics on their side, they got really lucky and took basically the entire Middle East and Iran in a couple decades, then it started to fall apart because the Persians and Egyptians realized they didn't like taking orders from Arabs, either, and the caliphate descended into infighting because the Ummayads took over from Muhammad's family and then they screwed the pooch and by the time it was all over the Ummayads were in Spain and a bunch of North Africans had decided to get in on this new Islam thing for the trade perks and these new Abbasid guys were running Arabia and Persia, until they fucked up and the Persians said "you know what, fuck this, we're better than you sand monkeys" and set up their own country again, with blackjack and hookers, and that's why the Iranians and Arabs have historically had some legendary levels of bad blood and the Iranians have a whole lot of super-racist right-wing early 20th century assholes who wrote about how they thought Arabs were subhuman.

The Arab conquerors were actually slightly LESS dickish than the Byzantines and Sassanids. Not great by modern standards, sure, but it was the 7th century. Slavery was considered a mercy to defeated foes. Looting a city was perks of combat. Rape was just something that happened and only became a problem if it happened on a large scale. At least the Arabs didn't backstab people the way the Byzantines and Sassanids had a habit of doing.

Yes, atrocities were the order of the day in any warfare during this time period. I never quite understand the motivation to minimize atrocities inflicted by Muslims relative to everyone else's.

I suppose the Caliphate's campaign ofconquest that climaxed in the Battle of Yarmouk was not a holy war for them? That was my point. Jihad did not start after the Crusades, the Crusades were Western Christendom's counteroffensive to the centuries of Jihad preceding them. Jihad was the mindset of Islam from its inception.

I am not that idealistic to call it a counteroffensive. It was kinda the same Christian stuff the Teutons did in Eastern Europe.

Again, good to know. Slash, Mickey, you're entire belief set and argument is "Muslims are evil! If they're not evil, they're not really Muslims!"

That said, Slash, I can't believe you went so far as to say "the founding fathers never predicted anything as bad as THIS!"

Ya'll? Please remember this when Slash or Mickey argue in any subject about bigotry, xenophobia, racism, homophobia or preconceptions.

Muslims are bigoted for the most part, probably in the most homophobic groups on Earth, let's not even go there when it comes to their xenophobia...

[Yukaphile]

The alt-right, GOP leadership, and evangelical Christians can be just as racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and xenophobic.

[Karha of Honor]

The alt-right, GOP leadership, and evangelical Christians can be just as racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and xenophobic.

Once again. What is the alt right? How many? What ideas and foiundational books do they share?

Also no they can't. When did they ban driving or women walking alone on the streets?

How man Muslim countries accepted as many Immigrants as the US per -percentage compared to their population?