Home History & Archaeology Jihad vs Crusades Page 4

Jihad vs Crusades

, , History & Archaeology, , , , 262

Whenever Jihad is brought up in a conversation, you often hear rebuttals that bring up the Crusades as being just as evil. This video by Dr. Bill Warner from the Center for the Study of Political Islam shows the Crusades were a minuscule compared to the centuries-long attack on Europe and begs the question, ‘were the Crusades just a form of self-defense against the rise of the Islamic Empire’?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 262 total)
12345…121314
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm#787111
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    You need to consider some things Kerwin.

    1. One of the heads receives a deadly wound and comes back to life.
    2. The eighth kingdom is of the seventh, so it is not a new empire. i.e, the last two are the same empire with a death period between them.
      None of the potential empires you list fulfill that criteria IMO, however  I could be lacking in imagination.

    If the Ottoman Empire was not the seventh, even though it fits the criteria perfectly, then we await another empire that will rise up, then die, and come back to life. Many more years to come in other words.

    And if the seventh empire is the one after Rome, then once an Islamic Caliphate is declared and becomes and empire within the region, then all the end-time teachers who do not recognise the Ottoman Empire as being part of the Beast, will not know how late an hour it really is and may well miss the signs.

    But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.

    Just something to consider Kerwin.

     

    December 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm#787112
    kerwin
    Participant

    &T8,

    The Ottoman Empire was a Turkish Empire and ISIS is not.  On the other hand the European Union is striving to gain Turkey as a member.

    Turkey has trouble with a number of Muslim Arab countries even though it would like to tighten ties with the Arab League.

    The capital of ISIS is Raqqa, Syria.

    It is a new thing.

    As far as I can see the Ottoman Empire is just a different dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire, the result of nomadic people who seemed to be a state empire of their own conquering the capital and making it their own.  The crusaders did the same thing earlier.  It was not until 1923 that Turkey moved their capital to its present location.  In short the Ottoman Empire like the Western Roman is still their though it has shrunk and changed government just like twin in the west.  Either one or both can recover from their wound and the Roman Empire could be reformed.

    England had an Empire and it suffered a wound but is not dead.  The same is true of France, China, Spain and others.  Iraq is the name of the Babylon Empire today.  Iran is Persian and Medes.  Egypt is still around.  The Aztec Empire is still in Mexico though we Mexico today.

    Sultan Mehmed II Fatih, conquered Constantinople claimed to be the Emperor of Rome and protector of the Orthodox Church.

    Not very ISIS.

    December 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm#787113
    kerwin
    Participant

    To whomever is concerned,

    This is an excerpt from the wikipedia article called Third Rome

     

    Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos.[8] The Ottoman Empire also captured Otranto during that period, and Mehmed II was planning on taking Rome itself when the Italian campaign was cut short by his sudden death.[9] The title fell into disuse after his death, but the imperial bodies created by Mehmed II lived on for centuries to come.

    The Turkish historian İlber Ortaylı is a proponent of this claim, citing the multicultural make-up of the state and Sultan Mehmed’s acceptance of certain Byzantine court customs. Professor Ortaylı finds Russia‘s claim to the title to be only nominal, and that Sultan Mehmed based his court policies and conquests on creating a third, Islamic Rome (the first Rome being polytheistic, the second one Christian).

     

    December 16, 2014 at 11:25 pm#787118
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The Ottoman Empire was a Turkish Empire and ISIS is not.

    Ahem. I think we all know that. No one is saying otherwise.

    You missed the point. The Middle East is populated by Muslims.

    Muslims are becoming more and more radicalised.

    They could easily create a Caliphate and be ruled by a Caliph.

    So the point is, are we seeing the beginnings of this or not.

    Please understand this and we can discuss relevant questions. That would be good.

     

    December 16, 2014 at 11:35 pm#787119
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    As far as I can see the Ottoman Empire is just a different dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire, the result of nomadic people who seemed to be a state empire of their own conquering the capital and making it their own.

    You might want to believe that, but the reality is they who conquered Constantinople were not Romans.

    The people of the Roman Empire saw themselves as Romans. The people that ruled the Ottoman Empire were not Romans.

    You can say the same about Rome and Greece. Greece was conquered by Romans, they were not Greeks.

    But yes your point about it being an extension has some truth to it. These are different heads of the Beast.

    Scripture says that iron mixed with clay at the foot of the statue. What a perfect description for what happened.

    The iron (Roman) mixed with (Clay) these nomadic people you speak of.

    Mixed here is the word ‘arab’.

    As you go down the statue the metals become less glorious.

    I can understand yours and others resistance because you have been taught that the last empire will be the biggest, glorious, powerful empire that ever came. The reality is that it was said to be mixed iron and clay. Not glorious, not even strong because it is part clay. This is why many miss it.

    Don’t believe the hype that the Church has been sold over the decades. Read the book and look at the signs in the sea and the sky.

    December 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm#787161
    kerwin
    Participant

    @T8,

    You missed the point. The Middle East is populated by Muslims.

    There is no way ISIS can be the beast because it is a new thing.    The Ottoman empire is  still existent as it is Turkey.  It is reduced in size so it is hard to say it is an Empire and there has been a change in government so dynasties are a thing of the past.

    On the other hand you are trying to connect the Ottoman Empire to ISIS by the tenuous connection of religion when I do not even think they are the same people.  There are some Turks that work with them.  The house of Osmond is alive and well and the current ruler of that house is Bayezid III.    As far as I know he has no connection with ISIS.

    Both the English Empire and the Spanish Empire were Christian empires but they were not the same empire.  Mehmed had a better claim to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire as he was related by blood and he was sitting on the throne.

    The religious connection is not strong enough especially with both Turkey and the last dynasty of the Ottoman Empire still around.

    December 17, 2014 at 3:10 pm#787166
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    There is no way ISIS can be the beast because it is a new thing.    The Ottoman empire is  still existent as it is Turkey.  It is reduced in size so it is hard to say it is an Empire and there has been a change in government so dynasties are a thing of the past.

    Your not paying attention. I am not saying ISIS is the Beast. Rather that the climate in the Middle East could easily lead to a revival of an Islamic Caliphate. ISIS could be instrumental in it and may even become it. But the point is not that ISIS is it, but that the Ottoman Empire was it and it died and will come back to life for a short period of time. And yes, watch Turkey has always been the message if you look back on the threads dedicated to this eschatology.

    Maybe you need to read the conversation rather than jump to conclusions based off one or a few posts. Not sure, but you are putting words in my mouth when you say that. Pre-ISIS we had the Arab Spring. This too was a series of  events that laid the groundwork. And I have always said it is a theory, albeit a good one IMO.

    Until it comes to past, it is a theory and if it never comes to pass, then it was an incorrect line of enquiry.

    Anyway this thread is about ISIS and there is another Thread called “Is Islam mentioned in the Bible” which is more focussed on this particular eschatology, and another Thread dedicated to The Arab Spring called “The kings of the Middle East” that talks about the possibility of an Islamic Empire rising out of the power vacuum.

    .

    December 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm#787170
    terraricca
    Participant

    @T8

    NO OTTOMAN empire is gone ,AtaTurk change that when he made turkey a non religion state ,

    any way i do not believe it that isis will become anything more than a sting in the west and the arabs,but what i watch is what he may create by what it does

    December 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm#787173
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Um yes, are you serious. lol. The Ottoman Empire ended in 1924 after 500 or so years. Are you reading my posts properly? What gives you the idea that I think it is still around. Please some well thought out and and interesting conversation on these topics. Otherwise what is the point in discussing it.

    December 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm#787180
    kerwin
    Participant

    @t8,

    It changed its government in 1924 as well as becoming a secularist state after a civil war.  The sultanate was abolished and the house of Osmond was sent into exile.  There are certainly those that claim the empire came to an end at that time.

    The Forth Crusade did for the Byzantine Empire which was dissolved for a while and then reestablished as a  small state in 1221.  The Empire of Nicaea are the ones that reconquered and reestablished it.   Its capital was Nicaea and it was disbanded so the Byzantine Empire could be founded.  In other words its capital was moved to Constantinople and its name changed to Byzantine.  Nicaea is a Turkish city.

    ISIS would have to do pretty much the same thing to establish Ottoman empire.  They could would the house of Osmond as well but I doubt it intends to do either as Syria seems to be an Arab state and the Ottoman Empire was Turkish.    From what I have heard Arabs do not have a friendly remembrance of the Ottoman empire.

     

    December 18, 2014 at 12:16 am#787183
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Kerwin, when an empire comes to an end, it leaves behind countries. Nothing strange about that.

    Many do not realise that this empire was the one that conquered the Roman Empire and it lasted for 500 or so years.

    This was the empire at its height. Nothing to sneeze at.

    The Ottoman Empire In 1683

    During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.

    With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers and gradual decline, the empire collapsed and was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, leading to the emergence of the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states
    Wikipedia

    December 18, 2014 at 11:44 am#787192
    kerwin
    Participant

    @T8,

    The Ottoman Empire began at the taking  of Constantinople.  The Empire of Nicaea had previously captured it and changed their name to the Byzantine Empire.

    Both took the same city but one you claim is really the Byzantine Empire while the other you say is not.  Is it because of a change of name, a change of religion, or something else?

    The empire of Nicaea was one of the countries left behind by the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

     

    December 18, 2014 at 12:07 pm#787196
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire. Its citizens called themselves Romans. The capital city was moved from Rome to Constantinople by Emperor Constantine who the city was named after. Historians use the term Byzantine to distinguish the Roman Empire from its earlier phase.

    The Byzantine Empire did not conquer the Roman Empire, it was the same empire. It had become so big that it has an eastern and western leg. The western leg fell into decline while the eastern leg was eventually conquered by the Ottomans.

    It is well documented in history, but people of the west have little knowledge about the Ottoman Empire. Think about the Crusades. In that time, many feared the Islamic Empire was going to take them over.

    The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem.
    Wikipedia

    Crusades were partly a defensive war against Islamic conquest.

    According to traditional accounts, the Muslim conquests also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests,began with the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power.

    They grew well beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the form of a Muslim empire with an area of influence that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees.
    Edward Gibbon writes in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

    December 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm#787197
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    You are free to disagree with history, but here is a Wiki on the definition of the Byzantine Empire. You probably disagree because it doesn’t line up with your personal eschatological view.

    The Byzantine Empire, sometimes known as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally founded as Byzantium.

    It survived the 5th century fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

    During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. Both “Byzantine Empire” and “Eastern Roman Empire” are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire

    Wikipedia

    Feel free to edit this Wikipedia article as it is obviously wrong in your eyes. Then let’s see if your corrections are removed. I am serious about that. If this is wrong, then change it and let’s see what other editors say about your corrections.

    December 18, 2014 at 7:04 pm#787218
    kerwin
    Participant

    T8,

    You mean that I am free to disagree with historians.  My guess is that your answer about the difference of the two conquests of Constantinople is that you choose to agree with historians.

     

    The lands divided up among the leaders included most of the former Byzantine possessions, though resistance would continue through the Byzantine remnants of the Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus.[141]

     

    The Empire of Nicaea, founded by the Laskarid dynasty, managed to reclaim Constantinople from the Latins in 1261 and defeat Epirus.

    The Empire of Trebizond was the last successor state conquered by the Ottoman Empire.

    Turkey is a successor state of the Ottoman Empire while ISIS is not.

     

     

    December 18, 2014 at 9:59 pm#787224
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Yes, history shows us that these empires succeeded the previous one with a different government, different religion, and different people. Roman and Ottoman was no different.

    With the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire we had a transfer of power from Greek speaking people where a version of Christianity was an official religion to to people who spoke a variety of the Turkish language which itself borrowed extensively from Arabic and Persian and who were Islamic.

    If you try to say that they are the same empire, then you might as well say that Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and  Ottoman were all the same empire.

    But I agree that they are the same in one respect, that is they are all part of the same Beast, just different heads of that same Beast.

    Whereas you seem to be blurring the lines with the heads and saying that two or more were the same head.

    December 19, 2014 at 2:10 am#787232
    kerwin
    Participant

    @T8,

    I pointed out that

    1) Ottoman and Byzantine Empires both had the same capitals.

    2) The first ruler of the Ottoman Empire claimed to be Roman

    3) There was a family connection between the Byzantine rulers and the Ottoman rulers.

    There was a change in official religion but that too happened with the Roman Empire.

    There was a change in the official language but that previously happened with the Byzantine Empire when it changed from Latin to Greek.

    The Ottoman’s were outsiders and that is the only reason I can see that historians view them as different Empires.

    ISIS is an outsider to the Ottoman Empire just as the Ottomans were outsiders to the Byzantine Empire.

    In short if you consider the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine Empire as too different Empires then it is clear even if ISIS was to call themselves the Ottoman Empire they would not be so.  If the House of Osmond defected to them then they would have a claim to be a resurgence of that Empire.  As it is there is no link.   Historically there have been more than one caliphate.

     

     

    December 19, 2014 at 2:27 am#787235
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    You obviously define an empire as a location, when the Bible describes each head of the Beast as a different people. The locations are pretty much the same with all heads, with them being located in the Middle East.

    Also, please read the theory, it doesn’t teach that ISIS is the Ottoman Empire. I think you ask these silly questions over and over because you do not read the posts. Rather the Arab Spring and ISIS are preparing the way for an Islamic Empire is the idea being explored.

    The theory is here. Please read it before coming to false conclusions and asking silly questions again.

    Is Islam the Beast?

    December 19, 2014 at 2:55 am#787237
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    1) Ottoman and Byzantine Empires both had the same capitals.

    The city fell to the Turks. It was taken over. Historians generally consider this to be the moment that the Ottoman sultanate became an empire. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine period) survived the 5th century fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

    Once it was the Roman and then at some point it was Ottoman. There may not be am exact moment of transfer but that doesn’t change the view that one empire fell and another began. Otherwise you have to believe that the Roman Empire lasted till 1924. No historian holds that view. The Roman Empire fell to the Turks.

    Your conclusion to this history is at odds with most historians. But that doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make it more likely that you are.

    December 19, 2014 at 2:59 am#787238
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Look at what you are saying Kerwin.

    And compare it with the fact that the legs were made totally of iron and the feet made of iron MIXED with clay.

    So it was both strong and weak.

    Mixed is the word ‘arab’.

    So the feet was part Rome (iron) and part something else which weakened it.

    The very concerns you raise actually sway toward validating the theory IMO.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 262 total)
12345…121314
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account