Were Christians once worse than Islam?

[Faramir]

I am throwing this out there, wondering about some things I have read about the Crusades. I wonder if what I have read is a bit of revisionist history or the sad true facts of how Christians once treated Jews. Apparently there has been a continuous resident Jewish population in Palestine even after the diaspora. From what I read the population swelled in the late Christian Roman era, and then swelled even more under a tolerant Moslem domination of Palestine - to about 300,000 by the 12th Century.

Then the Crusaders came and through general murder and persecution that Jewish population shrank to a few thousand.

That population stayed small, until the mass Spanish migration. Yes, Jews fleed Christian persecution in Spain in the 1500s to Moslem Palestine.

It wasn't until the Ottoman era that major Moslem persecution of Jews began.

I'm just wondering if I am getting the true facts here.

[Angleland]

From what I have heard and read, the Orthodox view of the Crusades is not positive. It seemed to mark the point at which the split between east and west became real to many of the Orthodox laity. From the Schism in 1054 until the Crusades, many Orthodox, and I assume many Roman Catholics, had viewed viewed the split as just another argument between the bishops. I parts of Russia for example, there was frequent communion between 'the Norse' (RC) and 'the Greeks' (Orthodox). The Crusades seemed to end that amity.

There was a poster here some years ago who said the Orthodox were at fault for the Crusaders sack of Constinople. I am not so obdurate that I discounted his opinion. I have repeated it a few times and not been told it was incorect.

I read somewhere that the Crussaders initially had some Islamic allies. Maybe they were oppressed as well. Unfortunately it seems that communications broke down and the Crusaders attacked their erstwhile Muslim allies.

After the Crusader Kingdom of Jersulam was reduced to a few Crusader enclaves along the cooast, things seemed to go from bad to worse. The 'Childrens' Crusade comes to mind. Yeah send kids into battle against adults. Yeah that worked out well.

Jews had been drifting back to the lands of Israel under Byzantine rule and continued on after Islam overan the area in the seventh century. I have hear that the Crusaders slaughtered Jewes, Muslims and Orthodox when they cam einto the the lands of Israel.

[richardson]

The Crusaders didn't conquer enough of Palestine to kill that many Jews.
The Crusaders did massacre Jews when they captured Jerusalem, in part because the Jews had cooperated with the Persians and Muslims (as fifth columnists) the various times they conquered the Byzantine city Jerusalem, participating themselves in the general massacre of the Christian populations.
Byzantium wanted the Crusades. It was after the 4th Crusade in 1204 that things started to go bad between Western European Christians and Eastern ones. The Pope, incidentally, specifically forbade the diversion to Constantinople, and excommunicated those guilty afterwards.
The Crusaders were not worse than the Muslims. Perhaps they should have been better, but so much history of the Crusades was written by British anti-Catholic pro-Arab writers in the 19th century that it is hard to tell what was what.

[wildernessvoice]

So you live in 13th Century Europe.
You got an older brother- you are in depp brown stuff.
You can hope dear old dad finds you an only daughter of a noble.
If he can't you think you might be headed for priesthood or the monastic life.
Along came a new vocation -you could go on a holy crusade and carve out an estate.

The motive was not always honourable.

The Children's Crusade. I like the bit that the bankers loaded them on ships, crossed the Mediterranean and sold them into slavery.
I also like the the crusade that got as far as Constantinople. The boys took a look around and they figured there was no need to go any farther- lots of loot to be had by sacking this city.

I like the first crusade. They finally made it to the Holy Land. A village of Christians came out on the road to greet them. Language was a problem so the Crusaders killed them all.

I like the eyewitness report on the fall of Jerusalem. The report records bodies being stacked like cord wood, blood flowing down the street and women and children being slaughtered. He ends the report: "It was a great and glorious day for the Lord".

I never sweat over the activities of the crusaders and if it was done on my behalf. The Mormons have Avenging Angels. Are they representative of Mormonism?
Great stories on the militant arm of the Jesuits. Are they representative of the Catholic church?
Ireland- I never view either side as being involved in a Christian endeavour.

The Jews that were in the Ukrianian secret police after WW2. Are they representative of Jews?

I have enough sin on my own plate that I don't need to accept the sins of people I never knew as being mine.

Not one of us, no matter the flavour of your religion, will stand guiltless before God.

I am and will be eternally thankful that the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has and will cover me that day. Since it is nothing I have done for grace like that I can't see myself looking about with smug satisfaction.

[Faramir]

From what I have heard and read, the Orthodox view of the Crusades is not positive. It seemed to mark the point at which the split between east and west became real to many of the Orthodox laity. From the Schism in 1054 until the Crusades, many Orthodox, and I assume many Roman Catholics, had viewed viewed the split as just another argument between the bishops. I parts of Russia for example, there was frequent communion between 'the Norse' (RC) and 'the Greeks' (Orthodox). The Crusades seemed to end that amity.

There was a poster here some years ago who said the Orthodox were at fault for the Crusaders sack of Constinople. I am not so obdurate that I discounted his opinion. I have repeated it a few times and not been told it was incorect.

I read somewhere that the Crussaders initially had some Islamic allies. Maybe they were oppressed as well. Unfortunately it seems that communications broke down and the Crusaders attacked their erstwhile Muslim allies.

After the Crusader Kingdom of Jersulam was reduced to a few Crusader enclaves along the cooast, things seemed to go from bad to worse. The 'Childrens' Crusade comes to mind. Yeah send kids into battle against adults. Yeah that worked out well.

Jews had been drifting back to the lands of Israel under Byzantine rule and continued on after Islam overan the area in the seventh century. I have hear that the Crusaders slaughtered Jewes, Muslims and Orthodox when they cam einto the the lands of Israel.

I would agree it was the fault of the Byzantine Emperor at the time for appealing to the West. That was, in retrospect, a big mistake, since, in the end, the Venetians financed the sacking of Constaninople.

[Blaze Pascal]

This is not my understanding at all. My understanding is extremely simple (simplistic): The Crusades were a war of self-defense pushing back against the Muslim expansion that had already absorbed 3/4 of the Mediterranian Rim.

[Gerry T. Neal]

It wasn't until the Ottoman era that major Moslem persecution of Jews began.

I'm just wondering if I am getting the true facts here.

When Mohammad fled Mecca to Yathrib, which he renamed Medina, Yathrib had three large Jewish tribes, the Banu Kainuka, the Banu Koreiza, and the Banu Nadir.

In 624 AD, after Mohammad's victory at the Battle of Badr, a feud broke out between the Moslems and the Banu Kainuka. This led to a confrontation between Mohammad and the Jewish tribe, followed by a two-week siege after which the Jews were expelled.

In 625 AD, Mohammad accused the Banu Nadir of trying to assassinate him. He besieged them, and when they surrendered after two weeks, they were forced to flee Yathrib/Medina and to leave their property behind. They fled to Khaybar.

In 627 AD, after the Battle of the Trench, Mohammad besieged the Banu Koreiza for about a month. When the Koreiza surrendered, Mohammad had their men put to death, and their women and children enslaved.

In 628 AD, after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya between Mecca and Medina was signed, Mohammad and his forces attacked the Jewish community of Khaybar, conquered it, and enslaved the Jews therein.

So no, it is not accurate to say that major Moslem persecution of the Jews did not begin until the Ottoman Period. It was preached and practiced by Islam's "Prophet".

[FiscalConservative]

It wasn't until the Ottoman era that major Moslem persecution of Jews began.

I'm just wondering if I am getting the true facts here.

When Mohammad fled Mecca to Yathrib, which he renamed Medina, Yathrib had three large Jewish tribes, the Banu Kainuka, the Banu Koreiza, and the Banu Nadir.

In 624 AD, after Mohammad's victory at the Battle of Badr, a feud broke out between the Moslems and the Banu Kainuka. This led to a confrontation between Mohammad and the Jewish tribe, followed by a two-week siege after which the Jews were expelled.

In 625 AD, Mohammad accused the Banu Nadir of trying to assassinate him. He besieged them, and when they surrendered after two weeks, they were forced to flee Yathrib/Medina and to leave their property behind. They fled to Khaybar.

In 627 AD, after the Battle of the Trench, Mohammad besieged the Banu Koreiza for about a month. When the Koreiza surrendered, Mohammad had their men put to death, and their women and children enslaved.

In 628 AD, after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya between Mecca and Medina was signed, Mohammad and his forces attacked the Jewish community of Khaybar, conquered it, and enslaved the Jews therein.

So no, it is not accurate to say that major Moslem persecution of the Jews did not begin until the Ottoman Period. It was preached and practiced by Islam's "Prophet".

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

[richardson]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

[richardson]

This is not my understanding at all. My understanding is extremely simple (simplistic): The Crusades were a war of self-defense pushing back against the Muslim expansion that had already absorbed 3/4 of the Mediterranian Rim.

You (and Gerry T. Neal) are correct.

[FiscalConservative]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

http://suite101.com/article/anti-semitism-a195775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

[richardson]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

http://suite101.com/article/anti-semitism-a195775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

The first article does not give a reference to his writing, so it can't be verified. It would be difficult to see him "instituting" this at a time when the Roman Empire was persecuting Christians and protecting Jews. The second does not have Melitus calling for the killing of the Jews, but refers to his accusation of the Jews as guilty of deicide.

[FiscalConservative]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

http://suite101.com/article/anti-semitism-a195775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

The first article does not give a reference to his writing, so it can't be verified. It would be difficult to see him "instituting" this at a time when the Roman Empire was persecuting Christians and protecting Jews. The second does not have Melitus calling for the killing of the Jews, but refers to his accusation of the Jews as guilty of deicide.

C'mon, do I have to hand it to you on a silver platter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peri_Pascha

[richardson]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

http://suite101.com/article/anti-semitism-a195775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

The first article does not give a reference to his writing, so it can't be verified. It would be difficult to see him "instituting" this at a time when the Roman Empire was persecuting Christians and protecting Jews. The second does not have Melitus calling for the killing of the Jews, but refers to his accusation of the Jews as guilty of deicide.

C'mon, do I have to hand it to you on a silver platter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peri_Pascha

sorry about the word "instituting", that's not your word.

Do you mean this?

Some believe his preaching later inspired pogroms against the Jews,[10] though any such connections are historically tenuous. Scholars have pointed out this modern misreading of the text, and do not consider that Melito encouraged any form of anti-semitism, especially since he advocated Quartodeciman beliefs.

It doesn't support your claim that he advocated killing Jews, in fact it makes it questionable.

And it doesn't do what I asked, which was to give a reference to his writings. I'll grant that you can find lots of on-line articles that say he did, I'd just like to know where in his writings he said that, since you stated not that people say he did, but that he did.

[FiscalConservative]

Melito de Sardis advocated the killing of Jews hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born, Islam is not the only source of antisemitism.

Could you give a reference to his writings, or to an article that gives a reference?

http://suite101.com/article/anti-semitism-a195775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

The first article does not give a reference to his writing, so it can't be verified. It would be difficult to see him "instituting" this at a time when the Roman Empire was persecuting Christians and protecting Jews. The second does not have Melitus calling for the killing of the Jews, but refers to his accusation of the Jews as guilty of deicide.

C'mon, do I have to hand it to you on a silver platter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peri_Pascha

sorry about the word "instituting", that's not your word.

Do you mean this?

Some believe his preaching later inspired pogroms against the Jews,[10] though any such connections are historically tenuous. Scholars have pointed out this modern misreading of the text, and do not consider that Melito encouraged any form of anti-semitism, especially since he advocated Quartodeciman beliefs.

It doesn't support your claim that he advocated killing Jews, in fact it makes it questionable.

And it doesn't do what I asked, which was to give a reference to his writings. I'll grant that you can find lots of on-line articles that say he did, I'd just like to know where in his writings he said that, since you stated not that people say he did, but that he did.

Intellectual laziness, you're doing it right. This is the sermon, pay attention to what he calls "Israel's Sin". http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp

This is a direct link from the wikipedia article, it's not like finding the sermon was an exercise in obscuring evidence.