the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posted 10 Jun 2005, 19:06 by Nansurium, Commoner

Woohoo, a discussion I can join. (People here have way more intricate views on the series than my "Booooo Kellhus boooooo!"). My main objection is that you should replace European with Western European. Constantinople was for a long time among the greatest cities in the world, and could hold its own against Muslim culture in a number of fields. Also Islam hardly faded after the Crusades -- I doubt they had that much effect on it at all. The Ottoman Empire was a powerful force in that part of the world long after the Crusades. With modern European colonialization, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. About Holy Wars in general, my branch of Christianity (Orthodoxy) has a very ambivalent view towards them (the 4th Crusade after all did a whole lot of damage to Orthodox civilization but none at all to Islam), so I do not entirely understand them from within a Christian perspective. From the Muslim perspective on the other hand, I can understand the logic, at least as it has been explained to me by Muslims. If you believe that God has revealed to you the laws of a perfect society and war is a common occurence, it seems natural to believe that it is your duty to gain control of all power in the world so you can implement this perfect society for the good of all humankind. There were few forced conversions in the earliest days of the Muslim expansion, so it doesn't seem like the original Jihad was to destroy the infidel. view post

  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.