What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Leoreth]

TIL: Christiantiy equals WWJD and Islam equals WWMD.

Spoiler :

Glenn Beck mode: see those last three letters? Coincidence?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Simple.

I see you still haven't bothered to read the Old Testament, or you are simply ignoring it or pretending it is no longer followed by many Christians. Warmongering Christians get their inspirations from the very same places warmongering Muslims do.

Which has posed a far greater threat to humanity in general in the past few centuries? Which countries that are predominately these two religions have been incessantly invading and occupying other countries?

 

[HannibalBarka]

No ain't naive or blind, what you accuse us Christians off is true, but the difference is the foundation of the two religions.

Christianity was founded on Christ's teachings and actions, he was a near pacifist.

Islam is founded on Mohammed's teachings and actions, he was a warrior/ prophet.

In both religions the members are expected to follow the founder's teachings and actions.

Were Christian's following Christ's teachings and actions when they committed the acts you referred to, no.

Were Muslim's following Mohammed's teachings and actions when they committed violent actions, IMHO yes.

Now, IMO, we humans aren't the noble savages some to say we are, I feel we need guide lines telling us how to interact with each other, Christ's guidelines tell us to love our neighbor, while Mohammed's tell us to war against none Muslims.

That's it.

Simple.

So you as a Catholic, you don't consider a couple of middle ages Popes as being Christians, you should ask Pope Fraçois to excommunicate them

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The introduction of emoticons has been a greatly misunderstood historical event, leading some to use them way too often, leading to douchebagness and a reduction in the quality of posts on forums around the internet.

Emoticons/smileys aren't the problem. It's how they're used.

For example, laughing at people when they've asked a serious question because they'd like clarification is just plain rude.

 

[abradley]

So you as a Catholic, you don't consider a couple of middle ages Popes as being Christians, you should ask Pope Fraçois to excommunicate them

Am sure the Vatican would jump to it.

As to them being Christian, the one's I know of were Christian, but misguided.

 

[Arakhor]

In addition to everything else that's said in this thread, casting "the Muslims" in all their scary, amorphous glory as the main aggressors of the Byzantine Empire is simply failing to understand history. Far greater wrongs were done to the Eastern Romans by those who were nominally Catholic or Orthodox (not including the Sassanid Persians, who were none of the above).

 

[abradley]

In addition to everything else that's said in this thread, casting "the Muslims" in all their scary, amorphous glory as the main aggressors of the Byzantine Empire is simply failing to understand history. Far greater wrongs were done to the Eastern Romans by those who were nominally Catholic or Orthodox (not including the Sassanid Persians, who were none of the above).

IMO May 29, 1453 was the greatest wrong done to the Byzantine Empire. And who did that wrong, Islam.

 

[Arakhor]

Nope. It really wasn't. That would be 13th April, 1204, which proves my point exactly.

(What's more, "Islam" didn't do anything at all, even though Mehmed the Conqueror was in fact a Muslim. Go look up the Fourth Crusade and then read about the origin of the phrase: Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara.)

 

[Leoreth]

The greatest wrong done to the Byzantine Empire is how it is constantly dragged through the mud that is modern Greek nationalism.

 

[Arakhor]

.. with its proponents, not to belabour the point, being more likely to be nominally Orthodox than anything else.

 

[Leoreth]

It's actually a pretty interesting how important religion becomes when you need material to create a clash of cultures narrative against Muslims. You've got to wonder where all the "concerned citizens" who are worried about "our Christian values" suddenly come from in places like East Germany.

 

[abradley]

Nope. It really wasn't. That would be 13th April, 1204, which proves my point exactly.

(Go look up the Fourth Crusade and then read about the origin of the phrase: Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara.)

Did the Crusaders destroy the Byzantine Empire?
Oct 13 2010
http://larsbrownworth.com/blog/2010/10/13/did-the-crusaders-destroy-the-byzantine-empire/

{Snip}

But despite the tremendous physical and mental impact of the Fourth Crusade, is it really fair to say that it destroyed the Byzantine Empire? In the years leading up to the Crusade Byzantium was decaying from the inside, plagued by foolish leaders, aristocratic greed, and military incompetence. It was a very sick patient by 1204 and its illness went much deeper than a weak army or neglected defenses. It was dying a slow death before the first Crusader showed up, and it lingered on for another 249 years after the sack. Did the Fourth Crusade weaken the empire? Certainly. Did it hasten its demise? Probably. But did it destroy Byzantium? No.

Basically what I posted earlier.

If Byzantium had been healthy and united the crusaders wouldn't have been able to conquer Byzantium.

As for the phrase, the Papacy offered aid if the Byzantines converted, the Turks promised not to force convert. Where are the Byzantines and their religion now?

Addon
http://anders.com/lectures/lars_brownworth/12_byzantine_rulers/

 

[Arakhor]

If Byzantium had been healthy and united the crusaders wouldn't have been able to conquer Byzantium.

And pigs might fly. There's a reason why "Byzantine intrigue" is a phrase and it's all to do with Greek nobles mutilating, exiling or straight up murdering whole scads of other Greek nobles. In just a 20-year period following the death of Manuel I, Constantinople saw the rule of Alexios II, Andronikos I, Alexius III through V and Isaakios II (twice; the second time after he'd been forcibly blinded).

As for the phrase, the Papacy offered aid if the Byzantines converted, the Turks promised not to force convert. Where are the Byzantines and their religion now?

Are you serious? What in blazes do you think the Greek Orthodox Church is?

 

[Funky]

For anyone who is interested, I looked up the number I had given for the deaths during the Islamic conquest - and it turns out I was mistaken! I had got things mixed up, the 270 million deaths by jihad is not for the early Islamic conquest, it is the estimate for jihad in total, to the present day. I humbly admit my mistake and apologize for causing confusion. There is no need to be hyperbolic on the facts about Islam and that certainly wasn't my intention, just the result of an aging brain.

However, that doesn't change the gist of my post. The bulk of Muslim territories were conquered in the early jihad. Most of the Indian deaths fall into this time, as do many of those in Africa. Even being incredibly modest, the amount of deaths almost certainly exceeds 100 million, and is probably a lot higher.
More importantly, as I said previously the actual number is not even relevant to my argument. I was pointing out the one-sidedness in school books which, on the topic of the crusades, focus on making out the Christians as the evil aggressors invading the territory of the peaceful Muslims, when this is clearly a historically false perspective.


I think I'll leave it there, since this thread seems to have gone downhill fast. There is just one comment I want to address, since I hear versions of it a lot.

That sounds more like “far right” BS than a History teacher analysis.

I wish we could get over this "left vs right"-thinking when it comes to Islam. First off, I am left. And I don't see how criticizing an authoritarian, leader-centered, patriarchic, religious ideology, whose believers disproportionately adhere to violence, can conceivably be regarded as right-wing. If we postulate that the core of being left is to promote the liberation of the individual from authoritarian oppression, then criticizing Islam is as left as you can get. That those who call themselves left in Europe and the US have largely failed to address the oppression caused by Islam and have thereby abandoned their brothers and sisters in the Islamic world who suffer daily under the ideological dogmas, has been a moral debacle. It doesn't change the fact that criticism of the mainstream orthodoxy of Islam has to come from everyone who supports liberal values and human rights.

 

[abradley]

And pigs might fly. There's a reason why "Byzantine intrigue" is a phrase and it's all to do with Greek nobles mutilating, exiling or straight up murdering whole scads of other Greek nobles. In just a 20-year period following the death of Manuel I, Constantinople saw the rule of Alexios II, Andronikos I, Alexius III through V and Isaakios II (twice; the second time after he'd been forcibly blinded).



Are you serious? What in blazes do you think the Greek Orthodox Church is?

my post was, where is the Byzantine Church now? :

History of the Orthodox Church
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7053
Aristeides Papadakis, Ph.D.

{Snip}
C. THE CAPTIVE CHURCH

The Ottoman Conquest

In general, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was a great misfortune for Christianity. For Eastern Christendom it was nothing less than an unqualified disaster. As a result of the Ottoman conquest, the entire Orthodox communion of the Balkans and the Near East was suddenly isolated from the West. For the next four hundred years it would instead be confined within a hostile Islamic world, with which it had little in common religiously or culturally. Orthodox Russia alone escaped this fate. It is this geographical and intellectual confinement which, in part, explains Orthodoxy's silence during the Reformation in sixteenth century Europe. That this important theological debate should often seem distorted to the Orthodox is not surprising: they never took part in it. And yet, it is not the isolation alone, but the consequences of Ottoman rule that make these pages of Church history so bleak from virtually every point of view.

Religious Rights Under Islam

The new Ottoman government that arose from the ashes of Byzantine civilization was neither primitive nor barbaric. Islam not only recognized Jesus as a great prophet, but tolerated Christians as another People of the Book. As such, the Church was not extinguished nor was its canonical and hierarchical organization significantly disrupted. Its administration continued to function. One of the first things that Mehmet the Conqueror did was to allow the Church to elect a new patriarch, Gennadius Scholarius. The Hagia Sophia and the Parthenon, which had been Christian churches for nearly a millennium were, admittedly, converted into mosques, yet countless other churches, both in Constantinople and elsewhere, remained in Christian hands. Moreover, it is striking that the patriarch's and the hierarchy's position was considerably strengthened and their power increased. They were endowed with civil as well as ecclesiastical power over all Christians in Ottoman territories. Because Islamic law makes no distinction between nationality and religion, all Christians, regardless of their language or nationality, were viewed as a single millet, or nation. The patriarch, as the highest ranking hierarch, was thus invested with civil and religious authority and made ethnarch, head of the entire Christian Orthodox population. Practically, this meant that all Orthodox Churches within Ottoman territory were under Constantinople. The authority and jurisdictional frontiers of the patriarch, in short, were enormously enlarged.

Still, on balance, all these rights and privileges, including freedom of worship and religious organization, seldom corresponded to reality. The legal privileges of the patriarch and the Church depended, in fact, on the whim and mercy of the Sultan and the Sublime Porte, while all Christians were viewed as little more than second-class citizens. Moreover, Turkish corruption and brutality were not a myth. That it was the "infidel" Christian who experienced this more than anyone else is not in doubt. Nor were pogroms of Christians in these centuries unknown. Devastating, too, for the Church was the fact that it could not bear witness to Christ. Missionary work among Moslems was dangerous and indeed impossible, whereas conversion to Islam was entirely legal and permissible. On the other hand, converts to Islam who returned to Orthodoxy were put to death. Of a piece with this grim situation was the fact that new churches could not be built and even the ringing of church bells was not allowed. Finally, the education of the clergy and the Christian population fared no better - it either ceased or was of a rudimentary kind.

The Results of Corruption

It was likewise the Church's fate to be affected by the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops. (The gate still remains closed in St. Gregory's memory.) The above summary - stark and short as it is - is sufficient to convey the persecution, decay, and humiliation that Eastern Christendom suffered under Ottoman rule. If we add to this tragic fate the militant communist atheism under which most Orthodox lived after 1917, we get some sense of the dislocation and suffering of Eastern Christianity in the last five hundred years. The grave problems that western Christians had to face as a result of the French Revolution and the secularization of western society in general might be said to pale against these facts.

 

[aelf]

Ageing brains seem to be a theme in this thread that underlies the anti-Islam sentiment.

 

[civvver]

I wish we could get over this "left vs right"-thinking when it comes to Islam. First off, I am left. And I don't see how criticizing an authoritarian, leader-centered, patriarchic, religious ideology, whose believers disproportionately adhere to violence, can conceivably be regarded as right-wing. If we postulate that the core of being left is to promote the liberation of the individual from authoritarian oppression, then criticizing Islam is as left as you can get. That those who call themselves left in Europe and the US have largely failed to address the oppression caused by Islam and have thereby abandoned their brothers and sisters in the Islamic world who suffer daily under the ideological dogmas, has been a moral debacle. It doesn't change the fact that criticism of the mainstream orthodoxy of Islam has to come from everyone who supports liberal values and human rights.

I'm with you, I don't really get why anyone defends Islam as a state sponsored religion. Modern day countries with christian origins are the most free in the world and the ones founded under Islam are still oppressed. The left ought to be outraged by sharia law yet they seem to want to allow it cus hey we gotta respect all religions!

 

[Arakhor]

my post was, where is the Byzantine Church now? :

Being a conquered nation sucks. This is not news to anyone. A Greek historian dislikes it - so did many other people, which is kind of why Greece become an independent nation again in 1821. Yes, it would be nice to have Istanbul in Greek hands and it would be nice to see the Pantokrator mosaic on the ceiling on the Hagia Sophia, but it would also be nice to have seen the great mosque at Cordoba before it was turned into the bizarre mishmash that it is today (something even Charles V & I was not impressed with).

I'm with you, I don't really get why anyone defends Islam as a state sponsored religion. Modern day countries with christian origins are the most free in the world and the ones founded under Islam are still oppressed. The left ought to be outraged by sharia law yet they seem to want to allow it cus hey we gotta respect all religions!

If you're not gay, I suppose, that might even follow in places like Russia or Uganda.

 

[Gary Childress]

I wish we could get over this "left vs right"-thinking when it comes to Islam. First off, I am left. And I don't see how criticizing an authoritarian, leader-centered, patriarchic, religious ideology, whose believers disproportionately adhere to violence, can conceivably be regarded as right-wing. If we postulate that the core of being left is to promote the liberation of the individual from authoritarian oppression, then criticizing Islam is as left as you can get. That those who call themselves left in Europe and the US have largely failed to address the oppression caused by Islam and have thereby abandoned their brothers and sisters in the Islamic world who suffer daily under the ideological dogmas, has been a moral debacle. It doesn't change the fact that criticism of the mainstream orthodoxy of Islam has to come from everyone who supports liberal values and human rights.

I think it sort of brings up a kind of moral dilemma, though. On the one hand I think most of us agree that liberty from oppression and other human rights are good things. On the other hand, I think many of us have also heard stories of how lofty moral talk has often been used to justify harmful policies against people who are deemed morally "inferior". In a bizarre sense it seems like our sense of outrage toward oppression has apparently been used to oppress.

It seems like a no win situation in many ways. We're damned if we express outrage over oppression and we're damned if we don't. It's sort of like our moral compass has gone haywire for whatever reason.

 

[abradley]

Being a conquered nation sucks. This is not news to anyone. A Greek historian dislikes it - so did many other people, which is kind of why Greece become an independent nation again in 1821. Yes, it would be nice to have Istanbul in Greek hands and it would be nice to see the Pantokrator mosaic on the ceiling on the Hagia Sophia, but it would also be nice to have seen the great mosque at Cordoba before it was turned into the bizarre mishmash that it is today (something even Charles V & I was not impressed with).

If you're not gay, I suppose, that might even follow in places like Russia or Uganda.

Yah, the Muslims stole Hagia Sophia, but we stole the great mosque at Cordoba or did we:

Temple/Church/Mosque/Church
The buildings on this site are as complex as the extraordinarily rich history they illustrate. Historians believe that there had first been a temple to the Roman god, Janus, on this site. The temple was converted into a church by invading Visigoths who seized Corboba in 572. Next, the church was converted into a mosque and then completely rebuilt by the descendants of the exiled Umayyads—the first Islamic dynasty who had originally ruled from their capital Damascus (in present-day Syria) from 661 until 750.

It was common for conquering people to convert worshiping sites to their religion, it helped ease the conquered into the new religion.