User blog comment:Mypellie/Poll: Do you believe the crusades were justified? Why or why not?/@comment-33224520-20161015082742/@comment-28619437-20161015162612

-Because being second class citizens, not being able to hold public offices, being forced to pay taxes for religious belief (That you have no evidence it was a "little tax"), be very different from the muslims so people can notice you're a non-muslim, not being allowed to renovate curches and synagogues and display a non-muslim religious symbol, not being allowed to say something about Islam, being subject to apostasy for not believing in Allah, and more...

''"Dhimma (or dhimmitude) ... is one of the results of the jihad or holy war. ; Connected with the notion of jihad is the distinction between dar al-harb (territory or "house" of war) and dar al-islam (house of Islam). The latter includes all territories subject to Muslim authority. It is in a state of perpetual war with the dar al-harb. The inhabitants of the dar al-harb are harbis, who are not answerable to the Islamic authority and whose persons and goods are mubah, that is, at the mercy of Believers. However, when Muslims are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand, following the example of the Prophet after Hudaibiyya The dhimmi, we might say, is a second-class citizen. If they [the ruling Muslims] tolerate him it is a calculated step, whether because they cherish the hope of converting him or for material reasons, because they force him to shoulder virtually the entire burden of taxation. They provide a place for him in the state, but not without reminding him continually of his inferior status. They prevent him from occupying high positions in society, and if by merit or intrigue he manages to climb to such places everything conspires to relegate him once again to obscurity. If the dhimmi acquires an independent legal status or privileges associated with his personal position, if he is permitted even his own courts, it is only because he cannot share with the Faithful the advantages of their own justice, which is essentially religious. In no case is the dhimmi the equal of a Muslim. He is condemned to social inequality and forms part of a despised caste: inequality so far as his personal rights are concerned, inequality in taxation, and inequality before the law, since his testimony is neither accepted by the Muslim courts of justice nor even, for the same minor crime, is the punishment the same ... No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis."''

-Define "Core part". We're talking about history, not about EUIV crap

-It was able, and citing Iberia won't prove it. The muslims stayed in Iberia for many many years. You should also consider Italy were the muslims were trying to conquer that Peninsula. And oh, the ottomans conquered the balkans, wouldn't that count as well? Not just to cite the fall of constantinople.

Yes, they have expanded alot to the Christian world and they had to payback this, that's why the crusades happen in the first place

Sees that IMC has accepted the fact that the muslim world had expanded largely to the Christian world.