Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Chaotic Muslem

Jewish Usury And Christian Crusades

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

 

This is not an anti semite topic. I found this when i was looking for reasons of hatred that was directed to jews in Europe. Through studying history, it seems that usury played a key role in this situation.

 

In the old world , there were three major religions :Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The last 2 religions forbade usury. Judaism forbade taking interests from other jews but made it ok to take it from non jews and according to some interpretations, it is an obligation upon a jew to take interest from non jew.

 

In this wiki page, there is a mention of the role of banking in the crusades. But I am very poor in economy and can't get the whole mechanism of how it worked.

would someone explain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

Judaism forbade taking interests from other jews but made it ok to take it from non jews and according to some interpretations, it is an obligation upon a jew to take interest from non jew.

 

 

 

 

FWIW my understanding is that Shia fiqh is similar. Paying interest is haram. Charging a Muslim interest is haram, but you can charge non-Muslims interest.

 

There's more on a related topic by the respected Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

 

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/solzhenitsyn-on-the-jews-and-tsarist-russia/print/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all remember that wikipedia is a zion controlled area when it comes to specific matters (history, medicine, politics, news, and so on).
therefore i only use wikipedia for common/basic questions such as "whats the capital of England".
 
Google is also zionist owned, when you search something wikipedia most likely is on the top searches mainly because they cooperate (zions both of them).
 
i dont know if i understod your questions or not, but if you asking the role of the banks. its simple.
 
the banks are the ones controlling Money supply in order to establish good economy to the country. what is the wrong thing here you might ask, well since they print Money whenever they want and whenever there is an interest to borrow from the public or other parties. They create Money which leads to that there is more Money than Money owned by the public and parties. (most of it being virtual Money, debet, credit card)
 
Watch these 2 mintute videos

 


now imagine if all where to go to bank and withdraw their cash, how many would not be left with nothing.

most of you might be thinking it doesnt work like that. it does work like that, its even described in the approved books like that.

but the truth is, its even more corrupt than that

Edited by ultra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Greetings,

 

This is not an anti semite topic. I found this when i was looking for reasons of hatred that was directed to jews in Europe. Through studying history, it seems that usury played a key role in this situation.

 

It is worth noting that interest or usury was strictly forbidden to Christians in Christendom, which practically meant no interest-based debt system could exist. But the prohibition made it difficult for the many kingdoms ruled by a motley group of monarchs who needed the money to fund wars and manage the exchequer. This allowed the Jews to step in to fill the gap, since Christians were quite happy for the Jews to indulge in a mortal sin while at the same time they looked down upon them for doing so. Let's call it a partnership of convenience.

 

Of course there is nothing magical about Jews becoming the bankers and bankrollers of many European monarchs. They aren't born with a money gene. For a thousand years usury-based business was the only profession allowed them that could make them rich. They made full use of that and later got blamed for becoming rich by exploiting the common man. With time old resentment (already solidified by the times of Shakespeare, remember Merchant of Venice) turned into Jew-hatred the sort we're familiar with.

 

The question that people reading this thread want to ask is how much were the Jews responsible for getting hated by all and sundry. Like with every persecuted and discriminated minority it's very hard to lay blame when they start looking for ways to dodge their persecutors. Suffice it to say that the concentration of wealth in a few hands always leads to disproportionate influence and power.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the prohibition made it difficult for the many kingdoms ruled by a motley group of monarchs who needed the money to fund wars and manage the exchequer. 

 

How?

We are talking about Monarchy system, people who gave themselves the right to own the earth and those walking on it. So how they were short on funding their own wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How?

We are talking about Monarchy system, people who gave themselves the right to own the earth and those walking on it. So how they were short on funding their own wars?

 

Monarchies do not have unlimited supply of money, esp smaller ones. It's not like they could go around taking every penny from people; those who did this met with revolt. In pre-modern times often the only source of state income were agrarian taxes and merchant levies, unless they had access to precious metals like gold and silver in large quantities (like Spain did in Latin America). When tax money was misspent the expenditure would become higher than the net income; endless warring turned a state into a pauper in no time. At that point monarchies raised funds by borrowing money from whoever was willing to lend them, often on outrageous terms. Due to internecine wars in Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries and later during the Reformation period, many European monarchies and duchies that dotted the continental Europe had been chronically short of funds. Their favourite creditors often turned out to be Jewish moneylenders. 

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW my understanding is that Shia fiqh is similar. Paying interest is haram. Charging a Muslim interest is haram, but you can charge non-Muslims interest.

 

There's more on a related topic by the respected Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

 

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/solzhenitsyn-on-the-jews-and-tsarist-russia/print/

i found these paragraphs to be interesting 

 

In the autumn of 1881, at Ignatiev’s recommendation, a committee was created to draft new Jewish legislation in response to the pogroms. Unlike previous “Jewish committees”—there had been eight of them already—it operated on the assumption that assimilation was an unattainable goal. (This is what many Jews were starting to think as well.) The committee recommended looking to the past for guidance, apparently meaning  the  customs  of pre-emancipation Europe.  The new sentiment was that, “Jews had always been considered a foreign element, and must once and for all be considered such.

 

 

 

Jewish emigration, especially to America, began to increase in the years following the pogroms, and it is widely asserted that this occurred because of the pogroms. The emigrants, however, came mostly from Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland—not from Ukraine, where the violence had actually occurred. In fact, there was even a Jewish internal migration toward the more thinly populated Ukraine in these same years. And Jewish emigration to America only became a mass phenomenon in the late 1890s: Solzhenitsyn suggests that the State monopoly on distilling instituted in 1896 was a principal cause. In any case, the evidence indicates that Jews came to America as economic migrants, not as refugees “fleeing the Tsarist pogroms.”

 

 

 

 

The Jews, mindful of the recent pogroms, felt these developments added insult to injury and entirely abandoned the idea of assimilation. Calls for an independent Jewish state were even heard in Russia as early as 1882, fourteen years before Theodor Herzl’s Judenstaat was published. The rise of Zionism might have been expected to encroach upon Jewish involvement in the revolutionary movement. Individual cases of such “conversion” are certainly known, but the overall trend of these years was toward ever greater Jewish participation in revolutionary politics. All imaginable combinations of socialism and Zionism also found their advocates.

 

 

 

 

The goal being to combat Autocracy, their interest lay in forever increasing pressure on the Jewish question, but never solving it: thus one kept one’s ammunition in reserve. These knights of liberty reasoned: let’s not allow the lifting of restrictions on the Jews dampen their ardor for battle. (p. 465)

 

 

it's been a good read. thank you but it dose not answer the question : what is the mechanism? how dose funding war worked back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have liked to watch this if it wasn't for the host being one of the most despicable pieces of human scum on earth.

 

Sure he's a right wing empire apologist but on the matter of financial history his book of the same name (later turned into this documentary) is actually quite good, until he starts pontificating on the beneficial role of the imperial finance in making big business possible. From big business came the possibilities of technological advancement from which, in his view, the world benefits.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other users were correct.  In Shakespearean times, anti-semitism was rampant: synagogues were burned to the ground, Jews were harshly slaughtered in countless instances.  Jews were banned from owning property and creating any businesses besides banking.  This was there only way to make money; what would you do if you could not provide for your family, surely you would not let them starve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other users were correct.  In Shakespearean times, anti-semitism was rampant: synagogues were burned to the ground, Jews were harshly slaughtered in countless instances.  Jews were banned from owning property and creating any businesses besides banking.  This was there only way to make money; what would you do if you could not provide for your family, surely you would not let them starve. 

The crusades were before Shakespearian days.

 

crusaed 1090

shakespear 1500-1600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have liked to watch this if it wasn't for the host being one of the most despicable pieces of human scum on earth.

I agree with Marbles. If you are interested in this subject do read the book. You dont have to agree with whatever he says but you will be armed with more knowledge on this field to be able to better form your own ideas. He is an academic afterall and does not say things just because he feels like it and actually backs them with empirical evidence.

Another supplementary doc in regards to this subject

 

Godfathers of the Renaissance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's been a good read. thank you but it dose not answer the question : what is the mechanism? how dose funding war worked back then?

 

I think your wiki link is referring to the Templars etc. running a type of hawala/hundi system i.e. deposit is made in one country and a colleague of the 'banker' in another country allows a withdrawal to be made.

 

The system relies on high levels of interpersonal trust between the two banking entities and will likely exist based on ethnic/kinship ties.

 

So Jews, Asians (Indians) and Chinese with extensive social network ties across many different geographies would have an advantage over other ethnic groups who'd more likely have dense social network ties within a small geographic area. 

 

In such a system the customer pays for various benefits e.g. not having to carry lots of money across countries. So the payments are not linked to usury per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...