'Eating babies' is a standard accusation in Western civilisation against one's religious or political
opponents. It is the ultimate taboo, as you will realise. Hence the Romans accused the early
Christians of eating babies, the medieval West accused Jews and heretics of eating babies, in
medieval literature pagans eat babies, the Revolutionary French peasantry accused the French
nobility of eating babies. The crusaders did eat their horses (which in Britain at least is only one
step up from eating babies) and during the first crusade one group of warriors (the 'Tafurs') were
accused of eating babies...The Tafurs were recorded to have resorted to cannibalism at the siege
of Ma'arra; this was reported by Raymond of Aguilers, but not by other chroniclers of the First
Crusade (France, Victory, p. 315 and note 49). It is tempting to deduce that they were accused of
this crime because they were poor warriors, even peasants, despised and feared by the more noble
warriors who regarded them of being capable of any depravity. In other words, the accusation reflects
fear and distrust between classes, rather than what actually happened. The Christian peasantry were
regarded as 'other' and 'alien' by the Christian nobles. In contrast, the Muslim warriors were brave
and had their own code of warrior ethics which was very like the Christian warriors' code of ethics.
But peasants did not share any warrior-ethic; they fought dirty. Hence Christian nobles could regard
Christian peasants as being far more alien than Muslim warriors. They were sure that warriors
would always act honourably, but they were sure that they could never trust the peasants to behave
honourably! Alternatively, it is possible that the story of cannibalism originated with the Tafurs
themselves. If they put it about that they ate the bodies of their dead enemies after battle they would
scare their enemies so much that any enemy they met would flee rather than fight them.(2)
yes true,
the noble worriers didn't eat childes but then again they had no problem killing them
as you can see in the link their are three western sources confirming the stories, and there are much in the arabic sources.
their is the the one source that denies the story as you had put in your post and thats good for me(3 vs 1).
but then again you cannot deny the monstrosities that had been done in the crusades and in the spanish armada wars.
for a fact, their is not a single war that the christian world had been involved in that hadn't the most hideous, most portal, and most savage way of acting.
in my opinion muslims (not islam in particular) had much human attributes than any other power that fought against them.
remember the red Indians and the nuclear bombing of japan.
while islam sucks you should really see the others for who they are.
Most probably something grossly exagerated. Although resorting to cannibalism during extremely dire situations such as when under siege for a long time, is plausible.
not if you kill the person then eat him
Poll
Topic: Is Islam the shittiest religion ever?