Ubenedictus:



it had nothing to do with revenge the war was simply seen as the best way of protecting Christians.

So resorting to cannibalism is a way of protecting Christians bah?! smh!

Ubenedictus:

Incase you don't know the muslims attacked byzantine again in the 11 century, coupled with the distruction of churches and violence to western prilgrims and inhabitant christians. The emperor Alexios was the person who appealed to the pope after the anatolia muslims attacked again. Pope sixtus already hinted at a war whem the holy sepulcher was distroyed. The violence against christian and christian states led to pope Urban preaching that Christian should make a prilgrimage to the holy land. The first groups who were masacred were the peasants who had no war training.

Alexius made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium’s eastern border.

The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius’s foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. As armies from France, Germany and Italy poured into Byzantium, Alexius tried to force their leaders to swear an oath of loyalty to him in order to guarantee that land regained from the Turks would be restored to his empire. After Western and Byzantine forces recaptured Nicaea in Asia Minor from the Turks, Alexius and his army retreated, drawing accusations of betrayal from the Crusaders.

During the subsequent Crusades, animosity continued to build between Byzantium and the West, culminating in the conquest and looting of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.(this happens when you lie).

@bolded, another lie from you. The first group of Crusaders(not pilgrims as you claim), in 1096, German Crusaders, led by the Swabian Count Emich von Leiningen, vented their religious zeal on unarmed Jews, murdering thousands until they ran afoul of King Kolomon of Hungary, whose army killed some 10,000 of them and drove the rest from his country. This is just the beginning of the slaugter, many more continued until Muslims were eaten in Marra.

Ubenedictus:

When Jerusalem fell, many Jews had made a pact with the muslims against the crusader while many of the Christian population were expelled, that is why there was a high casualities of Jews.

Jews have always been persecuted in Christian lands. This was why they revolted in Jerusalem in 613AD, when the Crusaders were marching from the West, all the Jewish villages were all wiped out. Killing all, not even women and children were spared! When they finally entered Jerusalem, all the Jewish population(including women and children) of the city were gathered in a synagogue and then burnt.

After the First Crusade there were not more than 3-4,000 European Christians who actually lived in Palestine. However, they converted many Arabs to Christianity, giving them the choice of conversion or death. That was the beginning of the Christian Arab population, which exists still today in Palestine, Lebanon and the Middle East. That also explains blue-eyed, blond hair Arabs. It should be noted that no matter brutal some Muslim rulers were, they never actually forced anyone to convert to Islam! When Muslims fought back, they called for the Second Crusade, but unlike the First Crusade in which they destroyed many Jewish towns. This time, the Crusaders turned to fellow Christians they destroyed Greek Orthodox communities because they were non-believers.

Papist:

You know my brother I read that most of the myths surrounding the crusades were not written by muslims but by western leftists which is a tragedy. They promote Islam at the expense of their own Christian heritage. Ask the Muslim guy here where the great church of St Mary Major of Jerusalem is. Or the Hagia Sophia, or the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople? How did Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Palestine and North Africa become Muslim? It's a real tragedy the crusader states did not survive. God bless the Maronites, Copts, Syriacs, Antiochians, Assyrians, Armenians, Melkites and Chaldeans surviving in the Holy Land.

Just shurrup, these lands you mentioned were forced into Christianity through warfare. Stop claiming as if Christians were saints who were just preaching around. During the reign of Justinian I, who took power in 527 and would rule until his death in 565, was the first great ruler of the Byzantine Empire. During the years of his reign, the empire included most of the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, as Justinian’s armies conquered part of the former Western Roman Empire, including North Africa. Many great monuments of the empire would be built under Justinian, including the domed Church of Holy Wisdom, or Hagia Sophia (532-37 A.D.). http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/byzantine-empire

You are complaining about the warfare of Muslims, but you turn a blind eye to that of Christians. Those lands had minority Christian in which many were pagans.The Christian armies took them over and forcible converted them into Christianity. Even jews weren't spared from your barbaric rulers, many of them were burnt for crimes they never committed!!!

jcross19:
see you we know how they carry out their atrocities. Islam or mohamMAD teachings brand any man or woman that don't support his or follower ideology as traitor or infidel . Those muslims killed by isil are killed as a traitors ,killed as christians then as infidel. You can't used excuse of isis killing muslims to blanket the truth. We know why.

Explain yourself better, your writeup is so poor. Better quit this missionary business and go to school!!

Nadheer15:

Just shurrup, these lands you mentioned were forced into Christianity through warfare. Stop claiming as if Christians were saints who were just preaching around. During the reign of Justinian I, who took power in 527 and would rule until his death in 565, was the first great ruler of the Byzantine Empire. During the years of his reign, the empire included most of the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, as Justinian’s armies conquered part of the former Western Roman Empire, including North Africa. Many great monuments of the empire would be built under Justinian, including the domed Church of Holy Wisdom, or Hagia Sophia (532-37 A.D.). http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/byzantine-empire

You are complaining about the warfare of Muslims, but you turn a blind eye to that of Christians. Those lands had minority Christian in which many were pagans.The Christian armies took them over and forcible converted them into Christianity. Even jews weren't spared from your barbaric rulers, many of them were burnt for crimes they never committed!!!

Are you crazy? The whole Levant and Asia Minor were Christian lands long before Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople. In fact the major Byzantine Liturgy the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is derived from the Liturgy of Antioch, a liturgy surviving today in the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches. What Justinian did was suppress the Syriac and Jerusalem churches enforcing the Byzantine praxis. Why do you refuse to answer what happened to the Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Apostles and the St Mary Major of Justinian? Of course the Moslems destroyed them except for the Hagia Sophia where they slaughtered Christians celebrating divine liturgy before turning it into a mosque. By the way there were many Hagia Sophias in Constantinople and the Muslims destroyed them all.

Nadheer15:

So resorting to cannibalism is a way of protecting Christians bah?! smh!

Alexius made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium’s eastern border.

The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius’s foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. As armies from France, Germany and Italy poured into Byzantium, Alexius tried to force their leaders to swear an oath of loyalty to him in order to guarantee that land regained from the Turks would be restored to his empire. After Western and Byzantine forces recaptured Nicaea in Asia Minor from the Turks, Alexius and his army retreated, drawing accusations of betrayal from the Crusaders.

During the subsequent Crusades, animosity continued to build between Byzantium and the West, culminating in the conquest and looting of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.(this happens when you lie).

@bolded, another lie from you. The first group of Crusaders(not pilgrims as you claim), in 1096, German Crusaders, led by the Swabian Count Emich von Leiningen, vented their religious zeal on unarmed Jews, murdering thousands until they ran afoul of King Kolomon of Hungary, whose army killed some 10,000 of them and drove the rest from his country. This is just the beginning of the slaugter, many more continued until Muslims were eaten in Marra.

Jews have always been persecuted in Christian lands. This was why they revolted in Jerusalem in 613AD, when the Crusaders were marching from the West, all the Jewish villages were all wiped out. Killing all, not even women and children were spared! When they finally entered Jerusalem, all the Jewish population(including women and children) of the city were gathered in a synagogue and then burnt.

After the First Crusade there were not more than 3-4,000 European Christians who actually lived in Palestine. However, they converted many Arabs to Christianity, giving them the choice of conversion or death. That was the beginning of the Christian Arab population, which exists still today in Palestine, Lebanon and the Middle East. That also explains blue-eyed, blond hair Arabs. It should be noted that no matter brutal some Muslim rulers were, they never actually forced anyone to convert to Islam! When Muslims fought back, they called for the Second Crusade, but unlike the First Crusade in which they destroyed many Jewish towns. This time, the Crusaders turned to fellow Christians they destroyed Greek Orthodox communities because they were non-believers.

You are not aware that the crusaders who sacked Constantinople were excommunicated by the Pope right?

Nadheer15:

So resorting to cannibalism is a way of protecting Christians bah?! smh!

no seqiter!

We are talking about the reason for the war you are talking about canibalism. How does the reasons for war concern reports of canibalism.

Alexius made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium’s eastern border.

The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius’s foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. As armies from France, Germany and Italy poured into Byzantium, Alexius tried to force their leaders to swear an oath of loyalty to him in order to guarantee that land regained from the Turks would be restored to his empire. After Western and Byzantine forces recaptured Nicaea in Asia Minor from the Turks, Alexius and his army retreated, drawing accusations of betrayal from the Crusaders.

so you just confirm my point, Alexius had a truce with the muslims yet they still attacked him and he had to beg pope Urban to send troops. Are you not aware that the crusades began after Alexuis made the request to the pope? So the muslims broke their own treaties.

After Antioch and Nicea were liberated by the crusaders they actually gave the lands back to Alexuis. Unfortunately alexuis didn't provide troops or reinforcement or supplies during the seige of Jerusalem hence the reason why the crusaders didn't return it to him

During the subsequent Crusades, animosity continued to build between Byzantium and the West, [b]culminating in the conquest and looting of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.(this happens when you lie).

and as already pointed out that action came with an excommunication.

Ubenedictus:

no seqiter!

We are talking about the reason for the war you are talking about canibalism. How does the reasons for war concern reports of canibalism.

Yes I would talk about all the atrocities you committed, you always claim to be the victims when in fact you were the oppressors!

Ubenedictus:

so you just confirm my point, Alexius had a truce with the muslims yet they still attacked him and he had to beg pope Urban to send troops. Are you not aware that the crusades began after Alexuis made the request to the pope? So the muslims broke their own treaties.

After Antioch and Nicea were liberated by the crusaders they actually gave the lands back to Alexuis. Unfortunately alexuis didn't provide troops or reinforcement or supplies during the seige of Jerusalem hence the reason why the crusaders didn't return it to him

Reread my post and get the message, stop twisting things up. I hope the grammar I used weren't too much for you. Your speculations about Alexius and Crusaders is totally false because, if he didn't provide reinforcements as claimed, he wouldn't have proclaimed that he was betrayed. Stop portraying the the Crusaders as good guys!

@bolded- The looting of Constantinople took place in 1204AD, which was 100years after Emperor Alexius had died! So you're busted lying again!

Ubenedictus:

and as already pointed out that action came with an excommunication.

Nope, it was Alexius and the so-called Al-Hakim that caused everything, Muslims kept their pacts with him. He lied to the Pope so as he can slaughter Muslims and Jews!

Papist:

You are not aware that the crusaders who sacked Constantinople were excommunicated by the Pope right?

Lmao! Extremism is what you blame Islam for, but it ultimately exists in Christianity. Isis are extremists who kill other Muslims and Non-Muslims, but when Muslims stand against them, you complain.

This Crusaders were all anointed by the Pope and they had no 'sins' for participating in the bloody war. You and your friend are busted lying, the Pope only was angry with the Crusaders bit did nothing to them. I quote from Wikipedia:-

" Pope Innocent III, the man who had unintentionally launched the ill-fated expedition, spoke against the Crusaders. Nevertheless, the Pope accepted the new situation. When the crusaders took some of the piles of money, jewels, and gold that they had captured in the sack of Constantinople back to Rome, Innocent III accepted the stolen items. Furthermore at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Pope welcomed and recognised to it western (Catholic) prelates from Sees established in the conquered lands—thus recognising their legitimacy over formerly Orthodox areas."

So in fact the Pope accepted the atrocities against fellow Christians! So the Pope actually apologized 800years after through John Paul!

Nadheer15:

Yes I would talk about all the atrocities you committed, you always claim to be the victims when in fact you were the oppressors!

hehehe,

if you want to talk about atrocities, well, do you know you muslim saints also mutilated the corpse of the dead soldier?

Reread my post and get the message, stop twisting things up. I hope the grammar I used weren't too much for you. Your speculations about Alexius and Crusaders is totally false because, if he didn't provide reinforcements as claimed, he wouldn't have proclaimed that he was betrayed. Stop portraying the the Crusaders as good guys!

my point is that the AIM of the crusades was just, I didn't say the means were all just, I said the aim was just. On the otherhand, the protracted aggresion of the muslims were unjust as they passed their lands into states that weren't theirs. The distruction of over 2000 churches was unjust, harrassing pilgrim by the turks was unjust and this lead to the war.

As for your funny story!

You need to go back and study history, the first and fift crusades are two different thing. In the first crusades the crusaders gave back Nicean and Antioch but they didn't give back Jerusalem because alexius kept his troops at antioch and didn't provide enough supply for the jerusalem expendition.

@bolded- The looting of Constantinople took place in 1204AD, which was 100years after Emperor Alexius had died! So you're busted lying again!

sacking of constantinople had nothing to do with alexuis. Where did i say that?

Nope, it was Alexius and the so-called Al-Hakim that caused everything, Muslims kept their pacts with him. He lied to the Pope so as he can slaughter Muslims and Jews!

that is actually a lie.

After the muslims distroyed 2000 churches they also attacked the byzatine kingdom and captured Nicea. Nicea is not far from constantinople that is why alexuis called the pope to come to his aid. The so called Rum empire was set in Nicea not far from Constantinople.

Nadheer15:

worship outside of specific locations

I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I know that even the most Islamophobic dude can't the deny the fact that many churches and synagogues were built by Muslims for the benefit of all. Every Christian and Jew had their fair share from the Islamic treasury.

limited in areas where they could travel

O boy, you sabi lie o. Na only God go helep you o!!!

forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams

Even devil dey catch cold from this your fable!! Bros calm down jor!!

charged to wear specific clothing

This was done only during the time of war, the Dhimmis who paid Jizyah were exempted from fighting in the Muslim army. So they were given different clothing so as to differentiate the Non-muslim men who weren't fighting from Muslims(Muslims also wore specific costumes for war).So I don't know how this is a problem.

ordered to make way on the streets to Muslims

This was done by some ignorant oppressors and has nothing to done with Islam, some attribute this acts to the Fatimid illiterate Caliphs who caused a lot of havoc in the Muslim world. So don't be pissed off!!

Limited number of pilgrims

I don't know why you're bringing up this point! So you want all Christians and Jews to troop into an Islamic State like say na 'wonderland'?!

actually dear all my points were correct, their was never a time of Peaceful coexistence, the early arabs simply tolerated the Christain, at first it was simply discrimination but in the 10th century it was all out persecution



Although they were severely discriminated and regulated in worship, movement, ownership of property, repairing of buildings etc., the early Arab period tolerated the presence of Christian and Jewish communities in the city with the Jewish population given the most freedom and benefices. However, the communities, especially the Christians were in essence second class citizens, forbidden to proselytize, worship outside of specific locations, limited in areas where they could travel, forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams, charged to wear specific clothing, ordered to make way on the streets to Muslims, and limited in the number of pilgrims allowed to visit Holy sites. The Emperor Charlemagne started the precedent of Western European influence in the region under various treaties with the Caliphs establishing Frankish protection for pilgrims.
With the decline of the Carolingian Empire in the early 10th century, another period of persecution by the Muslims began. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)

as you can see, the muslims had a treaty with france to protect prilgrims but immediately the frank empire declined the went back on the treaties and persecution continued again from the 10 century.

Ubenedictus:
hehehe,

if you want to talk about atrocities, well, do you know you muslim saints also mutilated the corpse of the dead soldier?

No Muslim is praising them. Another unfounded claim, but all I know is that you people chow humans. If it's come to atrocities committed, Christianity tops the list!

Ubenedictus:

my point is that the AIM of the crusades was just, I didn't say the means were all just, I said the aim was just. On the otherhand, the protracted aggresion of the muslims were unjust as they passed their lands into states that weren't theirs. The distruction of over 2000 churches was unjust, harrassing pilgrim by the turks was unjust and this lead to the war.

It was totally unjust because they were carried out on mere speculations. over 2000 churches?! One wonders why you destroyed and killed Jews and pagans took over their lands, but complain about a warfare against Muslims.

Ubenedictus:

As for your funny story!

Ubenedictus:

You need to go back and study history, the first and fift crusades are two different thing. In the first crusades the crusaders gave back Nicean and Antioch but they didn't give back Jerusalem because alexius kept his troops at antioch and didn't provide enough supply for the jerusalem expendition.

OK accepted, but there is no evidence that he didn't supply enough because he claimed they betrayed and the animosity between the Byzantines and West continued which ultimately lead to the looting of Constantinople.

Ubenedictus:

sacking of constantinople had nothing to do with alexuis. Where did i say that?

Issorite na, I have agreed!

Ubenedictus:

that is actually a lie.

After the muslims distroyed 2000 churches they also attacked the byzatine kingdom and captured Nicea. Nicea is not far from constantinople that is why alexuis called the pope to come to his aid. The so called Rum empire was set in Nicea not far from Constantinople.

Indeed the Muslims attacked some parts of Byzantine Empire, but if you really read my initial posts I pointed out that there were treaties between Sulayman(the ruler of Rum) and Alexuis. Alexuis broke the treaty as a chance for him to regain the lost lands, moreover the main reason for the first crusade was because Al Hakim destroyed the 'Holy Selpucher'. The claim of converting some churches is true, but claiming 2000 churches destroyed is totally out!!

Alexius began to derive a plan to take back the lands he had just lost. He enlisted the help of Sulayman, the Sultan of the Seljuq Turks, who immediately sent 7,000 men to aid Alexius’ army against Bohemond. No one knew what lead to the grudge between the Muslims and Alexuis in which caused the rise of the first crusades.

Nadheer15:

Lemme help a brother.

Of course it's a liberation. The aggression was started by the Byzantium Empire or should I say it was the fault of the allies of the Byzantium. Prophet Muhammad sent his emissary to the Byzantine governor of "Provincia Arabia" carrying a letter that was meant for the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. While on his way to Bosra, he was executed in the village of Mu'tah by the orders of a Ghasanid official.

The Muslims mobilized to fight against the Byzantium governor and his Ghasanid official in the battle of mu'tah, though the Muslims were outnumbered but they put up a good fight. After losing three commanders to the battle, Khalid Ibn Walid took charge. Khalid ibn Al-Walid reported that the fighting was so intense that he used nine swords which broke in the battle. Khalid, seeing that the situation was hopeless, prepared to withdraw. He continued to engage the Byzantines in skirmishes, but avoided pitched battle. There were eight causalities from the Muslim side which were; Zaid bin Haritha, Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah bin Rawahah, Masoud bin al-Aswad, Wahab bin Saad, Abbad bin Qais, Amr ibn Saad, Harith bin Nu'man, Saraqah bin Amr, Abu Kulaib bin Amr, Jabir ibn 'Amr, Amer bin Sad.

hehehe,

a local official mistakenly killed a messenger and muhammed (saw) raised up a 3,000 strong army to punish the town because messenger was mistakenly killed. Do you see a disproportionate use of force? This made the town to run back to the byzatine emperor for assistance hence the battle.

Oh! I am aware the Quran allows for retailation but if I remember correctly it also says the retaliation should be proportional to the offense. That is what led to the battle.

While on Byzantium side is unknown, but exegesis place it a hundreds while others place it at 3000 causalities. The claim of running away is unfounded and probably from a non-reliable source.

Actually it is correct, after the first war, the byzatines sill outnumbered the muslims. So the muslims avoided battle and early in the morning they will divide themselves into two groups and behave as if the other group was new reinforcements from medina. They did this to prevent the byzatine from attacking they continued this untill they retreated back to medina.

Papist:

Are you crazy? The whole Levant and Asia Minor were Christian lands long before Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople. In fact the major Byzantine Liturgy the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is derived from the Liturgy of Antioch, a liturgy surviving today in the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches. What Justinian did was suppress the Syriac and Jerusalem churches enforcing the Byzantine praxis. Why do you refuse to answer what happened to the Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Apostles and the St Mary Major of Justinian? Of course the Moslems destroyed them except for the Hagia Sophia where they slaughtered Christians celebrating divine liturgy before turning it into a mosque. By the way there were many Hagia Sophias in Constantinople and the Muslims destroyed them all.

Guy calm down, I would reply you later. I have test tomorrow!

Ubenedictus:
hehehe,

a local official mistakenly killed a messenger and muhammed (saw) raised up a 3,000 strong army to punish the town because messenger was mistakenly killed. Do you see a disproportionate use of force? This made the town to run back to the byzatine emperor for assistance hence the battle.

Oh! I am aware the Quran allows for retailation but if I remember correctly it also says the retaliation should be proportional to the offense. That is what led to the battle.


Actually it is correct, after the first war, the byzatines sill outnumbered the muslims. So the muslims avoided battle and early in the morning they will divide themselves into two groups and behave as if the other group was new reinforcements from medina. They did this to prevent the byzatine from attacking they continued this untill they retreated back to medina.

Don't worry tomorrow, I need to prepare for my test. This is really getting interesting!

Nadheer15:

This so-called Caliph was also hated by Muslims, he caused wars between Muslims. He was ultimately overthrown-ed by Seljuk(Muslims of Turkish origin). So his crimes against Christians and Jews was cruel and as you it, Muslims fought against him!

Of course, Muslims were at peace with the Christian world.

so after you admitted that your emperor was cruel to Christians and was busy distroying their places of worship you still go on and say that was "peaceful coexistence"? Common he was either cruel or not so decide.

Ghen ghen! You done come with 'part 2' again oooo!!!!! No such thing happened, in fact it was even the Crusaders that killed people hiding in the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In fighting was against the man you complained about, Caliph Al Hakim. This Al Hakim was a man who claimed divinity for himself, after he destroyed the Holy Selpecher the Crusaders used his actions as excuse to slaughter Muslims and Jews.

actually it happened.
In 1070–71, the Turkic emir Atsiz ibn Uvaq al-Khwarizmi besieged and captured the city, placing it under the nominal control of the ' Abbasid caliphate. In 1077, on his return from a disastrous attempt to capture Cairo, the capital of the Fatimid caliphate, he found that in his absence the inhabitants of Jerusalem had rebelled and forced his garrison to shelter in the citadel. He therefore besieged the city again, and on recapturing it, slaughtered an estimated 3,000 of the rebel inhabitants, including those who had taken shelter in the Al-Aqsa mosque. [url]en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)[/url]

I hope you now see that it was the practice then for the victorious army in a seige to vanquish their enemies, the so-called masacre didn't begin with the crusaders, you muslim began the practice.

[s]

Ubenedictus:
hehehe,

a local official mistakenly killed a messenger and muhammed (saw) raised up a 3,000 strong army to punish the town because messenger was mistakenly killed. Do you see a disproportionate use of force? This made the town to run back to the byzatine emperor for assistance hence the battle.

Oh! I am aware the Quran allows for retailation but if I remember correctly it also says the retaliation should be proportional to the offense. That is what led to the battle.


Actually it is correct, after the first war, the byzatines sill outnumbered the muslims. So the muslims avoided battle and early in the morning they will divide themselves into two groups and behave as if the other group was new reinforcements from medina. They did this to prevent the byzatine from attacking they continued this untill they retreated back to medina.

[/s]
Already taken care of, the life of Muslims matter. Prophet Muhammad wasn't going to wipe the village, he was going against the Oppressors. The Arabs who knew the Ghassanids from the start know what they're capable of didn't want to go unprepared!

@bolded- Laughable speculations, so you killed emissaries and claim it was a mistake?! Every reasonable person knows that what the Ghassanids did was an act of war! Many States and Empires have fought wars just because messengers were killed. The war between the Ottoman State and Dracula is an example, the Persians and the Spartans too. So it's not a mistake but an aggression!

Ubenedictus:


so after you admitted that your emperor was cruel to Christians and was busy distroying their places of worship you still go on and say that was "peaceful coexistence"? Common he was either cruel or not so decide.



actually it happened.
In 1070–71, the Turkic emir Atsiz ibn Uvaq al-Khwarizmi besieged and captured the city, placing it under the nominal control of the ' Abbasid caliphate. In 1077, on his return from a disastrous attempt to capture Cairo, the capital of the Fatimid caliphate, he found that in his absence the inhabitants of Jerusalem had rebelled and forced his garrison to shelter in the citadel. He therefore besieged the city again, and on recapturing it, slaughtered an estimated 3,000 of the rebel inhabitants, including those who had taken shelter in the Al-Aqsa mosque. [url]en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)[/url]

I hope you now see that it was the practice then for the victorious army in a seige to vanquish their enemies, the so-called masacre didn't begin with the crusaders, you muslim began the practice.

Looks like you haven't been reading my posts since morning, the Fatimid are Ismaili branch of Shias. They also persecuted Sunnis and others, I showed what true Muslims did to the Holy Selpucher and other churches. Umar refused to pray in it because he didn't want Muslims to claim it in future. This was the action of a man who knew Prophet Muhammad. The Fatimid persecuted other Muslims who didn't agree with their rule that was why they had quarrels with Seljuk Turks.

@bolded,what does rebel mean?!

Read my posts, don't glance they're self-explanatory

Ubenedictus:

actually dear all my points were correct, their was never a time of Peaceful coexistence, the early arabs simply tolerated the Christain, at first it was simply discrimination but in the 10th century it was all out persecution



Although they were severely discriminated and regulated in worship, movement, ownership of property, repairing of buildings etc., the early Arab period tolerated the presence of Christian and Jewish communities in the city with the Jewish population given the most freedom and benefices. However, the communities, especially the Christians were in essence second class citizens, forbidden to proselytize, worship outside of specific locations, limited in areas where they could travel, forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams, charged to wear specific clothing, ordered to make way on the streets to Muslims, and limited in the number of pilgrims allowed to visit Holy sites. The Emperor Charlemagne started the precedent of Western European influence in the region under various treaties with the Caliphs establishing Frankish protection for pilgrims.
With the decline of the Carolingian Empire in the early 10th century, another period of persecution by the Muslims began. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)

as you can see, the muslims had a treaty with france to protect prilgrims but immediately the frank empire declined the went back on the treaties and persecution continued again from the 10 century.

My points were clear enough, I explained why some Muslim rulers did that. You keep placing emphasis on 'Persecution' as if Muslims were telling Christians to roll on ground, eat sand, etc. When we compare the rule of Christians to unbelievers, you'll know that Muslims were saints. Jews and other religions were never tolerated, not even fellow Christians from other sects were spared from your ruthless rule.

[b]"Constantine issued an edict in which, after upbraiding the Jews with stoning to death any persons who quitted their religion (which they were authorised to do by their divine law), [141:3] he condemned them and their accomplices to the same inhuman punishment. He prohibited them from circumcising their slaves, and ordered all those to be set at liberty who had been so used, or who were willing to embrace Christianity. [141:4] If the slave of a Christian became a Christian he remained a slave, but the slave of a Jew had only to become a Christian to claim his freedom. The Jew who married a Christian incurred the penalty of death.

Constantius burnt all their cities in Palestine and slew all he could find, without sparing even the women and children. In the days of Theodosius, Saint Ambrose, the greatest Christian of his age, vehemently denounced the idea of Christians making restitution to the Jews for burning their synagogues. Theodosius forbade them to build any new places of worship, [142:9] and persecuted them in various ways. Jews and Christians were not to intermarry. Jews weren't allowed to circumcise or celebrate any of their holidays.[/b]

From http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c8.htm

This is just few of the crimes committed against Jews, this was why many ran to Muslim Empires. Jews and Muslims weren't welcome in Christian lands, they would be persecuted by the State and also by the locals or mobs.

Christians didn't stop at that, they still persecuted each other. Catholic mobs killing Protestants and Protestants mobs killing Catholics. When you want to talk about persecution be careful because you'll just "shoot yourself on the foot".

Nice , finally unbanned!