Moslems

[Gaius Octavius]

"Trying to proselytize a Muslim was cause for on-the-spot decapitation,...."

 

Now, I take it that Cahill read his own words. We all know that Moslems are such nice people. Never did anything so barbarous to Infidels. Then or now.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Ludovicus]

Christian behavior in the Battle of Jerusalem, 1099, First Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29

 

"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [1]"

[IamJoseph]

Presuming that there were Moslems in the Empire, what is known about them and their status?

 

Meaning in the Eastern Empire (after the 7th Century)?

 

There was no Roman Empire when islam emerged. The pre-islamic Arabs are described in the Josephus documents when Rome and judea went to war, 70 CE. Here, the Arabs were paid mercenaries for Rome, and there are some derogatory passages made from the Roman General Titus.

 

Christian behavior in the Battle of Jerusalem, 1099, First Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29

 

"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [1]"

 

 

sounds like...Roman Catholism emulated Rome when Jerusalem's Temple was destroyed and over a million Jews massacred. It is said then the blood rose to the Roman horse's shoulders in the streets of Jerusalem. And it was done in the name of love?

[Titus001]

Iamjoseph why would you say roman civilisation ended when the german people sacked rome the city?Constantine the great moved the capital of the roman civilisation eastward to Constantinople in the 300's AD,i dont know the exact date but he did this for a reason b/c the western side of the empire was very poor at that time had smaller settlements and was not as profitable as the eastern side where the trade and commerce of the empire was at,so the roman civilisation fell at 1453 by mosslem turks and the propaganda about rome and its fall began,it might of started back when Rome the city was sacked but i think the propaganda started when the pope was the law of the land and he started a kind of propaganda war about rome and i guess the propaganda still exists about the roman civilisation regarding when it fell.

[Primus Pilus]

Constantine the great moved the capital of the roman civilisation eastward to Constantinople in the 300's AD,i dont know the exact date but he did this for a reason b/c the western side of the empire was very poor at that time had smaller settlements and was not as profitable as the eastern side where the trade and commerce of the empire was at,so the roman civilisation fell at 1453 by mosslem turks and the propaganda about rome and its fall began,it might of started back when Rome the city was sacked but i think the propaganda started when the pope was the law of the land and he started a kind of propaganda war about rome and i guess the propaganda still exists about the roman civilisation regarding when it fell.

 

Now that's a sentence!

 

There was no Roman Empire when islam emerged. The pre-islamic Arabs are described in the Josephus documents when Rome and judea went to war, 70 CE. Here, the Arabs were paid mercenaries for Rome, and there are some derogatory passages made from the Roman General Titus.

 

The Roman Empire lasted well into the islamic era (often confusingly labeled as Byzantine) and in fact was ultimately overwhelmed by it (and the short-sightedness of its Catholic brethren in the Vatican).

[Titus001]

If you guys want to see a great video on the byzantines or the eastern empire go to google video and type in byzantium,it's almost 2 hours long but i think it's worth the wait since we enjoy history.

[Rameses the Great]

"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [1]"

 

This is all from Islamic accounts who made everything look bad to a higher degree. Today many Muslims in the Middle East rave about how they killed the Crusaders.

 

Also remeber, although the Crusades were heavily influenced for politics there was still a certain desire to avenge the Christians who were brutally slaughtered to Muslim hand. That, you just can't deny.

[Ludovicus]

This is all from Islamic accounts who made everything look bad to a higher degree. Today many Muslims in the Middle East rave about how they killed the Crusaders.

 

Also remeber, although the Crusades were heavily influenced for politics there was still a certain desire to avenge the Christians who were brutally slaughtered to Muslim hand. That, you just can't deny.

 

Perhaps you need some evidence to the contrary, Ramses.

 

The account that I cited of the atrocities committed by the crusaders at the Battle of Jerusalem, 1099, was written by Christians. One source is the "Gesta Francorum" and another, see below, is that of Raymond d'Aguiliers, also Christian.

 

"Strange to relate, however, at this very time when the city was practically captured by the Franks, the Saracens were still fighting on the other side, where the Count was attacking the wall as though the city should never be captured. But now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. Some of the enemy took refuge in the Tower of David, and, petitioning Count Raymond for protection, surrendered the Tower into his hands.

 

From another Christian witness at the same battle, Fulcher of Chartres:

 

"Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."

 

 

Get many of them here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-jlem.html#gesta2

Edited February 5, 2007 by Ludovicus

[spittle]

I hope this is not turning into yet another Islamaphobic rant from the usual suspects.

 

Can't we all agree that Christans AND Muslims committed atrocities against each other and neither group deserves total blame or blamelessness?

[Ludovicus]

I hope this is not turning into yet another Islamaphobic rant from the usual suspects.

 

Can't we all agree that Christans AND Muslims committed atrocities against each other and neither group deserves total blame or blamelessness?

 

 

Spittle, I agree!

[IamJoseph]

Also remeber, although the Crusades were heavily influenced for politics there was still a certain desire to avenge the Christians who were brutally slaughtered to Muslim hand. That, you just can't deny.

 

Yes, islamic history accounts are selective and full of omissions. They fail to account for their invasions, massacres and occupation of Europe (spain), and of the land called palestine today. The crusader's primal target were the jews, with muslims being targeted because they errected a mosque on a church, which was first erected in the destruction of the Jewish temple: these were bad moves by these religions. The worst form of propaganda falls squarely on the vatican and european christianity here, which made no attempt to restore halpess, exiled jews from Europe back to their land, instead persetuing them for 2000 years and fastediously and obsessively barring their return. It become as if if jews existing as a nation with a homeland - it is an affront to the fulcrum pillars of two huge religions. Islam emulated this premise, exploiting the vatican. Both the king kongs are to blame, and the notion of religion itself became a negative premise with a dark history.

 

The real problem here is, the negative and false charges by the NT, has been embedded and alligned with belief in God - which makes truth very difficult to be impressed on otherwise sincere and Godly inclined christians and muslims. At least, it makes the premise for jews quite unsustainable. It is shocking that neither the NT nor the Quran highlights that Jews should not have been cast out of their land for following their belief, the same belief later fully adopted by them, and omit the great massacre which occured. Its very sus, IMHO, and is responsible for the quagmire in the world's conflicts today. One only has to pause and contemplate what kind of world it would be today - had the emrging European christianity over-turned the abuses of rome, and fostered the real teachings of morality and ethics, instead of placing all onus on deicide (sic), then going on to emulate and surpass all of brutal Rome's insanity of Caligula and Nero. If the vatican, which is perhaps the world's most powerful religious office, reversed the roman premise, and allowed the jews to return to their land - or at least fostered it - there would'nt be the M/E conflict today - and millions of innocent souls would not have perished.

[IamJoseph]

 

Can't we all agree that Christans AND Muslims committed atrocities against each other and neither group deserves total blame or blamelessness?

 

 

Spittle, I agree!

 

Everyone did and does wrongs. The issue is not who did wrongs, but how those wrongs are corrected - else no one would need religions or laws. This is a major problem today, because those wrongs have been made into rights, else it seems two of the world's greatest religions will be fundamentally dented, by default. Both christianity and islam rest on the premise of villification of Jews, while both are mutually exclusive of each other's charges. The NT will take a dive if Jews are not deiciders, and islam will doctrinally not allow the slighting of a single verse in its scriptures - making the real battle looming of the two king kongs, which are mutually exclusive, and scheduled to begin immediately after the destruction of Israel: then no scapegoat will be available, and a face-off is encumbent with the two king kongs. What price front row seats?

[IamJoseph]

Iamjoseph why would you say roman civilisation ended when the german people sacked rome the city?

 

Can't recall saying that. I am certain the German people suffered under Rome, and had legitimate grounds to revolt. The big issue here is, European christianity emulated Rome, instead of displaying the reverse: this gave religion a bad name, and is represented today by secularism and atheism, which becomes very understandable. Europe annuled the wrld's most majestic OT laws - unsuccessfully; not a single OT law is not active today.

 

Allow me to impress a mysterious consequence to Europe's deeds. When Spain's isabela massacred and expelled all jews, something occured which is not abosrbed by the world. Columbus got lost at sea, his mission funded by Jews' loans to isabela, and he got hopelessly lost - in a journey which he aught not to get lost in, having made the intended trip to India three times before. Also, he had the world's best jewish mapsters on board. But did he get lost? America was discovered - and perhaps a refuge was already in preparation here. It was a jew who penned the hymn, GOD BLESS AMERICA.

 

I see America as christianity's most potential savier - saving this great religion from Europe, enshrining the OT laws in its soul - The Constitution. America represents the reversal of its kin in medevial Europe, and today's conflicts are rested upon Arabia emersed in medevial European doctrines of theological racism. jews are today being accused of occupying their own homeland, and these charges are primarilly by those who stole this land from jews, then fastediously barred them from returning - for no other reasonings than theological doctrines, all of which can be proven false. But how does anyone even attempt or voice for the truth - when the adherents of both these religions being scripturally attached to them? Would these religions fall if the villification is removed - and is that not a most insecure position?

 

If theology be the operative factor, then both jesus and mohammed have rejected christianity and islam, and harkened to the God of Israel: Israel is returned, when it was most implausable for this to occur. Does it upset christians and muslims - why so - the term palestinian and West bank did not exist in 48?

[Honorius]

I dont mean to offend anyone but how on earth did we get from discussing muslims within the eastern empire to discussing the acts of crusaders and the Jewish people..?

[Kosmo]

The account that I cited of the atrocities committed by the crusaders at the Battle of Jerusalem, 1099, was written by Christians. One source is the "Gesta Francorum" and another, see below, is that of Raymond d'Aguiliers, also Christian.

 

To call this atrocities it's misleading. The law of war aloud for the slaughtering of the inhabitants of a city taken in an assault. This law/custom was very old and wide spread. Atenians, carthagenians, macedonians, romans, arabs, mongols etc used it. The last use I know of was at Drogheda in Ireland by the Lord Protector.

The reason for this custom was to prevent prolonged sieges and the high losses of the attacker by giving the defenders more reasons to surrender. Many important cities were destroyed this way: Thebes, Carthage, Corint, Milan, Kiev, Constantinople etc.

Sad, but true. We should try not to impose our present moral judgement on things that were guverned by other moral laws.

Many of the inhabitants of Jerusalim were ortodox christians that controlled the Holy places of Christianity. Some claim that they were the target of the massacre because the crusaders wanted to take over this important worship places. All the churches were taken over by the catholics afterwords.

 

I dont mean to offend anyone but how on earth did we get from discussing muslims within the eastern empire to discussing the acts of crusaders and the Jewish people..?

 

Yes, we are way off topic.