Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions.

[- Qatada -]

If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.

By the way even if some things within them articles are true, i don't really trust wikipedia since anyone can edit the texts - whether its for the positive or negative.

And i'm sure there are many other articles in regard to the crusaders who took over Damascus for example, and caused so much bloodshed of the innocents that the blood was upto the knees of their horses.


I think you understand that if we're going to look at history, there has been evil from many sides, that's why i prefer sticking to the religious texts as proofs rather than looking at the actions of certain people who claim to follow the religion while doing actions which aren't necessarily part of it.



Regards.

 

[جوري]

I think wikipdia has become a substitute for good solid history books, the same way Hollywood is substituting good solid reading for a quickie fix... People are becoming more and more ignorant-- truly this is the time where there is an abundance of books but small non reading minds... anyhow, the link I posted went into great details of how Islam was spread. and I think it should suffice... anything else at this point is rudimentary and taking up bandwidth! the subject has been covered here ad nauseam!

 

[duskiness]

By the way even if some things within them articles are true, i don't really trust wikipedia since anyone can edit the texts - whether its for the positive or negative.

I never claimed that wiki is infallible. It is quite reliable and has this advantage over many, many other sources on the net, that it usually presents at least 2 points of view and gives sources for statements. Personally, I always check the discussion tab - there you can see voice of "minorities"

And i'm sure there are many other articles in regard to the crusaders who took over Damascus for example, and caused so much bloodshed of the innocents that the blood was upto the knees of their horses.

wasn't that siege of Jerusalem?

I think wikipdia has become a substitute for good solid history books, the same way Hollywood is substituting good solid reading for a quickie fix...

wikipedia is just encyclopaedia. Gives you quickly information you need and sources to look for more. Role of book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier

 

[- Qatada -]

I never claimed that wiki is infallible. It is quite reliable and has this advantage over many, many other sources on the net, that it usually presents at least 2 points of view and gives sources for statements. Personally, I always check the discussion tab - there you can see voice of "minorities"

wasn't that siege of Jerusalem?

wikipedia is just encyclopaedia. Gives you quickly information you need and sources to look for more. Role of book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier

Okay thankyou, then if we're to look at the source you provided:

The final assault and massacre

Throughout the siege, attacks were made on the walls, but each one was repulsed. The Genoese troops, led by commander Guglielmo Embriaco, had previously dismantled the ships in which the Genoeses came to the Holy Land; Embriaco, using the ship's wood, made some siege towers. These were rolled up to the walls on the night of July 14 much to the surprise and concern of the garrison. On the morning of July 15, Godfrey's tower reached his section of the walls near the northeast corner gate, and according to the Gesta two Flemish knights from Tournai named Lethalde and Engelbert were the first to cross into the city, followed by Godfrey, his brother Eustace, Tancred, and their men. Raymond's tower was at first stopped by a ditch, but as the other crusaders had already entered, the Muslim guarding the gate surrendered to Raymond.


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." The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads", killing everyone inside.[1] The Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!".[2] 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]


The Gesta Francorum states some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."[2] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone." [3]



​

So you see that these people never brought the peaceful message of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) afterall. Infact, they went against his teachings and caused a massacre, while claiming that they love Jesus son of Mary. And not just that - claiming that the muslims are pagans when they themselves worship others instead of the One who Created them and gives them sight, hearing, health and all that they have!

According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Saracens defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'

There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Saracens were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.

Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.

These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished.

On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.
The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them.


SOURCE



​

Now we see that these Crusaders weren't really heroes, they were the most evil of people. Even killing those who 'believed in Christ!'


Yet when Salahudeen came, he followed the teachings of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - and he was more closer in following Christ son of Mary (peace be upon him) in his forgiveness more than those who claim to 'love the Christ'!


We also know the history of the Reconquista in Al Andalus [spain] - and what they did was even more evil to the believers compared to the articles which you post earlier. Infact, there's even a report by a Muslim scientist who explains his childhood, and how he saw muslims being killed by being crucified (which is supposed to be a sign of love? or dishonor?) and the killing of muslim women, by hanging them by their hair till they die. And cutting open the stomachs of pregnant women so their children don't live?

I'll let you read the article if you want to read the Muslim scientists [Mohummed Abd Al-Rafee Al-Andlosy's] experience:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-chat/36106-secret-room-age-christian-inquisitions.html



I don't like arguing over who did what in the past since that can lead to debating over nothing, so if you want to continue this on - we can refer to the religious texts instead. And yes, there are many violent aspects in the context of war in the OT, even in the NT. So if you want to debate that, then i'm willing to insha Allaah (God willing.)

If not - then please don't post events which happened in Islamic history when there is evils done by many groups of people (including Jews, Christians, hindus etc.), so we use their authentic texts to see whether what they're doing is correct or justified or not.





Peace.

 

[جوري]

book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier

easier but not necessarily accurate, it fits with a certain agenda! far be it from me to impose proper history on anyone who wishes a "good enough" substitute!

peace to you Dusky!

 

[Keltoi]

Wiki picks up on major points and themes. If you want a detailed description of events a book is necessary, but I've found most Wiki entries are factual when it comes to major events, people, and dates.

 

[Woodrow]

Wiki picks up on major points and themes. If you want a detailed description of events a book is necessary, but I've found most Wiki entries are factual when it comes to major events, people, and dates.

Correct. I find wiki to be pretty good on giving broad general info. But, if you want details or need a totally unbiased opinion you need to try other sources, fortunately wiki can often direct you to other sources.

 

[duskiness]

Okay thankyou, then if we're to look at the source you provided
So you see that these people never brought the peaceful message of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) afterall. Infact, they went against his teachings and caused a massacre, while claiming that they love Jesus son of Mary. And not just that - claiming that the muslims are pagans when they themselves worship others instead of the One who Created them and gives them sight, hearing, health and all that they have!

Now we see that these Crusaders weren't really heroes, they were the most evil of people. Even killing those who 'believed in Christ!'


Yet when Salahudeen came, he followed the teachings of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - and he was more closer in following Christ son of Mary (peace be upon him) in his forgiveness more than those who claim to 'love the Christ'!

Please apply the same logic to it as here:

Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.

just change Muslim to Christian, Muhammad to Jesus...

We also know the history of the Reconquista in Al Andalus [spain] - and what they did was even more evil to the believers compared to the articles which you post earlier. Infact, there's even a report by a Muslim scientist who explains his childhood, and how he saw muslims being killed by being crucified (which is supposed to be a sign of love? or dishonor?) and the killing of muslim women, by hanging them by their hair till they die. And cutting open the stomachs of pregnant women so their children don't live?

I'll let you read the article if you want to read the Muslim scientists [Mohummed Abd Al-Rafee Al-Andlosy's] experience:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-chat/36106-secret-room-age-christian-inquisitions.html

I don't like arguing over who did what in the past since that can lead to debating over nothing, so if you want to continue this on - we can refer to the religious texts instead. And yes, there are many violent aspects in the context of war in the OT, even in the NT. So if you want to debate that, then i'm willing to insha Allaah (God willing.)

If not - then please don't post events which happened in Islamic history when there is evils done by many groups of people (including Jews, Christians, hindus etc.), so we use their authentic texts to see whether what they're doing is correct or justified or not.
Peace.

But to be frank, I really don't understand what siege of Jerusalem and reconquista have to do with the subject of this thread?
In my original post, I stressed few time that Christians were not better. That we had our share of blood on our hands. At no point, did I say that crusaders were "heroes". I recognised quote you used, although it referred not exactly to the city you've mentioned. Is that not enough for you to prove that I know history (dark and bad parts included) and that I don't won't to play "you are worst than me"????
Or why did you have to remind me that there are "evils done by many groups of people"? I also DO know that!
But the thread was about spread of Islam, so I sticked to it. Don't blame me for that!
Why then we have to jump back to history of Christianity to look for black spots? We both know that they are not hard to find. But it's almost a rule that when you'll say something bad about Islam, subject of Crusades has to appear!!
I even can understand that probably you've heard so many bad things about your faith, that whenever you feel it is being critiqued, you attack back.
but, Fi_Sabilillah, sword has two edges. Even if one will hit the enemy, the other will hurt the innocent. That's how it is, and it completely doesn't depend on the faith of the person who holds this sword. Because both Islam and Christianity used sword and power, there are facts in history we have to accept.
And remember.
Just as I remember what happened in Jerusalem, you have few things to remember. Not because we accept them, but because those who did it shared our faith and did it with the name of God on their lips.
Maybe also because those events are example that faith can turn into fanatism. We both believe so there is (very small...) risk that one day we may accept hurting someone because of religious reason.
As a rule I don't start threads about things I don't like in Islam or your darker history. I came to the thread which some else started. I disagreed with some of posts, which depicted history in too light colours - at least for my taste. You don't want me to post about - well your the one to set rules, I'm the one to obey.

"The Lord bless you and keep you;
The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace"

...peace or salaam...

and if that's not too much to ask, make dua for my exam tomorrow

 

[- Qatada -]

Thankyou, the reason why i responded to the thread in such a manner was to show that it's not really a part of Islaam, even if later people did actions which contradicted it.


Infact, to have hypocrites in the religion is more of a threat than it is to have non muslims who oppose the religion. The reason for that is because the threat from the hypocrites is from the inside, these people may plot against the Muslim state and gradually spread corruption amongst them.

Whereas the opposing enemy is clearly against the believers and willing to harm them, so they can prepare against the clear opposition.


Infact, it was the hypocrites who caused alot of harm against the believers within Medina during the time of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So forced conversions in reality 1) Aren't a part of Islaam 2) Cause more harm than benefit.



Anyway, i'm sorry if i caused offense. Thanks for your time.




Peace.

 

[Redeemed]

Thankyou, the reason why i responded to the thread in such a manner was to show that it's not really a part of Islaam, even if later people did actions which contradicted it.


Infact, to have hypocrites in the religion is more of a threat than it is to have non muslims who oppose the religion. The reason for that is because the threat from the hypocrites is from the inside, these people may plot against the Muslim state and gradually spread corruption amongst them.

Whereas the opposing enemy is clearly against the believers and willing to harm them, so they can prepare against the clear opposition.


Infact, it was the hypocrites who caused alot of harm against the believers within Medina during the time of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So forced conversions in reality 1) Aren't a part of Islaam 2) Cause more harm than benefit.



Anyway, i'm sorry if i caused offense. Thanks for your time.




Peace.

I wish you were right, but forced conversion works for the majority or all of the people who know little of the power of God. The Spanish forced their way of life on the Indians, and that culture turned into Mexicans who adopted Catholicism as their religion. Muslims have done the same; infact, it was the Catholics who learned from them about Jihad.

 

[NoName55]

Is it not about time that you were asked to say goodbye? and were advised to get out and about to see the real world. Buy some real history books (even Encarta and Brittannica) and stop getting your knowledge from Faldwell types

 

[vpb]

Muslims have done the same; infact, it was the Catholics who learned from them about Jihad.

interesting, I can't believe how no war happened, and all the catholics waited 4 centuries, for muslims to come at teach them about Jihad.
what a silly post. ;D

 

[Redeemed]

Is it not about time that you were asked to say goodbye? and were advised to get out and about to see the real world. Buy some real history books (even Encarta and Brittannica) and stop getting your knowledge from Faldwell types

pretty singing what is it

 

[Keltoi]

The Crusades, primarily the 1st, could be compared with the Muslim concept of "jihad". I'm referring to the religious nature of the action and the justifications for it by the Church. Of course the Church should have realized they weren't dealing with armies of good Christian knights, but armies of men whose lives revolved around warfare and violence. Actually they probably did, which leads to another element here, which is the promise of Heaven to those who kill and die in the name of God. These concepts can be found in both Christianity and Islam.

 

[NoName55]

jihad as Holy war is Catholic invention as opposed to authentic Islamic meaning which is all encompassing and includes struggling against self as well as fighting the attacker

 

[Keltoi]

jihad as Holy war is Catholic invention as opposed to authentic Islamic meaning which is all encompassing and includes struggling against self as well as fighting the attacker

Meanings and realities are usually two different things. Holy War is not a Catholic invention, which I think you know very well. Do these concepts of Holy War come straight out of our Holy Books?, no. We are dealing with human beings here, not books. The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ, later the Muslims would call for a Holy War to reclaim it from the Christians. It really isn't that complicated.

 

[NoName55]

"The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ" or could it be the tales of wealth and opulence inspired them to go on an organized robbing spree. To build the numbers of armies the holy part was thrown in thus all the corrupt killers, highwaymen and other undesirables enlisted in droves in exchange for forgiveness of all past crimes

 

[Amadeus85]

"The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ" or could it be the tales of wealth and opulence inspired them to go on an organized robbing spree. To build the numbers of armies the holy part was thrown in thus all the corrupt killers, highwaymen and other undesirables enlisted in droves in exchange for forgiveness of all past crimes

You are reffering to crusades right? So now you think, what if in middle ages christian armies conquered Mecca, wouldnt muslims try to take it back?
So how you can be suprised that, after muslims' conquest of Jerusalem , christian armies decided to take it back?

 

[NoName55]

Don't talk rubbish, read history and check the time frame for both events.

Re: Mecca, England has been in control of entire country by proxy for quite some time now. do you remember twin towers? those fellows wer saudis. and England could not very well attack it self to please its matey bush, so what to do when public is clamouring for vengence? oh I know lets attack a 3rd country using weapons of mass deception thus is born WMDs

edit:

If the purpose was to "liberate" "Christ birthplace" then why murder Jews en route as well as in Palestin/Israel to the point of near extinction? for they were not in control of any government!

 

[Woodrow]

You are reffering to crusades right? So now you think, what if in middle ages christian armies conquered Mecca, wouldnt muslims try to take it back?
So how you can be suprised that, after muslims' conquest of Jerusalem , christian armies decided to take it back?

Which would explain why the Crusaders also killed all of the Jews who were living in Jeruasalem.

Jerusalem in the Crusader Period

In 1095 Pope Urban II called on Latin Christendom to rescue Jerusalem and the Holy Land from its infidel rulers. This was to lead to masses of people to set out across Europe on a series of barbaric military campaigns known as the Crusades.




Massacre of Jews and Moslems

The Crusaders savagely murdered the Jewish and Moslem inhabitants of Jerusalem. The dimensions of the massacre were so horrific that 'rivers of blood' flowed through the streets and even covered the horses hooves. William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'. The Jewish community was locked in the central synagogue and burnt alive. The few thousand survivors, out of a population of 40,000, were sold as slaves at the city gates. When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks.

The conquest of the city completed, the Crusaders selected Godrey de Bouillon as the city's ruler. He received the title 'Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre' and established Jerusalem as the capital of the country - 'The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'. This was the first time in over one thousand years that Jerusalem functioned as the country's capital. The city underwent several major transformations as a result of the conquest, especially in terms of population, major edifices and economy, in addition to the change in political leadership.

Source:http://www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/history_9.html

Events

In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed by some crusaders (see German Crusade, 1096). In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France suffered especially. Philip Augustus treated them with exceptional severity during the Third Crusade (1188). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320.

The atrocities were opposed by the local bishops and widely condemned at the time as a violation of the Crusades' aim, which was not directed against the Jews. However, the perpetrators mostly escaped legal punishment. Also, the social position of the Jews in western Europe was distinctly worsened, and legal restrictions increased during and after the Crusades. They prepared the way for anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III. The crusades resulted in centuries of strong feelings of ill will on both sides and hence constitute a turning point in the relationship between Jews and Christians.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades


Now what set off the Crusade?

Council of Piacenza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Council of Piacenza was a mixed synod of ecclesiastics and laymen of the Roman Catholic Church, which took place from March 1 to March 5, 1095, at Piacenza.

The Council was held at the end of Pope Urban II's tour of Italy and France, which he made to reassert his authority after the investiture controversy with the Holy Roman Empire. Two hundred bishops attended, as well as 4000 other church officials, and 30,000 laymen; there were so many people that the council had to be held outside of the city. The massive number of attendees reflects the increased authority of the church in the wake of Pope Gregory VII.

Among the lay attendees were Praxedis, the wife of emperor Henry IV, who came to complain about her husband's affairs. Also in attendance were ambassadors from Philip I of France, who came to appeal Philip's recent excommunication over his illegal divorce and remarriage to Bertrade de Montfort: Philip was given until Pentecost to rectify his situation. The rest of the business of the council expressed fairly typical church concerns: there were at least 15 canons published during the council, including a condemnation of the Berengerian heresy; a condemnation of the Nicolaitan heresy; an affirmation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; denunciations of the Antipope Clement III and his supporters; and a prohibition of payment to priests for baptisms, burials, or confirmations.

In hindsight, the most important attendees were the ambassadors sent by Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Alexius had been excommunicated by Gregory VII, and been through a series of reinstatements in the Church, but Urban had ultimately lifted the excommunication when he became pope in 1088, and relations between the east and west were at least temporarily friendly. The Byzantine Empire had lost much of its territory in Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks in the aftermath of the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and Alexius hoped western knights could help him restore it.

The ambassadors probably exaggerated the immediate danger to the empire, which was not so great, now that the Seljuks were fighting amongst themselves; Alexius also told them to remind them that Jerusalem was also held by Muslims, knowing that western Christians, too, attached a special significance to the city at the centre of the world.

Alexius' request was taken far more seriously than he had hoped. Urban may already have been thinking about a crusade to the east, and the request was interpreted as a sign of weakness in both the Eastern empire and the Orthodox church. If Urban sent help, perhaps he could also reunite the churches under his authority. News of the threat to the empire and the supposed threat to Jerusalem spread throughout France after the council ended; in November of 1095, Urban called an even bigger council, the Council of Clermont, where the organization of the First Crusade was formally announced.

Most of the information about the Council of Piacenza comes from the chronicler Bernold of Constance, who was probably there himself, as well as Ekkehard of Aura and Guibert of Nogent, who were at Clermont if not at Piacenza. No contemporary Byzantine sources felt the ambassadors were important enough to mention, but the council is mentioned by the 13th century chronicler Theodore Scutariotes, who quotes now-lost contemporary works.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Piacenza