format_quote Originally Posted by
PRND
This is hilarious, it really is. It's hilarious, it's ignorant, it's pathetic, and you don't even know why. But I will tell you exactly why that is.
Lots of people groups have at least a bit of conquering, imperialism, and subjugation in their history. That's normal. But when you're talking about anyone Except for Muslims, you know you'll be talking to someone who's come to terms with most of the facts of their history and they can readily acknowledge the atrocities that exist in their past. For example, you'll never see a French person bragging about when France occupied Algeria, and didn't they do such a good job there. They know what that was, they don't deny it, and they don't lie about it or try to cover it up. You may see English people talk about how their colonialism was relatively light and non-meddlesome, but they do at least know when It's Over and they have no plans to reclaim India or the US or....pretty much anything, really.
Now, you're probably bracing yourself for some bull-headed opinions and baseless criticism, but on the topic of Saladin, I've got some real evidence and a really solid source for you. This will give you an opportunity to look at some disconfirming evidence and utilize that in order to replace some of your beliefs and opinions with Facts. First, this is the source that will be of interest to you.
The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian. And yes, these Arab Historians are all Muslims. Despite the double translation that took place, it is the best English translated resource for Arab Muslim Historians on this particular topic. At least 90% of what you can read in this is from the historians themselves. Each section begins with a bit of biographical detail about the historians, and perhaps a paragraph or two that sets up and leads in, but other than that the historians' work is simply compiled end to end. You should probably know that on more of a macro level, Zangi is actually the one that's depicted as using courtesy and diplomacy instead of violence, while Saladin is described by historian In Asakir as "most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War" and is said to have understood jihad in this manner- to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). He's also criticized for a choice he made pertaining to French Christians in Jerusalem where he had a chance to accept a less bloody surrender but chose to kill Way more people than he had to, for the stated reason of revenge for something in the 11th century. He actually said that. It's in there. And this was significant because it normalized excessive violence between monotheists, even though there were other leaders on the Muslim side that were doing more of the right things.
None of that is really the wake up call that you need though. Prepare for a lengthy quote that will rock your Saladin Was So Nice little world. This is the part that specifically deals with him taking Jerusalem.
"Neither amnesty nor Mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation on you. Tomorrow we will be your masters by main force....we shall kill and capture you wholesale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and women to slavery" (page 156).
Fun fact- in order to avoid slavery, the cost per man was 10 dinar, 5 for women, and 2 for each child. The total number of people who couldn't meet the demands of this frame-by-frame Daesh-style shakedown is listed at exactly 16,000. So this was the fate of Jerusalem's civilians. Oh but wait, there's more.
"Women and children together came to 8,000 and we're quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and misery women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free woken occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things set to the test, and virgins Dishonored and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red lips kissed- and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for them, and celibates we're satisfied by them, and thirsty men were sated by them, and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women's were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices, and close ones set at a distance, and lofty ones abased, and Savage ones captured, and those accustomed to thrones cast down!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 163).
Bear in mind. The man who wrote all this is a Muslim, an Arab, an actual historian, and he lived close to this time and carried out the task of writing some of the actual history of these events. It's a bit wordy and runs on for a bit, but you'll find that's part for the course with these guys. You'll also find that they confidently assert that this victory cake directly from Allah, but that clearly doesn't change the basic facts of what was done with and to the citizens that couldn't afford the extortionary shakedown that was probably called an impromptu sort of jizya.
Do you notice how he's a little bit celebratory about all this? It's kind of surreal. You get to say Hello to the Muslim historical account when victory is fresh and it's time to celebrate. None of this face-saving business, none of this whitewashing and pretend that everyone was merciful and great. Some were a lot better than this, to be sure- but this is specifically Saladin, this is specifically Jerusalem, and this is the kind of disconfirming evidence that you cannot possibly ignore.
At any rate. That's some rather shocking evidence for you to deal with. You have fun with that, and please feel free to track down the primary source and read in more detail. It's not all horrible and awful- it is after all Arab Muslim Historians that are both chronicling and celebrating where they're able to- but there is a Whole lot more in the way of dirty, and mixed results, and murky morality, and just Normal Empire Warmongering that you'd readily expect for anyone else in a comparable situation but somehow you think that conquering Muslims were clean of this, and these types of accounts in your mind are presumed to be made up.
Guess what. It's not made up. Do your research. Look into the source. You have plenty to answer for in your religious history, and maybe it's finally time for you to start doing that in roughly the same way that literally everyone else has been doing for quite some time now.
Bookmarks