Revival: The Muslim Response to the Crusades

[Indus Pakistan]

@Markus Two questions for you?

1. Is Christianity a Asiatic or Oriental religion?
2. Was Jesus and his flock Semites with one group of descendants being Arabs?


*This should pull the rug under your feet.

@A.P. Richelieu You are more than welcome to answer the two questions in place of @MarkusS

 

[Mamluk]

most of the Muslim countries should be considered occupied territories.

Occupied by who? Native converts?

By that logic European countries are occupied too.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

@Markus Two questions for you?
1. Is Christianity a Asiatic or Oriental religion?
2. Was Jesus and his flock Semites with one group of descendants being Arabs?

It is a world wide religion, which originated in the Middle East under Roman Rule,
It became a world wide religion as part of Western Colonization.
Jesus were a Jew, thus semite, and he did not have any descendants as far as I know.
His flock were Jews and they have traditionally been keeping to themselves,
so while there maybe odd cases where Arabs marry Jews, or Jews converting my feelings
are that this is not common, but have no facts to substantiate that feeling.

In the first 2 centuries of Islamic rule, Arab Muslims had no great interest in mass-converting people but they were rather more interested in making them pay Jizya which during that era was a revolutionary and very progressive system. Especially the Umayyads. Besides the most populous Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) became majority Muslim mostly through trade and cultural interaction between Arabians who dominated the Arabian Sea (notice the name), Indian Ocean and those sea trade routes, and natives of South East Asia. Sailors, explorers, bureaucrats, businessmen, people looking to start from scratch etc. LONG after Prophet Muhammad's (saws) death. That is why there are 5 million Indonesians of Arab descent and significant Arab communities (those dating back to that early contact established in the Middle Ages and which even existed in pre-Islamic times and more recent ones such as the Hadhrami) in all South East Asian countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Indonesians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_the_Philippines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Malaysians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Singaporeans

Many ruling/royal families of South East Asia are of Arab origin originally (Sultan of Brunei for instance and numerous others ruling as well as non-ruling today) or claim such an origin and much of the Muslim elites in that region have Arab origin as well.

You can ask some of the Indonesian members such as @Indos etc.

Hell Arab (Arabian) traders owned more than 50 percent of modern-day Singapore into the 20th century.

This article below (ARAMCO world) explains this wonderfully and in detail.

http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/201404/the.arab.traders.of.singapore.htm

You can read how Islam spread in much of Africa and other parts of Asia while you are at it.

In any case the spread of Islam was not any more bloody than the spread of Christianity. That is for certain. Just ask the average Sub-Saharan African in for instance Congo.

This Belgian Catholic "Wahhabi" below used to be particularly brutal.





The problem is that both groups of people lack the full story and the simplistic versions of history is a thing that engulfs the view of both groups (Europeans/Arabs etc.) The reality was way more complex and nuanced on both fronts.

That is why I said "often".
The whole of North Africa, Spain, Balkans, Iran, Indus Valley were conquered.
In current days, Islamists are violently trying to convert, but that may be just a pretense
to give some legality to naked blood lust.

What part of this post below did you not understand?
You mean the same Byzantine Empire that occupied ancient Semitic/Arab territory (as explained in my post in detail and accompanied by numerous sources) and employed local Semitic/Arab governors to control that territory of the Byzantine Empire on the behalf of the Byzantine emperor?

Arab Muslim conquests just reestablished the previous millennia old status quo and chased the invaders and their native representatives (traitors) away. The level field became leveled when that territory was regained and came under direct native control again and afterwards when European lands were occupied for as long if not longer as payback.

The crusades had nothing to do with settling a score in round 2 but were an attempt to start round 3.

As for the earliest Christian state being the Roman Empire, I think that you need to study a bit more history if you think so.

The Arab Ghassanid Kingdom that composed 90% of modern-day Sham was already majority Christian before Constantine the Great even ascended power and made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

In fact you can find one of the very oldest churches in the world in the Eastern Province of modern-day KSA (historical ancient Eastern Arabia) of all places, that predates Constantine the Great's reign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubail_Church

It's funny that many Europeans believe that history in our region began 64 BC, 30 BC and 106 when the Roman Empire reached Sham, Egypt and Northern Arabia respectively. I am afraid that this is not how it works.

Also I do not understand why you are trying to "legitimize" the Crusades when 95% of all Swedes are not religious let alone Catholics. Nor do I believe that you care much about Christian Arabs, Assyrians, Copts etc. of the region.

If Arab Muslims just "reestablished old status", what are they doing in the Middle of France?
What are they doing in Anatolia?

As I pointed out, the basic laws at the time of the Crusades, was "might is right".
The Franks were not responsible for Roman Conquests, yet they were attacked, by Muslim agressors.
Muslims got the response in the form of the Crusades.
The original conquest of regions of the Byzantine Empire by Muslims, were as legal/illegal
as the Roman conquests of the same regions.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

It is a world wide religion, which originated in the Middle East under Roman Rule,
It became a world wide religion as part of Western Colonization.
Jesus were a Jew, thus semite, and he did not have any descendants as far as I know.
His flock were Jews and they have traditionally been keeping to themselves,
so while there maybe odd cases where Arabs marry Jews, or Jews converting my feelings
are that this is not common, but have no facts to substantiate that feeling.



That is why I said "often", the whole of North Africa, Spain, Balkans, Iran, Indus Valley were conquered.
In current days, Islamists are violently trying to convert, but that may be just a pretense
to give some legality to naked blood lust.




If Arab Muslims just "reestablished old status", what are they doing in the Middle of France?
What are they doing in Anatolia?

As I pointed out, the basic laws at the time of the Crusades, was "might is right".
The Franks were not responsible for Roman Conquests, yet they were attacked, by Muslim agressors.
Muslims got the response in the form of the Crusades.
The original conquest of regions of the Byzantine Empire by Muslims, were as legal/illegal
as the Roman conquests of the same regions.

What you said about Christianity, which is not a Western religion but a Semitic or as it is also called, Abrahamic, religion, also apply to Islam. Other than in fact Christianity being spread through conquest on a much larger scale and much more recently due to Western European colonialism of the "New World", mainly Sub-Saharan Africa and the Two Americas but also Oceania.

My initial focus was the Near East and in particular areas inhabited by Arabs (who happened to be non-Muslims before Prophet Muhammad (saws)) or other Semites whose lands were controlled by local rulers/governors loyal to non-natives (successive emperors of Byzantine/Rome - a few that happened to be Arabs themselves and more that happened to originate from the Arab world) ruling from Rome/Constantinople/today Istanbul.

Nobody denies that the first people who converted to Christianity were Jews or that Prophet Isa (AS)/Jesus was a Jew. The point here is that most Jews rejected Jesus hence why 99% remained followers of Judaism. In return neighboring Arabs were the first non-Jewish people who came to contact with early Christianity. In fact I predict that some of his earliest followers while he lived were Arabs given the fact that Palestine/Israel back then was mixed and Arabs had a significant presence too as explained before in detail.

For instance King Herod the Great that lived almost 100 years before Prophet Isa (as) was born, was an half Arab (Nabatean).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Many of the Biblical areas described in the Bible took place in Arab-inhabited areas such as areas East of the Jordan river, South of it and Sinai. Southern Syria as well.

Yes, which I called payback for Roman/Persian occupation. Nothing wrong with that.

Balkans happened 1000 years later during the Ottomans.

That we agree with but you cannot say that "Muslims" were the aggressors here as the people who became Muslims, their ancestors lands, were attacked first by powers from Europe and not the other way around. Why? Because back then Europe had very little to offer. In fact nothing that the earliest civilizations of the Near East did not have therefore it made no sense for say Sumerians to conquer or even become interested in say modern-day Austria.

The only ancient civilization that I can think of that colonized much of Europe/founded many cities, influenced history a lot, were the Semitic Phoenicians that were based in modern-day Lebanon mostly, and which according to most theories, like most Semites, originated from the Arabian Peninsula before their settlement of nearby Northern Sham.

See page 269 and afterwards in this book:



The Phoenician empire 1500 BC to 539 BC:


Map of Phoenicia and its Mediterranean trade routes





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

But have in mind that Greeks had a similar presence in North Africa, Levant (Sham in Arabic), Northern Arabia, Anatolia, Iran etc. before the Roman Empire emerged but obviously not before Phoenicia.

Other than that I cannot think of anything else but in fact you might as well say that most Europeans descend from people that once lived in the Arab world (Neolithic peoples). Those same peoples spread farming to Europe for instance. And before that we can talk about all of us originating from the Arabian Peninsula (non-Sub-Saharan Africans that is) and before that all of us being originally from Eastern Africa where humanity supposedly originates from.

Also don't forget more recent European colonial history in the Arab world/Middle East/almost the entire Muslim world.

Almost the entire planet was at one point either colonized, influenced or under the sphere of Western European colonial influence.

So if you want to discuss about who spread their religion the widest/who converted most people etc. Christians and Western Europeans will win, but mostly due to the past few centuries dominance, starting with the Renaissance.

Before that era occurred I do admit that Arabs were the biggest imperialists to date. Outside of the very short-lived and not that influential (in comparison) Mongol Empire that got founded almost 600 years later. Before that you had other peoples who were dominating or had their heydays before their dismiss as world powers. A natural process.

However the thing here that annoys me is the ignorance and prevalent/predictive views among many Europeans that somehow history began 2100 years ago when Romans ventured into the Near East. That's not the case. So I will of course object to such a notion.

I am sure that you could find somewhat similar analogies, not as old though, in regards to Sweden and its backyard.

 

[Baybars Han]

answer to muslim agression would be better.

I wonder how do muslims judge the wars Italy fought against muslim attacks. First from arabs and later against turks.

Rome always was the target for the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman Sultan gave himself the title "emperor of Rome.

The struggle between the Ottoman empire and the italian Republics is interesting. The Ottomans were an centralized Empire while Italy was many city states. The Ottomans never were able to defeat us.

While the Ottomans had the absolute military power, they lacked the economic and scientific power of our city states.

Inventions like Flamethrowers and so on.

It was a very important time for Italy and laid the base for the reunion.

Otranto was invaded and that didnt go further because of an internal power struggle. Ottomans aims as you said was to conquer Europe or take over Christian lands.

If they wanted to be bigger they could of easily take countries in Africa or weaker countries with no military elsewhere but instead faced the full might of a mostly united Europe as holy roman league.

 

[MarkusS]

Otranto was invaded and that didnt go further because of an internal power struggle. Ottomans aims as you said was to conquer Europe or take over Christian lands.

If they wanted to be bigger they could of easily take countries in Africa or weaker countries with no military elsewhere but instead faced the full might of a mostly united Europe as holy roman league.

Can you understand why we feel proud for those who fought this invasion attempts and fought them back?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

It is a world wide religion, which originated in the Middle East under Roman Rule,

Middle East is a region of Asia therefore my statement is qualified.

It became a world wide religion as part of Western Colonization.

That is dissemination and does not change the source. If I peddle a Chinese idea or product it does not change it original source.

This was precipitated by @Markus continous use of the term 'oriental' in a derisive manner contrasted to 'occidental' not realizing that the germ of almost everything he is clasping at has at it's source the orient and that even birth of includes civilization itself, writing including Latin script and indeed even the word bible. The orient has been the cradle of civilization.

Jesus were a Jew, thus semite, and he did not have any descendants as far as I know. His flock were Jews and they have traditionally been keeping to themselves,

Jesus was a Semite, his people were Semites. I did not ask if Jesus as a person had descendants. Today Arabs and Jews are recognized as Arabs. So in a nutshell Islam, Christianity and Judaism are a Semite religions from Asia - notwithstanding the urge to deflect from that.

This is no differant from saying Rome was a Mediteranean civilization or Greek civilization was a Balkan civilization - the Greek empires or states never went to North, West Europe and stayed well within the Balkans.

His flock were Jews and they have traditionally been keeping to themselves, so while there maybe odd cases where Arabs marry Jews, or Jews converting my feelings

That is true but Amish rarely marry outside but that does not change the fact they are European. Many of the converts to early Islam were Jews from the Arabian peninsula.

* I reiterate Jews are a Semite people with roots in Asia (which is exactly why Hitler regarded them as outside group) as much as Greeks are European and if they are atypical for Asians then so are Greeks from Northern Europeans. I have some relatives in Greece and they are indistinquishable from the native Greeks. @Markus If he were to don Pakistani Shalwar Kameez could walk in parts of Pakistan without anybody noticing him as a occidental.

@Saif al-Arab My bad where is the Western Civilization on the map? Did I see Asia there?

 

[flamer84]

View attachment 360808 View attachment 360810 View attachment 360813

Istanbul, Beylerbeyi Palace.

That s Byzantine art,not
Islamic,sry

 

[Hamza913]

That is not "my" moral standards, that is the result of development of International Law.
Islam was often spread through conquest, and if modern International Law was applied,
most of the Muslim countries should be considered occupied territories.

Yes but that conquest was of abhorrent regimes, not to mention the people within the conquered region converted willingly (or at least, that was the case most of the time). I don't see any reason why Muslim countries would be considered occupied territories. Let's say, if country X goes to war with country Y, and country Y is a known tyrant who is swiftly defeated, and the population of country Y willingly follows the ideology of country X, would international law consider that an occupied territory? No, of course not. Don't make such ludicrous claims.

 

[Boss Dragun]

In the first 2 centuries of Islamic rule, Arab Muslims had no great interest in mass-converting people but they were rather more interested in making them pay Jizya which during that era was a revolutionary and very progressive system. Especially the Umayyads. Besides the most populous Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) became majority Muslim mostly through trade and cultural interaction between Arabians who dominated the Arabian Sea (notice the name), Indian Ocean and those sea trade routes, and natives of South East Asia.

FYI, the Arab spread Islam through trade with a goal of an islamist conquest against a Hindu/Buddha majority Indonesia. They're up against the Majapahit Empire (which was extremely weakened ever since the absence of the Great General Gajah Mada) with islamist conquest in mind. Nowadays in the province of mollucas, the islamist mollucan still hold grudges over christian mollucan. Reminding us of the bloody Islamic conquest till today.

Sailors, explorers, bureaucrats, businessmen, people looking to start from scratch etc. LONG after Prophet Muhammad's (saws) death. That is why there are 5 million Indonesians of Arab descent and significant Arab communities (those dating back to that early contact established in the Middle Ages and which even existed in pre-Islamic times and more recent ones such as the Hadhrami) in all South East Asian countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Indonesians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_the_Philippines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Malaysians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Singaporeans

Many ruling/royal families of South East Asia are of Arab origin originally (Sultan of Brunei for instance and numerous others ruling as well as non-ruling today) or claim such an origin and much of the Muslim elites in that region have Arab origin as well.

Nope. Only brunei does have an Arab king, which is looked down upon of his very shameful whore collections for a monarch.

Arab race has no history in indonesia. There was a Persian saint who's done a good job in converting Islam to our local and animist culture, and so far only the Persian do so because they respect our culture. Arab on the other hand stick to the dutch discriminatory systems, making them to become a national traitor before they learned their lesson during the mass force assimilation of the their races (and other races as well). It is needed for Arab race, or basically any other races to get educated and assimilated to be accepted at all.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yes but that conquest was of abhorrent regimes, not to mention the people within the conquered region converted willingly (or at least, that was the case most of the time). I don't see any reason why Muslim countries would be considered occupied territories. Let's say, if country X goes to war with country Y, and country Y is a known tyrant who is swiftly defeated, and the population of country Y willingly follows the ideology of country X, would international law consider that an occupied territory? No, of course not. Don't make such ludicrous claims.

If country X maintains a precense in country Y by keeping an Army, and assumes governmental control,
yes it is occupation.
If the local population of Y converts to Islam, because the option not to convert is unattractive,
higher taxes, beheading, no risk of beeing caiptured by Muslim slave traders, etc. then it is still occupation.
If government is handed over to local Quislings, then it is still occupation.

If country Y assumes governmental control, and freely chooses to ally it with country X,
then it is no longer occupying X.
The US initially occupied Iraq, at some point the occupation ended.
Proof of that is that US forces left when there was a disagreement on immunity for US troops.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

If country X maintains a precense in country Y by keeping an Army, and assumes governmental control,
yes it is occupation.
If the local population of Y converts to Islam, because the option not to convert is unattractive,
higher taxes, beheading, no risk of beeing caiptured by Muslim slave traders, etc. then it is still occupation.
If government is handed over to local Quislings, then it is still occupation.

If country Y assumes governmental control, and freely chooses to ally it with country X,
then it is no longer occupying X.
The US initially occupied Iraq, at some point the occupation ended.
Proof of that is that US forces left when there was a disagreement on immunity for US troops.

You are so absolutely ignorant. This Is astounding

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are so absolutely ignorant. This Is astounding

It follows from the Geneva Convention...
Something You might have heard about.

 

[Aryzin]

I haven't seen many of them follow the Geneva Convention. Not even sure if their military teaches them the rules of War.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Middle East is a region of Asia therefore my statement is qualified.

That is dissemination and does not change the source. If I peddle a Chinese idea or product it does not change it original source.

This was precipitated by @Markus continous use of the term 'oriental' in a derisive manner contrasted to 'occidental' not realizing that the germ of almost everything he is clasping at has at it's source the orient and that even birth of includes civilization itself, writing including Latin script and indeed even the word bible. The orient has been the cradle of civilization.

Jesus was a Semite, his people were Semites. I did not ask if Jesus as a person had descendants. Today Arabs and Jews are recognized as Arabs. So in a nutshell Islam, Christianity and Judaism are a Semite religions from Asia - notwithstanding the urge to deflect from that.

This is no differant from saying Rome was a Mediteranean civilization or Greek civilization was a Balkan civilization - the Greek empires or states never went to North, West Europe and stayed well within the Balkans.

That is true but Amish rarely marry outside but that does not change the fact they are European. Many of the converts to early Islam were Jews from the Arabian peninsula.

* I reiterate Jews are a Semite people with roots in Asia (which is exactly why Hitler regarded them as outside group) as much as Greeks are European and if they are atypical for Asians then so are Greeks from Northern Europeans. I have some relatives in Greece and they are indistinquishable from the native Greeks. @Markus If he were to don Pakistani Shalwar Kameez could walk in parts of Pakistan without anybody noticing him as a occidental.

@Saif al-Arab My bad where is the Western Civilization on the map? Did I see Asia there?

I don't disagree with anything here, but in the end, Christianity became what it is,
due to its adoption in Western Europe.
The conspiracy theorist believe Jesus was the son of a Roman Soldier.

I haven't seen many of them follow the Geneva Convention. Not even sure if their military teaches them the rules of War.

Just watched the news, where civilian buses were attacked right outside Aleppo,
with cries of "Death to the infidels" in the background, so it is safe to guess "no".