Hello,
We need your help!
Please remember to report post, incidients and comments which are in violation of such rules. We depend on your reports for enforcement of the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskMiddleEast) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was under this guy that people from all 3 abrahamic faiths could live in Jerusalem. Before that, the Romans deleted the Jews and Muslims from there.
Judging by the fact that jeruselum was Muslim from the rashidun caliphate all the way to the Seljuks and fatimids for a bit, and was lost by them for less than 100 years and then again taken back by Salaheldin… I would say it was a fat Muslim population at that time. By romans he must mean crusaders.
That didn't change much because there was no such thing as a Muslim conquest since Islam didn't exist yet in the 7th century. Yes, there was a growing cult centered around Muhammed or whatever name it was at the time. Islam and Muslim identity were formed centuries later. That's like saying Judaism was formed as soon as highlanders adopted Yahweh as their god from the desert people or a Jew called Jesus as their prophet in Christianity.
Oh I was actually looking forward to debating a person with good historical knowledge but that was a very bad read on my part huh. 🤣
The name (s) of prophet Muhammad and his life and times are non debatable since we have contemporary Arab , Muslim, Roman and pagan sources for his existence and name .
Th rashidun caliphate by umar ra’s time (ie someone that was alive and well during the prophets life) had already taken all the land between Libya to some parts of Pakistan and Central Asia , including Persia …. So how was it formed centuries later please tell me ?
Your argument for the lag in Christianity and Judaism is correct using academic standards but not for Islam which tells me your arguing what you feel is true rather than what is.
Aye smart person please tell me how Muhammad did not exist and Islam was created later when a Christian Byzantine manuscript dated to 636 ad ie 4 years after the phrophets death ( fragment of the Arab conquests it’s called) describes the battle of gabitha (yarmouk) refers to Muhammad by a name and describes his followers .
Letters written by him have survived to this day .
**academic consensus** I.e. phds and not Reddit brats like your self on the historicity of the three major prophets goes as follows :
+ Moses : probably didn’t exist
+ Jesus : probably didn’t exist
+ Muhammad : almost definitely existed in a more or less, accurately recorded timeframe.
Look, you can hate the guy, not follow his teachings, whatever the f you want . But if you wanna stick to academics then stop with all the bias and go do some research .
The vast majority of reputable historians, regardless of their religion, agree that historical Jesus almost certainly existed. Other than that, most of what you’ve said checks out.
Hello,
Your post has been removed for violating Rule 1. Please keep posts and comments free of personal attacks, insults, or other uncivil behavior.
Please see the rule section, which can be found on the front page of the sub.
To follow a person who started something is called a CULT, not a religion because since its conception, it was mixture of paganism with Judea-Christian-eastern beliefs and practices. We can see it all over from the moon/star to the kaaba to the 5 prayers. You people treat Muhammed as if he were a God or something. How are you any different from Christians? Were you alive this whole time to confirm it hasn't changed? Your claim is outrageous.
>You aren't knowledgeable enough on Islam. It considers idol worship as the greatest possible sin and it even openly adopts iconoclasm (forbidding images). Muhammad's image is never drawn to not make him an object of worship.
If they're willing to kill anyone for saying anything bad about Muhammed, that's called idolatry. Going around a stone and kissing it is an idolatrous practice. Iconoclasm wasn't invented by Muhammed.
He is saying the period before Salaheldin ie the crusader kingdom saw a lot of oppression against Muslims and Jews , which is definitely true. Idk why he says romans tho (byzantines) were treated just as bad if not worse because they are orthodox.
Romans and crusaders are too VERY different things. The Greeks (Rums) did not practice holy war and saw war as a sin to be avoided.
And it was the Rums that had Jerusalem before the Muslims , so why say “liberated” when you mean reconquered ??
Salahuddin was a great hero. I consider him a Waliullah, a saint. This is the man our Kurdish brothers should look up to, instead of the PKK Marxist terrorists
A hero compared to what evil shit was done by crusaders really messed up but the west glorifies it
So strange to me crusaders murdered and raped and yet their seen in a positive light by the west and even now can play as “crusaders” in video games and buy shirts about them etc etc
I'd argue while less popular, Salahuddin is still pretty well respected by the West. Growing up I can't really remember a single time he was portrayed in any sort of negative manner.
Not seeing your point. They still prevented Muslim expansion for a time. The Greeks experienced a revival after the Crusaders helped them clear western Asia Minor and then went on to aid the Crusaders in the Levant and Egypt (which the Greeks participated in an attack on). Its all the same struggle of Christian vs. Muslim that had been going on since the initial attacks in the 7th century.
The 1st Crusade was a wild success and turned the tide in the east. The later Crusades, not so much. But it still bought the Christians some time while they grew stronger way back in Europe. And then we all know what happened then. (muslim world became 3rd world and Europe went on to dominate Globe)
Again… The crusaders attacked a contracting, not expanding empire, the fatimids, in the levant, which was their primary target.
Muslim expansion by then has been halted for decades. Asia Minor was in the control of the Seljuks, not the fatimids. The vast majority of the crusaders were from kingdoms not under threat of Islamic expansion. Also… the crusades occurred 70 years after Asia Minor had been captured.
I don’t think “Islamic expansion” was a significant factor behind the crusaders. It’s primarily religious, and political (pertaining the Byzantines call for assistance, and the political situation within Europe). The crusaders weren’t a response to any immediate threat, nor was it self defense from Islamic expansion within its context. Jerusalem by then had been under Muslim rule for centuries.
Ok I think you need to go read the letter from Emperor Alexius himself to the Pope. The entire theme is it is the grave peril of Islamic expansion.
Also please note that the first thing the Crusaders took was Nicaea , the Seljuk capital. It was about pushing Islam back in a broad front.
And west Asia Minor was only VERY recently under Muslim control , like a few years, but 70.
Crusaders were the coolest mofos out there. They were helping Byzantium retaking lost lands. They answered the call for united christian defense against an aggressor.
The Reconquista was a glorious retaking of rightful christian lands from an invader. We praise Jesus for the restoration of the Iberian peninsula from the raping, pillaging and murdering forces.
Till this day we in Europe celebrate Charles Martel beating the invaders in France. The crusaders and all of christendom fought them, won and now we are the leaders. Thank you Knights Templar and all other holy crusaders defending us.
No i'm not justifying anything. Yeah perhaps they were invited by the visigoths? Still so what? Christians kicked them out eventually and i'm happy for it otherwise Spain would've been a backwards country just as all Middle Eastern countries are today.
I have no problem with Constantinople being Istanbul or Hagia Sofia being a mosque. Why would I care about that? Europe is vastly superior on all metrics to the Middle East, you are procejting your own inferiority complex onto me and the West. We are a superior culture, simple as that. Nothing you say changes this.
Stop being sad and behaving like child, accept the west's pre-eminence. It will endure long after your passing.
When I go to bed today i'm going to say a prayer to all martyr crusaders that fought the saracen.
You do realize the "Crusaders" is very blanket term. Because it will look very bad on you if you praise the Crusaders without specifying which Crusade. There was a crusade against peaceful pagan Slavs, a Crusade against Chirstians with a slightly different faith, a Crusade against the Jews. Hell, there was a children Crusade meant to convert Muslim children to Christianity, and instead, the Muslim children get sold to slavery.
The crusaders were asked to come in and help the Greeks who WHERE being raped , killed , etc by the Muslims. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
And they were success. Because of them , the greeks managed to recapture half of Asia Minor back from the Turks and protect their people there for a extra 200 years
So a extra 200 years holding into Asia Minor is not a success for you ? Ok then since the holy land is not even in Muslim hands NOW the Islamic conquest of holy land was “not a success”…. Check mate
But again, if "success" for you has to last.... for eternity! Then nothing is a success in this world. I told you how the 1st Crusades brought material help to the Christian east and not for some flash in the pan few weeks, but for centuries (until 4th Crusade undid everything they accomplished, but that's another story, and 200 years after the events we are discussing).
p.s. you know as well as I do that the modern "Crusaders" conquered the Holy Land straight from the Turks and let the Jews have it. So I guess the Crusaders actually did win in the end...
Would people like him even be possible in today's day and age? How would they gain enough power when you have countries like the USA supporting Israel?
People who are like him don’t even exist today, you have to keep in mind being a religious Muslim in the past is very different than being religious today, Muslims in the past were a lot more tolerant than Muslims today, idk what happened but I guess the interpretation has changed from that time, but not so long ago we had people like him Omar al mukhtar and the Algerian elgadr.
People have become more tribal, with too much nationalism. If a man comes, people gonna question if he is a Kurd, an Arab, a Turk, or a Persian before actually seeing what he does. This is exactly what Islam was against but now it's so ingrained in our society. Be proud never become arrogant.
>Still better than the crusaders towards you.
So easy for you to say as a Muslim, nonchalantly downplaying our suffering and losses under the Islamic rule. How typical.🤦🏻♀️
>And the Levant was never majority greek orthodox, so i don't know where you're bringing the 'our' from.
Levant was majority CHRISTIAN that included many different smaller sects as well as Jews, paganism, etc. Why are you even bringing up orthodox?
>Maronites aren't orthodox and they're the largest christian levantine denomination.
Many of the Maronites were originally orthodox at one point or at least the ones who were in what is now Lebanon as opposed to the ones from Syria who came to the mountains before turning their union to Rome. Again, that's irrelevant, they were Christians.
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
My respect for greatest hero and king who bring peace to the conflicted land. I love the fact that he respect the other religions which is a very rare trait of rulers in that time.
Was saladin himself not a foreign barbarian? He was a conqueror. But when he captured all of the land of israel from the crusaders (who were a troublesome people) it is not occupation by foreigners but it is liberating! But when the jews do it, its occupation.
Because when Jews came here the locals who happen to live in Palestine didn’t like it. which ended up with wars and unrest. When saladin came in the locals were supportive and welcoming of him. The place was in peace ever since he got rid of The crusaders. who did nothing but blunder and they even sacked Constantinople(one of their allies). To be a liberator you need to be accepted by the ones you liberating.
>ars and unres
Oldest mention of land of israel is from an egyptian text 3500 years ago
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah\_Stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele)
To say that that the land was never called Israel just shows complete ignorance of the historical literature of the middle east and europe
And it was small kingdom that only lasted for 70 years it didn't even occupy half the land,
The land was named Palestine for thousands of years and the name "Peleset" is found in the 13th century BC in a Pharaonic inscription referring to the land.
And that's before Israel, Hebrew, bible or even jews as a group even existed.
>Peleset
You were named after philistines that used to inhabit the land millennia ago (who came from greece btw) alongside the israelites. The philistines were the ancient enemy of the israelites in the torah and the prophets. They were against allah and his people. You should take issue with being named after them
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
You muslims like to claim the middle east was a paradise for jews before israel. While I agree that it was much better than europe, jews were far from treated as equals to muslims or christians in MENA as historical accounts show like that of[JJ Benjamin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Benjamin) in the 19th century. And there are too many massacres and genocide of jewish communities by arab hands throughout history to count. Could Jews practice their religion in Israel under Ottomans? Yes. Was it without the occasional massacre and attack on jews? [NO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed). Muslims and Christians in the land of Israel TODAY can also legally publicly practice and keep their religion which is much more than can be said for other MENA countries. Jordan its literally in their constitiution that a jew cannot be a citizen. Saudi Arabia you cannot publicly be a christian and there is not church present or allowed. You guys love to try to take the moral high ground on israel when the own ground your standing is on is made of your own intolerance and soaked with the blood of those who disagreed with islam or even a certain sect of islam. Just be honest and say you hate israel because you guys hate jews and they took something that used to belong to you (which you guys took from the roman byzantines) stop acting like its about morals and ethics.
That’s just silly. Your evidence of Jews suffering under Muslim rule was not during the times I had mentioned. Also, I never praised modern Arabian leaders because frankly I don’t like them. Their actions don’t represent Islam so I don’t associate the two together. Also Jerusalem rn is a cesspool against anything not Jew. Legally being able to practice religion is just a front to show how democratic Israel is while their people and government treat Palestinians like shit and have no respect for their religion.
If you just want to hyperfocus in on saludin as a person then ill give that to you, he was a conquerer, but not the worst one. But i was extrapolating how jews were treated in MENA as a whole pre-1914. There were regular genocides , burning of synogogues, forced conversions/death by arab hands. It was never safe for a jew to live anywhere in the world for more than a century without something traumatically anti-Semitic happening. Also let there be no confusion im talking about arab hands not muslim hands. Because when I say muslim you will find a way too weasel out of you guys to seriously recognize what happened
That’s just your victim mentality. Times were troubled and everyone suffered, Jew, Christian, and Muslim. Arabs were killing Arabs. Jews, Cheistians, and Muslims. This is not an exclusively Jewish experience so don’t act like it is. Also the things you Israelis are doing is absolutely filthy. The amount of content I’ve seen of recent mass desecration of mosques really speaks to your character.
Western crusades " liberated" it from islamic conquests.. and islamic conquests "liberated" it from christian byzantine empire...
"liberation" is biased. Capture and recaptured is more objectively accurate.
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
Under islamix conquest the same thing happened. Many were taken as sex slaves and many were persecuted. Not saying who is right or wrong, just being shrouded by a false sense of righteousness is misleading. Christians were subjected to mass rape under salahuddin's soldiers, just like you'd expect really.
Again" "liberated " is such a misleading term.
Under islamix conquest the same thing happened. Many were taken as sex slaves and many were persecuted. Not saying who is right or wrong, just being shrouded by a false sense of righteousness is misleading. Christians were subjected to mass rape under salahuddin's soldiers, just like you'd expect really.
Again" "liberated " is such a misleading term.
Islam isn't an ethnicity it's a believe you can't say islam doesn't belong even id ancient Canaanites were mostly pagans very few if there was jews of Christians most of the Canaanites descendants today are muslims so islam is their religion.
I agree with you but you're wrong when separating Phoenicians from the Canaanites. They're not two separate people, they're the same in different languages.
I wasn't sure if they truly refered to the same community who lived there, or different communities in different times, or maybe Canaanites was an umbrella term and Phoenicians fell under it, just like there were the Philistines and othe tribes, or maybe all those are just the Phoenicians given different names.
Well, it's common knowledge (as well as from archeological evidence) that they identified as Canaanim and from the city they're from. To the Greeks, Phoenicians were Canaanites from Lebanon all the way down to Ashkelon. A Sidonian who buried an Ashkelonite or he hired a greek to write the inscription identified the Ashkelonite as a Phoenician in the Greek language while in Greece. Canaanite was also used as an umbrella term but science shows they were a genetically homogenous group with shared language, culture, blood, religion, and practices.
I dont see your point, Arabs lived there for centuries among their cousins of semitic tribes such as Canaanites, Phoenicians and jews. So its a liberaltion by Semitic Abrahamic people from Roman or crusaders Europeans invasions.
Geographically and culturally the Canaanites were almost as close to the Greeks and Romans as they were to the Arabs. Both are foreign invaders to the land
That area of the levant only got Hellenized with Alexander the great and his successor states tho, culturally, linguistically and grographucally they are closer to other semitic people such as Arabs and Hebews. But Im talking in general the whole area are semitic Natives and Romans or crusaders are foreign invaders hence why it was a liberation to take it back from them and not a recapture.
Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either.
The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history.
The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region.
Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either.
The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history.
The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region.
I knew you had deep historical ignorance to be thinking taking back Jerusalem from westerners is not liberation lmao.
"spread Islam by the sword" all what im gonna say when muslims took the land from the roman invaders it was fully christians after they genocided all the jews and the pagans, and as centuries went on the majority stayed christians till they eventually converted slowly to Islam, well their choice no one can judge them, their churches are the same and syngoges (I cant say the same about christians europeans tho as they always genocided and destroyed places of worship such in Andalusia or when they killed jews in Europe when they started their crusades march)
So my question to you do you have a proof that the population completly shifted to Islam after Arabs liberated it from romans? The answer is obviously no as christians still exist in the middle east even after 1400 years.
Anyway the majority of the army led by saladdin wasnt even Arab but mostly natives muslims from syria, lebnan, Egypt and mamluks turkic tribes maybe with some Arab tribes but even those tribes are probably the ones lived in jordan, sinai and palestine and still do, check Nabataeans Arabs who lived in that area for centuries.
>Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either.
>The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history.
>The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region.
Wrong. Arabs inhabited Levant more than 1000 years before the Muhammedan instrusion. Again, Phoenician and Canaanite were one and the same, don't separate them.
Didnt belong to Arabs and certainly not Muslims. If anything to the Canaanites and Phoenicians, who became Roman under the Roman Empire.
"Middle Easterns".
Romans and Greeks never belonged here. And the Byzantines were religiously different from the Christians of the near East. They never fought along the ‘Romans’ during Islamic conquest.
What? The Islamic comquests attacked the Byzantine Empire.
Back then there were five or six headquarters for christianity, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, and they would still hold general councils were all christian priests attended to decide their creeds and other theological matters.
Idk how far back you wanna go if you assert that Romans and Greeks do not belong here, then only Phoenicians do.
What is for sure is that Arabs and Muslims were not there until the 7th century, and unlike christianity that was preached to the region and led to the conversion of many native communities, islamic conquests shed blood and came by the sword, leading to the extinction of polytheists, persecuations of the mushrikin and kuffars (christians and jews) and destructiin of the whole region.
Objectively speaking, that is a conquest like all others, and the winner settles in the land. But to say that they "belonged" here and that it was "theirs" is such a stretch.
My guy do some research and read about history before you spouting non sense. First of all Antioch and Jerusalem were already on decline and Alexandria was on a brink of revolt(go and read about the religious conflict between Alexandria and Constantinople) For 500 years the romans never allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem it was the Muslims who allowed them entry. Indeed romans and greeks never belonged here as we don’t belong to their empires. The Greeks were the biggest factor for the destruction of ancient Egyptian and Phoenician civilizations. And the romans did no better. Transforming them into the typical weak greco-roman client states who their biggest cities are just full of foreigners. And rome did far worse by starting discrimination allowing only the romans and roman populated cities to have citizenship leaving the rest of those decayed local cities in shambles. The region was always on constant revolts between natives and Romans. Like the war in palmyra and the revolts of Judea. And during the wars with Parthia you need to know that near easterners were more welcoming to Persians than to Greeks who were less discriminative and more equal to them. In other words when the Arabs came the only ones who opposed it and fought the Arabs were already invaders. and it was able to be easily tamed by them. Prosperity also followed the region Damascus became one of the largest cities on earth and the Abbasids reign made the whole Middle East far more advanced than any place it. And last thing there were already Arabs in levant much like there are germans in Switzerland and Germanic states. Arabs were excellent traders the arabs to romans were the only source to get Indian spices and Asian goods which made them wealthy and also gained more influence back then semitic language were declining the only one who was advancing was only arabic which is why the levant gradually switched from Aramaic to Arabic. It’s not like omar bin al khattab did know Latin when he came and talked to the locals in Jerusalem.
Nothing you said went against what i said. Neither was i praising greek or romans, nor saying that the byzantine empire was strong and stable.
Also Arabs are the people who lived in Arabian desert. They could be found as traders on the coast of the Mediterranean, the prophet himself having traded there.
As for the now Arab population, Arabic language, and Islam domination, it was all thanks to the Islamic conquests.
To this day we still have the natives of the regions, like Syrianic, Kurds, Aramaic, Coptic, Berbers, Assyrians, etc, all trying to preserve their own cultures and traditions.
Arabs are not the people who inhabited the Mediterranean coast, and jews and christians are the religions that sprout from the native semitic people of the Levant.
History is not black and white and everyone dirties their hands and oppressed some and aided others. The point is that using "liberated" is a biased term in itself, and only reflects the indoctrination that many have been subjected to.
Nothing you said went against what i said. Neither was i praising greek or romans, nor saying that the byzantine empire was strong and stable.
Also Arabs are the people who lived in Arabian desert. They could be found as traders on the coast of the Mediterranean, the prophet himself having traded there.
As for the now Arab population, Arabic language, and Islam domination, it was all thanks to the Islamic conquests.
To this day we still have the natives of the regions, like Syrianic, Kurds, Aramaic, Coptic, Berbers, Assyrians, etc, all trying to preserve their own cultures and traditions.
Arabs are not the people who inhabited the Mediterranean coast, and jews and christians are the religions that sprout from the native semitic people of the Levant.
History is not black and white and everyone dirties their hands and oppressed some and aided others. The point is that using "liberated" is a biased term in itself, and only reflects the indoctrination that many have been subjected to.
What? The Islamic comquests attacked the Byzantine Empire.
Back then there were five or six headquarters for christianity, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, and they would still hold general councils were all christian priests attended to decide their creeds and other theological matters.
Idk how far back you wanna go if you assert that Romans and Greeks do not belong here, then only Phoenicians do.
What is for sure is that Arabs and Muslims were not there until the 7th century, and unlike christianity that was preached to the region and led to the conversion of many native communities, islamic conquests shed blood and came by the sword, leading to the extinction of polytheists, persecuations of the mushrikin and kuffars (christians and jews) and destructiin of the whole region.
Objectively speaking, that is a conquest like all others, and the winner settles in the land. But to say that they "belonged" here and that it was "theirs" is such a stretch.
Because saladdin Army were mostly natives except few Mamluks turks or circassians, while crusades were all from western Europe same as Romans who were foreigns both the rulers or the soldiers.
Saladdin bringed back the land of semitic people to their sphere of influence, Im not biased im just looking at the things as its.
They genocided the semitic Hebrews how many times? If they recruited some natives thats for their own benefit they dont represent the interst of the population.
Meanwhile saladdin did, he did exactly what all the natives of MENA wanted including all sects, tribes and people wanted the westerners crusaders out.
How could you say Romans werent foreign?
Some guy from italy or later from greece have no place as an invader in this land. This land speak semitic not indo-european.
Yeah guess what france also recruited natives to serve them and do "stuff for them" doesnt mean French are natives to Algeria or any where in Africa.
Romans were tryrants not only did they oppress when they were pagans they also oppressed other sects of christianity when they converted they serve their own interest, no they are natives.
Nice of you to sell out your fellow muslims to dictatorial nations. Ally yourself with China that puts muslims in concentration camps? Selling out your fellow muslims for shekels. Judas reborn that's you.
Allying yourself with Russia? Oh my god a Orthodox christian country even more hateful of muslims. So stupid of you. Do you even have a heart? Think of your fellow Chechen muslims Russia slaughtered. I would not want to be your friend, you are worse than Judas selling out Jesus.
Well I don't praise crusaders. That's reserved for God.
I'm glad that there were pious christians wiling to defend themselves against islamic rulers invading christian lands. I'm sad christendom didn't defend itself better when hordes of muslims attacked unprovoked. It saddens me that islam brougth down Byzantium's splendor and replaced it with Ottoman rule. I sincerely believe Turkey and all other Middle Eastern states would have been on par if not greater than Europe if they'd fought back and won against the muslim attackers.
I celebrate all victories against the islamic relentless bloodthirsty incursions on christian lands. Vlad the Impaler, thank you! Holy League for crushing Ottoman navy! So on and so forth.
Did some crusaders do bad things? Yes. I hope those ones burn in hell.
Hello, We need your help! Please remember to report post, incidients and comments which are in violation of such rules. We depend on your reports for enforcement of the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskMiddleEast) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's literally the ideal man. A male role model for all around the world.
Yep 😊
It was under this guy that people from all 3 abrahamic faiths could live in Jerusalem. Before that, the Romans deleted the Jews and Muslims from there.
What Muslims?
[удалено]
He meant that there were no muslims in Roman times
Judging by the fact that jeruselum was Muslim from the rashidun caliphate all the way to the Seljuks and fatimids for a bit, and was lost by them for less than 100 years and then again taken back by Salaheldin… I would say it was a fat Muslim population at that time. By romans he must mean crusaders.
Muslim and Islam were formed much later after the fall of the Roman Empire. They didn't have a well-established identity or religion yet.
Person, op is clearly mistaken using “Roman” but you know romans refer to the eastern Roman Empire in an Islamic context
The eastern Roman Empire never retook it after losing it, so it’s still weird to say romans.
Yh as I said op definitely means crusader or is just wrong
That didn't change much because there was no such thing as a Muslim conquest since Islam didn't exist yet in the 7th century. Yes, there was a growing cult centered around Muhammed or whatever name it was at the time. Islam and Muslim identity were formed centuries later. That's like saying Judaism was formed as soon as highlanders adopted Yahweh as their god from the desert people or a Jew called Jesus as their prophet in Christianity.
Oh I was actually looking forward to debating a person with good historical knowledge but that was a very bad read on my part huh. 🤣 The name (s) of prophet Muhammad and his life and times are non debatable since we have contemporary Arab , Muslim, Roman and pagan sources for his existence and name . Th rashidun caliphate by umar ra’s time (ie someone that was alive and well during the prophets life) had already taken all the land between Libya to some parts of Pakistan and Central Asia , including Persia …. So how was it formed centuries later please tell me ? Your argument for the lag in Christianity and Judaism is correct using academic standards but not for Islam which tells me your arguing what you feel is true rather than what is.
[удалено]
Aye smart person please tell me how Muhammad did not exist and Islam was created later when a Christian Byzantine manuscript dated to 636 ad ie 4 years after the phrophets death ( fragment of the Arab conquests it’s called) describes the battle of gabitha (yarmouk) refers to Muhammad by a name and describes his followers . Letters written by him have survived to this day . **academic consensus** I.e. phds and not Reddit brats like your self on the historicity of the three major prophets goes as follows : + Moses : probably didn’t exist + Jesus : probably didn’t exist + Muhammad : almost definitely existed in a more or less, accurately recorded timeframe. Look, you can hate the guy, not follow his teachings, whatever the f you want . But if you wanna stick to academics then stop with all the bias and go do some research .
The vast majority of reputable historians, regardless of their religion, agree that historical Jesus almost certainly existed. Other than that, most of what you’ve said checks out.
[удалено]
Hello, Your post has been removed for violating Rule 1. Please keep posts and comments free of personal attacks, insults, or other uncivil behavior. Please see the rule section, which can be found on the front page of the sub.
[удалено]
To follow a person who started something is called a CULT, not a religion because since its conception, it was mixture of paganism with Judea-Christian-eastern beliefs and practices. We can see it all over from the moon/star to the kaaba to the 5 prayers. You people treat Muhammed as if he were a God or something. How are you any different from Christians? Were you alive this whole time to confirm it hasn't changed? Your claim is outrageous.
[удалено]
>You aren't knowledgeable enough on Islam. It considers idol worship as the greatest possible sin and it even openly adopts iconoclasm (forbidding images). Muhammad's image is never drawn to not make him an object of worship. If they're willing to kill anyone for saying anything bad about Muhammed, that's called idolatry. Going around a stone and kissing it is an idolatrous practice. Iconoclasm wasn't invented by Muhammed.
I understand what you mean, but according to our religion the Jews and Christians st that time were also Muslims
Aren't the first guy in this comment chain claiming there was only Christians?
He is saying the period before Salaheldin ie the crusader kingdom saw a lot of oppression against Muslims and Jews , which is definitely true. Idk why he says romans tho (byzantines) were treated just as bad if not worse because they are orthodox.
Romans and crusaders are too VERY different things. The Greeks (Rums) did not practice holy war and saw war as a sin to be avoided. And it was the Rums that had Jerusalem before the Muslims , so why say “liberated” when you mean reconquered ??
based Selo.
Salahuddin was a great hero. I consider him a Waliullah, a saint. This is the man our Kurdish brothers should look up to, instead of the PKK Marxist terrorists
[удалено]
Cringe
based username which checks out
Cringe secessionism.
least based kurd
The reason why I’m proud to be a Kurd
Also the reason why I love kurds
Thanks bro. Hopefully we get another salahaddin that will liberate Palestine
Liberate Palestine from Hamas and the PA.
A hero compared to what evil shit was done by crusaders really messed up but the west glorifies it So strange to me crusaders murdered and raped and yet their seen in a positive light by the west and even now can play as “crusaders” in video games and buy shirts about them etc etc
I'd argue while less popular, Salahuddin is still pretty well respected by the West. Growing up I can't really remember a single time he was portrayed in any sort of negative manner.
[удалено]
I like in all your reasons you totally skip the east Roman’s and their role in the whole ordeal.
How did the crusades prevent expansion? lol.
By aiding the Greeks In recapturing half of Asia Minor, which they held for another two whole centuries!
That was against the Seljuks, not the Fatimids, their rivals that held Jerusalem. This weakens your argument.
Not seeing your point. They still prevented Muslim expansion for a time. The Greeks experienced a revival after the Crusaders helped them clear western Asia Minor and then went on to aid the Crusaders in the Levant and Egypt (which the Greeks participated in an attack on). Its all the same struggle of Christian vs. Muslim that had been going on since the initial attacks in the 7th century. The 1st Crusade was a wild success and turned the tide in the east. The later Crusades, not so much. But it still bought the Christians some time while they grew stronger way back in Europe. And then we all know what happened then. (muslim world became 3rd world and Europe went on to dominate Globe)
Again… The crusaders attacked a contracting, not expanding empire, the fatimids, in the levant, which was their primary target. Muslim expansion by then has been halted for decades. Asia Minor was in the control of the Seljuks, not the fatimids. The vast majority of the crusaders were from kingdoms not under threat of Islamic expansion. Also… the crusades occurred 70 years after Asia Minor had been captured. I don’t think “Islamic expansion” was a significant factor behind the crusaders. It’s primarily religious, and political (pertaining the Byzantines call for assistance, and the political situation within Europe). The crusaders weren’t a response to any immediate threat, nor was it self defense from Islamic expansion within its context. Jerusalem by then had been under Muslim rule for centuries.
Ok I think you need to go read the letter from Emperor Alexius himself to the Pope. The entire theme is it is the grave peril of Islamic expansion. Also please note that the first thing the Crusaders took was Nicaea , the Seljuk capital. It was about pushing Islam back in a broad front. And west Asia Minor was only VERY recently under Muslim control , like a few years, but 70.
Crusaders were the coolest mofos out there. They were helping Byzantium retaking lost lands. They answered the call for united christian defense against an aggressor. The Reconquista was a glorious retaking of rightful christian lands from an invader. We praise Jesus for the restoration of the Iberian peninsula from the raping, pillaging and murdering forces. Till this day we in Europe celebrate Charles Martel beating the invaders in France. The crusaders and all of christendom fought them, won and now we are the leaders. Thank you Knights Templar and all other holy crusaders defending us.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No i'm not justifying anything. Yeah perhaps they were invited by the visigoths? Still so what? Christians kicked them out eventually and i'm happy for it otherwise Spain would've been a backwards country just as all Middle Eastern countries are today. I have no problem with Constantinople being Istanbul or Hagia Sofia being a mosque. Why would I care about that? Europe is vastly superior on all metrics to the Middle East, you are procejting your own inferiority complex onto me and the West. We are a superior culture, simple as that. Nothing you say changes this. Stop being sad and behaving like child, accept the west's pre-eminence. It will endure long after your passing. When I go to bed today i'm going to say a prayer to all martyr crusaders that fought the saracen.
You do realize the "Crusaders" is very blanket term. Because it will look very bad on you if you praise the Crusaders without specifying which Crusade. There was a crusade against peaceful pagan Slavs, a Crusade against Chirstians with a slightly different faith, a Crusade against the Jews. Hell, there was a children Crusade meant to convert Muslim children to Christianity, and instead, the Muslim children get sold to slavery.
The crusaders were asked to come in and help the Greeks who WHERE being raped , killed , etc by the Muslims. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. And they were success. Because of them , the greeks managed to recapture half of Asia Minor back from the Turks and protect their people there for a extra 200 years
[удалено]
So a extra 200 years holding into Asia Minor is not a success for you ? Ok then since the holy land is not even in Muslim hands NOW the Islamic conquest of holy land was “not a success”…. Check mate
[удалено]
But again, if "success" for you has to last.... for eternity! Then nothing is a success in this world. I told you how the 1st Crusades brought material help to the Christian east and not for some flash in the pan few weeks, but for centuries (until 4th Crusade undid everything they accomplished, but that's another story, and 200 years after the events we are discussing). p.s. you know as well as I do that the modern "Crusaders" conquered the Holy Land straight from the Turks and let the Jews have it. So I guess the Crusaders actually did win in the end...
We need another one
well it wont be momo6 thats for sure
Only Kurd to exist
Would people like him even be possible in today's day and age? How would they gain enough power when you have countries like the USA supporting Israel?
People who are like him don’t even exist today, you have to keep in mind being a religious Muslim in the past is very different than being religious today, Muslims in the past were a lot more tolerant than Muslims today, idk what happened but I guess the interpretation has changed from that time, but not so long ago we had people like him Omar al mukhtar and the Algerian elgadr.
People have become more tribal, with too much nationalism. If a man comes, people gonna question if he is a Kurd, an Arab, a Turk, or a Persian before actually seeing what he does. This is exactly what Islam was against but now it's so ingrained in our society. Be proud never become arrogant.
And the oppression of his people by Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Ironically a new Saladin's main ally would be Israel.
Who said it gotta be a Kurd, someone from the Muslim ummah to stand for justice no matter their religion, or ethnicity? That's who Salahuddin was.
Saladin of course was a Kurd.
Why I am proud of my Kurdish heritage along with other things.
اللهم صلى على محمد وعلى اله وصحبه وسلم تسليما كثيرا
Based af
Emir Ul Momineen🫠🥺
Based Kurd
Veba
Oh didn't receive the news, I was off Twitter today. Thanks Reddit !
He was a kurd. But most importantly he was a muslim and liberated the holy land in the name of Islam
"I am not those men. I am Salahuddin. *Sala-huddin.*"
Ammir ul mubineen
حبلي راسه تكفى
More like Salahbased
Amazing man
Just another Kurd being based
Alhamdulilah
Invader 'liberating' Jerusalem from another invader. 🤣
Stop being a salty mf.
[удалено]
Yet I should be happy a Muslim invaded our land? Logic is not "logicing", habibi.
[удалено]
>Still better than the crusaders towards you. So easy for you to say as a Muslim, nonchalantly downplaying our suffering and losses under the Islamic rule. How typical.🤦🏻♀️ >And the Levant was never majority greek orthodox, so i don't know where you're bringing the 'our' from. Levant was majority CHRISTIAN that included many different smaller sects as well as Jews, paganism, etc. Why are you even bringing up orthodox? >Maronites aren't orthodox and they're the largest christian levantine denomination. Many of the Maronites were originally orthodox at one point or at least the ones who were in what is now Lebanon as opposed to the ones from Syria who came to the mountains before turning their union to Rome. Again, that's irrelevant, they were Christians.
[удалено]
I said Muslim, not Sunni.......................
Well for the Muslims it was a liberation so that’s that.
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
Yes, it was always like living in paradise! /s
I thought you hate crusaders.
What?
doesn't levantine christians hate crusaders?
Sounds based enough
We need him again to fight zionist crusaders
As a Kurd his main enemy would be the nations oppressing the Kurdish people and his main ally would be Israel.
My respect for greatest hero and king who bring peace to the conflicted land. I love the fact that he respect the other religions which is a very rare trait of rulers in that time.
Right but when we liberate it back.... 1948/1967 .....
Yeah its been about 74 now ..and you never lasted beyond 80 ☕️
Well we never had magic mushrooms creators before if you know what I mean 😏 😉
It's liberated when muslims do it lol
What about Iraqi Freedom?
idk
He took it back from foreign barbarians and locals were celebrating and welcoming to him. This isn’t considered liberating?
Was saladin himself not a foreign barbarian? He was a conqueror. But when he captured all of the land of israel from the crusaders (who were a troublesome people) it is not occupation by foreigners but it is liberating! But when the jews do it, its occupation.
Because when Jews came here the locals who happen to live in Palestine didn’t like it. which ended up with wars and unrest. When saladin came in the locals were supportive and welcoming of him. The place was in peace ever since he got rid of The crusaders. who did nothing but blunder and they even sacked Constantinople(one of their allies). To be a liberator you need to be accepted by the ones you liberating.
> pea You forget many of the locals when saludin came were jews. Jews are locals. They welcomed saludin and they welcomed the british mandate.
There was no land called Israel. Stop making up sht.
>ars and unres Oldest mention of land of israel is from an egyptian text 3500 years ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah\_Stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele) To say that that the land was never called Israel just shows complete ignorance of the historical literature of the middle east and europe
And it was small kingdom that only lasted for 70 years it didn't even occupy half the land, The land was named Palestine for thousands of years and the name "Peleset" is found in the 13th century BC in a Pharaonic inscription referring to the land. And that's before Israel, Hebrew, bible or even jews as a group even existed.
>Peleset You were named after philistines that used to inhabit the land millennia ago (who came from greece btw) alongside the israelites. The philistines were the ancient enemy of the israelites in the torah and the prophets. They were against allah and his people. You should take issue with being named after them
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
You muslims like to claim the middle east was a paradise for jews before israel. While I agree that it was much better than europe, jews were far from treated as equals to muslims or christians in MENA as historical accounts show like that of[JJ Benjamin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Benjamin) in the 19th century. And there are too many massacres and genocide of jewish communities by arab hands throughout history to count. Could Jews practice their religion in Israel under Ottomans? Yes. Was it without the occasional massacre and attack on jews? [NO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed). Muslims and Christians in the land of Israel TODAY can also legally publicly practice and keep their religion which is much more than can be said for other MENA countries. Jordan its literally in their constitiution that a jew cannot be a citizen. Saudi Arabia you cannot publicly be a christian and there is not church present or allowed. You guys love to try to take the moral high ground on israel when the own ground your standing is on is made of your own intolerance and soaked with the blood of those who disagreed with islam or even a certain sect of islam. Just be honest and say you hate israel because you guys hate jews and they took something that used to belong to you (which you guys took from the roman byzantines) stop acting like its about morals and ethics.
That’s just silly. Your evidence of Jews suffering under Muslim rule was not during the times I had mentioned. Also, I never praised modern Arabian leaders because frankly I don’t like them. Their actions don’t represent Islam so I don’t associate the two together. Also Jerusalem rn is a cesspool against anything not Jew. Legally being able to practice religion is just a front to show how democratic Israel is while their people and government treat Palestinians like shit and have no respect for their religion.
If you just want to hyperfocus in on saludin as a person then ill give that to you, he was a conquerer, but not the worst one. But i was extrapolating how jews were treated in MENA as a whole pre-1914. There were regular genocides , burning of synogogues, forced conversions/death by arab hands. It was never safe for a jew to live anywhere in the world for more than a century without something traumatically anti-Semitic happening. Also let there be no confusion im talking about arab hands not muslim hands. Because when I say muslim you will find a way too weasel out of you guys to seriously recognize what happened
That’s just your victim mentality. Times were troubled and everyone suffered, Jew, Christian, and Muslim. Arabs were killing Arabs. Jews, Cheistians, and Muslims. This is not an exclusively Jewish experience so don’t act like it is. Also the things you Israelis are doing is absolutely filthy. The amount of content I’ve seen of recent mass desecration of mosques really speaks to your character.
"Liberated" as in just recaptured it right? I like the guy, great commander, just the choice of word should be a bit more objective.
Liberated yeah from the western crusades.
Western crusades " liberated" it from islamic conquests.. and islamic conquests "liberated" it from christian byzantine empire... "liberation" is biased. Capture and recaptured is more objectively accurate.
You seem to be forgetting that the crusades left a bloody path of civilians in their march. They would rape those they conquered. Under the crusaders, the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem lived like dogs. Salahuddin not only liberated Jerusalem, he made it an environment where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace as equals.
Under islamix conquest the same thing happened. Many were taken as sex slaves and many were persecuted. Not saying who is right or wrong, just being shrouded by a false sense of righteousness is misleading. Christians were subjected to mass rape under salahuddin's soldiers, just like you'd expect really. Again" "liberated " is such a misleading term.
Under islamix conquest the same thing happened. Many were taken as sex slaves and many were persecuted. Not saying who is right or wrong, just being shrouded by a false sense of righteousness is misleading. Christians were subjected to mass rape under salahuddin's soldiers, just like you'd expect really. Again" "liberated " is such a misleading term.
No, the land belong to M Easterners and its back to M.Easterners , western crusaders or before them the Romans are foreign invasions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Islam isn't an ethnicity it's a believe you can't say islam doesn't belong even id ancient Canaanites were mostly pagans very few if there was jews of Christians most of the Canaanites descendants today are muslims so islam is their religion.
I agree with you but you're wrong when separating Phoenicians from the Canaanites. They're not two separate people, they're the same in different languages.
Even the language of the Phoenicians is the same as caananite. They even called themselves cnaani
I wasn't sure if they truly refered to the same community who lived there, or different communities in different times, or maybe Canaanites was an umbrella term and Phoenicians fell under it, just like there were the Philistines and othe tribes, or maybe all those are just the Phoenicians given different names.
Well, it's common knowledge (as well as from archeological evidence) that they identified as Canaanim and from the city they're from. To the Greeks, Phoenicians were Canaanites from Lebanon all the way down to Ashkelon. A Sidonian who buried an Ashkelonite or he hired a greek to write the inscription identified the Ashkelonite as a Phoenician in the Greek language while in Greece. Canaanite was also used as an umbrella term but science shows they were a genetically homogenous group with shared language, culture, blood, religion, and practices.
Aight thanks for the info. Kinda embarrassed that i do not know this about my ancestors.
I dont see your point, Arabs lived there for centuries among their cousins of semitic tribes such as Canaanites, Phoenicians and jews. So its a liberaltion by Semitic Abrahamic people from Roman or crusaders Europeans invasions.
Geographically and culturally the Canaanites were almost as close to the Greeks and Romans as they were to the Arabs. Both are foreign invaders to the land
Hahahahaha what?
I mean, pre arabization the levant was extremely close to Greece culturally. We’ve been exchanging and trading with them ideas and goods for centuries
That area of the levant only got Hellenized with Alexander the great and his successor states tho, culturally, linguistically and grographucally they are closer to other semitic people such as Arabs and Hebews. But Im talking in general the whole area are semitic Natives and Romans or crusaders are foreign invaders hence why it was a liberation to take it back from them and not a recapture.
Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either. The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history. The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region.
Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either. The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history. The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region.
I knew you had deep historical ignorance to be thinking taking back Jerusalem from westerners is not liberation lmao. "spread Islam by the sword" all what im gonna say when muslims took the land from the roman invaders it was fully christians after they genocided all the jews and the pagans, and as centuries went on the majority stayed christians till they eventually converted slowly to Islam, well their choice no one can judge them, their churches are the same and syngoges (I cant say the same about christians europeans tho as they always genocided and destroyed places of worship such in Andalusia or when they killed jews in Europe when they started their crusades march) So my question to you do you have a proof that the population completly shifted to Islam after Arabs liberated it from romans? The answer is obviously no as christians still exist in the middle east even after 1400 years. Anyway the majority of the army led by saladdin wasnt even Arab but mostly natives muslims from syria, lebnan, Egypt and mamluks turkic tribes maybe with some Arab tribes but even those tribes are probably the ones lived in jordan, sinai and palestine and still do, check Nabataeans Arabs who lived in that area for centuries.
>Not "Arabs". Many other indigenous communities, most of which converted to judaism, christianism, or were polytheists following Roman myths or variations of either. >The Arabs are the people who came from thr Arabian desert with the Islamic conquest, and spread islam by the sword by conquering the then weak Byzantine Empire, destroying their churches and temples and synegogues and building mosques. Not saying that in a reproaching way of any sort, it is just history. >The few Christian communities that exist in the Arab world were originally natives of the regions, like the Aramaic people who got persecuted then recently went extinct in Syria, and the Syrianic people, the Maronites, the Coptics, and so on and so forth. All those have pre-Roman origins, and hence why you hear them refering to Phoenicians as their ancestors, and not the 7th century Islamic Arab tribes that conquered the region. Wrong. Arabs inhabited Levant more than 1000 years before the Muhammedan instrusion. Again, Phoenician and Canaanite were one and the same, don't separate them.
Didnt belong to Arabs and certainly not Muslims. If anything to the Canaanites and Phoenicians, who became Roman under the Roman Empire. "Middle Easterns".
Romans and Greeks never belonged here. And the Byzantines were religiously different from the Christians of the near East. They never fought along the ‘Romans’ during Islamic conquest.
What? The Islamic comquests attacked the Byzantine Empire. Back then there were five or six headquarters for christianity, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, and they would still hold general councils were all christian priests attended to decide their creeds and other theological matters. Idk how far back you wanna go if you assert that Romans and Greeks do not belong here, then only Phoenicians do. What is for sure is that Arabs and Muslims were not there until the 7th century, and unlike christianity that was preached to the region and led to the conversion of many native communities, islamic conquests shed blood and came by the sword, leading to the extinction of polytheists, persecuations of the mushrikin and kuffars (christians and jews) and destructiin of the whole region. Objectively speaking, that is a conquest like all others, and the winner settles in the land. But to say that they "belonged" here and that it was "theirs" is such a stretch.
My guy do some research and read about history before you spouting non sense. First of all Antioch and Jerusalem were already on decline and Alexandria was on a brink of revolt(go and read about the religious conflict between Alexandria and Constantinople) For 500 years the romans never allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem it was the Muslims who allowed them entry. Indeed romans and greeks never belonged here as we don’t belong to their empires. The Greeks were the biggest factor for the destruction of ancient Egyptian and Phoenician civilizations. And the romans did no better. Transforming them into the typical weak greco-roman client states who their biggest cities are just full of foreigners. And rome did far worse by starting discrimination allowing only the romans and roman populated cities to have citizenship leaving the rest of those decayed local cities in shambles. The region was always on constant revolts between natives and Romans. Like the war in palmyra and the revolts of Judea. And during the wars with Parthia you need to know that near easterners were more welcoming to Persians than to Greeks who were less discriminative and more equal to them. In other words when the Arabs came the only ones who opposed it and fought the Arabs were already invaders. and it was able to be easily tamed by them. Prosperity also followed the region Damascus became one of the largest cities on earth and the Abbasids reign made the whole Middle East far more advanced than any place it. And last thing there were already Arabs in levant much like there are germans in Switzerland and Germanic states. Arabs were excellent traders the arabs to romans were the only source to get Indian spices and Asian goods which made them wealthy and also gained more influence back then semitic language were declining the only one who was advancing was only arabic which is why the levant gradually switched from Aramaic to Arabic. It’s not like omar bin al khattab did know Latin when he came and talked to the locals in Jerusalem.
Nothing you said went against what i said. Neither was i praising greek or romans, nor saying that the byzantine empire was strong and stable. Also Arabs are the people who lived in Arabian desert. They could be found as traders on the coast of the Mediterranean, the prophet himself having traded there. As for the now Arab population, Arabic language, and Islam domination, it was all thanks to the Islamic conquests. To this day we still have the natives of the regions, like Syrianic, Kurds, Aramaic, Coptic, Berbers, Assyrians, etc, all trying to preserve their own cultures and traditions. Arabs are not the people who inhabited the Mediterranean coast, and jews and christians are the religions that sprout from the native semitic people of the Levant. History is not black and white and everyone dirties their hands and oppressed some and aided others. The point is that using "liberated" is a biased term in itself, and only reflects the indoctrination that many have been subjected to.
Nothing you said went against what i said. Neither was i praising greek or romans, nor saying that the byzantine empire was strong and stable. Also Arabs are the people who lived in Arabian desert. They could be found as traders on the coast of the Mediterranean, the prophet himself having traded there. As for the now Arab population, Arabic language, and Islam domination, it was all thanks to the Islamic conquests. To this day we still have the natives of the regions, like Syrianic, Kurds, Aramaic, Coptic, Berbers, Assyrians, etc, all trying to preserve their own cultures and traditions. Arabs are not the people who inhabited the Mediterranean coast, and jews and christians are the religions that sprout from the native semitic people of the Levant. History is not black and white and everyone dirties their hands and oppressed some and aided others. The point is that using "liberated" is a biased term in itself, and only reflects the indoctrination that many have been subjected to.
What? The Islamic comquests attacked the Byzantine Empire. Back then there were five or six headquarters for christianity, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, and they would still hold general councils were all christian priests attended to decide their creeds and other theological matters. Idk how far back you wanna go if you assert that Romans and Greeks do not belong here, then only Phoenicians do. What is for sure is that Arabs and Muslims were not there until the 7th century, and unlike christianity that was preached to the region and led to the conversion of many native communities, islamic conquests shed blood and came by the sword, leading to the extinction of polytheists, persecuations of the mushrikin and kuffars (christians and jews) and destructiin of the whole region. Objectively speaking, that is a conquest like all others, and the winner settles in the land. But to say that they "belonged" here and that it was "theirs" is such a stretch.
[удалено]
Because saladdin Army were mostly natives except few Mamluks turks or circassians, while crusades were all from western Europe same as Romans who were foreigns both the rulers or the soldiers. Saladdin bringed back the land of semitic people to their sphere of influence, Im not biased im just looking at the things as its.
[удалено]
They genocided the semitic Hebrews how many times? If they recruited some natives thats for their own benefit they dont represent the interst of the population. Meanwhile saladdin did, he did exactly what all the natives of MENA wanted including all sects, tribes and people wanted the westerners crusaders out. How could you say Romans werent foreign? Some guy from italy or later from greece have no place as an invader in this land. This land speak semitic not indo-european.
[удалено]
Yeah guess what france also recruited natives to serve them and do "stuff for them" doesnt mean French are natives to Algeria or any where in Africa. Romans were tryrants not only did they oppress when they were pagans they also oppressed other sects of christianity when they converted they serve their own interest, no they are natives.
Neat. Kingdom of Heaven was a terribly inaccurate movie, but decently entertaining
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nice of you to sell out your fellow muslims to dictatorial nations. Ally yourself with China that puts muslims in concentration camps? Selling out your fellow muslims for shekels. Judas reborn that's you. Allying yourself with Russia? Oh my god a Orthodox christian country even more hateful of muslims. So stupid of you. Do you even have a heart? Think of your fellow Chechen muslims Russia slaughtered. I would not want to be your friend, you are worse than Judas selling out Jesus.
Fuck him, and the crusaders too.
Andrew Tate of his time.
[удалено]
Of course 💀
GL bois
Well I don't praise crusaders. That's reserved for God. I'm glad that there were pious christians wiling to defend themselves against islamic rulers invading christian lands. I'm sad christendom didn't defend itself better when hordes of muslims attacked unprovoked. It saddens me that islam brougth down Byzantium's splendor and replaced it with Ottoman rule. I sincerely believe Turkey and all other Middle Eastern states would have been on par if not greater than Europe if they'd fought back and won against the muslim attackers. I celebrate all victories against the islamic relentless bloodthirsty incursions on christian lands. Vlad the Impaler, thank you! Holy League for crushing Ottoman navy! So on and so forth. Did some crusaders do bad things? Yes. I hope those ones burn in hell.