So...

Submitted by B. Williame (Belgium), Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06

The roman invading army could have been there without the orders of Rome.

The roman invading army could have been a bunch of Angry Palestiinians who ran when they heard someone wanted to call their bluff.

The roman invading army was actually a bunch of palestinians who where recruited by the roman army.

Was it during the triarchy of rome? I mean at that time rome armies went around a lot as there was a struggle for power. (giving a plausible reason why a supposedly roman army would turn away from a fight with tired and starving peasants)

And latest... The palestine roman army was needed in palestine to keep control of that land... why would it move towards Mekka if it risked losing control of allready occupied land?

Your answer gives me so much more reasons to doubt the correctness of a page of history that is but written in islam history books and no where else....

I hope you understand this as well as agree that there is more reasonable doubt then none...

Regards,

P.S. when I eat and swallow a banana I remove it's peel for only it's core truly is of importance. I'm attempting to remove the peel of Islam so I might digest it without being poisoned. I invite you to join me in this endeavour.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".