DNM think before you write - Part 1

Submitted by Debanjan Banerjee (India), Jun 24, 2010 at 00:15

Hi DNM,

Let us see your points one by one. You want to mention that the Byzantines and Persians never bothered about the prophet. See it is completely inaccurate the historical part you are playing up. Remember the tribe of Ghassan ? That was a proxy group employed by the Byzantine empire to enforce it's will upon the people in the Arab world. Another point the whole middle east was effected at the time by the frequent wars between the Byzantine and Persian empires. The Muslims made the Middle east peaceful by defeating both the empires.

Remember the prophet invited both the rulers of Byzantine and Persia to Islam. The war came only after these rulers who were egoistic and blind by their sense of power , rejected the invitation of prophet.

"The Crusaders did not invade any land. They were threatened and the holy land was threatened by the Arabs from all directions they fought the war for survival against these barbarians the Arabs"

My Answer : All of your above statements are historically inaccurate. Remember the crusaders were europeans in general what business did they have in holy land which is way beyond their area of influence ?

And your categorization of Arabs the barbarians are completely false and inaccurate. During the time of crussades , people in Europe were burnt alive for being heretics or wizards , plague was the natural norm , people could not even walk on the main streets on the cities like London and Paris due to trash on pavement since the sewage system was non-existent at the time and most people including many national leaders could not either read or write their own languages.

The crusaders very frequently practised cannibalism also. Very distinguished crusader chroniclers like the following ones assert the fact that the crusaders practised canibalism.

Radulph of Caen, an eyewitness to events at Ma'arra in 1098, wrote, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

The chronicler Albert of Aix seemed to rank Muslims lower than dogs when he wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!"

Now compared this to what Saladin did. He showed mercy even to these crusaders by granting a general amnesty after he has liberated Jerusalem from these vile people.

Now tell me which ones are worthy of being called the barbarians , the cannibalistic crusaders who ate human flesh or the kind hearted Muslim Sultan who even forgave his most bitter enemies after he had vanquished them , overwhelmingly.

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".