revisionist historians of Islam beware.

Submitted by Mozere (United Kingdom), Jun 22, 2013 at 06:33

In history there are a lot of instances when a highly motivated and very mobile cavalry based armies of small numbers from less developed nomadic cultures invading more populous advanced civilisations.Mongol invasions of the 13th century is a case in point.These covered a much bigger area and populations and more rapid than even the Arab expansion.

The Mongols, like the Arabs co-opted the conquered peoples,ie used chinese and muslim engineers to capture fortified cities,used Turkic Tribes in admin so much so that the Mongol rulers were speaking Turkish before long.Mecca and Medina were peripheral cities and far from the populations centres so it was natural to move the capital to Damascus(home of the Byzantine trained Arab Ghassani army which defeated the shia armies) or Baghdad(nearby Ctisephon home of the Persian admin.)This is akin to Mongol Kublai khan moving the capital from Karakorum to Khanbalig(Beijing)

So from this is it reasonable to start revising history and say that as the Mongols were not as civilised and their population miniscule compared to the Chinese ,the invaders were in fact north Chinese opposed to Song Dynasty and that Genghis Khan never existed and a figment of imagination of the Chinese chroniclers.This is what the revisionists are saying in relation to Islam and its prophet.

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".