The looters join other looters this is a fact

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 23, 2013 at 07:09

Mozere wrote

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.

Not true the Mongol invasions were about large numbers of invaders and even early on it was about a massive immigration just like the Turks that invaded the Byzantine empire. The Arabs invasions? The islamic sources tell us that in the case of Egypt 4000 looters invaded Egypt! How do you explain it? and if you wish to tell me that the local population helped then provide us with the evidence and no John of Nikiu's writings is not a reliable source

These covered a much bigger area and populations and more rapid than even the Arab expansion.

OK

The Mongols, like the Arabs co-opted the conquered peoples,

You are a careless reader: This happened later on as for example in the invasion of al-maghreb the Berbers were involved in the invasion of Spain and the Arabs never claimed in their history that in the first 20 years (the most important period of these invasions) when both the Sassanids and the Byzantine empires were defeated that they received help from non Arabs and in the case of Egypt they tell us that only 4000 Arabs invaded Egypt and crushed the Byzantine army which just does not make sense

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)

No you still are not addressing the fact that 4000 poorly equipped caravan raiders and looters were able to defeat the well armed Greeks and Persians it does not make sense and as a matter of fact I do believe that what happened it was a bunch of looters that got lucky and had to look back and invent a prophet and a new religion that owes its existence not to an Allah but to the great debates among the civilized people of the Middle East and you tell me why would those invaders not have their capital in Mecca? what is wrong with Mecca? Let me help you because those looters did not come from the Hijaz

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.

Again you are mixing apples and oranges yes looters join those that loot this is axiomatic right? I'm talking about the very early invasions that were the foundation of this imperialism

This is what the revisionists are saying in relation to Islam and its prophet.

What is wrong with questioning the bogus history of early Islam transmitted by the Persians which was written in the 3rd century of Arabian imperialism you tell me

So let me ask you again:

1. Why did Mu3awiyya select Damascus as his capital and not Mecca

2. Why did Abd al-Malik build el-masjid el-Aqsa in Jerusalem and not in Mecca?

3. How do you explain that 4000 looters crush the Byzantine army in Egypt?

4. And why would Mu3awiyya have a Syriac name and why would he have a cross before his name at the Ghadra bathes you tell me. Those looters did not come from al-Hijaz and it is a later construct made up in the 3rd century by the historicizing Islamic historical tradition and most of which were written not by Arabs but by Persians and even the biography of your so called prophet was composed by a man (Ibn Ishaq) whose grand father was a Syrian Christian let me help you: Because the looters aka the Arabs and their rule was marginal at best in what was to become Islam

This would be a good start

---

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".