Stark interviewed on the Crusades

[bjorn]

As his new book God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades is released these days, Rodney Stark has been interviewed on www.medievalists.net/2009/09/03/interview-with-rodney-stark/.

According to its publisher, “Stark reviews the history of the seven major Crusades from 1095 to 1291, demonstrating that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations, centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West, and sudden attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by a plea from the pope, Stark argues that this had nothing to do with any elaborate design of the Christian world to convert all Muslims to Christianity by force of arms. Given current tensions in the Middle East and terrorist attacks around the world, Stark’s views are a thought-provoking contribution to our understanding and are sure to spark debate.”

Undoubtedly.

Not unexpected, the interviewer doesn't quite agree with one of Stark's central thesis:

One of the premises of your book is that the Crusades were a reaction to what you describe as “Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places.” As a scholar of the Crusades, I disagree with this idea - for the most part Islamic expansion had ended by the middle of the eight century, and for the next three hundred years, warfare between Christian and Muslim states was motivated by political relations and not necessarily religious reasons. It was not even uncommon for Muslim and Christian kingdoms to be allies and co-exist peacefully with each other. Moreover, the bulk of the people who took part in the First Crusade seem to have little or no knowledge of who they were actually fighting, and simply saw them as random pagans. With this in mind, I was wondering how you came to your conclusions that somehow the Crusades were “a justified war waged against Muslim terror and aggression”?

The conflict with Islam surely had not ended by the eighth century-although the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa was over by then. Warfare continued in Spain, often quite intensively, until the end of the fifteenth century. A war of reconquest raged in Sicily and Southern Italy until only a few years before the start of the First Crusade. And the initial call from Emperor Comnenus for a Crusade was prompted by an invasion of Seljuk Turks who had driven to within 100 miles of Constantinople. It is all well and good to say these later wars were motivated by “political relations and not necessarily religious reasons.” No doubt all of the Muslim conquests had political aspects, but wars across the Christian/Muslim divide always had religious implications that usually did not apply to wars within each faith. To say that the bulk of those who took part in the First Crusade “seem to have little or no knowledge of who they were actually fighting” might apply to those who followed Peter the Hermit. But the real Crusaders knew rather a lot about whom they were fighting. Many had relatives who had suffered or even died at the hands of Muslims while making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and a few had themselves been on a pilgrimage and had encountered Muslims at first hand. In addition, the Normans had recently beaten Muslims in Sicily and, even more recently, Bohemond had fought Muslim mercenaries hired by Byzantium.

While I can't quite see how we could avoid also pointing very much at Turkish aggression from about 1070 (Manzikert and all that), I hope Stark deals with internal European matters as well, to not get completely laughed out of court.

[deef]

I just started reading his book 'Gods Battalions' today. I will post my thoughts later.

[krkey1]

has this man converted yet. If not , why not?

[deef]

I'm pretty sure he's christian.

According to Wikipedia he now describes himself as an 'independent Christian': en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark

[unkleE]

My understanding is that when he wrote his earlier books he was a non-believer (the quotes in Wikipedia suggest he was agnostic), but that about the time he moved to Baylor University (2004) he announced he had converted. I thought cynically at the time (though I have enjoyed the two books of his that I have read) that this might have been a convenience to enable him to join a christian university, but it would be unfair to conclude that without evidence.

[acornuser]

I wouldn't read too much into moving to Baylor! Although they do seem to be returning to the idea of Christian scholarship. I guess someone started reading Bavinck and Kuyper again

[zameel]

Sept 18, 2009 10:27:53 GMT bjorn said:

While I can't quite see how we could avoid also pointing very much at Turkish aggression from about 1070 (Manzikert and all that), I hope Stark deals with internal European matters as well, to not get completely laughed out of court.

Rodney Stark is not a historian, let alone a historian of the crusades. Some historians specialised in the crusades are HEJ Cowdrey (Oxford University), Helen Nicholson (Cardiff University) and Steven Runciman (Cambridge University), for a list see: www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/historians.html

Stark's characterisation of the crusades as a justified response to "Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places" is not supported by most historians of the crusades.

In almost complete contrast to Stark, Helen Nicholson wrote "Why did the pope call the crusade in 1095? It had been over 450 years since Jerusalem fell to the Muslims; and almost a century since the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim Bi-amr Allah had destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the most sacred site in Christendom, and persecuted Christians in his domains. In 1095 there was no immediate provocation for war" (The Crusades, p. 5). In fact, the Seljuks were least active in the 1090s: "in the early 1090s, a series of disasters hit both empires (Seljuk and Fatimid). The caliphs of both Egypt and Baghdad, the grand viziers of both empires, and the sultan of the Seljuk Empire died in quick succession, leaving both empires in political and religious confusion" (ibid, p. 6) and Steven Runciman explains "By 1095…the Seldjuk power was declining. Malik Shah died in 1092, Tutush in 1095; and Tutush’s son, Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus, were fighting against each other or against the atabeg of Mosul, Kerbogha, the most formidable of the younger Turkish chieftains. In Palestine the Fatimids were advancing against the sons of Ortoq. The Anatolian Turks would get little support from their kinsmen in Syria.". Alexius who was ambitious saw this as an oppurtunity to crush the Turks, and for this he requested a few merceneries from the West but "Crusaders by the thousands, under independent command, spoiling for war, and whom he could not control, were not what the circumstances of Byzantium in 1095 called for" (HEJ Cowdrey). Cowdrey's article "The Genesis of the Crusades" can be read here: www.ohiostatepress.org/books/Complete%20PDFs/Murphy%20Holy/03.pdf . As a prelude, he explains:

"When we study the First Crusade, preached at Clermont in 1095 by Pope Urban II, we are fortunate in having, in the Chronicle known as the Gesta Francorum, an anonymous account of it, composed by a fighting knight while it was still taking place. He was a highly sophisticated and articulate man—a skilled, professional warrior with a developed sense of feudal loyalty and social obligation. The opening words of the Gesta set forth the origin of the Crusade in these words:

When that time had already come, of which the Lord Jesus warns his faithful people every day, especially in the Gospel where he says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me," there was a great stirring of heart throughout all the Frankish lands, so that if any man, with all his heart and all his mind, really wanted to follow God and faithfully to bear the cross after him, he could make no delay in taking the road to the Holy Sepulchre as quickly as possible

Besides the strongly religious motivation, you will notice that the knight did not focus attention upon events in the East as having been decisive for the "great stirring of heart" that led to the Crusade. We can, I think, put on one side as not of key importance a whole group of factors that historians once thought were critical—I mean factors arising in the Muslim or Byzantine East. The anonymous knight fought with and for high ideals: to suffer for the Name of Christ and to set free the road to the Holy Sepulchre. But he had little real knowledge of his Muslim enemies or of what was going on in their lands: he just thought of them as heathens, who denied the faith of Christ and holy Christendom for which he had taken arms. In the mid-1090s not much was happening in the East to concentrate his mind. If there was some atrocity propaganda in the air, Western piety was not being affronted by serious Muslim attacks upon Christians. Nor, so far as we can see, did Eastern Christians themselves particularly wish to be liberated from the Muslim yoke. Such events as the burning of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 by the mad Caliph Hakim were few and far between, and there was no major recent outrage that stirred men to the heart. Islam was by and large a tolerant religion; while subject Christians kept themselves duly humble and paid their taxes, they were not badly off. Nor was it unduly hard for Christians from the West to make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the other Holy Places. Pilgrims, after all, are profitable and best not deterred. The Muslims did well from their tolls, from their lodging, and from providing them with supplies. So they let them journey.

Again, in the circumstances of 1095, the Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, wanted anything but the vast and unmanageable crusading hordes that were soon to come his way. The threat of the Seldjuk Turks, so deadly when they routed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, had receded by 1092, with the death of the last great sultan, Malik Shah. Thereafter, Alexius could do with— indeed he actively sought—a limited supply of mercenaries who would make his diplomacy more credible. Crusaders by the thousands, under independent command, spoiling for war, and whom he could not control, were not what the circumstances of Byzantium in 1095 called for.

Nor was frustrated trade with the East really a factor in causing the Crusade. Up to 1095, the Amalfitans—the most active in the East of the Italian merchants—traded much as they wished. During the First Crusade, the Genoese, the Pisans, and the Venetians were cautious about joining in until they saw that there was money to be made. It was not a desire for trade that stimulated the Crusade, but vice versa.

All things considered, historians would, I think, now be pretty generally agreed that the First Crusade, the "great stirring of heart" in the West, was not, at root, caused by any pull of events in the East. On the contrary, knights like the author of the Gesta were impelled to go by constraints and shifts within Western society itself—its social classes, its institutions, and its ideas."

Runciman agrees the Eastern Christians were not seeking to be "rescued": "Nor would such rescue [by Christendom] have been welcomed by the heretic sects [of Palestine]. To them the change of rulers had brought relief and pleasure. The Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian writing five centuries later, in the days of the Latin Kingdoms, reflected the old traditions of his people when he told that ‘the God of vengeance, who alone is Almighty…raised from the south the children of Ishmael to deliver us by them from the hands of the Romans’. This deliverance he added ‘was no light advantage for us’. The Nestorians echoes these sentiments. ‘the hearts of the Christians’ wrote an anonymous Nestorian chronicler ‘rejoiced at the domination of the Arabs – may God strengthen it and prosper it!'...Unlike the Christian Empire, which attempted to enforce religious uniformity on all its citizens – an ideal never realized, for the Jews could neither be converted nor expelled – the Arabs, like the Persians before them, were prepared to accept religious minorities" (The History of the Crusades, vol 1, p. 20-1).

In fact the Crusades were disasterous for these Christians: "They set out to save Christendom; but to the Christians of the East they brought nothing but disaster...to me, "Crusade" is a dirty word" (Runciman). Furthermore, the Muslims did not attempt to "colonise" the conquered lands. As Runciman notes "The growth of Islam in Syria and Palestine was not due to a sudden influx of Arabs from the desert. The conquerors’ armies had not been very large. They had not provided much more than a military caste superimposed on the existed population". The growth of Islam, rather, was due to the missionary effort of Muslims (in particular, the Sufi traders), and occured centuries after the conquests (in the ninth and tenth centuries).

Unlike Caliph Umar who in 638 AD captured Jerusalem peacefully (as did Saladin later in 1187) and showed respect to the Christian institutions, the Crusaders showed no mercy to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem. This contrast between Muslim and Christian campaigns is not unique to the crusades - cities taken by Europeans were automatically sacked (killing and looting) (according to Runciman the Western sack of Constantinople in 1204 was "unparalelled in history" such was the devestation caused), but like the Conquest of Mecca and the capture of Jerusalem, few major victories by Muslims were followed by sacking the city (the Mongols had sacked Baghdad in 1258 with disasterous results but they were not Muslims at the time).

[penguinfan]

Unlike Caliph Umar who in 638 AD captured Jerusalem peacefully (as did Saladin later in 1187) and showed respect to the Christian institutions, the Crusaders showed no mercy to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem.

What was the mercy the early Muslims showed to the people of Istakhr, Nikiu, Dvin, Bahnasa, Cesarea, Alexandria and Madhar, for what would later be known as 'blood canal'?

As for Saladin, even he carried out executions of POWs of war. So at least it could be said that he was only slightly more moral than the early Muslims.

[himself]

Runciman's Marxist-colonialist intepretations were much influenced by then-current categories of thought.

The rules of engagement at the time were that a city that resisted siege was subject to sack, traditionally of three days. A city that did not resist was not sacked. Thus, neither Omar nor Salah ad-Din sacked Jerusalem for the excellent reason that there was no resistance. OTOH, when Antioch was taken by Baybars, he ordered the gates closed and every man, woman, and child inside slaughtered. And when the Turks finally took Constantinople (no doubt in a defensive war) the slaughter was so intense that the Sultan himself ordered it stopped short after (iirc) a single day, lest he have no city left to rule.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 1:20:01 GMT himself said:

The rules of engagement at the time were that a city that resisted siege was subject to sack, traditionally of three days. A city that did not resist was not sacked. Thus, neither Omar nor Salah ad-Din sacked Jerusalem for the excellent reason that there was no resistance. OTOH, when Antioch was taken by Baybars, he ordered the gates closed and every man, woman, and child inside slaughtered. And when the Turks finally took Constantinople (no doubt in a defensive war) the slaughter was so intense that the Sultan himself ordered it stopped short after (iirc) a single day, lest he have no city left to rule.

Jan 24, 2010 20:11:35 GMT penguinfan said:

Unlike Caliph Umar who in 638 AD captured Jerusalem peacefully (as did Saladin later in 1187) and showed respect to the Christian institutions, the Crusaders showed no mercy to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem.

What was the mercy the early Muslims showed to the people of Istakhr, Nikiu, Dvin, Bahnasa, Cesarea, Alexandria and Madhar, for what would later be known as 'blood canal'?

As for Saladin, even he carried out executions of POWs of war. So at least it could be said that he was only slightly more moral than the early Muslims.

Can you offer credible historical sources for these incidents? And I did not only use Runciman, but HEJ Cowdrey and Helen Nicholson, all historians who have written on the crusades (unlike Stark who is not a historian).

[penguinfan]

And I did not only use Runciman

First off, Runciman is a bit of crack pot if he actually claimed what you attributed to him:

according to Runciman the Western sack of Constantinople in 1204 was "unparalelled in history" such was the devestation caused

Secondly, yes, the half-dozen cities I mentioned which were sacked can easily be found on the web.

1) On Istakhr, Hugh Kennedy, in the 'Great Arab Conquests' p. 184, says 'the conquest of [Istakhr] was followed by a massacre in which 40,000 Persians perished, including many members of noble and knightly families who had taken refuge there.' Siege weapons were used against the city and the entire city was probaby razed. Kennedy then goes on to mention that 'there seems to have been a systematic attempt to destroy the main symbols of the old Persian religion, the fire temples, and confiscate the properties:'

2) For Caesarea, in the 'Great Arab Conquests' p 89, Kennedy says that because the inhabitants 'resisted for so long and the city had been taken by storm, many of the inhabitants were enslaved and taken to the Hijaz, we are told, they worked as secretaries and labourers for the Muslims.'

I also remember reading that Caearea's ancient library was burnt and some of the men were massacred - not really shocking since Hugh Kennedy says that many of the townspeople were enslaved as it is.

3) For Alexandria, the city was sacked once by the Muslims who pillaged the city but did not massacre or enslave the populace. After it was retaken by the Romans and taken back by the Muslims, the Arabs again sacked the city by executing the Greek men and enslaving their children. The city's wall was demolished and all of the city's churches and monasteries were burnt, including St. Mark's Cathedral.

4) For Dvin, I can't find anything from a quick online search.

5) Bahnasa and 6) Nikiu are both mentioned in the near contemporary accounts by John of Nikiu. He mentions that both cities were sacked by the Muslims.

7) Blood Canal comes to us from a Muslim account that describes the massacre as follows:

The Muslims raged against them. Khalid said, "Oh God, if you deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to You not to leave anyone of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with their blood." Then God defeated them for the Muslims and gave their shoulders to them. Khalid then commanded his herald to proclaim to the men, "Capture! Capture! Do not kill any except he who continues to resist." As a result, the cavalry brought prisoners in droves, driving them along. Khalid had detailed certain men to cut off their head in the canal. He did that to them for a day and a night. They pursued them the next day and the day after, until they reached al-Nahrayn and the like of that distance in every direction from Ullays. And Khalid cut off their heads.

Al-Qa'qa and others like him said to Khalid, "Even if you were to kill all the population of the earth, their blood would still not run....Therefore, send water over it, so that you may fulfill your oath." Khalid had blocked the water from the canal. Now Khalid brought the water back, so that it flowed with spilled blood. Owing to this, it has been called Blood Canal to this day.

Some historians have put the number of captured soldiers executed (by beheading) in the tens of thousands.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 22:28:03 GMT penguinfan said:

Runciman is a bit of crack pot if he actually claimed what you attributed to him

In other words, a scholar is only reliable if he agrees with your prejudiced views.

Jan 25, 2010 22:28:03 GMT penguinfan said:

yes, the half-dozen cities I mentioned which were sacked can easily be found on the web.

1) On Istakhr, Hugh Kennedy, in the 'Great Arab Conquests' p. 184, says 'the conquest of [Istakhr] was followed by a massacre in which 40,000 Persians perished, including many members of noble and knightly families who had taken refuge there.' Siege weapons were used against the city and the entire city was probaby razed. Kennedy then goes on to mention that 'there seems to have been a systematic attempt to destroy the main symbols of the old Persian religion, the fire temples, and confiscate the properties:'

2) For Caesarea, in the 'Great Arab Conquests' p 89, Kennedy says that because the inhabitants 'resisted for so long and the city had been taken by storm, many of the inhabitants were enslaved and taken to the Hijaz, we are told, they worked as secretaries and labourers for the Muslims.'

I also remember reading that Caearea's ancient library was burnt and some of the men were massacred - not really shocking since Hugh Kennedy says that many of the townspeople were enslaved as it is.

3) For Alexandria, the city was sacked once by the Muslims who pillaged the city but did not massacre or enslave the populace. After it was retaken by the Romans and taken back by the Muslims, the Arabs again sacked the city by executing the Greek men and enslaving their children. The city's wall was demolished and all of the city's churches and monasteries were burnt, including St. Mark's Cathedral.

4) For Dvin, I can't find anything from a quick online search.

5) Bahnasa and 6) Nikiu are both mentioned in the near contemporary accounts by John of Nikiu. He mentions that both cities were sacked by the Muslims.

7) Blood Canal comes to us from a Muslim account that describes the massacre as follows:

Thought so. Only one of those sacks comes from a reliable historian, Hugh Kennedy. In fact, the conclusion any unprejudiced person will make on reading Kennedy's work would be the conspicuous lack of sackings when it came to the major cities conquered e.g. Damascus, Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria some of which offered resistance. It "was clear" Kennedy wrote "Damascus was spared the horrors of bombardment and sack" (p. 80) despite the little resistance Khalid received. Alexandria, one of the major cities (which according to you was sacked) was sieged in 641 and there were some skirmished but "when the end came, it was through negotiation rather than military action" (p. 158): the inhabitants were to pay tribute and the Roman army was to leave for Constantinople. These may be compared to the crasaders' conquest of Jerusalem which according to Thomas Asbridge put up "little" and "futile" resistance, but the inhabitants of that city over 10,000 of them were slaughtered (Asbridge, The Crusades pp. 101-2). John of Nikiu was opposed to Islam what he called "the beasts' religion" yet he wrote of Amr the conquerer of Egypt "He exacted the taxes which had been determined upon but he took none of the property of the chruches, and he committed no act of spoilation or plunder, and he preserved them throughout all his days (Kennedy, 165). Kennedy also emphasises the fact the Muslim conquests did not bring about any immediate changes to the conquered nations - no uniform law, or culture or religion was imposed unlike in Byzantium; the armies and governers who resided in conquered lands were few. Conversions occured several centuries later and here Kennedy refers us to the known specialist in this field, Richard Bulliet. On the other hand, the Byzantine empire was "determined to enforce religious conformity on a Christian population that in large measure rejected [its] doctrinal position" (p. 70), which may explain why some Monophysite Christians welcomed and even secretly aided the Muslim armies; such was Byzantine persecution that it had "eliminated the Nestorian Church from Byzantine territory" (pp. 8-9).

The only major exception is Istakhr, a Persian city, the defenders of which "mounted a more prolonged resistance than anywhere else" - "the city was said to have surrendered on terms and then rebelled and broke the agreement", and "Ibn Amir's men" only "took the city after fierce fighting" after which tens of thousands were massacred (p 184). The difference between the context here however and Jerusalem in 1099 is clear. In fact, Caeserea a city that had put up a long and fierce resistance, was not sacked by the Muslims (as you say) but many of the inhabitants for fear of rebellion were sent to the Hijaz where they worked as secretaries (or "scribes") and labourers (or "workers") - and according to Kennedy, "here we see the beginnings of Muslim appropriation of Greek culture, so characteristic of the early Islamic period" (p. 89).

With regards to the legend in Tabari (a history written more than two centuries after the conquests) of the blood canal, I'm not sure that historians consider it reliable. Our only source for the massacre at Nikiu is John of Nikiu himself, but this would seem a little suspicious as the chronicler himself was from Nikiu (and he was born about the time of the conquest). Bahnasa is similarly reported only by John but this is more likely as Bahnasa was a small obscure town outside which the Muslims met resistance. Accepting these, would mean two at most three and only one major city (Istakhr), during the expansions of the Rashidun, was sacked.

Kennedy also speaks about the ridda wars and their implication for the later conquests. But significantly, just like Donner before him, he understands the ridda wars (which were in effect the first stage of the major conquests) as a necessity to maintain peace in Arabia. "The ridda wars were effectively the first stage of the wider Islamic conquests...The dynamics of these first conquests were significant. The Islamic state could never survive as a stable Arab polity confined to Arabia and desert Syria. The Bedouin had traditionally lived off raiding neighbouring tribes and extracting payment in various forms from settled people. It was a fundamental principle of early Islam, however, that Muslims should not attack each other...If all the Arabs were now part of one big family, raiding each other was clearly out of the question. The inhabitants of the settled community were also fellow Muslims. A peaceful, Muslim Arabia [achieved by the Prophet Muhammad] would mean abandoning both of the traditional nomad ways of surviving. The alternatives were stark: either the Islamic elite were to lead the Bedouin against the world beyond Arabia and the desert margin, or the Islamic polity would simply disintegrate into its warring constituent parts and the normal rivalry and anarchy of desert life would reassert themselves once more. Once the ridda had been subdued...the leadership had no choice but to direct the frenetic military energies of the Bedouin against the Roman and Sasanian empires. " (56-7). In other words, in order to maintain peace in Arabia, war outside Arabia was necessary; hostility from the Byzantines of the north and Persian interference in the Yemen however had meant a state of hostility asserted itself even during the Prophet's lifetime; the wars of the Rashidun Caliphs, therefore, were not planned in advance (in fact Umar had told Amr in a letter to stay in Palestine and not venture into Egypt, unless he was already there), but

[penguinfan]

Thought so. Only one of those sacks comes from a reliable historian, Hugh Kennedy.

You should think again. Instead of dismissing these massacres because I did not google them - I did not care to waste my time, you should probably research them for yourself.

In fact, it speaks volumes that you are simply unaware of the sacking of Alexandria, for instance. Are you unaware that the city's churches and monasteries were burnt?

will make on reading Kennedy's work would be the conspicuous lack of sackings when it came to the major cities conquered e.g. Damascus

Try reading up on the battle of Maraj-al-Debaj.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maraj-al-Debaj

The Byzantine commander Thomas, commander in chief and governor of Damascus and son in Law of Emperor Heraclius, after hearing that Muslim troops had entered Damascus at the Eastern gate, wisely tricked the Muslim corps commanders at the other gates by suing for peace. The peace offer then was accepted by them. After the trick was unveiled the Muslim commanders advised Khalid ibn Walid that the peace agreement should be kept, because if the Romans in Syria heard that the Muslims had given a guarantee of safety and then slaughtered those whose safety had been guaranteed, no other city would ever surrender to the Muslims, and that would make the task of conquering Syria immeasurably more difficult. Khalid was not happy, but he agreed.[2]

The plan of Jonah was accepted by Khalid: they would launch a pursuit after three days, when the three days grace period was over. The Mobile Guard would dash out in pursuit and go at breakneck speed. On Jonah's suggestion it was decided that all would be dressed like local Arabs, so that any Roman units encountered on the way would mistake them for such and not intercept their movement.

Due to a heavy downpour, the Byzantine convoy had dispersed on the plateau, seeking shelter from the weather, while their goods lay all over the place.

But all the booty and a large number of captives, both male and female, fell to the Muslims.

So, the Muslims, upset that they were unable to pillage Damascus because the city sued for peace with one of the Muslim commanders, decided to attack a convoy of retreating Byzantine soldiers and civilians as soon as their three day 'grace' period ended. This was done, as the quotes say, so they (the Muslims) could get some booty and slaves that they were denied at Damascus from getting. Oh yeah, the early Muslims were such upstanding lads.

Alexandria, one of the major cities (which according to you was sacked) was sieged in 641 and there were some skirmished but "when the end came, it was through negotiation rather than military action"

That was the first time around, as I mentioned in my post. I recommend you to spend more time reading and less time writing long posts. The sack of Alexandria is a well known historical fact. All of the city's churches were burnt, their Greek population massacred and the children enslaved - the Copts were only spared the brunt of the attack/looting/pillaging/rampage because a Coptic official pleaded with Amr for leniency (he was regarded very favorably by Egyptian sources).

John of Nikiu was opposed to Islam what he called "the beasts' religion" yet he wrote of Amr the conquerer of Egypt

LoL

I know what John of Nikiu has said - I've read him. Though it's nice to see you feverishly googling quotes from him which contradict your claim that he was opposed to Islam - speaking very favorably about Amr (which I thought I mentioned in my previous post, but perhaps I did not. Nikiu thought highly of Amr, but he spoke out against the later Muslim rulers of Egypt for heavy taxes Christians would later have to pay).

And thanks for the quotes from Kennedy, again, I've actually taken the time read him and consider what he has written. You should try that, instead of just copy/pasting what I am already well aware of.

In fact, Caeserea a city that had put up a long and fierce resistance, was not sacked by the Muslims (as you say) but many of the inhabitants for fear of rebellion were sent to the Hijaz where they worked as secretaries (or "scribes")

Now, where are you pulling this claim that Caeserea was not sacked from? Kennedy does NOT say the inhabitants were enslaved (not sent) to the Hijaz for fear of rebellion, but because they did not surrender their city to the Muslims.

Please STOP inserting your own conclusions right before you quote a historian. It's completely dishonest and your other tactics of actually claiming a scholar said or did not say something have been exposed in the past - I refer you to your own thread on Jesus, where a member exposed you after you had claimed a certain historian had said something about Jesus' crucifixion that he never indeed said.

Zameel:

"The word used for spear thrust in John 19:34 is nyssein which as Raymond Brown explains in fact means a “scratch” not a forceful thrust or penetration;"



Brown:

"Piercing the crucified evidently provided assurance of their death: "As for those who die on the cross, the executioner does not forbid the burying of those who have been pierced [percussos]" (Quintilian, Declamationes maiores 6.9). The action by the soldier in John 19:34 has the illogic of ordinary life: Like the other soldiers he has seen that Jesus is dead, yet to make sure he probes the body for a telltale reaction by stabbing Jesus' side. Probably that is what is meant rather than the delivery of a coup de grace aimed to pierce the heart (pace Lagrange, Jean 499), even though the verb nyssein ("to prick, thrust in") can cover both prodding (as to awaken a sleeping man) and plunging deeply."



Brown does not explain that it means "a “scratch” not a forceful thrust or penetration". Brown acknowledges that nyssein covers a spectrum of meanings from prodding to plunging deeply - a spectrum represented in the lexical entry I quoted. 'Scratch' is no doubt included in this spectrum but he does not say that 'scratch' is what is meant in this instance. He thinks it probably means 'stab'. Further, Brown does not state this is a fact or that nyssein "in fact means". Brown said "probably".

So for starters we have 'probably' spun to "in fact means" and 'stab' equivocated to 'scratch'. If I had the patience, I would go through and explicate every instance of this kind of tactic in your blog post, but I won't because as I've said previously, it is too reminiscent of the way YECers and Jesus mythers operate. Cherry pick and spin. But have a nice day and don't think the less of me simply because I'm not impressed.

jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=479&page=2

Bahnasa is similarly reported only by John but this is more likely as Bahnasa was a small obscure town outside which the Muslims met resistance. Accepting these, would mean two at most three and only one major city (Istakhr), during the expansions of the Rashidun, was sacked.

All half dozen cities (and several more) were indeed sacked. You should probably do more research before pretending to be an internet professor.

[penguinfan]

Here you go, the sack of Alexandria:

Al-Baladhuri: The Conquest of Alexandria

His followers, however, spoke harshly to him and insisted on fighting. The Moslems fought fiercely against them and invested them for three months. At last, 'Amr reduced the city by the sword and plundered all that was in it, sparing its inhabitants of whom none was killed or taken captive. He reduced them to the position of dhimmis like the people of Alyunah. He communicated the news of the victory to 'Umar through Mu'awiyah ibn-Hudaij al-Kindi (later as-Sakuni) and sent with him the fifth.

That was when the Muslims *first* conquer the city of Alexandria. Now, for the second act:

They then advanced boldly and the battle raged with great ferocity until the polytheists were routed; and nothing could divert or stop them before they reached Alexandria. Here they fortified themselves and set mangonels. 'Amr made a heavy assault, set the ballistae, and destroyed the walls of the city. He pressed the fight so hard until he entered the city by assault, killed the fathers and carried away the children as captives. Some of its Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else; and Allah's enemy, Manuwil, was killed. 'Amr and the Moslems destroyed the wall of Alexandria in pursuance of a vow that 'Amr had made to that effect, in case he reduced the city....'Amr ibn-al-Asi conquered Alexandria, and some Moslems took up their abode in it as a cavalry guard.

www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-Conq2.html

And for the burning of the city's churches, written by an anonymous Christian (but unbiased, or biased favorably towards Amr) writer (from the same page):

And in the year 360 of Diocletian, in the month of December, three years after Amr had taken possession of Memphis, the Muslims captured the city of Alexandria, and destroyed its walls, and burnt many churches with fire. And they burnt the church of Saint Mark, which was built by the sea, where his body was laid; and this was the place to which the father and patriarch, Peter the Martyr, went before his martyrdom, and blessed Saint Mark, and committed to him his reasonable flock, as he had received it. So they burnt this place and the monasteries around it....

Now, what were you saying that this city was never sacked and violated by the early Muslims?

[penguinfan]

For Caesarea, 7,000 inhabitants were said to be put to the sword according to Theophanes:

In this year, Muawiyah took Palestinian Caesarea siege; he killed 7,000 inhabitants there.

Al-Baladhuri also says 4,000 of the city's inhabitants were enslaved and John of Nikiu also mentions that the city was attacked, saying 'horrors [were] committed in the city of Caesarea'.

The chronicle of Theophanes, p 41:

books.google.com/books?id=lK5wIPb4Vi4C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=theophanes+Caesarea+7,000+romans&source=bl&ots=Fh465HSEwj&sig=czifLpee2UUeefRRJwlD9S7WL2Q&hl=en&ei=Q9xfS6DbMY2-Nrem_eoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false