34 comments on “1400 perhaps, 1400

  1. And human beings have been kill g each other for reasons not connected to Christianity or Islam since the dawn of time. So there is no basis for any “religion is the cause of all wars”bollocks that humanists and other assortments of characters will offer.

    Meanwhile Socialists, having only got going at the start of the 20th Century, clearly had a lot of catching up to do…. but Boy did they ever catch up.

  2. A good time to remember that North Africa was the bread basket of the Roman Empire due to kufaar agricultural practices, that there is a thick layer of fertile soil blown into the Mediterranean dating from the Arab invasions. Seventh century Syria, Anatolia and Iraq depended on well maintained irrigation systems to support populations at a level only once more attained in the twentieth century and fed on imported food. Also that Israel translates more books into Hebrew than Arabs have ever translated into Arabic. That the “Golden Age of Islam” a thousand years ago was due to their Arab overlords maintaining a few Greek and Jewish scholars who piqued their interest. Afghanistan was Buddhist. Ninety million Hindus and Buddhists were slaughtered by the Mughal.
    i am trying to think of some positives arising from their bursting out of the desert.

  3. They started it, they invaded Spain.

    The Crusade was almost 400 years after the invasion of Spain. It would have been so much worse if it handed been for Charles Martel (Peace be Upon Him). Europe really should celebrate the Battle of Tours as a public holiday.

  4. The Muslims have always been keen to slaughter anyone, and started on that path when mo murdered his way to power in Medina. Mainly started with Jews and Pagans, before going on to Christians, Zorasterians, Buddists, Hindus etc. I would guess the biggest death toll was of Hindus do far. They had already oveerrun Christian Palestine, Christian Egypt , Christian North Africa, Christian Syria, Zorastrian Persia before invading Spain.

  5. The proto-Muslims wouldn’t have managed to slaughter anyone except a few pagans if the Christians hadn’t been busy persecuting each other into the ground at the time.

  6. The biggest issue was the long war between the Byzantines and Persia which left both exhausted. The Byzantines had been paying the Arabs off during this war but ran out of money to keep them bought. However you are right the various infighting between different Christain sects didn’t help. Interestingly the Byzantine accounts written at the time suggest the Arabs had very little opposition to start with due to the exhaustion of the empire, and the supposed big battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs (can’t remember the name) seems to be have been vastly over stated if it happened at all, only referenced in much later sources.

  7. The Hegira was 622, which is really the beginning of Islam.

    I’d disagree that the Christian persecutions were critical to the rise of Islam. They helped, sure – monophysite/miaphysite Syria and Egypt were discontented with orthodox Constantinople, but Africa (modern Tunisia) wasn’t made much harder for the Muslims by being orthodox.

    The critical bit was that Heraclius had just utterly exhausted both the Roman and Persian empires in a 26 year war and neither had any real ability to resist a united Arab world when the Caliphate appeared.

  8. 680AD? Not quite. Consider this early Christian account:

    “Thomas The Presbyter, 19 AH / 640 CE.

    The 8th century BL Add. 14,643 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635-6 CE). … In relation to Islam and Muslims, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

    AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

    AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.

    It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin. According to Hoyland, “its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge”. This means that the time period between the death of Muhammad (June, 632 CE) and the earliest mention of him (4th February, 634 CE) is slightly over a year and half!”

    Mind you, that assumes that Mo is a name rather than a title.

  9. Manzikert was much later (11th century) and yes was a major disaster and lead the way to the first crusade, this was teh Turks before they moved into what we now call Turkey). But the first wave of attacks captured, Egypt, Palestine, Syria and parts of North Africa from the Byzantine empire in teh 7th century.

  10. Yes there is some scholarship that suggests that mo was a title (blessed one?) rather than a name so applied to several people, and it being turned into one person was proably later when the hadith and the koran were cobbled together

  11. Steve T,

    Hitler occupied the Rhineland, marched into Austria and invaded Czechoslovakia before Poland. Did you write to the BBC to complain when Basil Fawlty declared to the German guests, “you started it, you invaded Poland”?

  12. DocBud,

    My only point was that there had been a lot of fighting, conquests , sacks of cities etc before they got as far as Spain. To the Byzantines (Spain not being in the empire then) there had already been 50 years of fighting. The first Christian land conquered by the Muslims wasn’t Spain.

    So I’m not sure what you point is.

  13. My point is, I don’t think “They started it, they invaded Palestine” would have worked anymore than Basil Fawlty saying “you started it, you marched into the Rhineland.”

  14. okay, no problem.

    I’m not sure why it is framed as Christian v Muslim (with the implication equally to blame) when it’s never just been between those two, and I think the Hindus have probably suffered most, not having even the dubious protection of being people of the book.

  15. 1400 perhaps, 1400

    Or 1400 and 1200. I think Christians stopped killing Muslims for being Muslims a long time ago.

    ‘Christians and Muslims have been slaughtering each other’

    A declaration of moral equivalence. It means the Left thinks it’s okay for Muslims to kill Christians.

  16. “”‘Christians and Muslims have been slaughtering each other””

    A declaration of moral equivalence. It means the Left thinks it’s okay for Muslims to kill Christians””

    You’re channelling SE-A Ecks there, Gamecock. The fact written:

    ‘Christians and Muslims have been slaughtering each other’, is true.

    Then you say:

    “A declaration of moral equivalence. It means the Left thinks it’s okay for Muslims to kill Christians”

    wtf, how does it mean any of that?

    Overlord Ecks controls your thoughts. I’m only telling it as it is.

    Isn’t making up nonsense trivial situations out of thin air because you don’t like something you’ve imagined was said, an essential piece of being a snowflake?

  17. — “And human beings have been kill g each other for reasons not connected to Christianity or Islam since the dawn of time. So there is no basis for any “religion is the cause of all wars”bollocks that humanists and other assortments of characters will offer.”

    I’ve never heard anyone claim that religion is the cause of all wars. Bit of a strawman, no?

    That religion has been the cause of widespread murderous persecution and warfare for thousands of years is a given fact however; up to and including modern times. Absence of meaningful conviction in such superstition is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition.

  18. “You’re channelling SE-A Ecks there, Gamecock.”

    You, sir, are an idiot. Pay closer attention – they channel me. Get your damn hierarchy straight.

  19. wat dabney – “That religion has been the cause of widespread murderous persecution and warfare for thousands of years is a given fact however; up to and including modern times.”

    That is what is up for discussion. It is not a given fact. It is an opinion that is disputable. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition may have killed 3,000 odd people. Two and a half days of the Khmer Rouge’s regime.

    As for warfare, there is not a lot of evidence religion causes many wars. On the contrary, the Western Christian tradition has produced a unique “civil peace” with a remarkable limited amount of internal warfare and in general civilised rules.

    “Absence of meaningful conviction in such superstition is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition.”

    And yet mass murder has exploded since the West rejected Christianity. It may well be that Christianity kept violence to a bare minimum.

  20. Muslims insist that Islam is older the Christianity or Judaism. They do not claim Muhammed made it up.

    So perhaps the Guardian is giving into Muslim demands to respect their bullsh!t claims? The same way that they refer to him as the Prophet Muhammed. Whose prophet , dude?

  21. Mohammed claimed he was descended from Abraham via Ishmael, but none of his antecedents knew they were Muslims.

  22. There seems to be records of killing near forever.
    So dies that mean the education and particularly writing causes mass killing.
    Public education was quite useful in WW1 so soldiers could read and use the machine gun instructions.
    Illiterates could use spears.

  23. First they came for meiac, and I did not speak out…
    Mainly because I didn’t give a shit and they were welcome to him anyway.

  24. Christians aren’t killing Muslims? You may want to look at the ethnic divides around Assad’s little civil war a bit more closely…

  25. Stupid straw man, Watchman. The issue is killing because of their religion. Christians are not killing Muslims in Syria because of their religion.

    Please don’t vote til you have a better grasp of reality.

  26. Good grief. This is how wars start. You begin by discussing different viewpoints and it turns into personal insults. You could agree to differ, but that would take intelligence (see what I did there?).
    Off topic, the comments about Mo not being one person but a possible non-existing figurehead for an oppressive regime leads me to Goldstein in Orwell’s “1984”. Wonder if our George knew more than he was letting on?

  27. Dude, the war has been going on for 1400 years. What’s changed is the invasion of the West by Muslims. Their creed is to kill us all. There are people in the West who are okay with that. After all, Christians killed Muslims, dontcha know?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.