Fatihah wrote:
The Muslims fought in defense. And when the weapon of choice by the attacker is a sword, than it is very logical that one should use a sword in defense, and self-defense does not contradict one's intent for peace.
Islam had remarkable growth during its first 150 years. These came primarily as a result of military conquests.
Light Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1-11
Medium Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661/A.H. 11-40
Dark Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750/A.H. 40-129
Question for debate: were these conquests the result of purely defensive wars?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians The truth will make you free. Gospel of John
Response: And once again, we see you fail utterly to validate your claim, which only further supports mine. Then you make the false assertion that the Byzantine emire didn't start the crusades when your own sources say otherwise. This is complete desperation. As for tikrit, I've specifically told you what to type in to get info on the subject, so I did present my evidence. Your refusal or inability to do so is your fault, not mine. Maybe if you actually read your own articles and actually studied the topic, instead of doing copy and paste jobs or providing links on things which you don't know, then the dialogue would go a lot smoother. Debate is not just about give and take, it's about proof and evidence. This basic concept you clearly fail to grasp. Just because you provided a source does not mean you've proven the source. You have yet to prove that your source is true, thus you've proven nothing.
As far as Tikrit goes that just means you refuse to provide evidence yet once again. You made the claim it is your job to provide the proof not me. Telling someone what to put into a search engine is not even close to the same as showing evidence so that claim of yours is false. I have provided sources for my proof while you have done nothing of the sort for your claims. Yes as you have said debate is about proof and evidence, I have given evidence that proves my claims while you have provided nothing to back up yours. As far as sources go I have asked you repeatedly to name one that you consider a valid source to which you have replied with nothing but silence.
The facts about the first crusade. The Byzantine emperor asked the pope for aid against the muslims that were marauding his territories to which the pope responded with a call to the European powers to stage a crusade to the holy land. This all happened in 1096 while the muslims first beseiged Constantinople over four hundred years before. You trying to use the crusades or this supposed battle of Tikrit which you refuse to provide evidence for even happening as an excuse for muslims to attack Constantinople is beyond ridiculous.
Response: And once again, we see you fail utterly to validate your claim, which only further supports mine. Then you make the false assertion that the Byzantine emire didn't start the crusades when your own sources say otherwise. This is complete desperation. As for tikrit, I've specifically told you what to type in to get info on the subject, so I did present my evidence. Your refusal or inability to do so is your fault, not mine. Maybe if you actually read your own articles and actually studied the topic, instead of doing copy and paste jobs or providing links on things which you don't know, then the dialogue would go a lot smoother. Debate is not just about give and take, it's about proof and evidence. This basic concept you clearly fail to grasp. Just because you provided a source does not mean you've proven the source. You have yet to prove that your source is true, thus you've proven nothing.
As far as Tikrit goes that just means you refuse to provide evidence yet once again. You made the claim it is your job to provide the proof not me. Telling someone what to put into a search engine is not even close to the same as showing evidence so that claim of yours is false. I have provided sources for my proof while you have done nothing of the sort for your claims. Yes as you have said debate is about proof and evidence, I have given evidence that proves my claims while you have provided nothing to back up yours. As far as sources go I have asked you repeatedly to name one that you consider a valid source to which you have replied with nothing but silence.
The facts about the first crusade. The Byzantine emperor asked the pope for aid against the muslims that were marauding his territories to which the pope responded with a call to the European powers to stage a crusade to the holy land. This all happened in 1096 while the muslims first beseiged Constantinople over four hundred years before. You trying to use the crusades or this supposed battle of Tikrit which you refuse to provide evidence for even happening as an excuse for muslims to attack Constantinople is beyond ridiculous.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: The redundancy continues. You still have not provided any proof that your sources are correct. You still dodge the evidence within your own evidence that shows the battle of Tikrit which proves false your claim that the muslims attacked first. In short, you've proven nothing. All the while, your own evidence says that the Byzantine empire started the crusade, thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims fought in defense.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: The redundancy continues. You still have not provided any proof that your sources are correct. You still dodge the evidence within your own evidence that shows the battle of Tikrit which proves false your claim that the muslims attacked first. In short, you've proven nothing. All the while, your own evidence says that the Byzantine empire started the crusade, thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims fought in defense.
Show me where all these things are said. I give you carte blanche to choose whatever online historical resource you want instead you complain about my sources. You say my sources which you claim are false proves all of your claims but refuse to show this supposed evidence.
In light of your continued intransigence on this matter of showing evidence of proof of your claims are not forthcoming in the next post you will be reported.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: The redundancy continues. You still have not provided any proof that your sources are correct. You still dodge the evidence within your own evidence that shows the battle of Tikrit which proves false your claim that the muslims attacked first. In short, you've proven nothing. All the while, your own evidence says that the Byzantine empire started the crusade, thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims fought in defense.
Show me where all these things are said. I give you carte blanche to choose whatever online historical resource you want instead you complain about my sources. You say my sources which you claim are false proves all of your claims but refuse to show this supposed evidence.
In light of your continued intransigence on this matter of showing evidence of proof of your claims are not forthcoming in the next post you will be reported.
Response: And once again, we see you fail to provide evidence that your source is correct, thus failing to prove your point. And once again, your own evidence shows that the crusades were started by the Byzantine empire, thus your own evidence supports my claim. As for your cry to report, report what you like. If you think you can persistantly dodge the effort to show your sources are correct but insist on me showing mine, you are sadly mistaken. I've shown that the Byzantine empire started the crusades and the battle of tikrit began before your claim of the muslim seiges, thus my evidence has been presented. Yet when asked to show that your sources are true, you provide absolutely nothing. Thus your refusal to show your source to be correct will be reported in response as well.
Response: And once again, we see you fail to provide evidence that your source is correct, thus failing to prove your point. And once again, your own evidence shows that the crusades were started by the Byzantine empire, thus your own evidence supports my claim. As for your cry to report, report what you like. If you think you can persistantly dodge the effort to show your sources are correct but insist on me showing mine, you are sadly mistaken. I've shown that the Byzantine empire started the crusades and the battle of tikrit began before your claim of the muslim seiges, thus my evidence has been presented. Yet when asked to show that your sources are true, you provide absolutely nothing. Thus your refusal to show your source to be correct will be reported in response as well.
The Byzantine Empire did not start the Crusades, it was Catholic nations answering to the call of Pope Urban II, after he recieved word that the Turks were attacking the Byzantine Empire this is what he said;
The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.
"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.
"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!
Deus vult! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusader!
Response: And once again, we see you fail to provide evidence that your source is correct, thus failing to prove your point. And once again, your own evidence shows that the crusades were started by the Byzantine empire, thus your own evidence supports my claim. As for your cry to report, report what you like. If you think you can persistantly dodge the effort to show your sources are correct but insist on me showing mine, you are sadly mistaken. I've shown that the Byzantine empire started the crusades and the battle of tikrit began before your claim of the muslim seiges, thus my evidence has been presented. Yet when asked to show that your sources are true, you provide absolutely nothing. Thus your refusal to show your source to be correct will be reported in response as well.
The Byzantine Empire did not start the Crusades, it was Catholic nations answering to the call of Pope Urban II, after he recieved word that the Turks were attacking the Byzantine Empire this is what he said;
The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.
"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.
"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!
Deus vult! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusader!
Response: But when the actual crusades took place, it was Byzantine armies as well as other armies from other nations who started the crusades. Pope Urban II was answering the call of the Byzantine empire.
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: The redundancy continues. You still have not provided any proof that your sources are correct. You still dodge the evidence within your own evidence that shows the battle of Tikrit which proves false your claim that the muslims attacked first. In short, you've proven nothing. All the while, your own evidence says that the Byzantine empire started the crusade, thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims fought in defense.
Show me where all these things are said. I give you carte blanche to choose whatever online historical resource you want instead you complain about my sources. You say my sources which you claim are false proves all of your claims but refuse to show this supposed evidence.
In light of your continued intransigence on this matter of showing evidence of proof of your claims are not forthcoming in the next post you will be reported.
Response: And once again, we see you fail to provide evidence that your source is correct, thus failing to prove your point. And once again, your own evidence shows that the crusades were started by the Byzantine empire, thus your own evidence supports my claim. As for your cry to report, report what you like. If you think you can persistantly dodge the effort to show your sources are correct but insist on me showing mine, you are sadly mistaken. I've shown that the Byzantine empire started the crusades and the battle of tikrit began before your claim of the muslim seiges, thus my evidence has been presented. Yet when asked to show that your sources are true, you provide absolutely nothing. Thus your refusal to show your source to be correct will be reported in response as well.
In looking over all five pages of this thread to date, I see that Fatihah has not provided any evidence, other than his own assertions, to back up any of his claims, despite repeated challenges to do so. This is a clear violation of Rule #5.
I will note for Fatihah that any criticism he has of the sources or evidence that others provide, even if it is justified, does not in any way relieve him of his obligation to support his own claims with evidence. This has very clearly not been done by him.
I will also note that while books are wonderful sources for learning and evidence, this is an online forum and members need to provide evidence that is available for others to review online. Simply alluding to unnamed books is not satisfactory.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Response: And once again, you fail to provide any proof that your sources are correct. Then not only does your own sources refer to the battle of takrit confirming your false claim that the muslims attacked first, but your own sources also state the the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims faught in defense.
I have given you carte blanche to name a source you consider reputable for use, which you refuse to do. I have asked for you to provide information on this battle of Tikrit/Tikrik/Takrit, which you refuse to do. If my sources are not correct why are you using them to prove your point? I never claimed the muslims started the crusades. If my sources say what you claim then show it to me, for once provide something beyond just your words to back up your argument. And of course none of this talk about the crusades can get past the elephant in the room, the fact that the first crusade happened over four hundred years after the first muslim siege of Constantinople. Until you can get past that point nothing what you say matters much.
Response: The redundancy continues. You still have not provided any proof that your sources are correct. You still dodge the evidence within your own evidence that shows the battle of Tikrit which proves false your claim that the muslims attacked first. In short, you've proven nothing. All the while, your own evidence says that the Byzantine empire started the crusade, thus your own evidence supports the fact that the muslims fought in defense.
Show me where all these things are said. I give you carte blanche to choose whatever online historical resource you want instead you complain about my sources. You say my sources which you claim are false proves all of your claims but refuse to show this supposed evidence.
In light of your continued intransigence on this matter of showing evidence of proof of your claims are not forthcoming in the next post you will be reported.
Response: And once again, we see you fail to provide evidence that your source is correct, thus failing to prove your point. And once again, your own evidence shows that the crusades were started by the Byzantine empire, thus your own evidence supports my claim. As for your cry to report, report what you like. If you think you can persistantly dodge the effort to show your sources are correct but insist on me showing mine, you are sadly mistaken. I've shown that the Byzantine empire started the crusades and the battle of tikrit began before your claim of the muslim seiges, thus my evidence has been presented. Yet when asked to show that your sources are true, you provide absolutely nothing. Thus your refusal to show your source to be correct will be reported in response as well.
In looking over all five pages of this thread to date, I see that Fatihah has not provided any evidence, other than his own assertions, to back up any of his claims, despite repeated challenges to do so. This is a clear violation of Rule #5.
I will note for Fatihah that any criticism he has of the sources or evidence that others provide, even if it is justified, does not in any way relieve him of his obligation to support his own claims with evidence. This has very clearly not been done by him.
I will also note that while books are wonderful sources for learning and evidence, this is an online forum and members need to provide evidence that is available for others to review online. Simply alluding to unnamed books is not satisfactory.
Response: However, I never alluded to any book but to the poster's very own post and evidence in Post 23 which clearly states that the Byzantine Empire started the crusades and that the seiges which the poster refers to as the first muslim seige is in fact not the first, as the battle of takrit began before those dates. I even stated in post 34 how to obtain the information on the battle of Tikrit by giving the exact words to google if the poster could not see evidence within their own evidence. Even the conquest of Jerusalen mentioned in the poster's own link is before the dates presented which took place in 635 A.D. Thus the evidence has been clearly presented. One's refusal to acknowledge it or examine their own evidence does not mean that evidence was not presented.
