Answering Christianity Research Center

MAIN BOARD (You must register to post) => GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS => Topic started by: Introvert98 on July 19, 2016, 01:11:47 AM

Title: Was the Islamic conquest of scilly bloody? And the sacking of Rome
Post by: Introvert98 on July 19, 2016, 01:11:47 AM

Roman Christendom
Honour all men. Love the brethren. Fear God. Honour Caesar, the Emperor. (1 Pet 2:17)
Sunday, 16 September 2007
The Muslim Sack of Rome and St Peter's in 846 AD

Rome was sacked by Muslims in 846 AD during the great conquests of Islam after the time of Mohammed.

During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Muslim Arabs (then called Saracens in Europe) were rapaciously invading Christendom through Southern Italy which they succeeded in conquering by fire, murder, rapine and the sword. Sailing from newly acquired bases in North Africa which they had just stolen from the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire, the had conquered Sicily and were now bent upon seizing the rest of the peninsula.

They had earlier been rebuffed in France in 732 by King Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, but they had got as far as Tours in Nothern France. King Charles was the first to halt their seemingly inexorable advance. Thereafter they retired to Spain and parts of Southern France and settled. They retained their hold on what had once been Catholic Visigothic Spain for the next 800 years! They were not finally ejected from Christian Spain until 1491 by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.

Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), the relics of the holy martyrs were concealed in the walls of the city of Rome. When Rome was sacked, Paschal's careful precautions did not prevent the wholesale spoliation and robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor, indeed, of San Paolo fuori le Mura (St Paul's outside the Walls), because they both lay outside the walls of the city of Rome.

Later, a second wall was constructed on the other side of the Tiber from the main city area. It was constructed by order of Pope Leo IV and so this enclosure was called the Leonine City.

The Islamic conquest and domination of Sicily, as well as parts of southern Italy began in the 7th century after the foundation of Islam and the attempt by the Muslim leaders to conquer the world.

By Koranic tradition, Islam makes its attempts to re-conquer the world in the 7th or 8th decade of every century and does not stop until it is halted by force. When stopped it generally lies low until the 7th or 8th decade of the next century when it then makes another attempt at world domination.

How, then, can it call itself a religion of peace? It does so because it means by peace the eventual peace that will, it says, be the consequence of the conquest of the world for Islam. In the meantime, however, it is war.

Islam first attacked Sicily (then part of the Eastern Roman Empire) in 652 AD when Syrian Arabs under Mu’auia ibn-Hodeig invaded.

The Eastern Roman Imperial Exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, then took ship to oust the invaders but the invading Arabs managed to escape back to Syria with a huge treasure trove of pillaged riches.

Next, in 669, the invading Muslim Arabs came in 200 ships from Alexandria (once the greatest Christian city in the Middle East) and attacked Syracuse, once again escaping with a mountain of rich booty stripped from the churches, palaces and homes of the Christian people.

The invading Muslims, when they first attacked Alexandria, coming across the library of the University of Alexandria which was one of the greatest in the world, took no heed of the great wealth of learning contained therein, including priceless collections of ancient Greek, Roman and Hebrew texts, and burnt the whole library.

Thus it was that so many ancient Greek and Roman texts were lost to the world forever. And yet Western scholars continue to peddle the lie that Islam safely preserved the Greek and Roman texts. It is true that some were later preserved but a massive corpus was permanently destroyed by the burning of the Alexandrian library.

After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (completed by about 700), Muslim fleets repeatedly attacked the coast of Sicily in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, looting, sacking and pillaging at every turn.

The Christians of Roman Christendom were taken completely by surprise by these attacks since they had no contest with Islam at that time and had done nothing to merit such unwarranted and merciless attacks by the Muslim raiders.

An expeditionary force was launched in 740 with the aim of conquering Christendom for Islam. The Muslim princes Habib and his son, Abdurrahman, set out to conquer the whole Italian peninsula, having discovered the Christians unprepared for invasion, and they would probably have succeeded in doing so but for a revolt in Tunisia by the Berbers which they had to return and deal with.

A treaty was signed between the Eastern Empire and Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, Emir of Ifriqiya in 805 but did not prevent attacks from continuing elsewhere in Italy. Ibrahim's son, Abdallah I, sent an invasion force to conquer Sicily in 812 and he, despite some reverses, managed to conquer Lampedusa.

Thereafter the conquest of Sicily by Al-Aghlab Abu Ibrahim proceeded with rapidity.

He was succeeded by Abbas ibn-Fadhl, a savage warrior who ravaged lands still under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire capturing Castrogiovanni in 859. All the Christian survivors from that fortress were executed, and women and children were sold as slaves in Palermo. The Eastern Roman Emperor tried to aid the stricken Christians but was defeated by Abbas. Further defeats followed successively for the Eastern Romans.

Syracuse finally fell in 877 AD to Jafar ibn-Muhammad who then went on to attack Greece and Malta and the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Basil I, in 886, was followed by attacks on Calabria and a further defeat for the imperial army. Reggio di Calabria fell in 901 and Taromina, the last Byzantine stronghold in Sicily fell in 902.

The whole of Southern Italy was now in Muslim hands and Islam was poised to invade the rest of Christendom.

Tribunus at 19:43


Anonymous17 September 2007 at 14:19
I haven't read about the this in some time, but I believe it was at this time that the reliquary with St. Peter's remains was moved to the place where it was eventually found in 1944. There's a volume by Fr. Kirschenbaum on the excavations under St. Peter's during WWII with all the details.



Benfan18 September 2007 at 00:40
Hmmm you're too good. Would you not think of writing a book. You have it all, knowledge, language, timing. History doesn't usually grip me but this is great.
My son is bringing home pseudo history books from school. They are for children and tell history as a story. The history element is anti-Catholic and the stories contain awful levels of violence (children having ropes tied round necks and nearly strangled as they gasp for breath etc. my son is 8). My son attends a Catholic school, one of the best in the county. I speak to parents and they are just happy that the children are reading, they don't seem to worry about the content in the same way as they would tv or film. What I would give for exciting reads that are proper at the same time. There is a need out there and this ex-actor Terry Deary is filling the void with bile. He is making a fortune from lies and violence and parents think the children are learning real history in a fun and exciting way. So how would a History of Roman Christendom series grab you??


Tribunus18 September 2007 at 08:38
Thank you both! Yes, if I can et time I shall try and write a book or two. It's finding the time.


WhiteStoneNameSeeker18 September 2007 at 12:12
Thank you. I'm reading these with my children as part of their home ed. It's just right as bite size history for them.


Anonymous21 September 2007 at 08:52
its good to see somebody telling the truth in the realm of lies.


Tribunus21 September 2007 at 14:44
Thank you!


Salah ud din20 December 2013 at 21:05
Well i have never found anything on that so called "Koranic tradition". Rape,Murder & Pillage you said? If Muslims would have done that, They'd still be in Spain but instead they let the snakes grow right under their noses, Because they couldn't murder people. We all know conduct of Muslim Conquerer as compared to a Christian one once we take a look at Catholic Conquest of Jeruselem in Crusades and then Muslim Re-Conquest afterwards. Had Ottomon Empire wiped out all the Christians in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia etc World's Map would have been different right? But instead the christians were allowed to exist and prosper while Muslims were Wiped out from Their former Realms. Difference?


nomdeplume11 August 2015 at 22:45
Errr your prophet Mohammad raped, pillaged and killed. Where do you get off acting pious when the man you revere deemed it permissible to spread Islam. What the right hand possesses and all that. What was the name of that peaceful Jewish town that once saved Mo's life so he responded by bringing back his cult followers and murdering the men, keeping the leaders wife for his own and dividing up the rest of the women as war booty?


Tribunus25 December 2013 at 12:55
Thanks, Saladin.

You need to get out of your fantasy ghetto.

Everywhere that Muslim conquerors went they burned, pillaged, murdered, destroyed and enslaved.

Even now Muslims are re-introducing slavery into Africa.

Your view of history is devoid of reality and fact.

It is a matter of simple historical fact that Muslim corsairs roamed the Mediterranean as pirates, and made regular assaults on the coast of Europe to murder and enslave.

Sultan Mehmet II send a "demand" to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I demanding that he present himself outside his palace so that Mehmet's army could take him and cut off his head.

So - however much you may not like it - that is what Muslims did.

And Muslim terrorists are still doing it today.

But rape, murder and pillage do not pay. Eventually the marauding Muslims were thrown out of Spain, after 800 years of occupation.

When you say "we all know" you mean you "like to fantasise".

The reality is that the Muslim invasion of the Middle East, and the subsequent re-conquest, were both every bit as bloody massacres as were all Muslim invasions.

If, as you ridiculously assert, Christians had wiped out all the Muslims then there would have been none to revolt and re-conquer.

Christians, far from being allowed to "prosper" were at best second class citizens in their own country or else simply slaughtered or enslaved.

There were Muslims who were peaceful (as there are today), and there were Christians who were not (as also today), but to pretend that no Muslims were murderers, and all Christians were, is to dwell in a total fantasy of fanaticism.

Wake up and face the reality - you are living in fanatical fantasy land.

Perhaps you've never heard of Al Qaeda?


Rob Porter11 February 2014 at 02:59
Unfortunately, Saladin, like all Muslim supremacists is a liar and thus in keeping with the Muslim principle of 'taqiyya', namely deceit. Their's is mostly a useless history of murder, mahem and destruction - not preservation - of history. Hence their destruction of libraries in the old pre-Arab Persia, Alexandria and elsewhere. Today they are today obsessed with the Crusades, yet the fact is that it was Muslim aggression and barbarism for 460 years that led to the Crusades. Butchery of 3,000 Christians by the Seljuk Turks outside Jerusalem in 1077 is conveniently forgotten, but Richard the Lionheart's butchery of 2,700 Muslim outside Acre is 1191 - in retaliation for Muslim execution of Crusaders who surrendered to Saladin and Saladin's refusal to pay ransome, is treated as if the crime of all time. It is always the same old infantile, stupid, one-sided rubbish from Islam.


Ray Land27 June 2015 at 16:14
Just finished a tour of St. Peter's Basilica where our highly educated (Archeology) tour guide informed us about the Muslim pillagers in the 9th century. While I realize that Catholics pillaged also, the guide unconsciously highlighted two significant differences between the religions. The first occurred during our tour of the Papal gardens where she quoted Raphael "Intellect is divine" as the inspiration for his many religious works of art. The second at St. Peter's Basilica where she pointed out that Pope Francis just married a Muslim and a Catholic. This inclusiveness and encouragement in the pursuit of knowledge contrasted with Islam's exclusiveness and their punishment of those that pursue knowledge. What concerns me most is not that the Muslims will prevail (their exclusiveness and backwardness are too large a hurdle) but that a more technologically advanced nation will exterminate them all. Remember their enemies now include powerful agnostic states like China who will have little patience with their terroristic activities. Watch how they handle their minority Muslim population to get a view on their methods. Exploiting Genetic weaknesses is not beyond their capabilities.


TheSeljuk21 February 2016 at 10:41
Europe is weak. The invasion will be renewed. You are warned.


Tribunus22 February 2016 at 18:04
Come on down,'ll find you can't defeat God....or his holy Catholic religion. Our own clergy have been doing a fine job of trying to destroy it for years and even they couldn't do it! So what makes you think you can do any better? Let's sit down and have some Turkish coffee instead...


Load more...

View web version
About Me

Western culture is, above all else, Roman - and Christian Roman at that. This is so because it has been shaped and defined by Roman Catholicism, ruled by a Roman Emperor, guided by a Roman Pontiff and blessed by Roman rites in a Roman language. Even its enemies have been forced to recognise this. Our laws, our science, our culture, our art, our music, our literature, our scholarship, our primary institutions all derive from this Roman and Christian heritage. The oldest rite of worship in the Christian Church is the classical, Roman rite, deriving, as it does, from the ancient Jewish Temple worship, perfected under Roman rule. It is theologically unsurpassed. It is a timeless love song to the Creator of all things. In a curious "trahison des clercs", many today, even amongst the clergy, have forgotten this and so have become disconnected from their spiritual and cultural roots. It is perhaps time to recall and re-capture our traditions and to re-connect with them in a modern setting.
View my complete profile
Powered by Blogger.

Title: Re: Was the Islamic conquest of scilly bloody? And the sacking of Rome
Post by: Introvert98 on July 19, 2016, 01:12:49 AM
Also is this true
826 AD - Arabic Conquest

The Roman Empire fell to the Arabs in 826 BC, and along with the empire went the control of Sicily. Arab control of Sicily brought many new aspects of life to the people. Islam was an important new aspect of Sicilian society, although the Arabs were very considerate and allowed non-Muslims to practice their own religions, unlike the Romans. However, this did not stop Islam from manipulating cultural norms in Sicily. One important aspect of Arab life that was adopted by Sicilians, in addition to the spread of literature and the arts, was the mistreatment and subordination of women. Commonplace in Arab life, the Mafia later adopted this idea and kept women out of the business. Another important aspect of Arab life that was adopted by the Sicilians was the idea of internal justice. Instead of having a system of authorities to deal with crime and misconduct, they used personal and internal justice to avenge crimes and set records straight.(Servadio, p.5 )

Internal justice and the subordination of women became commonplace in Sicilian society and was later adopted by the Mafia. This can easily be seen in the Godfather II when Michael is dancing with his wife, Kate, at the party for their son in the beginning of the film. Here she pleads with Michael that he promised to make the "family business" legitimate, and he tells her he is trying. But this is a blatant lie to keep her away from the business and to maintain her innocence and inability to harm him in court.


Return to Top
Title: Re: Was the Islamic conquest of scilly bloody? And the sacking of Rome
Post by: AhmadFarooq on July 19, 2016, 02:37:01 AM
I am not going to try to refute every single point, frankly I didn't even read the whole thing. The parts I did read are all old allegations, why waste time on them.

Sure, there were Muslims who plundered and killed innocents, across a thousand years it is pretty much a statistical impossibility for that not to happen. And regardless of whether Islam is a great religion or not, it does not have the capacity to automatically change every single individual that claims to follow it.

Barbarity of Islamic Conquests?

Dr Daniel W. Brown’s Opinion

In his book 'A New Introduction to Islam' (under the subtitle 'The Invisible Conquests'), Dr. Daniel W. Brown says:
"Archaeological data tell a somewhat different tale. If we look for evidence of the burning, looting, or destruction described by Bishop Sophronius in 635, we find none. No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to religious and communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eight century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690, and the urban landscape of the Near East remained largely unaffected by the conquests (Pentz 1992). There was certainly change, but in the same directions and at the same pace as before the conquests (Morony 1984: 507-26). Two key measures offer telling evidence that the conquests brought little immediate disruption to the patterns of religious and social life in Syria and Iraq: production of wine (forbidden in Islamic Law) continued unchanged, and pigs (considered unclean by Muslims) continued to be raised and slaughtered in increasing numbers (Pentz 1992).

"Neither do we find evidence of dramatic change in the law or political institutions of conquered territories in the years immediately following the conquests. What did change was the ruling class. The new rulers spoke Arabic, represented a different ethnicity, and kept aloof from their conquered subjects. But for all the differences change came slowly even at the highest levels of political affairs. The new rulers continued to use Greek and Persian in administrative documents. They continued to mint Byzantine-style coins complete with the image of the emperor holding a cross, and Sassanian-style coins bearing Zoroastrian symbols and Sassanian dates (Morony 1985: 38-51). They were dependent on the old Persian and Greek bureaucrats and institutions. Major reform of the language of administration or of coinage did not take place until 695 -- sixty years into Arab rule. Earlier attempts at reform reportedly failed in the face of stiff popular resistance. The Arab rulers also continued the same patterns of taxation. The conquests replaced the top rung of the Byzantine and Sassanian ruling class with Arabs, but they did not immediately or violently alter the administrative, religious, economic, or cultural landscape of the Near East."

Opinion of T. J. Winter & John A. Williams

Answering the question ‘Was Islam spread by the sword?’ Cambridge based Islamic scholar and theologian T. J. Winter or now known as Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad and John A. Williams of College of William and Mary write:

“In general, no. The laws of Muslim warfare forbid any forced conversions, and regard them as invalid if they occur. The political sway of Muslim rulers has sometimes been achieves through warfare, but this must be distinguished clearly from the spiritual expansion of the Islamic religion. There has never been a large-scale Muslim ‘inquisition’ or a Muslim ‘crusade’ which set out to massacre unbelievers or convert them by force, except against Arab idolators when they continually attacked the Muslims. The Qur’an insists that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), and Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Shall you then force people to become believers? (10:99)”

Although military might was the predominant vehicle of Islamic power, the strength of Muslims at the zenith of Abbasid power in the ninth century was represented through a great cultural renaissance which took place in literary criticism, philosophy, poetry, and science. This marked the beginnings of “Muslim genius” as individuals such as Abu Bakr Al Razi (864–925) studied medicine and uncovered unique contraceptive methods; and Abu Nasr Al Farabi (870–950) incorporated logic and politics into philosophy. As Armstrong explains, such was the grandeur of this era that the Muslim scholars made more scientific discoveries during this time than in the whole previously recorded history put together.

As Francesco Gabrieli explains, the traditional theory of the conquests being characterized merely by Bedouin neophytes of Islam rushing from their desert birthplace to convert other nations with the sword has been completely dismissed by modern historiography. In fact, Arabs were quite content with their passive non-Muslim subjects known as dhimmis (those who were second-class citizens under Islamic law, yet protected under this status) and no real effort was made to convert them. This hands-off approach actually led to an increase in Islamic converts regularly throughout the Islamic Empire as individuals were pleased to make their own decision about religion, which is something that had not been afforded them under Byzantine rule.


As a final point, lets say we accept all the Muslim evils, every single one of them. What does it change? As long as one does not make fallacious arguments it still will not be able to disprove Islam.