Saladin was a great military leader. But Khalid ibn Al Walid was better and he fought off the hordes of Evil Satanic Christians and remained undefeated.
all muslim and christians fought, died and now holy land belongs to jews! you all are losers, at the end of the day, without any sacrifice jews are the winner, you stupids! :D
Saladin was neither compassionate nor an exemplary military commander. King Richard beat him resoundingly at Acre and at every single battle the two engaged in, and Richard would easily have retaken Jerusalem if he had not turned around at the last moment to go back home to England to deal with his brother John who wanted to take the Crown in his absence.Saladin's personal letters show he was about to abandon Jerusalem and hand it to Richard in complete defeat, just like the other coastal cities
@rater1113 not to mention that Jerusalem being ripped from the Islamic world is the pot calling the kettle black, the Muslims having taken it by force in the first place
Jerusalem could not have been taken idiot, and Richard knew it. If he had taken Jerusalem, he would take the crown easily cuz he would be greatly honoured. And yes, Saladin was not as "pure" as some say but he did what was needed, it was his homeland that was attacked anyway and how would you feel if you knew that an idiot named Boduen I killed everyone (muslims, jews and even fellow christians) in Jerusalem. And Lionheart himself was brave, but far from perfect.
@rater1113 Maybe your missing the point here both men were at the hands of fate many times. In the end maybe both men realized that Jerusalem was not really worth the destruction either of themselves or their men.
The facts about Saladin have been widely distorted. Saladin was in fact a brutal warlord as many of his earlier campaigns show, and he wanted to butcher all the inhabitants of Jerusalem when he retook it, this is a well known fact and documented both in his letters and by his personal secretary. He only relented because the tiny minority of Christians left inside said that they would execute all Muslim prisoners and burn the whole city to the ground unless he let them leave. So he had no choice
@rater1113 The point your are forgetting is, when the christians surrendered to Saladin and laid their arms down. Saladin could have executed all of them like christians broke their promises before and killed all of the muslims and jews when they conquered a city. But instead Saladin provided them a safe passage to leave Jerusalem.
@rater1113 dear whatever u have written is based on the movie "the kingdom of heaven" and there is nothing true about this, nobody stood in his way, if he had wished to, he would have cut the throats of every christian in Jerusalem, but he was a great man, great great man, and u should also know that when Europe's street were full of mud, darkness and nothingness, Jerusalem, Cairo an other Muslim capitals were the model cities of the world, and the same era will return again.
@ZEESHU128 Wrong, his personal letters show he wanted to bring slaughter to the city. This is in his letters, and also in the letters of his secretary.
As for your comments regarding modernity (different topic btw) Jerusalem and all the coastal cities were actually in Christian hands for over 200 years at that point - and they flourished and were in fact richer than the Muslim-majority cities around them.
It was just geography. The Middle East in general was wealthier at the time than Europe
@rater1113 whatever his personal letters were, just answer one question, when he allowed the Christians to leave Jerusalem in peace, and captured Jerusalem, he could have easily slaughtered every christian on the way on their route to exit, but he didn't, he not only forgave them but also escorted them in proper security to the shores so that robbers from neighboring christian cities may not loot them, this shows his greatness.
@ZEESHU128 Certain Christians stayed behind to ensure that if he attempted to do this, they would destroy the buildings of Jerusalem. Hence Saladin had no choice but to let them go. He wanted to slaughter them. When he realized that he couldn't, he relented, but not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to.
And Muslims are the ones who took Jerusalem by force in the first place, and they were hardly tolerant towards Jews and Christians in the Middle East, see the Pact of Umar in Syria
@ZEESHU128 And also, the Middle East had a large number of Christians at this time and if you look at many inventions that came from the Middle East around this time period, you'll see a lot of them in fact came from Middle Eastern Christians and not Muslims - such as the Assyrians etc. And also from Atheists, Agnostics and many other religions. It really had nothing to do with religion itself - rather with having enough freedom to be able to innovate.
@rater1113 do u know how Christians cooked the meat of Muslim villagers during their earlier crusade, it is written by your authors in their books, and those letters of Sultan were a reaction to those events but when the time came, he stood like a Muslim, treated the slaves and the prisoners as a Muslim, he escorted them to safety, even released some prisoners on the request of some women who were leaving Jerusalem, his behavior was totally in accordance to the teachings of Islam,
@rater1113 as far as inventions are concerned, many of the books written by Muslim scientists of those era are still present in European libraries, phenomenal discoveries were made by Muslims, and on the basis on those inventions all these modern inventions were achieved by Europeans. jabir bin hayan, al khwarzmi, al beruni, al farabi, ibne yunus,, and many many more, all of these scientists were the role model for the whole world in that era, most of them were Arab.
@ZEESHU128 Well, you made 2 mistakes. First, you said Europe was 'poor' at this time period. That's incorrect. While Western Europe was indeed in decline after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it was in fact no poorer or less developed than most other places in the world at the time, in Asia or elsewhere. Eastern Europe meanwhile stayed extraordinarily wealthy, and Constantinople was one of the most populous and richest cities in the entire known world.
@rater1113 This is wrong. In the 1090s Constantinople alone was larger than every major English city, in fact it had a larger population than every European capital combined. Most nobles and upper-class were still illiterate, most fortresses and castles made of wood.
It was very much still the Dark Ages for Europe. It took Chinese inventions like the cast iron furnace to even kick off the 12th century renaissance which didn't even start picking up momentum in Europe until the 1150s.
@llJiggyFlyll Isn't that exactly what I said? That Eastern Europe was very rich, whereas Western Europe was in decline? I thought I made that pretty clear. I know Constantinople was one of the richest cities in the world at the time, and said so myself
@ZEESHU128 Secondly, as afore mentioned, the Christian Crusader cities in the Middle East were along the coast were in fact richer than most of the Muslim cities inland at the time, and Muslims often went there voluntarily because they could earn a better living.
Thirdly, the inventions that came from the Middle East at the time came from many groups of all sorts of different faiths, they had little to nothing to do with islam.
By that account the modern steam engine, telephone, computer and
@ZEESHU128 the discovery of DNA and the moonlanding are all 'Christian' inventions and discoveries. However, no one talks this way. Because religion is not what drives inventions or discoveries.
Be consistent and stop living in a fantasy world my friend
The current affairs in the world and the western influence on the world is the framework of satan... Never think Western domination is Christian domination... It is a materialist dominaton.. This is a society built on Greed and Blood of Innocents.. This was never tauught by Jesus.... Be stead fast O Muslims on the Path of Allah... For verily THE PARTY OF ALLAH ALWAYS WINS....
@HolyCow4343 You're not alone. For the past 800 years Saladin had been admired by Many Christians, Muslims, even Jews. & he's also despised by extremists of all sides.
When Saladin tried to unify the Arab kingdom, it was stated as he killed muslims along the way. But when Richard did the same, its by killing his enemies. When muslim army attacked another, its labelled as Barbaric. But when Crusaders did the same, it was Honour. Like Wow!
@hazry45 actually they didn't care if muslims fought each other, so they didn't really think anything of it such as "barbaric", quite frankly if you watched the documentary "the rise and fall of islamic spain" it seems muslims started fighting amongst themselves before the christians did.
oh, and christians do not consider it an honour to fight amongst themselves either, however it was a matter of belief because each of them somewhat thought of other sects/groups as heretics.
Saladin and Richard where fighting for the same god ,. If the two believe in only one god ,.. therefore the same god, not Jesus or Muhammad who are but sons of god !
BULLSHIT!!! Salahudin never wanted power,he wanted to drive crusaders off the shores of arabia. He said: if alah helps us and we set our contry free,i will share the cityis to people,leave a will,say goodbye to everyone and sail for europe to chase infidels until they are no more or until i die. He killed only muslims that were fighting on crusaders side. And it maters not what nation he was,he was a muslim. Sword of allah
@a7x107bFmV blood thirsty muslims?And did we came to europe and slaughter cristians?Did u forgot how the war started.Or u just dont want to know the truth? Muslim dont want to rule the world,or kill anyone just because he's not a muslim,quran agrees with tora and bible,and says that they are also holy books from god,and Allah dont like agresors,but that doesnt mean we wont defend ourselfs.Quran says: DONT opress,and DONT BE opressed. Many have tried to destroy islam,they all failed.
@a7x107bFmV blood thirsty muslims?And did we came to europe and slaughter cristians?Did u forgot how the war started.Or u just dont want to know the truth? Muslim dont want to rule the world,or kill anyone just because he's not a muslim,quran agrees with tora and bible,and says that they are also holy books from god,and Allah dont like agresors,but that doesnt mean we wont defend ourselfs.Quran says: DONT opress,and DONT BE opressed. Many have tried to destroy islam,they all failed.
@AlchemistsCookbook Muslims came to Europe, Christians came to the middle east. No group has anything to let the other hear. Any religion will be used by thoe in power, when they need a new war.
@kuttenkijker No you miss my point, it's not "that all religions are Shit", it's that all cultures, nations, societies have used religion to commit the most horrendous crimes of Genocide, murder, rape, oppression and plunder, Islam is no different to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion ,it's people not religion that's the problem,that is what history teaches us, to understand history you need to first of all understand the nature of the beast called "Homo Sapiens".
@Steveo2857 What do you think Muhammad did? He pretended to be a prophet of Hubal, oops, Allah to commit all sorts of despicable acts. He killed every Jewish man he could lay his filthy hands on. The women and children were divided amongst the muslims as ''spoils of war''. Muhammad and his gang of immoral bedouins were nothing more than a bunch of psychopaths.
@Steveo2857 Muhammad telling us that he received revelation as the ringing of a bell!!
Sahih Bukhari Book #1, #2: Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?"Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired.
@Steveo2857 Sahih Muslim Bk.024, #5279: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The bell is the musical instrument of the Satan.
Sunan Abudawud Bk. #34, Hadith #4218 : Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: Ibn az-Zubayr told that a woman client of theirs took az-Zubayr's daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab wearing bells on her legs. Umar cut them off and said that he had heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: There is a devil along with each bell.
ISLAM IS TH ONLY SOLUTION.... it was said that when the muslims conqured jerasalem one of the captives a crusader was sold for less then a pair of sandals...thats how worthless the crusaders were
why don't they say, "..and colonise territory which was once Christian but stolen from Islam.." This is so biased i can't take it. Don't people know that the Crusades were a delayed response to years of Islamic aggression against the West?
Richard was fighting an aggressive war while he was sleeping with the French King (Philip to be exact), slaughtering prisoners in thousands, all in the name of God ? That is not Christianity. Thank you for your lesson, I do have a pretty good understanding. Yes, humans have flaws. My point here is different. History books are full of accounts on Richard and I have read many. As I type, James Reston's book lies on my bedside. Maybe you should read a few ?
@blackarmour100 how the hell do you know that richard slept with philip of france? youre just an ignorant anti christian bastard. im not christian myself and know that the crusades were a crime, but the muslims were just as evil as the christians in this period of time.
@joonajax Perhaps reading a bit of history would enlighten you. If you say you know the crusades were a crime. What were they a crime against ? Christianity ? Certainly not Buddhism right ? What does that make Richard ? A bloody disgrace to Christianity. You fucking idiot.
@blackarmour100 being a faggot is not the same as a disgrace idiot. crime against? most wars are crime's in my opinion. especcially the once of a religious motive. i know my history, dont worry about it.
It's pretty depressing thinking about how all of these empires waged war over Jerusalem with millions dying to try and rightfully claim it, yet after all of that it's fallen into the hands of corrupt Zionist bureaucrats who are committing genocide in what is quite possibly the holiest place in the world. With the way things are unfolding right now it's bound to become a war zone again soon.
@GoldwolfThePyrate 1. Won't all lords when given a chance betray their master? It's called ambition? Killing rivals thats known as WAR thats what you do.
2. Both sides killed prisoners, better than razing entire cities.
@Kr4zyAc3 1. WAR is about killing and/or defeating ones ENEMIES. having ones RIVALS MURDERED in order to gain more power is called COWARDNESS
2. In case you are referring to the Franks capturing Jerusalem in the first crusade when stating "better then razing entire cities" Let me inform you that this as as much a MYTH alias LIE as Saladin's great MERCY.
NOT ALL where slaughtered, Not even ALL the Muslims and Jews. MANY where captured for ransom, or forced to leave the city.
@Kr4zyAc3 YES, The Franks MURDERED MANY fighting men and citizens alike. BUT they did NOT raze the entire city. This is an exaggeration, created most likely by Saladin in order to gain more Muslim support for his campaign against the crusaders.
@Kr4zyAc3 And just what historical EVIDENCE are you referring to? Eyewitness accounts? Non of these speak of a TOTAL slaughter. Muslim historians? They exaggerated the massacre in Saladin's favor.
@GoldwolfThePyrate ........Seriously WHAT HISTORICAL evidence? Read any book on crusade history you will find evidence of it. Ah and also another question then how do YOU know muslim historians exaggerated in Saladin's favor?
@Kr4zyAc3 First off, read ANY BOOK on the crusade?! Dude... If there's one thing you should know about historical book and especially websites, It's that most are not to be (entirely) trusted. I've done extensive research on the crusades through various books, documentaries and websites, and what I noticed early on is that the Crusades are shrouded in MYTH. Like the TOTAL slaughter of ALL within Jerusalem at the end of the fist Crusade.
@Kr4zyAc3 Secondly I know that a number of Muslim historians exaggerated the slaughter because eyewitness accounts don't match up with the story of a TOTAL SLAUGHTER, they tell of a massive slaughter alright, but many either escaped, where captured for ransom, or forced to leave. The mere fact that there are Muslim eyewitnesses of the slaughter says enough I believe.
Saladin did NOT take Jerusalem by force, and afterwards decided to spare are the Christians of the city as an act of mercy and a lesson of kindness to the Crusaders.
At first he wanted to slaughter ALL inside the city walls just as the Crusaders did in the first crusade (or so he thought) But after the Christians left in the city threatened to destroy the Muslim's most sacred Mosque within Jerusalem, it was THEN that Saladin agreed on THEIR terms.
@kuttenkijker so what do we learn from history, in the Crusades the "Christians" were a bunch of murdering, greedy bastards, the Muslims in the Second world war were a bunch of murdering Nazi scum, and the actions of the Jews now is akin to a form of Genocide,.......... not to mention Rwanda, Indonesia, Cambodia etc, etc,.... what do they all have in common, people, it's us, Jew ,Christisn, muslim, Hindo, etc, etc....... it's the way we are, greedy, selfish, murdering scumbags,.... go learn!!.
@Steveo2857 What should I learn? That all religions are shit? I know that already! I also read the Quran and Ahadeeth and see what those islamic nutters are doing around the world, their behaviour against the kaffur is sanctioned by the Quran. I don't trust muslims, they invent their own past and keep denying all the bloodshed that was commited in the name of Allah. They also deny the slavery, Muhammad himself was a slave trader, it's all in the Ahadeeth, but still they deny it.
@samullel LOL what a stupid thing to say. You might want to locate a local library kiddo you just learn something cause from what I can tell you're a complete moron. Why would computers need to be 'invented' there? They were invented once, why would they need to be invented again? You're logic is flawed already. Also if you're trying to suggest that Islamic countries have not contributed to the world of technology you are even a bigger idiot than previously imagined.
@FMafia206 no youre an bigger than i thought remember world trade center, the muslims will bomb your city to the ground, and guess what no one gives a fuck about canada"go tell your little fantasy tales to the people in iraq and afghanistan where canadian troops with allied troops have destroyed lives of millions of muslims. go tell to them that you want to live in peace with them. they will cut off your head,
@samullel LOL your own freaking government was responsible for letting the attacks happen, basic unbiased research will show you that. Even people from the former Bush administration do not deny it. Also no one asked the troops to go into those countries, they went themselves in the name of justice, and yet they caused more civilian deaths than 9/11 ever did. United States is the biggest advocate for terrorism whichever way you look at it. You don't know a thing about Islam.
@samullel You're simply another dumb ass bigot who believes anything he sees on the propaganda filled media. American media is a load of biased bullshit, but they still manage to delude simple minded children like you. I love how you dodged the previous points that I made and instead responded with this bullshit. Keep it coming kiddo, you look like an uneducated prick, but keep on trying maybe someday you'll adhere to something beyond your current simple minded hill billy ideals.
@samullel Without the inventions and innovations of the people of the Muslim world during the golden ages you would not have any of the modern day mathematics, computers, literature, philosophy, some sciences, and most of the technology you are probably using every day. Although granted you're pretty stupid so you probably don't put it to good use anyways. Did you know that Arabians invented trigonometry? Chemistry, the pendulum, the watch, soap, paper, silk, windmills, astronomy, navigation
@tristbjorn I never said it does,many of the Arabs today have strayed from the right path. I'm trying to point out that westerners always point out the ancient Greek philosophers and scientists are the proof of their greatness, and go on and on about how the modern world that we live in was was fundamentally structured by famous white people of the past, when in fact it is not the case.
@tristbjorn Both cultures have had a lot of influence on one another, but I think for people to overlook the MANY contributions and innovations that the Arabs brought to the table to be very narrow minded and ignorant.
@samullel and the list goes on. Modern day algebra came from a Muslim scholar named Al-Khawarizmi al-Jabr, which is why it is even called algebra (al-Jabr). If those things are not enough the very foundations of modern mathematics, computers, physics, numerous other sciences and fields are a direct result of an Arab Muslims revolutionary completion of the numeric system. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, and of course zero were first brought into the modern world by Muslim mathematicians in Arabia.
Muslims will not go back and you can not make them go back. so feeling pity on you. because you just think in the fantasy world. we here, try to take us out,,,, oh you cant you stupid dickhead :)
@blackarmour100 it is no sin to be homosexual.... it is only sin when acted upon it... who here hasnt acted on their sexuality??? cast the first stone
@blackarmour100 well like I said, whether he acted on it or not, says nothing about his beliefs... name an adult christian or muslim who doesnt act on their sexuality....
@suppaman12 You can start with reading a few books. You are free to do whatever you like but then don't associate yourself with a faith group. There is no such thing as a gay Christian or gay Muslim. You are either ignorant of the teachings of religion or you just want people to think you're an idiot. The point is you cannot be an adulterer and associate yourself with religion at the same time.
@blackarmour100 are you insane? Sometimes, homosexuality isnt a choice.. its who you are! Like I said, If you act upon it, that is a sin! But to say he was gay and shouldnt be associated with a religion is completely ignorant on your part... Was it ok for any of the other men to sleep with women? Who amongst them did not kill??? is that not a sin?WE ARE ALL SINNERS! dont come on here and say just because he was an active homosexual that erased his right to have a belief system...
@blackarmour100 name one christian that doesnt sin... name one christian that doesnt break a commandment in their lives. does that make them not a christian? let me tell you something... Christianity is the belief of Jesus, and declaring him your savior... what sins you do or dont do doesnt take your beliefs away...
@suppaman12 I thought your beliefs are what define what you do and don't do. How can you be Christian but not follow the teachings of Christianity ? I'm sorry but you don't make sense at all. "what sins you do or dont do doesnt take your beliefs away" ? It sure as hell makes you a hypocrite.
@blackarmour100 Apparently you don't understand anything about Christianity. The point is that we are human, and humans have flaws. If you sincerely repent then you can ask forgiveness. Also there is no proof that Richard was gay. Thats just conjecture like saying Hitler was secretly gay or Lincoln was secretly gay. You should actually read up on the things you are attempting to criticize.
@blackarmour100 and what then of the people who do it all the time? People associate with religions all the time and pick what they want from them. Maybe you should put down the book and take a look at the real world.
@blackarmour100 he wasn't, the evidences that supported this theory weren't solid, they were personal opinions... not to mention they've been corrected, actually
I'm NOT A MUSLIM but this is a classic case of saying a lie enough times makes it seem like a fact. I can't bet my last penny you have no idea where that story came from!
@blackarmour100 Many men and women of that time, whether Christian or Muslim, had younger lovers, generally of the same sex. There was no concept of "homosexuality". The Biblical interpretation of homosexuality has been destorted throughout the ages, but it does not say anywhere you can have homosexual relations outright.
this documentery is soooooooooooo off its not funny . you should read and base your idaers on a little more study. salahudeen was much Much more then this, this documentery seems a little one sided ,when richerd was sick salahudeen sent his own docters, and would send food for him. but i think we all like to portry history as we want it to be, not as it was.
@TheJahmon i think so too, but on richard's behalf. i guess they couldn't make a documentary that would cover both of their storys at the same span of time, so they just try to include as much as they can without the details.
if it could have been a 3 hour documentary, then perhaps we would both be satisfied.
@KatanaRapierCombo2 actually, you know nothing lol 1. im agnostic 2. i didn't say ONLY muhammed existed, yes he did exist and he was a compulsive liar, a rapist and a murderer (in short he was a piece of sh!t) 3. jesus MAY HAVE existed, but if he did, he was the son of a roman soldier who raped mary (there is written evidence of this but im afraid i cant remember the source) 3. who cares about the race of the people involved, i didn't say anything regarding their race... you follow a lie, idiot
@Brycey6989 ah, Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera? i don't really believe the theory, but it's plausible from a certain perspective, i just have a different perspective. just listening to the words of Jesus rings truth, and dispells the idea for me, the way i see it, as plausible as the theory is even with some secondary/tertiary evidence, i think it could also be just wishful thinking on your/their part, no?
and your using arab world,,instead of muslims world,,i think it's not by accident,,and salahuddin was kurdish,,okey but his power originated from his believe,,not his blood,,bye
bad documentary!!!,,sherko died becouse of overeating?!!,,salahuddin was in lust of power?!!!,,focus how salahuddin prays in this documentary,,wrong praying,,i'm 20 years old young,,kurdish muslim,,but you knw what,,i can penetrate your deception honey,,hhh keep working on deception,,no one falls but fools,,no one fool but those who are busy with entertainment
@Brycey6989 yeah true, but for the soldiers in their armies, Richard's especially, went on a journey and fought many great battles for God, that's something to be proud of
@gulpattan no, Richard was victorious against the odds in the battle of Jafa, there was neither victor nor vanquished, because they never met face to face, the only way how Saladin won the war was that he claimed the ultimate prize; Jerusalem, but that doesn't mean he ultimately defeated Richard in military combat, in reality it was the other way around, Richard won a considerable amount of victories in their power-struggle
Lost? never heard of that actually. Saladin vs Richard NEVER happened.The REAL clash of both would've taken place at Jerusalem but Richard didn't try to attack Jerusalem. The best can be stated as
@auzer1000 actually Richard was a king, also he was strategically smarter than Saladin as well
he was an exception among crusaders because he possessed both the factors of decisiveness and carefulness, which are seemingly conflicting attributes to a person, but Richard had both.
he was incredibly ferocious and clever at the same time, and that's rare
Are you saying this out of some sort of bias or what? Richard WASN'T strategically smarter than Saladin. Can I ask on what fact did you base this assumption of yours? Richard was an exception of the Crusades but not among the Muslim commanders. Richard HESITATED to attack Jerusalem.He went to attack and came and then again he went very close to Jerusalem and then remained indecisive and eventually came back. A great commander NEVER acts like that.No doubt of his bravery BTW
@auzer1000 no, he hesitated out of the realization that even if he and his crusaders conquered it, that would only for a few days, afterwards their enemies would just finish them off for good. that was a test for his temperance, not his bravery. if you looked at your facts, Saladin had considerable amounts of losses on his battles with Richard to the point that they viewed Richard as a violent maniac and some were actually afraid of him when this happened. I consider Richard to be a prodigy
@KatanaRapierCombo2 They considered Richard to be violent because of he murdered 3000 Muslim hostages in Acer. Saladin on the other hand was considered very chivalrous even by his own enemies.
@FolkeBernadotte2 but did you assume that Richard intended to massacre his prisoners of war? he kept with the intention of handing them over back to Saladin in exchange for the True Cross, but Saladin intended to delay that exchange as a tactical approach in hopes of starving the crusaders into submission. Richard had had enough and decided that he couldn't keep waiting perhaps endlessly for the exchange.
@KatanaRapierCombo2 & why do you assume that Richard has a good intention of keeping the prisoners? Or that Saladin was buying time? Is that what you understand from this documentary? Do you know of the ransom Richard had demanded? It took Saladin a long time to rise the fund. & even If Richard didn't want to keep the prisoners. Why did he kill the women & children? He could at least seize their properties & let them go. That would be less evil.
@FolkeBernadotte2 it was neither good nor bad intentioned of Richard to demand an exchange with the prisoners for the True Cross, the purpose of "prisoners of war" is trade, that's one of the rules of war in the western regions around Europe. Saladin was buying his time in hopes of weirying Richard and his crusaders out.
I am not sure if he killed women and children, and their properties wouldn't have been of any use to him, unless they were food or water, because they from a different culture
@KatanaRapierCombo2 The fragment of the true cross isn't the only thing Richard had demanded to release the prisoners. He also demanded a huge ransom. & Saladin wasn't buying time. He delivered 3 payments of the agreed amount & was busy raising fund to cover the rest of the ransom.
@FolkeBernadotte2 that's highly improbable (unlikely), but if you can offer me some reliable sources, i'll oblige, and then would i probably believe you
@KatanaRapierCombo2 What about the other documentary of the Crusades. It's also produced by the History channel & the show host is Terry Jones. They mentioned the amount of money Richard asked for in addition to the fragment of the true cross.
@FolkeBernadotte2 alright, i found it! the show was called THE HOLY CRUSADES correct? well, the facts presented in that show/documentary aren't 100% accurate. for one, they claimed that Richard couldn't speak English at all, but he actually spoke a little of English. the problem is, he may have been referring to the part where heSaladin was releasing Christian captives, not vice-versa. furthermore, some of the theatrics they showed, to me indicates that some of it were a mockery or ridicule.
@tremben what is IIRC? and also, that's unlikely, he only wanted the true cross in return, i just can't see how or why he would've wanted money as extra
where is this vid from
violetdenim 2 days ago
which website is it from ???
violetdenim 2 days ago
20:30 Clear mistake. The correct direction is first right.
akudigobo 3 days ago
Comment removed
akudigobo 3 days ago
Saladin was a great military leader. But Khalid ibn Al Walid was better and he fought off the hordes of Evil Satanic Christians and remained undefeated.
MughaleAzam87 1 week ago
someone please tell the name of track starting from 04:30 to 05:00......
hammadwr 1 week ago
Saladin is a Hero!
75khalidamir 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Yeah. But the Jews took Jerusalem from the Muslims. In your face bitches! Muhammad was a pedophile and so forth...
kdavidmcd 3 weeks ago
this video is more geared towards glorifing richard than telling the whole story, i see bias
MrGame21213 3 weeks ago
@MrGame21213 not at the beginning
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
all muslim and christians fought, died and now holy land belongs to jews! you all are losers, at the end of the day, without any sacrifice jews are the winner, you stupids! :D
Sukhoi34F 3 weeks ago
Saladin was neither compassionate nor an exemplary military commander. King Richard beat him resoundingly at Acre and at every single battle the two engaged in, and Richard would easily have retaken Jerusalem if he had not turned around at the last moment to go back home to England to deal with his brother John who wanted to take the Crown in his absence.Saladin's personal letters show he was about to abandon Jerusalem and hand it to Richard in complete defeat, just like the other coastal cities
rater1113 4 weeks ago
@rater1113 not to mention that Jerusalem being ripped from the Islamic world is the pot calling the kettle black, the Muslims having taken it by force in the first place
willlibuster 3 weeks ago
@rater1113 well, i think he technically said that if the city was to be reconquered he would prefer it to be richard to do so than any other crusader
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
@rater1113
Jerusalem could not have been taken idiot, and Richard knew it. If he had taken Jerusalem, he would take the crown easily cuz he would be greatly honoured. And yes, Saladin was not as "pure" as some say but he did what was needed, it was his homeland that was attacked anyway and how would you feel if you knew that an idiot named Boduen I killed everyone (muslims, jews and even fellow christians) in Jerusalem. And Lionheart himself was brave, but far from perfect.
kraken205 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cultofmao 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rater1113 Maybe your missing the point here both men were at the hands of fate many times. In the end maybe both men realized that Jerusalem was not really worth the destruction either of themselves or their men.
cultofmao 1 week ago
Comment removed
rater1113 4 weeks ago 4
The facts about Saladin have been widely distorted. Saladin was in fact a brutal warlord as many of his earlier campaigns show, and he wanted to butcher all the inhabitants of Jerusalem when he retook it, this is a well known fact and documented both in his letters and by his personal secretary. He only relented because the tiny minority of Christians left inside said that they would execute all Muslim prisoners and burn the whole city to the ground unless he let them leave. So he had no choice
rater1113 4 weeks ago
@rater1113 you are confused watch the movie and stop trying to write paragraphs and make people as confused as you are
MrGame21213 3 weeks ago
@MrGame21213 what movie? and why a movie? movies are the director's presentations or representations, they pale in comparison to documentaries
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
@rater1113 The point your are forgetting is, when the christians surrendered to Saladin and laid their arms down. Saladin could have executed all of them like christians broke their promises before and killed all of the muslims and jews when they conquered a city. But instead Saladin provided them a safe passage to leave Jerusalem.
FindingInfinity 3 weeks ago
@rater1113 dear whatever u have written is based on the movie "the kingdom of heaven" and there is nothing true about this, nobody stood in his way, if he had wished to, he would have cut the throats of every christian in Jerusalem, but he was a great man, great great man, and u should also know that when Europe's street were full of mud, darkness and nothingness, Jerusalem, Cairo an other Muslim capitals were the model cities of the world, and the same era will return again.
ZEESHU128 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 Wrong, his personal letters show he wanted to bring slaughter to the city. This is in his letters, and also in the letters of his secretary.
As for your comments regarding modernity (different topic btw) Jerusalem and all the coastal cities were actually in Christian hands for over 200 years at that point - and they flourished and were in fact richer than the Muslim-majority cities around them.
It was just geography. The Middle East in general was wealthier at the time than Europe
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@rater1113 whatever his personal letters were, just answer one question, when he allowed the Christians to leave Jerusalem in peace, and captured Jerusalem, he could have easily slaughtered every christian on the way on their route to exit, but he didn't, he not only forgave them but also escorted them in proper security to the shores so that robbers from neighboring christian cities may not loot them, this shows his greatness.
ZEESHU128 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 Certain Christians stayed behind to ensure that if he attempted to do this, they would destroy the buildings of Jerusalem. Hence Saladin had no choice but to let them go. He wanted to slaughter them. When he realized that he couldn't, he relented, but not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to.
And Muslims are the ones who took Jerusalem by force in the first place, and they were hardly tolerant towards Jews and Christians in the Middle East, see the Pact of Umar in Syria
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 And also, the Middle East had a large number of Christians at this time and if you look at many inventions that came from the Middle East around this time period, you'll see a lot of them in fact came from Middle Eastern Christians and not Muslims - such as the Assyrians etc. And also from Atheists, Agnostics and many other religions. It really had nothing to do with religion itself - rather with having enough freedom to be able to innovate.
I'm an Ex-Muslim myself btw, now Agnostic
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@rater1113 do u know how Christians cooked the meat of Muslim villagers during their earlier crusade, it is written by your authors in their books, and those letters of Sultan were a reaction to those events but when the time came, he stood like a Muslim, treated the slaves and the prisoners as a Muslim, he escorted them to safety, even released some prisoners on the request of some women who were leaving Jerusalem, his behavior was totally in accordance to the teachings of Islam,
ZEESHU128 2 weeks ago
@rater1113 as far as inventions are concerned, many of the books written by Muslim scientists of those era are still present in European libraries, phenomenal discoveries were made by Muslims, and on the basis on those inventions all these modern inventions were achieved by Europeans. jabir bin hayan, al khwarzmi, al beruni, al farabi, ibne yunus,, and many many more, all of these scientists were the role model for the whole world in that era, most of them were Arab.
ZEESHU128 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 Well, you made 2 mistakes. First, you said Europe was 'poor' at this time period. That's incorrect. While Western Europe was indeed in decline after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it was in fact no poorer or less developed than most other places in the world at the time, in Asia or elsewhere. Eastern Europe meanwhile stayed extraordinarily wealthy, and Constantinople was one of the most populous and richest cities in the entire known world.
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@rater1113 This is wrong. In the 1090s Constantinople alone was larger than every major English city, in fact it had a larger population than every European capital combined. Most nobles and upper-class were still illiterate, most fortresses and castles made of wood.
It was very much still the Dark Ages for Europe. It took Chinese inventions like the cast iron furnace to even kick off the 12th century renaissance which didn't even start picking up momentum in Europe until the 1150s.
llJiggyFlyll 2 weeks ago
@llJiggyFlyll Isn't that exactly what I said? That Eastern Europe was very rich, whereas Western Europe was in decline? I thought I made that pretty clear. I know Constantinople was one of the richest cities in the world at the time, and said so myself
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@rater1113 You know tards can't read.
UchihaGamer111 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 Secondly, as afore mentioned, the Christian Crusader cities in the Middle East were along the coast were in fact richer than most of the Muslim cities inland at the time, and Muslims often went there voluntarily because they could earn a better living.
Thirdly, the inventions that came from the Middle East at the time came from many groups of all sorts of different faiths, they had little to nothing to do with islam.
By that account the modern steam engine, telephone, computer and
rater1113 2 weeks ago
@ZEESHU128 the discovery of DNA and the moonlanding are all 'Christian' inventions and discoveries. However, no one talks this way. Because religion is not what drives inventions or discoveries.
Be consistent and stop living in a fantasy world my friend
rater1113 2 weeks ago
gotta do aproject bout this and how saladinj was a boss
furiouschad8 1 month ago
Why no mention of the conflict between Saladin NurAdin and the fatamids
metalspoon60 1 month ago
Saladin The Great Warrior
MDLBFDDIVISION 1 month ago
This seems more Richards story than Saladins! Not much is said about Saladin durin the crusade.
tellul8r 1 month ago
it's nice to know how saladin fight for his religion...
MrChongkero21 1 month ago
@SmokeTheHerb true true!
theyassinforever 1 month ago
using gods name as a means for war is plain stupid from any religion who uses their god as a means to kill people
MrPapiito 1 month ago
Comment removed
Abbasi123456789 1 month ago
Comment removed
Abbasi123456789 1 month ago
The current affairs in the world and the western influence on the world is the framework of satan... Never think Western domination is Christian domination... It is a materialist dominaton.. This is a society built on Greed and Blood of Innocents.. This was never tauught by Jesus.... Be stead fast O Muslims on the Path of Allah... For verily THE PARTY OF ALLAH ALWAYS WINS....
AllahIsTheSustainer 1 month ago
Arabamic religions all are evil
Muralidharan001 1 month ago
@Muralidharan001 arabamic? lol. uhm interesting terminology.
EnvelTheTrader 1 month ago
Who knows whether Saladin did the massacre or not,good or bad.maybe the history of this part we know is not true.
Nubild 1 month ago
Comment removed
HolyCow4343 2 months ago
i'm a catholic and i admire Saladin!
HolyCow4343 2 months ago
@HolyCow4343 You're not alone. For the past 800 years Saladin had been admired by Many Christians, Muslims, even Jews. & he's also despised by extremists of all sides.
FolkeBernadotte2 1 month ago 6
When Saladin tried to unify the Arab kingdom, it was stated as he killed muslims along the way. But when Richard did the same, its by killing his enemies. When muslim army attacked another, its labelled as Barbaric. But when Crusaders did the same, it was Honour. Like Wow!
hazry45 2 months ago
@hazry45 actually they didn't care if muslims fought each other, so they didn't really think anything of it such as "barbaric", quite frankly if you watched the documentary "the rise and fall of islamic spain" it seems muslims started fighting amongst themselves before the christians did.
oh, and christians do not consider it an honour to fight amongst themselves either, however it was a matter of belief because each of them somewhat thought of other sects/groups as heretics.
KatanaRapierCombo2 2 months ago
Saladin and Richard where fighting for the same god ,. If the two believe in only one god ,.. therefore the same god, not Jesus or Muhammad who are but sons of god !
mcgeogheganj 2 months ago
BULLSHIT!!! Salahudin never wanted power,he wanted to drive crusaders off the shores of arabia. He said: if alah helps us and we set our contry free,i will share the cityis to people,leave a will,say goodbye to everyone and sail for europe to chase infidels until they are no more or until i die. He killed only muslims that were fighting on crusaders side. And it maters not what nation he was,he was a muslim. Sword of allah
AlchemistsCookbook 2 months ago
@AlchemistsCookbook Keep being naive.
Kr4zyAc3 2 months ago
@AlchemistsCookbook That's what makes you different from them. Blood thirsty Muslims.
a7x107bFmV 2 months ago
@a7x107bFmV blood thirsty muslims?And did we came to europe and slaughter cristians?Did u forgot how the war started.Or u just dont want to know the truth? Muslim dont want to rule the world,or kill anyone just because he's not a muslim,quran agrees with tora and bible,and says that they are also holy books from god,and Allah dont like agresors,but that doesnt mean we wont defend ourselfs.Quran says: DONT opress,and DONT BE opressed. Many have tried to destroy islam,they all failed.
AlchemistsCookbook 1 month ago
@a7x107bFmV blood thirsty muslims?And did we came to europe and slaughter cristians?Did u forgot how the war started.Or u just dont want to know the truth? Muslim dont want to rule the world,or kill anyone just because he's not a muslim,quran agrees with tora and bible,and says that they are also holy books from god,and Allah dont like agresors,but that doesnt mean we wont defend ourselfs.Quran says: DONT opress,and DONT BE opressed. Many have tried to destroy islam,they all failed.
AlchemistsCookbook 1 month ago
@AlchemistsCookbook Muslims came to Europe, Christians came to the middle east. No group has anything to let the other hear. Any religion will be used by thoe in power, when they need a new war.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
@kuttenkijker No you miss my point, it's not "that all religions are Shit", it's that all cultures, nations, societies have used religion to commit the most horrendous crimes of Genocide, murder, rape, oppression and plunder, Islam is no different to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion ,it's people not religion that's the problem,that is what history teaches us, to understand history you need to first of all understand the nature of the beast called "Homo Sapiens".
Steveo2857 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Steveo2857 What do you think Muhammad did? He pretended to be a prophet of Hubal, oops, Allah to commit all sorts of despicable acts. He killed every Jewish man he could lay his filthy hands on. The women and children were divided amongst the muslims as ''spoils of war''. Muhammad and his gang of immoral bedouins were nothing more than a bunch of psychopaths.
kuttenkijker 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Steveo2857 Muhammad telling us that he received revelation as the ringing of a bell!!
Sahih Bukhari Book #1, #2: Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?"Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired.
kuttenkijker 2 months ago
@Steveo2857 Sahih Muslim Bk.024, #5279: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The bell is the musical instrument of the Satan.
Sunan Abudawud Bk. #34, Hadith #4218 : Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: Ibn az-Zubayr told that a woman client of theirs took az-Zubayr's daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab wearing bells on her legs. Umar cut them off and said that he had heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: There is a devil along with each bell.
kuttenkijker 2 months ago
ISLAM IS TH ONLY SOLUTION.... it was said that when the muslims conqured jerasalem one of the captives a crusader was sold for less then a pair of sandals...thats how worthless the crusaders were
truthhurts1990 2 months ago
why don't they say, "..and colonise territory which was once Christian but stolen from Islam.." This is so biased i can't take it. Don't people know that the Crusades were a delayed response to years of Islamic aggression against the West?
44warjunkie 2 months ago
Richard was fighting an aggressive war while he was sleeping with the French King (Philip to be exact), slaughtering prisoners in thousands, all in the name of God ? That is not Christianity. Thank you for your lesson, I do have a pretty good understanding. Yes, humans have flaws. My point here is different. History books are full of accounts on Richard and I have read many. As I type, James Reston's book lies on my bedside. Maybe you should read a few ?
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 how the hell do you know that richard slept with philip of france? youre just an ignorant anti christian bastard. im not christian myself and know that the crusades were a crime, but the muslims were just as evil as the christians in this period of time.
joonajax 2 months ago
@joonajax Perhaps reading a bit of history would enlighten you. If you say you know the crusades were a crime. What were they a crime against ? Christianity ? Certainly not Buddhism right ? What does that make Richard ? A bloody disgrace to Christianity. You fucking idiot.
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 being a faggot is not the same as a disgrace idiot. crime against? most wars are crime's in my opinion. especcially the once of a religious motive. i know my history, dont worry about it.
joonajax 2 months ago
@joonajax Sure you do. You don't know you right from wrong. Wanker.
blackarmour100 2 months ago
I like how there are no archers or crossbowmen on the walls.
AvailabilityForce 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's pretty depressing thinking about how all of these empires waged war over Jerusalem with millions dying to try and rightfully claim it, yet after all of that it's fallen into the hands of corrupt Zionist bureaucrats who are committing genocide in what is quite possibly the holiest place in the world. With the way things are unfolding right now it's bound to become a war zone again soon.
FMafia206 2 months ago
To all of you you believe that Saladin was some sort of rolmodel for kindness and mercy, think again!
Saladin was ruthless! And I mean more so then your average Muslim war lord of the time.
He was a traitor to his master, and had all his muslim rivals murdered to gain more power.
And let us not forget that after the Battle of Hattin, he had all the Templars and Hospitallers murdered in a shockingly Cruel manner.
GoldwolfThePyrate 2 months ago
@GoldwolfThePyrate 1. Won't all lords when given a chance betray their master? It's called ambition? Killing rivals thats known as WAR thats what you do.
2. Both sides killed prisoners, better than razing entire cities.
Kr4zyAc3 2 months ago
@Kr4zyAc3 1. WAR is about killing and/or defeating ones ENEMIES. having ones RIVALS MURDERED in order to gain more power is called COWARDNESS
2. In case you are referring to the Franks capturing Jerusalem in the first crusade when stating "better then razing entire cities" Let me inform you that this as as much a MYTH alias LIE as Saladin's great MERCY.
NOT ALL where slaughtered, Not even ALL the Muslims and Jews. MANY where captured for ransom, or forced to leave the city.
GoldwolfThePyrate 2 months ago
@Kr4zyAc3 YES, The Franks MURDERED MANY fighting men and citizens alike. BUT they did NOT raze the entire city. This is an exaggeration, created most likely by Saladin in order to gain more Muslim support for his campaign against the crusaders.
GoldwolfThePyrate 2 months ago
@GoldwolfThePyrate Ah so all those historical evidence is all pure bullshit?
Kr4zyAc3 2 months ago
@Kr4zyAc3 And just what historical EVIDENCE are you referring to? Eyewitness accounts? Non of these speak of a TOTAL slaughter. Muslim historians? They exaggerated the massacre in Saladin's favor.
GoldwolfThePyrate 2 months ago
@GoldwolfThePyrate ........Seriously WHAT HISTORICAL evidence? Read any book on crusade history you will find evidence of it. Ah and also another question then how do YOU know muslim historians exaggerated in Saladin's favor?
Kr4zyAc3 1 month ago
@Kr4zyAc3 First off, read ANY BOOK on the crusade?! Dude... If there's one thing you should know about historical book and especially websites, It's that most are not to be (entirely) trusted. I've done extensive research on the crusades through various books, documentaries and websites, and what I noticed early on is that the Crusades are shrouded in MYTH. Like the TOTAL slaughter of ALL within Jerusalem at the end of the fist Crusade.
GoldwolfThePyrate 1 month ago
@Kr4zyAc3 Secondly I know that a number of Muslim historians exaggerated the slaughter because eyewitness accounts don't match up with the story of a TOTAL SLAUGHTER, they tell of a massive slaughter alright, but many either escaped, where captured for ransom, or forced to leave. The mere fact that there are Muslim eyewitnesses of the slaughter says enough I believe.
GoldwolfThePyrate 1 month ago
0:24:49 - 0:26:46 is a LIE!!!
Saladin did NOT take Jerusalem by force, and afterwards decided to spare are the Christians of the city as an act of mercy and a lesson of kindness to the Crusaders.
At first he wanted to slaughter ALL inside the city walls just as the Crusaders did in the first crusade (or so he thought) But after the Christians left in the city threatened to destroy the Muslim's most sacred Mosque within Jerusalem, it was THEN that Saladin agreed on THEIR terms.
GoldwolfThePyrate 2 months ago
@kuttenkijker so what do we learn from history, in the Crusades the "Christians" were a bunch of murdering, greedy bastards, the Muslims in the Second world war were a bunch of murdering Nazi scum, and the actions of the Jews now is akin to a form of Genocide,.......... not to mention Rwanda, Indonesia, Cambodia etc, etc,.... what do they all have in common, people, it's us, Jew ,Christisn, muslim, Hindo, etc, etc....... it's the way we are, greedy, selfish, murdering scumbags,.... go learn!!.
Steveo2857 3 months ago
@Steveo2857 What should I learn? That all religions are shit? I know that already! I also read the Quran and Ahadeeth and see what those islamic nutters are doing around the world, their behaviour against the kaffur is sanctioned by the Quran. I don't trust muslims, they invent their own past and keep denying all the bloodshed that was commited in the name of Allah. They also deny the slavery, Muhammad himself was a slave trader, it's all in the Ahadeeth, but still they deny it.
kuttenkijker 2 months ago
Wasn't Richard a homosexual i.e gayboy/bumlover/faggot ? What Christianity was he following ?
blackarmour100 3 months ago 14
@blackarmour100 aren`t you a muslim who speaks english? go back to your own barbaric culture where computer`s haven`t been invented yet
samullel 3 months ago
@samullel Aren't you a smelly filthy Sodomite who loves shit as do many in your civilization (was it) ?
blackarmour100 3 months ago
@samullel LOL what a stupid thing to say. You might want to locate a local library kiddo you just learn something cause from what I can tell you're a complete moron. Why would computers need to be 'invented' there? They were invented once, why would they need to be invented again? You're logic is flawed already. Also if you're trying to suggest that Islamic countries have not contributed to the world of technology you are even a bigger idiot than previously imagined.
FMafia206 2 months ago
@FMafia206 no youre an bigger than i thought remember world trade center, the muslims will bomb your city to the ground, and guess what no one gives a fuck about canada"go tell your little fantasy tales to the people in iraq and afghanistan where canadian troops with allied troops have destroyed lives of millions of muslims. go tell to them that you want to live in peace with them. they will cut off your head,
samullel 2 months ago
@samullel LOL your own freaking government was responsible for letting the attacks happen, basic unbiased research will show you that. Even people from the former Bush administration do not deny it. Also no one asked the troops to go into those countries, they went themselves in the name of justice, and yet they caused more civilian deaths than 9/11 ever did. United States is the biggest advocate for terrorism whichever way you look at it. You don't know a thing about Islam.
FMafia206 2 months ago
@samullel You're simply another dumb ass bigot who believes anything he sees on the propaganda filled media. American media is a load of biased bullshit, but they still manage to delude simple minded children like you. I love how you dodged the previous points that I made and instead responded with this bullshit. Keep it coming kiddo, you look like an uneducated prick, but keep on trying maybe someday you'll adhere to something beyond your current simple minded hill billy ideals.
FMafia206 2 months ago
@samullel Without the inventions and innovations of the people of the Muslim world during the golden ages you would not have any of the modern day mathematics, computers, literature, philosophy, some sciences, and most of the technology you are probably using every day. Although granted you're pretty stupid so you probably don't put it to good use anyways. Did you know that Arabians invented trigonometry? Chemistry, the pendulum, the watch, soap, paper, silk, windmills, astronomy, navigation
FMafia206 2 months ago
@FMafia206 and what is your point? what ever was done by anyone does nothing to glorify those who are arabs today.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
@tristbjorn I never said it does,many of the Arabs today have strayed from the right path. I'm trying to point out that westerners always point out the ancient Greek philosophers and scientists are the proof of their greatness, and go on and on about how the modern world that we live in was was fundamentally structured by famous white people of the past, when in fact it is not the case.
FMafia206 1 month ago
@tristbjorn Both cultures have had a lot of influence on one another, but I think for people to overlook the MANY contributions and innovations that the Arabs brought to the table to be very narrow minded and ignorant.
FMafia206 1 month ago
@samullel and the list goes on. Modern day algebra came from a Muslim scholar named Al-Khawarizmi al-Jabr, which is why it is even called algebra (al-Jabr). If those things are not enough the very foundations of modern mathematics, computers, physics, numerous other sciences and fields are a direct result of an Arab Muslims revolutionary completion of the numeric system. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, and of course zero were first brought into the modern world by Muslim mathematicians in Arabia.
FMafia206 2 months ago
Comment removed
FMafia206 2 months ago
@samullel
Muslims will not go back and you can not make them go back. so feeling pity on you. because you just think in the fantasy world. we here, try to take us out,,,, oh you cant you stupid dickhead :)
Grisha583 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 it is no sin to be homosexual.... it is only sin when acted upon it... who here hasnt acted on their sexuality??? cast the first stone
suppaman12 2 months ago
@suppaman12 Yes, Richard was Philip of France's bumlover.
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 well like I said, whether he acted on it or not, says nothing about his beliefs... name an adult christian or muslim who doesnt act on their sexuality....
suppaman12 2 months ago
@suppaman12 You can start with reading a few books. You are free to do whatever you like but then don't associate yourself with a faith group. There is no such thing as a gay Christian or gay Muslim. You are either ignorant of the teachings of religion or you just want people to think you're an idiot. The point is you cannot be an adulterer and associate yourself with religion at the same time.
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 are you insane? Sometimes, homosexuality isnt a choice.. its who you are! Like I said, If you act upon it, that is a sin! But to say he was gay and shouldnt be associated with a religion is completely ignorant on your part... Was it ok for any of the other men to sleep with women? Who amongst them did not kill??? is that not a sin?WE ARE ALL SINNERS! dont come on here and say just because he was an active homosexual that erased his right to have a belief system...
suppaman12 2 months ago
@suppaman12 So you can be both an active homosexual and a Christian at the same time ?
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 name one christian that doesnt sin... name one christian that doesnt break a commandment in their lives. does that make them not a christian? let me tell you something... Christianity is the belief of Jesus, and declaring him your savior... what sins you do or dont do doesnt take your beliefs away...
suppaman12 2 months ago
@suppaman12 I thought your beliefs are what define what you do and don't do. How can you be Christian but not follow the teachings of Christianity ? I'm sorry but you don't make sense at all. "what sins you do or dont do doesnt take your beliefs away" ? It sure as hell makes you a hypocrite.
blackarmour100 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 Apparently you don't understand anything about Christianity. The point is that we are human, and humans have flaws. If you sincerely repent then you can ask forgiveness. Also there is no proof that Richard was gay. Thats just conjecture like saying Hitler was secretly gay or Lincoln was secretly gay. You should actually read up on the things you are attempting to criticize.
J0hnny0rland00 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 and what then of the people who do it all the time? People associate with religions all the time and pick what they want from them. Maybe you should put down the book and take a look at the real world.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
same as all the present day priests and pope i guess :-)
cliffworks4321 2 months ago
@blackarmour100 he wasn't, the evidences that supported this theory weren't solid, they were personal opinions... not to mention they've been corrected, actually
KatanaRapierCombo2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackarmour100 Perhaps, but Mohammed was a paedophile - with a child bride. What religion was he following?
TheLondonIrish 1 month ago
@TheLondonIrish
I'm NOT A MUSLIM but this is a classic case of saying a lie enough times makes it seem like a fact. I can't bet my last penny you have no idea where that story came from!
tellul8r 1 month ago
@blackarmour100 Many men and women of that time, whether Christian or Muslim, had younger lovers, generally of the same sex. There was no concept of "homosexuality". The Biblical interpretation of homosexuality has been destorted throughout the ages, but it does not say anywhere you can have homosexual relations outright.
AcruxSolus 1 month ago
@blackarmour100 and being gay Christians are hypocritical? I don't think so...
joejoejoe532 1 month ago
clearly partial expression
polinpial 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people say Richard the Lionheart was homosexual. I say he was so manly that even his feminine side was a lesbian!
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 just joking lol :)
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
this documentery is soooooooooooo off its not funny . you should read and base your idaers on a little more study. salahudeen was much Much more then this, this documentery seems a little one sided ,when richerd was sick salahudeen sent his own docters, and would send food for him. but i think we all like to portry history as we want it to be, not as it was.
TheJahmon 3 months ago
@TheJahmon i think so too, but on richard's behalf. i guess they couldn't make a documentary that would cover both of their storys at the same span of time, so they just try to include as much as they can without the details.
if it could have been a 3 hour documentary, then perhaps we would both be satisfied.
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 hahah fiar one....like the way you think :)
TheJahmon 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 hahaha....fair one. i like the way you think :)
TheJahmon 3 months ago
@TheJahmon
what did KatanaRapierCombo2 say?
Yquit4 2 months ago
these 2 are opponents that really have the highest respect to each other. i have the highest respect to the both of them.
MYkelloGs 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 actually, you know nothing lol 1. im agnostic 2. i didn't say ONLY muhammed existed, yes he did exist and he was a compulsive liar, a rapist and a murderer (in short he was a piece of sh!t) 3. jesus MAY HAVE existed, but if he did, he was the son of a roman soldier who raped mary (there is written evidence of this but im afraid i cant remember the source) 3. who cares about the race of the people involved, i didn't say anything regarding their race... you follow a lie, idiot
Brycey6989 3 months ago
@Brycey6989 ah, Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera? i don't really believe the theory, but it's plausible from a certain perspective, i just have a different perspective. just listening to the words of Jesus rings truth, and dispells the idea for me, the way i see it, as plausible as the theory is even with some secondary/tertiary evidence, i think it could also be just wishful thinking on your/their part, no?
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
and your using arab world,,instead of muslims world,,i think it's not by accident,,and salahuddin was kurdish,,okey but his power originated from his believe,,not his blood,,bye
kafro6y100 3 months ago
bad documentary!!!,,sherko died becouse of overeating?!!,,salahuddin was in lust of power?!!!,,focus how salahuddin prays in this documentary,,wrong praying,,i'm 20 years old young,,kurdish muslim,,but you knw what,,i can penetrate your deception honey,,hhh keep working on deception,,no one falls but fools,,no one fool but those who are busy with entertainment
kafro6y100 3 months ago
Comment removed
rajaaaghanem 3 months ago
Comment removed
rajaaaghanem 3 months ago
Comment removed
rajaaaghanem 3 months ago
Comment removed
rajaaaghanem 3 months ago
What a rabble of trivial anals, not even arguing on a history forum, but on Youtube!
JonasSillius 3 months ago
it didn't matter who won between Richard the Lionheard or Saladin, they were both great rulers who fought for God
puchy110 3 months ago
@puchy110 actually, i believe they fought for Jerusalem (the holy city)
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 yeah, well still, they were willing to jouney for God, and that's what mattered
puchy110 3 months ago
@puchy110 agreed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@puchy110 they fought for land and power
Brycey6989 3 months ago
@Brycey6989 yeah true, but for the soldiers in their armies, Richard's especially, went on a journey and fought many great battles for God, that's something to be proud of
puchy110 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard and Saladin are two men, that all religious people should aspire to be.
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 really? so all religious people should aspire to be power hungry megalomaniacs?? think before you speak please
Brycey6989 3 months ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
Salahudeen is the best and he won this war
gulpattan 3 months ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@gulpattan no, Richard was victorious against the odds in the battle of Jafa, there was neither victor nor vanquished, because they never met face to face, the only way how Saladin won the war was that he claimed the ultimate prize; Jerusalem, but that doesn't mean he ultimately defeated Richard in military combat, in reality it was the other way around, Richard won a considerable amount of victories in their power-struggle
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA how did he die of over eating? didn't he ever get full?
sassy2161 3 months ago 2
i cant believe saladin lost on his home turf..!!!:((...sadd
strongerbythemoment 4 months ago
@strongerbythemoment
Lost? never heard of that actually. Saladin vs Richard NEVER happened.The REAL clash of both would've taken place at Jerusalem but Richard didn't try to attack Jerusalem. The best can be stated as
Richard was a better fighter/soldier
Saladin was a way,way better General/Commander.
auzer1000 4 months ago
@auzer1000 actually Richard was a king, also he was strategically smarter than Saladin as well
he was an exception among crusaders because he possessed both the factors of decisiveness and carefulness, which are seemingly conflicting attributes to a person, but Richard had both.
he was incredibly ferocious and clever at the same time, and that's rare
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2
Are you saying this out of some sort of bias or what? Richard WASN'T strategically smarter than Saladin. Can I ask on what fact did you base this assumption of yours? Richard was an exception of the Crusades but not among the Muslim commanders. Richard HESITATED to attack Jerusalem.He went to attack and came and then again he went very close to Jerusalem and then remained indecisive and eventually came back. A great commander NEVER acts like that.No doubt of his bravery BTW
auzer1000 4 months ago
@auzer1000 no, he hesitated out of the realization that even if he and his crusaders conquered it, that would only for a few days, afterwards their enemies would just finish them off for good. that was a test for his temperance, not his bravery. if you looked at your facts, Saladin had considerable amounts of losses on his battles with Richard to the point that they viewed Richard as a violent maniac and some were actually afraid of him when this happened. I consider Richard to be a prodigy
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 They considered Richard to be violent because of he murdered 3000 Muslim hostages in Acer. Saladin on the other hand was considered very chivalrous even by his own enemies.
FolkeBernadotte2 4 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 but did you assume that Richard intended to massacre his prisoners of war? he kept with the intention of handing them over back to Saladin in exchange for the True Cross, but Saladin intended to delay that exchange as a tactical approach in hopes of starving the crusaders into submission. Richard had had enough and decided that he couldn't keep waiting perhaps endlessly for the exchange.
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 & why do you assume that Richard has a good intention of keeping the prisoners? Or that Saladin was buying time? Is that what you understand from this documentary? Do you know of the ransom Richard had demanded? It took Saladin a long time to rise the fund. & even If Richard didn't want to keep the prisoners. Why did he kill the women & children? He could at least seize their properties & let them go. That would be less evil.
FolkeBernadotte2 4 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 it was neither good nor bad intentioned of Richard to demand an exchange with the prisoners for the True Cross, the purpose of "prisoners of war" is trade, that's one of the rules of war in the western regions around Europe. Saladin was buying his time in hopes of weirying Richard and his crusaders out.
I am not sure if he killed women and children, and their properties wouldn't have been of any use to him, unless they were food or water, because they from a different culture
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 The fragment of the true cross isn't the only thing Richard had demanded to release the prisoners. He also demanded a huge ransom. & Saladin wasn't buying time. He delivered 3 payments of the agreed amount & was busy raising fund to cover the rest of the ransom.
FolkeBernadotte2 4 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 that's highly improbable (unlikely), but if you can offer me some reliable sources, i'll oblige, and then would i probably believe you
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 What about the other documentary of the Crusades. It's also produced by the History channel & the show host is Terry Jones. They mentioned the amount of money Richard asked for in addition to the fragment of the true cross.
FolkeBernadotte2 4 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 i'll look into it, thanks. i'll be back as soon as i finish it. honest
KatanaRapierCombo2 4 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 alright, i found it! the show was called THE HOLY CRUSADES correct? well, the facts presented in that show/documentary aren't 100% accurate. for one, they claimed that Richard couldn't speak English at all, but he actually spoke a little of English. the problem is, he may have been referring to the part where heSaladin was releasing Christian captives, not vice-versa. furthermore, some of the theatrics they showed, to me indicates that some of it were a mockery or ridicule.
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago
@FolkeBernadotte2 For the hostages, IIRC 200,000 gold pieces.
tremben 4 months ago
@tremben what is IIRC? and also, that's unlikely, he only wanted the true cross in return, i just can't see how or why he would've wanted money as extra
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 months ago