You mistakenly thought a small skirmish was a 'massacre' - but hey, the moral is that one shouldn't really trust what one reads on these Orientalist sites!
I was referring to your mistake of saying Amr 'massacred' 7000 in a Garrison town. This turned out to be a minor skirmish in the wider war - and there was only one reference, IIRC -from AJ Butler's book, and this was quoted in Kennedy as well - so it shouldn't be hard to look up again. You say it was a massacre - let's see the source of the confusion.
Unfortunately, however, historians disagree that there was never a massacre at the garrison town of Bahnasa. In reality, it was common practice for the Muslims to deal harshly to those population centers which did not peacefully and unconditionally surrender to Muslim invaders who were following the general commands in the Koran to wage war against unbelievers - 9:29, which says to fight unbelievers, including Jews and Christians, until they submit to Muslim military forces and feel themselves subdued.
Caliph Umar clarified the meaning of this verse when he gave the greenlight for Muslims to kill unbelievers as a last choice if they do not either convert to Islam or surrender to Muslim invaders - unconditionally and feel themselves 'subdued'.
It should also be mentioned that according to Middle Eastern historian, Montgomery Watt, Muhammad himself followed the Koranic revelation to wage unprovoked warfare against unbelievers, on page 116 of his book, Muhammad at Medina, Watt writes:
It is clear, then, that by the late autumn of 630 Muhammad has adopted the policy suggested by a verse of the Qur'an (9.29): 'Fight against those who . . . do not practise the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizyah. . .'
and
By this new policy non-Muslim tribes were given a choice between accepting Islam and paying annual tribute. In either case they became members of the Islamic security system. If they refused that, they were killed or enslaved.
The early Muslim war criminals 'adopted' the teachings of the Koran as Muhammad had and this now leads us back to the 'non-existent' massacre at Bahnasa. While shafique acknowledges that the Muslims were the aggressors in Egypt (apparently oblivious to the fact that Muslims were correctly following the teachings in the Koran to wage war against unbelievers), he has strangely claimed that at the garrison town of Bahnasa, as well as at numerous other towns and cities which held out against Muslim hostilities, only a small skirmish took place and no massacre is said to have occurred.
According to John of Nikiu, a Christian historian whose accounts of the Muslim conquests and subsequent rule of Egypt are considered accurate by historians, and who viewed Amr ibn al-'As very favorably, reports on the massacre of the garrison town of Bahnasa:
And the general Theodosius, hearing of the arrival of the Ishmaelites, proceeded from place to place in order to see what was likely to befall from these enemies. 10. And these Ishmaelites came and slew without mercy the commander of the troops and all his companions. And forthwith they compelled the city to open its gates, and they put to the sword all that surrendered, and they spared none, whether old men, babe, or woman. 11. And they proceeded against the general John. And he282 took all the horses : and they hid themselves in the enclosures and plantations lest their enemies should discover them. Then they arose by night and marched to the great river of Egypt, to Abûît, in order to secure their safety. Now this matter was from God.
And the chief of the faction who was with Jeremiah informed the Moslem troops of the Roman soldiers who were hidden. And so these took them prisoners and put them to death.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm
Well, that sounds like a massacre to me. Perhaps shafique can clarify if he believes the killing of non-Muslims (unbelievers - who the Koran orders Muslims to strike terror into their hearts because they are unbelievers) is a massacre or if that word can only be used for when Muslim civilians are murdered?
And as always, I strongly condemn the war crimes carried out by the earliest Muslims. Unfortunately, Muhammad et al set a bad precedent for Muslims today to follow. It would also appear that the early Muslims - who were all converts, were as militant to the clear teachings of their new religion as many Muslim converts are today who become terrorists after following the texts and teachings of Islam.
