Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Koran - 9:73 O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna -- an evil homecoming!

Just a friendly update for a citation on the 7,000 inhabitants of Caesarea I previously claimed were massacred:

The chronicle of Theophanes, p 41:

In this year, Muawiyah took Palestinian Caesarea siege; he killed 7,000 inhabitants there.

Al-Baladhuri also mentions that 4,000 inhabitants of the city were enslaved and John of Nikiu (a near contemporary to the events that took place) mentions that 'horrors [were] committed in the city of Caesarea'.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lK5wIP ... q=&f=false

Next week, I hope to update my count of early Muslim massacres by discussing the sack of the city of Dvin - where 35,000 inhabitants of the city were enslaved and 12,000 (IIRC) were put to the sword.

What do you want me to do, confirm that some massacres did occur during the early part of Arab conquests?

Sure, happy to do so - I've quoted the Economist review of Kennedy's book 'The Great Arab Conquests' many times - you will recall that it says Kennedy shows that massacres did occur, but that they weren't the norm.

(And just be clear, I had challenged you on a previous claim that 7000 were massacred at Bahnasa - you eventually conceded that you were wrong and had no evidence for a figure or 7000 - i.e. you invented this figure - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've looked up the correct references this time. I have no recollection of challenging you to produce evidence of a massacre by Muawiyah - but perhaps you think I did?)

So, happy to denounce each and every instance of innocents being killed - be they in the Bible (as in the case of the accounts of Moses slaughtering babies, women and even livestock) or in the annals of early Arab conquests.

I'm with Kennedy that these massacres were not the norm. Your argument it appears is with him.

Cheers,
Shafique

Uhm, you asked for the source of this claim a long time ago on this forum. I found the original source. So, where's the beef?

I have no recollection of asking for the source - but hey, perhaps I was just asking you to back up a claim and checking that you weren't inventing a massacre as you did with Banhasa.

Thanks for eventually looking this up. (If it is not too much trouble, could you post the quote where I asked for this so I can check whether I asked for something specific or not?)

I trust it won't take you that long to answer the questions about Rapture and whether you believe that Pilate was not responsible for killing Jesus as stated in Matthew.


Thanks for looking up this instance of the 'uncharacteristic' massacres that took place in the early Arab conquests.

It is interesting that 7000 killed over a millenium ago is rightly called a massacre. When we look at the multiples of 7000 that have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US (and then add on those killed at the hands of Afghan and Iraqi) - it makes you think!

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok, out of curiosity I looked up the references you gave:

event horizon wrote:Just a friendly update for a citation on the 7,000 inhabitants of Caesarea I previously claimed were massacred:

The chronicle of Theophanes, p 41:

In this year, Muawiyah took Palestinian Caesarea siege; he killed 7,000 inhabitants there.

Al-Baladhuri also mentions that 4,000 inhabitants of the city were enslaved and John of Nikiu (a near contemporary to the events that took place) mentions that 'horrors [were] committed in the city of Caesarea'.

You seem to have changed the quote. What your link actually records Theophanes writing is:

In this year, Muawiyah took Palestinian Caesarea after a seven-year siege; he killed 7,000 Romans there.

Why did you change the word 'Romans' to 'inhabitants'? Did you, perchance, just copy this from a web site and not check the details? If not, why did you change the word? Why remove the words relating to the 7 year siege???

'Romans' implies to me that he is talking about the soldiers killed - perhaps that is why you've chosen 'inhabitants' instead?

Balhaduri's figures for those captured doesn't corroborate the supposed massacre - if anything it goes to show that there wasn't a massacre (but you'll have to help me out with estimates of the population of Caesaria at the time). Notably he does not appear to have written about any massacre there.


Edit -this link says that the population was around 100,000 at the time - so killing of 7,000 Romans (as opposed to Palestinians) doesn't sound like a massacre, nor does the taking captive of 4000 out of the 100,000 population. Also note, that it covers the 7 year intermittent siege and capture of the town - but does not say that a massacre took place:
http://www.tiny9.com/u/1053

Theophanes was a Christian monk and was writing about something that happened before he was born, and there seems to be no corroborating account for 7000 being killed - and his one line actually says that it was 7000 Romans killed - no indication that it was women and children or civilians in that one line. John of Nikiu also has uncorroborated accounts of supposed massacres - he's the only one who mentions Amr's capture of Bahnasa, for example - where you imagined that 7000 were killed.

So, perhaps you need to re-visit your references or sources of references? Why tamper with quotes and give us the link to the quote?

Cheers,
Shafique

It is interesting that 7000 killed over a millenium ago is rightly called a massacre. When we look at the multiples of 7000 that have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US (and then add on those killed at the hands of Afghan and Iraqi) - it makes you think!

We don't need to go that far...Aprox. 3-400.000 people were massacred in the middle of a civilised land..The funny thing is vatican was only a few thousand miles away from it all.

Yes, you're right Berrin.

I'm still a bit surprised that eh effectively tried to deceive us by altering the quote above - either he did it intentionally (which is just plain deceit) or he copied and pasted it from a website which clearly cannot be trusted (the deceit is with the web site's authors)

So the allegation of a massacre of 7000 turns out to be based on one line from an account by a monk who hadn't been born at the time of the alleged killings and doesn't give his sources, and (crucially) states that it was 7000 Romans killed after a 7 year siege.

Cheers,
Shafique

Why did you change the word 'Romans' to 'inhabitants'?

You're right, my mistake. I was reading an archeological report on Caesarea and had copy/pasted what I had typed somewhere else here.

Balhaduri's figures for those captured doesn't corroborate the supposed massacre - if anything it goes to show that there wasn't a massacre

So, because some historian supposedly did not mention a massacre (just the enslavement), that does not mean a massacre took place?

I remember when discussing the Muslim massacre of thirty unarmed Jewish diplomats, you were pretty adamant that your version of events from a historian, that the Jews were armed and actually ambushed the Muslims, did not contradict the earliest Muslim accounts of the massacre.

Hey, try to at least remain consistent.

so killing of 7,000 Romans (as opposed to Palestinians)

First of all, Romans, just as Greeks, meant a people and not soldiers, necessarily. I have no idea how you arrived at the belief that the use of the word Roman would mean soldiers and not inhabitants. This is another of your misinformed opinions, such as claiming that Hugh Kennedy was mistaken, that you are trumpeting as a fact.

doesn't sound like a massacre, nor does the taking captive of 4000 out of the 100,000 population

Killing 7,000 people (seven percent of a population) and enslaving another 4,000 people does not sound like a massacre to you?

So, perhaps you need to re-visit your references or sources of references?

Hey, you're the one who quoted a pseudo Muslim author claiming that the Jews had attacked their Muslims escort.

When it was shown that none of the early accounts said the Jews were the ones to attack the Muslims and modern historians have concluded that the Muslims set upon the Jews, you were the one to continue to maintain that there was no contradiction between the early accounts and what your author claimed.

So, why the sudden inconsistency?

Ok, I'll take it that you made an honest mistake - even though it looks suspiciously like you deleted the words 'after a seven-year' and then changed 'Romans' to 'inhabitants'.

So, we have one reference from Theophane that has one line that says 7000 Romans were killed when Caesarea was conquered. I have no indication whether these were soldiers or just civilians.

We have another reference that says 4000 were made captive, but no indication of whether 7000 were killed in that.

We have one reference that horrible acts were committed by another chronicler, but no mention of 7000 killed.

We also have a reference about Caesaria giving the population at 100,000 - and when it talks about the conquest, also says nothing about any killing of 7000.

So, we are therefore only dealing with the quote from Theophanes then.

Let's look at it again in full:

In this year, Muawiyah took Palestinian Caesarea after a seven-year siege; he killed 7,000 Romans there.

So Theophanes points out that Caesarea was in Palestine, and specifies that 7000 Romans were killed. You state that he would refer to any inhabitant of Palestine at the time as Romans. You need to make this assumption to justify your word change/accident where you said '7000 inhabitants' were killed.

Ok - we have the link to Theophanes book - I'll have a look to see whether I can confirm your theory.

Perhaps you are right - but I'm still disapointed that you didn't take more care with the only reference you could find for 7000 being killed and saw fit to butcher the quote.

So, let me have a look into what Theophanes meant by Romans and see whether your claim can be substantiated.

Cheers,
Shafique

Well, Google books allows a search for terms - looking up the word 'Romans' gives 49 instances. I couldn't find any in which Theophanes uses it to describe the non-Roman inhabitants of Palestine (basically Arabs and Jews) - but the term is used for the Roman army primarily (as mostly used in descriptions of battles/treaties etc).

Of course, I can agree that 'Roman' could also be used for any 'Byzantium' subject - they considered themselves as just 'Roman' after all. But I couldn't see any evidence of Theophanes using the term to mean 'inhabitants' rather than specifically meaning 'Romans'.

But hey, why quibble over a word - or the fact it is only a single reference which seems to have no corroborating evidence or another prior record of this so-called event?

The point I made in my first post is that if this was indeed a massacre, then it was one of the few that were uncharacteristic of the early Arab conquests.

The killing (if it happened) of 7% of the population leaves a possibility that those killed were all soldiers - by contrast God's commandment in the Bible to Moses was to slaughter the entire population - men, women, babies and even animals. Now the latter is clearly a massacre, and even a war crime - and I also agree that killing 7000 is also a massacre - but in the scheme of wars of conquest, it is not uncommon to have this number killed.

How big would you estimate the standing army was for Caesaria - with a population of 100,000? I mean how many fighting men would you estimate in total (those who could defend the city)? I'd say at least 20,000 - so the fact that one report says 7000 were killed and a separate report only says 4000 were captured, puts the worst case estimate in perspective.

The Europeans inflicted far bloodier massacres in the Crusades (and not to mention in Europe too)

eh - you will let me know whether you were able to dig out my request for this reference - just so I can see what I was asking for and why. And I'm sure you've learnt now to be more careful when it comes to changing words in quotations.

I presume there is no other record of this killing of 7000 Romans?

(Oh, and I think you will agree that you can't take the worst statistics from different chroniclers and add them together - how would that be different from me taking the best statistics and only looking at those. Why would Baldhuri ignore the killing of 7000 and only list 4000 captives, and why would John of Nikiu not give any numbers at all? What evidence do we have that Theophanes' numbers for those killed is accurate - he wasn't there after all, and doesn't seem to have given his sources)

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, I was just repeating what I read on an archeological story of Caesarea. If you believe that massacring/enslaving unbelievers was uncharacteristic of the Muslims, then perhaps you can start by addressing the quote I provided in the 'Sword of Allah' thread of the massacre of thousands, in fact, tens-of-thousands of POWs after a single battle?

This is your thread - so it just seemed extremely weird that you apparently triumphantly presented information about a supposed massacre and then proceeded to delete and change words in your reference. Sloppy at best, deceitful at worst. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you were just sloppy.

So, is this one line from Theophanes the only evidence you have of 7000 Romans being killed when Muawiyya captured Palestine Caesaria in 640 CE? Seems a bit weak - its not like no other historian has covered the capture of this town, and none of them mention this number being killed. Either it was nothing out of the ordinary, or it was an example of misreporting of an event that took place before the author was born.

That said, I think this whole episode makes Kennedy's point for me - that a few massacres may have occured but they were uncharacteristic of the early Arab conquests.

Please confirm whether you are basing this 7000 only on Theophanes one-line or not.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, you're arguing with yourself.

I remember making the same points you are now making when you copy/pasted a description of the Muslim massacre of thirty Jewish diplomats as 'self-defense' against Jews who supposedly brandished swords and began attacking the Muslims.

Unfortunately, this account was not found in either Tabari or Ibn Ishaq and the modern historians (I remember quoting at least four of them) also did not recall your author's version of events.

So, it really surprises me that you would be making these same arguments that you rejected and argued until your fingertips were sore that there was no 'contradiction' between your author's version of events and the actual accounts of the earliest historians - nor was it odd that none of them (or modern historians) described the same scenario as the one presented by your author.

Sauce for the goose.

That was a long answer to a short question.

You could have just said that you only have this one reference for this so-called 'massacre' of 7000 Romans.

Cheers,
Shafique

al-Baladhuri says the city of Caesarea was 'reduced' during the Muslim assault of the city -

Muslim rule

In 638 the city, capital of Byzantine Palestine and an important commercial and maritime center, was conquered by the Muslims, allegedly through the betrayal of a certain Yusef, who conducted a party of troops of Muawiyah through a "secret tunnel", perhaps the extensive Byzantine sewers, into the city.[19] The Persian historian al-Baladhuri, who offers the earliest Muslim account, merely states that the city was "reduced".[20] The seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiû, mentions "the horrors committed in the city of Caesarea in Palestine".[21] In one or the other upheaval the great library was destroyed.

Reduced

Doesn't sound good!

So, the answer is 'yes, I only have one line from Theophanes to back up my allegation that 7000 Romans were killed'

As for 'reduced' - I'm sorry, but you will understand that I don't trust your third hand accounts any more, please give the actual quote from Baldhuri and not what wiki (or some other source) says it said.

Your track record is one of actually changing direct quotes, on top of basing quaint beliefs on extrapolations of selective quotes. So, please provide the actual quote from Baldhuri if you want to re-build your credibility.

Oh, and just come out and admit that there is only one line in a monk's writings that support your view that 7000 Romans were killed in Caesarea.

Cheers,
Shafique

I believe it's on pg 216 if you do a google book search for the historian and 'caesarea'. You might not be able to find the book until the second or third page, though.

The author does indeed use the term 'reduce', 'reduced'. I can understand if these facts about the historically violent early Muslims makes it difficult for you to convince disbelievers that Islam is a religion of 'peace'.

But I do join you condemning the early Muslims (companions of prophet Muhammad) along with the 'rightly' guided caliphs as terrorists and war criminals.

Please post the quote in full.

Thanks for confirming that you only have the one line in Theophanes to back up your allegation that 7000 Romans were killed in Caesarea.

Perhaps you want to confirm that Hugh Kennedy doesn't seem to mention this figure of 7000 in his book:The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East, and that he quotes Baldhuri give a figure of 700,000 soldiers in the town! (Which puts the figure of 7000 Romans into perspective, even allowing for the fact the figure is probably inflated and is counting able bodied men)

http://books.google.mu/books?id=XdFqgSBTYeYC&pg=RA1-PT23&dq=caesarea+muslim+conquest&lr=&cd=24#v=onepage&q=caesarea%20muslim%20conquest&f=false

You therefore seem to be treating one account which uncorroborated and not mentioned by any historians as fact. I'm disappointed, but not surprised that you have to resort to grasping at straws to justify the 18th century view that Islam was spread by the sword.

Edit, some more references:
Here gives some details of the size of the town, says after the Muslim conquest many inhabitants 'abandoned' the town (possibly a corroboration of the 'reduced'):
http://books.google.mu/books?id=2aOpeBnbxvsC&pg=PA152&dq=caesarea+muslim+conquest&lr=&cd=26#v=onepage&q=caesarea%20muslim%20conquest&f=false

Here, Prof Ayalon quotes sources which say Caesarea had a reported 930,000 soldiers at the time of the conquest - but notably no reference to this so-called 'massacre':
http://books.google.mu/books?id=PehCQz9Rt8oC&pg=PA107&dq=caesarea+muslim+conquest&lr=&cd=29#v=onepage&q=caesarea%20muslim%20conquest&f=false

Cheers,
Shafique

I believe Kennedy explains the large numbers of soldiers who were allegedly garrisoned in Caesarea - it was an inflation the Muslim historians reported on to explain why it had taken seven years for the Muslims to conquer ('reduce') the city.

I'm with al-Baladhuri when he says the Muslims 'reduced' the city. I agree with him and accounts from other historians confirm that a tragedy hit the non-Muslim population of that city. Of course, common sense must play in here as well - if the Muslims sacked the city after seven years of resistance and enslaved thousands of inhabitants, then it stands to reason that they also carried out large scale executions of the male population - which was the 'norm' for the Muslims to do if they took a city by force.

Indeed, Islamic law actually allows for the executing of male townspeople and enslavement of women and children if a city is taken by conquest. So, nothing in that account is unusual considering the terrorist tactics of the early Muslims.

Again with the 'beliefs' - suffice to say that the basis of your allegation of a massacre looks extremely weak. Did you not expect me to check your references?

So, let's see:
1. We have only one (yes one) reference to the figure of 7000 killed in Caesarea after the Muslim conquest in 640, after 7 years of on-and-off siege
2. This account is one line in a Monk's chronicles - Theophanes - who wasn't born when the town was captured
3. He says that 7000 Romans were killed (he does not call this a massacre - just states this number, as a fact)
4. No other historical document gives this number
5. Historical accounts put the numbers of soldiers in Caesarea at 700,000 or 930,000 - but these are likely to be exagerations
6. Baldhuri does talk about a reduction in the population of Caesarea after the conquest, and other historians attribute this to people just leaving (they - and Baldhuri - don't mention any massacre).

As for what Islamic law allows - you are right, it does not allow what is in the Old Testament - where Moses reportedly kills women, children, babies and livestock of captured towns. This slaughter was done under God's orders - according to the Bible.

But, as for this alleged massacre - you seem to be hanging a lot of weight on Theophanes single line - whilst Kennedy et al all don't give it much credence (they don't mention a massacre of 7000).

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, those are some interesting points - but a historian does say that 7,000 people are massacred and two others say 'great horrors' occurred during the Muslim conquest of the city and another says that the city was reduced when the Muslims conquered the city - and no, there is no indication that 'reduce' means that people, years later, packed up and left the city.

Perhaps Theophanes made the error in his one-line, and Baldhuri was more accurate in his substantially longer descriptions of the events?

Anyway, as with almost all your arguments - it seems to rely on a selective (in this case, a very selective) reading of historical accounts.

What is most telling though, is that Kennedy et al (modern day historians) don't give Theophanes' one line the importance you do. That speaks volumes.

Cheers,
Shafique