3 Early Middle East Conflicts

Posted by Alex in Mentalfloss, Politics, Travel & Places, Weapons & War on September 27, 2008 at 12:16 am


Even before the Gulf War and the Iraq War, the Middle East has seen a lot of tension and conflicts. Here are three of battles that took place there well before the start of the Middle Ages:

1. The Battle for Mecca

Unlike Jesus or the Buddha, Muhammad founded a religion and a political party. As the leader of the early Islamic community in Mecca, Muhammad found himself at odds with his clan's pagan leaders. Facing annihilation, Muhammad and his followers fled Mecca for Medina in 622 CE.

Over the next eight years, the Muslims periodically engaged in bloody battles over Mecca (in one, the Prophet's uncle was partially eaten by the wife of a Meccan tribal leader).

However grand a general he was, Muhammad was an even better negotiator: In 630, the Muslims finally overtook Mecca via a treaty with tribal leaders. After almost a decade of casualties, nary a drop of blood was shed in the final battle for Islam's holiest city.

2. The Battle of Karbala (Which Has Nothing to do with Madonna)

Although the fighting lasted only a couple hours and the result was never really in question, the Battle of Karbala has come to symbolize the divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims - and, for many Muslims, represents the last stand of Islam's golden age.

After the Prophet Muhammad's death, the Islamic community was led by a succession of four "Rightly Guided" caliphs. By 680 CE, however, a ruthless and distinctly Wrongly Guided caliph named Yazid held court, and the Prophet's grandson Husayn set out to defeat him.

Husayn and just 72 followers (many of them young boys) met Yazid's massive army at Karbala, in present-day Iraq. And though Husayn and his supporters were slaughtered, the martyrdom is still remembered by Shia Muslims today with passion plays and public mourning.

3. The Crusades

Not content to let Muslims fight among themselves, Christian Europe decided to get into the act in 1095 CE. For the following two centuries, European Christians undertook eight major expeditions hoping to conquer Jerusalem and control Christ's tomb, the Holy Sepulcher (which seems like a lot of trouble - waging eight wars over a cave where Jesus spent three measly days). Armed with plenty of manpower, the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, but Saladin then reconquered it in 1187.

Long story made short, the back-and-forth kept on until everyone got tired and decided to postpone fighting over Jerusalem until the mid-20th century. Of course, the Crusades had a lasting effect on the therefore fairly peaceful relationship between the Islamic world and the Christian one, but they also deepened the divide between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, particularly when the Catholics decided to sack Constantinople during the fourth Crusade.

From mental_floss' book Forbidden Knowledge: A Wickedly Smart Guide to History's Naughtiest Bits, published in Neatorama with permission.

Be sure to visit mental_floss' extremely entertaining website and blog!




Previous post
this post? Please email this            
Next post
FROM THE NEATORAMA ONLINE STORE » more



COMMENT

20 comments to "3 Early Middle East Conflicts"

  1. Islamic directory
    September 27th, 2008 at 12:40 am

    Muslim always write/say Peace be upon him (PBUH) when they mention the name of any Prophets or messenger of Allah(SWT) from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

    more info. on Islam can be found here:http://www.theislamicdirectory.com.

  2. Jerse
    September 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am

    Muhammad did not found a political party

    None of Muhammad’s uncles were ever eaten in any way

  3. Jerse
    September 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am

    Muslims do not always write/say anything

    PBUH is used by some of the more devout Muslims, but in no way is used every time one of the names of the prophets are uttered…

    And do go to that website

  4. Evil Pundit
    September 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am

    The Crusades were actually a response to Islamic aggression.

  5. psychomar
    September 27th, 2008 at 1:57 am

    Oh no, please don’t let this be the new venue for people to leave comments about which point of view they adhere to. Lets leave the arguing to be done in person, rather than little snippets that do more damage than good.

  6. M
    September 27th, 2008 at 2:37 am

    “well before the start of the Middle Ages”

    All of those battles took place within the middle ages; as with any arbitrary time period there is some debate around the edges, but 500-1500 is a rough guide.

  7. avist
    September 27th, 2008 at 4:10 am

    Actually Jerse, Hinda (wife of Abu Sufyan) hired an Ethiopian slave to kill Hamza (Prophet Muhammad’s uncle) in the second large battle between the Muslims and the tribe of Quresh (who controlled Mecca). Hamza was killed, and the Muslims lost the battle.

    Later, Hinda came to the battlefield, lit a fire and roasted Hamza’s liver and heart and ate them. She cut off his and other fallen soldiers’ ears and noses and make necklaces out of them. Celebration. She then set the Ethiopian free.

    Some years later, the Ethiopian accepted Islam and was forgiven my Prophet Muhammad - on the condition that he, the Ethiopian, stay out of sight of Muhammad.

    So the facts are straight.

    Also, its a sign of respect to say (or write) PBUH after mentioning a prophets name. It has nothing to do with devoutness. The people who do not say it everytime simply say it under their breath or think it.

    If anyone’s interested in the story of how Mecca was taken under control of the Muslims, its a fascinating story. Do look it up (from a reliable source!) if you ever have the time.

  8. Miranda Vink
    September 27th, 2008 at 5:36 am

    Eveil Pundit made a good point about the crusades. Western Europe had been under assault by muslim warlords for centuries at the time of the crusades. Spain had been under muslim rule for almost 400 years, an invasion of France had been fought off, Sicily had been a muslim colony for a century, the Byzantine empire had lost most of its territory to Arabs, the christian churches in the middle east were under siege. Most people in the middle east and north Africa were non-Arab christians at that time. Even now descendants of the original inhabitants of those countries still retain the christian religion of their forefathers, like the Kopts in Egypt or the Assyrians in Turkey and Iraq.

    The Crusades were actually one of the few times the west fought back. It didn’t help much, since Constantinopel was lost to the west in 1453. The muslim Turks also conquered large parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkan. Their luck turned after they lost the battle of Vienna in 1683 but they still retained large parts of Europe till the 19th century. All in the west has been under attack by muslim invaders for 1200 years.

  9. Lasse
    September 27th, 2008 at 5:57 am

    Religion should be banned. Homo Sapiens can clearly not handle it, as we already can see on these comments.

  10. torrance
    September 27th, 2008 at 6:16 am

    “Of course, the Crusades had a lasting effect on the therefore fairly peaceful relationship between the Islamic world and the Christian one”

    By the time of the Crusades, Muslims had conquered all of North Africa, and the majority of the Middle and Near Easts. In the process, it is estimated that as many as 240 million people were slaughtered. The Crusades were a delayed and long overdue reaction to the unquenchable blood thirst of Muhammad’s followers.

  11. valerie
    September 27th, 2008 at 6:55 am

    Thank goodness for a few comments that point out that, no, the muslims were not just sitting around behaving like saints until those da*n Xtians decided to get on their horses and fight back!

    Why must certain people attempt to whitewash the history of the muslims while at the same time bashing wholeheartedly the West and Xtians?

    It’s silly. It’s like trying to convince people that the only country that deserves to be constantly reminded about slavery is the USA! Why just lop off parts of history?

  12. Jerse
    September 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am

    @avist

    A hadith is a story that has been properly documented by multiple people (which means that those people have actually eyewitnessed the event as being true). The story you just wrote is not a hadith, it’s a story told by one guy - Abdul Birr. The story says that Hind did not eat the liver but that she chewed it, could not swallow, and spat it on the ground.

    There are no facts - there’s only legend…

    And PBUH is very similar to saying “god bless you” when someone sneezes - some people say “god bless you” everytime someone sneezes, even if they sneeze five times in a row. Other people, just don’t give a crap, which is like PBUH for most Muslims.

  13. CheeseDuck
    September 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Weren’t the Crusades during the Middle Ages?

  14. YES
    September 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Good points here about the inherent evil of Islam. This is why we need good christian people in office like Palin and McCain, not barack hussein obama. Fight fire with fire.

  15. Miranda Vink
    September 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am

    Hadiths are not “properly documented by multiple people” if you’re a scientist and historian. The hadith are collections of sayings by Mohammed that were _orally_ passed down. Mohammed died in 632. The highed valued hadith collection according to most muslims was written by Muhammad al-Bukhari but he lived _two hundred_ years later (810-870).

  16. FreakyPolarBear
    September 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am

    “they also deepened the divide between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, particularly when the Catholics decided to sack Constantinople during the fourth Crusade.”

    Actually, they didn’t really “decide” to.
    They needed boats to reach Jerusalem and hired the Venetians to ferry them, and when it turned out that they didn’t have enough money to pay them, the Venetians got pissed off and told the Crusaders they wouldn’t get them Jerusalem unless they sacked Zera and Constantinople as payment . As it happens, the Byzantines had recently expelled most Venetian citizens from Constantinople and broken their trade agreement with the Doge, so it was more about money and politics than religion.

    But yeah, it did help the schism a great deal, even though the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders who decided to go along with the Venetians’ plan before Zera (proof that PR didn’t work as well in the Middle Ages… “I’ll excommunicate them, so they won’t be christians anymore when they attack!” was a good try, but it failed massively).

  17. dogrun81
    September 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    @YES - A Christian is not supposed to “fight fire with fire.” Revenge is not at all supported by Jesus’s teachings. Most Christians do not think the crusades were a good idea.

    Explaining the underlying motivations and the events that led to the crusades should not be construed as an endorsement of them.

  18. ted
    September 27th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Jerse, why should it matter if some chick ate Mohammed’s uncle’s liver or not? Maybe she did, maybe she spat it out. What difference does it make? Is it something important?

  19. Byrd Brain
    September 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am

    @ Lasse: Yes!!! Ban religion! In fact we (whomever “we” is, I don’t know) should ban anything that humans could somehow misuse! What are we left with? Nothing…

    And, uh, who would enforce this ban on religion? God?

  20. Karsten
    September 30th, 2008 at 12:20 am

    The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it.

    Source:
    http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/apologyforthecrusades.html

    http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/crusadesmyths.html


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS