Shiia keserwan, Myth or Reality

JB81

JB81

Legendary Member
No mass conversions in early Islamic conquest. Did the invaded Arab Muslims with few thousands warriors, they did it out of love, or because of pragmatism, as they can't go against a vast majority of a Christian population? Imagine they slaughtered the Christians, who is left to govern and pay taxes?
Did these Bedouins living in Oasis and tents, do they even knew how to adminstrate civil cities and citizens, or they rely on Syrian Christians to make them a bit civil?

So don't trabe7 jmileh no mass forced conversions as it was an act of tolerance; truly, it is deception to use the locals than systematically change them to the Arab culture and Islam.

Indeed much of the Crusade was not bloody except few occasions here and there. Tripoli and all the coast were they ruled remained a majority Muslim. Why? Was it out of love, or is it because they need people to rule over and pay taxes?
 
  • Advertisement
  • Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Christians persecuting Muslims of any kind lol as if Christians were in position of persecuting anyone

    What happened was the usual Shia-sunni thing, they kill each other then blame Christians, Jews etc

    It has always been that way. In the Iran-Iraq war who were the most affected? Assyrians. In the Iraq war? Again Christians. Both the Sunni and Shia destroyed Lebanon with their backwards ways.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Whether they converted or not, by force or not, is irrelevant to the facts that:
    1 - Shiism is not native to Lebanon.
    Going by your logic, neither is Christianity, considering Paganism and Judaism preceded Christianity.
    If Christianity in Lebanon predates Islam by a few centuries does that make the latter less of a native religion?

    2 - The Christians did no persecute the Shia; The Sunnis did.
    One need not look that far back in history to find evidence of Maronite intolerance.
    The Phalangists are responsible for the Karantina and Sabra and Chatila genocides which resulted in the death of hundreds of unarmed Shiites citizens.

    Also, the argument is not about Maronite persecution of Shiites, but rather the Shiite identity of Keserwan.
    You started this thread by claiming Shia Keserwan is a myth, whereas most historians agree that the region was indeed a Shia emirate.

    A Shia emirate was established in Keserwan a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut, in which they prospered for the next five centuries. T
    he growth of Shia Islam in Lebanon stopped around the late thirteenth century, and subsequently Shia communities decreased in size. This development may be traced to 1291, when the Sunni Mamluks sent numerous military expeditions to subdue the Shias of Keserwan, a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut. The first two Mamluk expeditions were defeated by the Shia in Keserwan. The third expedition, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly large and was able to defeat the Shia in Keserwan; many were brutally slaughtered, some fled through the mountains to northern Beqaa while others fled moving through the Beqaa plain, to a new safe haven in Jezzine. Keserwan began to lose its Shia character under the Assaf Sunni Turkomans whom the Mamluks appointed as overlords of the area in 1306. The process intensified around 1545 when the Maronites started migrating to Keserwan and Jbeil, encouraged by the Assafs, who sought to use them as a counterweight to the Shia Himada sheikhs who reemerged in Kesrewan. When in 1605 the Druze emir Fakhr al-Din Ma'n II took over Kesrewan, he entrusted its management to the Khazin Maronite family. The Khazins gradually colonized Kesrewan, purchasing Shia lands and founding churches and monasteries. They emerged as the predominant authority in the region at the expense of the Shia Hamedeh clan. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Khazins owned Kesrewan and only a few Shia villages survived.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    Going by your logic, neither is Christianity, considering Paganism and Judaism preceded Christianity.
    If Christianity in Lebanon predates Islam by a few centuries does that make the latter less of a native religion?



    One need not look that far back in history to find evidence of Maronite intolerance.
    The Phalangists are responsible for the Karantina and Sabra and Chatila genocides which resulted in the death of hundreds of unarmed Shiites citizens.

    Also, the argument is not about Maronite persecution of Shiites, but rather the Shiite identity of Keserwan.
    You started this thread by claiming Shia Keserwan is a myth, whereas most historians agree that the region was indeed a Shia emirate.

    A Shia emirate was established in Keserwan a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut, in which they prospered for the next five centuries. T
    he growth of Shia Islam in Lebanon stopped around the late thirteenth century, and subsequently Shia communities decreased in size. This development may be traced to 1291, when the Sunni Mamluks sent numerous military expeditions to subdue the Shias of Keserwan, a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut. The first two Mamluk expeditions were defeated by the Shia in Keserwan. The third expedition, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly large and was able to defeat the Shia in Keserwan; many were brutally slaughtered, some fled through the mountains to northern Beqaa while others fled moving through the Beqaa plain, to a new safe haven in Jezzine. Keserwan began to lose its Shia character under the Assaf Sunni Turkomans whom the Mamluks appointed as overlords of the area in 1306. The process intensified around 1545 when the Maronites started migrating to Keserwan and Jbeil, encouraged by the Assafs, who sought to use them as a counterweight to the Shia Himada sheikhs who reemerged in Kesrewan. When in 1605 the Druze emir Fakhr al-Din Ma'n II took over Kesrewan, he entrusted its management to the Khazin Maronite family. The Khazins gradually colonized Kesrewan, purchasing Shia lands and founding churches and monasteries. They emerged as the predominant authority in the region at the expense of the Shia Hamedeh clan. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Khazins owned Kesrewan and only a few Shia villages survived.
    One thing I don't understand or doesn't make sense. If the Mamlouks drove the Shia out Keserwen to the South, wasn't the South also under the control of Mamlouks? Enno why not ok to be in Keserwen but ok to be in the South?
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Girl you cray cray. I'm done with you for today. LOL.

    How is my "initial post" what is quoted when you broke it up into a million piece and destroyed the structure to suit whatever crazy point you're making?
    Because of the way you composed your post, I understood it as you quoting Lapidus. The fact that you made the fonts for his name bigger and darker did not help the confusion. From that perspective, there is nothing crazy about breaking down the sentences the way I did. I thought they were a paragraph written by Lapidus.

    Who is berating you for giving opinions?
    You are!

    Maybe you should actually grab a book and read before reaching conclusions, but you're too intellectually dishonest for that.
    What does it mean when you claim that my conclusions were reached without any prior reading...other than they are simply my opinion?

    And what does it mean when you call someone itellectually dishonest, if it's not you berating them?

    You really are a disturbed person. Enough attention for today.
    I'm not the one who has been creepily harrassing you for years, on this forum. It is the other way around.

    And, believe me, I do not want or need your attention. I never asked to have a creep on my case, following me from thread to thread to insult me.

    You entered the conversation with insults and a hostile attitude; claimed my source was not good enough; then made claims without providing a source at all; when asked to take your own criticism and substantiate your claims, you admitted your claims were a matter of opinion; you likened an honest mistake to intellectual dishonesty, despite the fact that the mistake in question turned out to be better for you; and, between all this, you managed to take the thread off topic, while continously using insults, and poisoning the atmosphere...

    But yeah...I'm the disturbed person.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    Very funny that the shia in this country want to blame the christians and maronites in particular for their persecution. It just gives you a further example of why we are not able to live together. Instead of pointing the finger in the right direction they point it towards the christians thinking that we are the weakest link. Isn't it funny that after how many years this issue is still brought up by the shias. There is no way we are able to live together and when the christian politicians wake up and say we want federalism is when we will live a happy and peaceful life.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Oh look...you went and edited your post again! I'll make sure to wait long enough, until you can't edit your posts anymore, before replying to them from now on.

    And in fact what you quoted initially is still the same exact thing in my post. I edited the part above it. So now we also know you're lying.
    Here is your initial post:
    Shiia keserwan, Myth or Reality

    You did not just edit the part above. You also added a paragraph from the Lewis article.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    One thing I don't understand or doesn't make sense. If the Mamlouks drove the Shia out Keserwen to the South, wasn't the South also under the control of Mamlouks? Enno why not ok to be in Keserwen but ok to be in the South?
    They sought refuge in the South because it enjoyed a degree of autonomy. However this didn't last too long.
    When the Ottomans appointed Ahmad Al Jazzar, he recruited Druze tribes to crush Shia leaders in Jabal'Amil.
    A big population of the Shia were killed under Al Jazzar's rule.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    Oh look...you went and edited your post again! I'll make sure to wait ling enough, until you can't edit your posts anymore, before replying to them from now on.



    Here is your initial post:
    Shiia keserwan, Myth or Reality

    You did not just edit the part above. You also added a paragraph from the Lewis article.
    Only dhimms would say that christians were better off under muslim rule. They had only two choices pay some sort of tax or be killed. Some converted to shiism thinking that it would protect them which it didn't.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    They sought refuge in the South because it enjoyed a degree of autonomy. However this didn't last too long.
    When the Ottomans appointed Ahmad Al Jazzar, he recruited Druze tribes to crush Shia leaders in Jabal'Amil.
    A big population of the Shia were killed under Al Jazzar's rule.
    So go blame this Al Jazzar and the druze for killing the shia. :) You forget that the christians were also killed in the Jabal.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    They sought refuge in the South because it enjoyed a degree of autonomy. However this didn't last too long.
    When the Ottomans appointed Ahmad Al Jazzar, he recruited Druze tribes to crush Shia leaders in Jabal'Amil.
    A big population of the Shia were killed under Al Jazzar's rule.
    How different was the South from Keserwen?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Because of the way you composed your post, I understood it as you quoting Lapidus. The fact that you made the fonts for his name bigger and darker did not help the confusion. From that perspective, there is nothing crazy about breaking down the sentences the way I did. I thought they were a paragraph written by Lapidus.

    You are!

    What does it mean when you claim that my conclusions were reached without any prior reading...other than they are simply my opinion?

    And what does it mean when you call someone itellectually dishonest, if it's not you berating them?

    I'm not the one who has been creepily harrassing you for years, on this forum. It is the other way around.

    And, believe me, I do not want or need your attention. I never asked to have a creep on my case, following me from thread to thread to insult me.

    You entered the conversation with insults and a hostile attitude; claimed my source was not good enough; then made claims without providing a source at all; when asked to take your own criticism and substantiate your claims, you admitted your claims were a matter of opinion; you likened an honest mistake to intellectual dishonesty, despite the fact that the mistake in question turned out to be better for you; and, between all this, you managed to take the thread off topic, while continously using insults, and poisoning the atmosphere...

    But yeah...I'm the disturbed person.
    the guy has always been like that, he simply parachutes down on any discussion, lurking and awaiting the opportune moment to viciously accuse, insult and berate; it is enough for you be a Christian or a conservative to become a target. honest advice, put him on your ignore list, along with his other passive aggressive version, not worth engaging in discussions with..
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You're right. I was genuinely enjoying our conversation with @manifesto despite our differences, before this guy walked in and ruined the conversation.

    People can have differences without becoming hostile. This is one of the reasons I appreciate @manifesto so much. You never feel any hate from him towards you. He is all about discussing ideas.

    @manifesto our conversation has my full attention. No more indulging the trolls.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Going by your logic, neither is Christianity, considering Paganism and Judaism preceded Christianity.
    If Christianity in Lebanon predates Islam by a few centuries does that make the latter less of a native religion?



    One need not look that far back in history to find evidence of Maronite intolerance.
    The Phalangists are responsible for the Karantina and Sabra and Chatila genocides which resulted in the death of hundreds of unarmed Shiites citizens.

    Also, the argument is not about Maronite persecution of Shiites, but rather the Shiite identity of Keserwan.
    You started this thread by claiming Shia Keserwan is a myth, whereas most historians agree that the region was indeed a Shia emirate.

    A Shia emirate was established in Keserwan a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut, in which they prospered for the next five centuries. T
    he growth of Shia Islam in Lebanon stopped around the late thirteenth century, and subsequently Shia communities decreased in size. This development may be traced to 1291, when the Sunni Mamluks sent numerous military expeditions to subdue the Shias of Keserwan, a mountain region overlooking the coastal area north of Beirut. The first two Mamluk expeditions were defeated by the Shia in Keserwan. The third expedition, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly large and was able to defeat the Shia in Keserwan; many were brutally slaughtered, some fled through the mountains to northern Beqaa while others fled moving through the Beqaa plain, to a new safe haven in Jezzine. Keserwan began to lose its Shia character under the Assaf Sunni Turkomans whom the Mamluks appointed as overlords of the area in 1306. The process intensified around 1545 when the Maronites started migrating to Keserwan and Jbeil, encouraged by the Assafs, who sought to use them as a counterweight to the Shia Himada sheikhs who reemerged in Kesrewan. When in 1605 the Druze emir Fakhr al-Din Ma'n II took over Kesrewan, he entrusted its management to the Khazin Maronite family. The Khazins gradually colonized Kesrewan, purchasing Shia lands and founding churches and monasteries. They emerged as the predominant authority in the region at the expense of the Shia Hamedeh clan. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Khazins owned Kesrewan and only a few Shia villages survived.
    Because Christianity originated in this region, therefore it's native. The pagan Canaanites in Tyre and Sidon were the first non-Jewish people to convert. And way before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the Levant was already majority Christian. People converted willingly, and it didn't change the Aramaic-Greco-Roman culture of the region. Completely different from the Arabian Bedouin cult, which entered the region by the sword, forced convertions and rape.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Very funny that the shia in this country want to blame the christians and maronites in particular for their persecution. It just gives you a further example of why we are not able to live together. Instead of pointing the finger in the right direction they point it towards the christians thinking that we are the weakest link. Isn't it funny that after how many years this issue is still brought up by the shias. There is no way we are able to live together and when the christian politicians wake up and say we want federalism is when we will live a happy and peaceful life.
    Lebanese Shiites are the most invested in fighting Sunni Salafi terrorism.
    What makes you think they're pointing their fingers at the wrong person?

    I'm not interested in defending the Shia. I spend more time than anyone on this forum criticizing Hizbullah.
    I'm looking at this from a historical point of view.

    The point I'm trying is that Maronites haven't always been the "weakest link".
    During Mamluk rule, they were feeding off (and possibly contributing to) the misfortunes of Shiites.

    What's also interesting to note is that Mamluks were also persecuting Lebanese Sunnis.
    Which makes me think that the Mamluk rule was politically, not religiously, motivated.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Lebanese Shiites are the most invested in fighting Sunni Salafi terrorism.
    What makes you think they're pointing their fingers at the wrong person?

    I'm not interested in defending the Shia. I spend more time than anyone on this forum criticizing Hizbullah.
    I'm looking at this from a historical point of view.

    The point I'm trying is that Maronites haven't always been the "weakest link".
    During Mamluk rule, they were feeding off (and possibly contributing to) the misfortunes of Shiites.

    What's also interesting to note is that Mamluks were also persecuting Lebanese Sunnis.
    Which makes me think that the Mamluk rule was politically, not religiously, motivated.
    They are fighting Sunni extremism but the majority support a Shiite extremist terrorist group. That doesn't make them any better. Both Sunnis and Shias are the same at the end of the day .
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    Lebanese Shiites are the most invested in fighting Sunni Salafi terrorism.
    What makes you think they're pointing their fingers at the wrong person?

    I'm not interested in defending the Shia. I spend more time than anyone on this forum criticizing Hizbullah.
    I'm looking at this from a historical point of view.

    The point I'm trying is that Maronites haven't always been the "weakest link".
    During Mamluk rule, they were feeding off (and possibly contributing to) the misfortunes of Shiites.

    What's also interesting to note is that Mamluks were also persecuting Lebanese Sunnis.
    Which makes me think that the Mamluk rule was politically, not religiously, motivated.
    Do you know out of Maronites' history, only under the Mamluks' rule that 2 Patriarchs were burned alive in Tripoli, and entire villages, towns, monasteries were razed to ruins in the hundreds? The town of Hadath Jebbeh witnessed one of most horrific martyrdom were the residents sought refugee in a cave, and when the Mamluks found them, they unleash water in the cave and drowned everyone?

    Then, somehow the Maronites were best buddies with the Mamluks? Where do you get these stories from?
     
    Last edited:
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    Lebanese Shiites are the most invested in fighting Sunni Salafi terrorism.
    What makes you think they're pointing their fingers at the wrong person?

    I'm not interested in defending the Shia. I spend more time than anyone on this forum criticizing Hizbullah.
    I'm looking at this from a historical point of view.

    The point I'm trying is that Maronites haven't always been the "weakest link".
    During Mamluk rule, they were feeding off (and possibly contributing to) the misfortunes of Shiites.

    What's also interesting to note is that Mamluks were also persecuting Lebanese Sunnis.
    Which makes me think that the Mamluk rule was politically, not religiously, motivated.
    la2 7abibe. The maronites weren't feeding off anyone. They were on this land before the shia even came to life. The maronites were in these areas prior to even islam coming along.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    la2 7abibe. The maronites weren't feeding off anyone. They were on this land before the shia even came to life. The maronites were in these areas prior to even islam coming along.
    it does not matter who was here first. what matters is how to persevere, grow and prosper.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Moreover, invading Muslims had an army of Eastern European slaves. Whereas Christianity, was the first to try to end slavery worldwide.
    One of the first Popes was a former slave. This is in the late 2nd century to the early 3rd century.

    Muslims are enslaving people to this day.
     
    Top