Shiia keserwan, Myth or Reality

  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No worries.
    Due to the invaders being sunni in the mount lebanon region they gave them the position of governor in that area. Hence the sunnis cleared out some shias that were living in these areas. The maronites already lived in the area prior to the shia living there BUT came in higher numbers when some of this land became vacant. The shia went to Jezzine where the same thing happened and went further south. Bent Jbeil was named after Jbeil. The shia made their version of Jbeil in the South. Thats is why now nabatiyeh, sour and bent jbeil have a majority shia population. Point of the story it wasnt the christians that persecuted them but the sunnis (invaders). Prior to the invaders coming most of the land was christian aslan. Some christians instead of paying the Jizya converted to shia thinking that due to them being muslim also they would be protected.
    This is mostly what I've read on this topic. It seems the Maronites actually bought land from the Shia. They did not just occupy the land after the Shia were gone.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    it does not matter who was here first. what matters is how to persevere, grow and prosper.
    With FPM, politically there is sense of a comeback to the governance, thus taking the Maronites out of the political depression.

    Honestly, I could be wrong, it is the Church who doesn't have a long term vision. It is a wealthy institution, with influence locally and internationally, yet the cost of housing teachings and health is unbarred. There is so much that FPM can do because at the end of the day, it is a Lebanese party, I can't dedicate all it's policies for Christians only, but also to other Lebanese.

    It is the Church job to have a vision for the Christians but it does seem to lack it.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    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.
    According to "him", he's not sectarian if he says that America was founded on slavery because of Christianity; but the minute you or someone else say something about Islam like the above, you are automatically sectarian... Attacking Christianity is academic but attacking Islam is sectarian. Ya3neh Wa2e7a zeydeh... Ya7oukou lahom ma la ya7ok lighayrihem
     
    Last edited:
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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?
    When I say native, I mean "born in." Christianity was born in the Levant, while Islam was born in the Arabian peninsula.

    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.
    Those were horrible and inexcusable events. Without excusing them, let's not forget that they were a response to Palestinians committing such massacres against Maronite villages.

    The Muslims of the country had united with the Palestinian refugees, and the Christians were being persecuted in their own country, and feared for their survival.

    Even in this horrible example, it is not the Maronites who set out to exterminate anyone.

    Also, the argument is not about Maronite persecution of Shiites, but rather the Shiite identity of Keserwan.
    Well...it is both. People are making both claims: that Keserwan originally had a Shia identity, and that the Maronites persecuted the Shia out of Mount Lebanon.

    You started this thread by claiming Shia Keserwan is a myth, whereas most historians agree that the region was indeed a Shia emirate.
    I started this thread in response to both claims above, and I maintain that it's a false narrative.

    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.
    The 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.
    The presence of a Shia emirate in Mount Lebanon does not preclude the prior presence of Maronites in that region.

    So let's recap:

    A narrative is often told of the Shia preceding Maronites in the Mount Lebanon region, and being persecuted out of the region by Maronite newcomers.

    There are two claims here, and there needs to be evidence presented for both.

    - Can the proponents of this narrative prove that no Maronites were in Mount Lebanon prior to the Shia?

    - Did Maronites persecute the Shia out of Mount Lebanon?

    So far, neither claim has been proven. On the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest that both claims are either false, exagerrated, or incomplete.
     
    Last edited:
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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.
    More like islamist apologists.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    More like islamist apologists.
    They can screw themselves. We are not dhimmis here. We live in peace with our neighbours but if someone tries to do anything we know how to protect ourself. This is coming from a person who is from Tripoli. The salafist hub capital in the country.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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.
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    Intolerance of the christian church is nothing in comparison to your Islamic rats. I can't believe I am even comparing the two. Go look at your islamic conquest before pointing fingers at the church. The whole islamic religion was based on the sword.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    @manifesto
    I suggest seriously go look at your own islamic history. We are not tolerant? l 3ama wlo. Half the catholic schools half people from the islamic sect. Not tolerant 2al! We are not the one's who have Ashoura processions in the National university nor is it we that force ourselves or our way of life on others. Our church is here to stay. One who kills his cousins, brothers, fathers like animals have no say in how our church runs its daily affairs.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    Stop living in the past. Christians as a whole can't even be compared to Muslims when it comes to 'tolerance'. The only reason the whole MENA region is at the state it is today is because of Islam and Islam only. ME Christians are more progressive than you think, many if not most at this point are irreligious. We strongly clinge on a Christian identity because of Islam that surround us, when we say we are Christian many of the times we are actually referring to a different ethnic identity and not a religious one.

    Greater Syria was the second or third richest region of the Roman Empire, including during the Byzantine period. This so called persecution is exaggerated (majority at the time was Greek Orthodox anyway) and Christian Levant was loyal to them. Arabia was always associated with backwardness since those times, that's why the native Christians saw what was coming. Christians in the region could only enjoy some freedom again during the Crusades, and even tho the Crusaders were Latin Catholics and the native Christians were Orthodox and Syriac, there's no story of persecution from them. On the contrary, even after Muslims took back the Levant, the Europeans kept their role in trying to protect us.
     
    Last edited:
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    What's the judgment for an apostate in Islam? How many were perished because of it? Who still practicing it? Wasn't a Lebanese Shiite killed in Saudi Arabia for practicing witchcraft? And we're talking 2018, not 500 years ago. Anyway, it's not bayyeh 2awa min bayyak thing. All committed atrocities, point a la ligne. If anything, Christians are starting to intolerate all the accusations against them as if all are angles but them. Muslim army didn't stop their wars against Christians until Charles Martel won against them, and the Ottomans reached Vienna and were defeated there, where they started to withdraw and ultimately dismantled. Somehow this Muslim aggression gets a pass, why?

    We always draft from the main subject. Where the Shiites before or after Maronites in Keserwen, or both were together, but the Shiites decreased for one reason or another, and the Maronites increased their population?
     
    Last edited:
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    Some truth. But this is far fetched. You are going back to the byzantines? And The inquisition? How is it related to the region? Such poor arguments.
    We are still witnessing Islamic waves of jihad today, and counter jihads based on some hadith written by who knows who, and wars on the kuffars just like Sahaba days.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.
    I don't think any Christian will deny that our religion is one thing, and we are another. Christians who understand their religion are the first to admit that everyone, including themselves, can sin. This is the nature of human beings. We are fallen, according to our own doctrine.

    Being Christian doesn't automatically make you a better person. Being Christian is a journey towards becoming a better person. It requires dedication.

    There is a saying that saints are those who see themselves as full of sin, while sinners think they are saints.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    It is important to acknowledge that, while Christians are perfectly capable of committing atrocities, they can not find justification for it in their doctrine. Not without twisting and misinterpreting the doctrine, anyway.

    The opposite is true for Islam.

    The atrocities that Christians committed against Christians cannot be compared to the extent which Muslims went to, and still go to, in order to erradicate Christianity.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I just have to put in a little word for my dear @manifesto and say that, despite not being Christian, he is one of the rare people on this forum (and outside of it) who has always treated these subjects fairly. He never opposes a stance strictly because it favours Christians, nor does he support a stance strictly because it favours Muslims or atheists. So go easy on him if you think he's got something wrong :) You will find that he is very easy to talk to and receptive to information and ideas that differ from his :)

    And it's ok if we don't all agree 100% of the time. We are all learning and evolving, and these exchanges help us all do that, provided we treat each other with respect and kindness.

    Intolerance of the christian church is nothing in comparison to your Islamic rats. I can't believe I am even comparing the two. Go look at your islamic conquest before pointing fingers at the church. The whole islamic religion was based on the sword.
    @manifesto
    I suggest seriously go look at your own islamic history. We are not tolerant? l 3ama wlo. Half the catholic schools half people from the islamic sect. Not tolerant 2al! We are not the one's who have Ashoura processions in the National university nor is it we that force ourselves or our way of life on others. Our church is here to stay. One who kills his cousins, brothers, fathers like animals have no say in how our church runs its daily affairs.
    Stop living in the past. Christians as a whole can't even be compared to Muslims when it comes to 'tolerance'. The only reason the whole MENA region is at the state it is today is because of Islam and Islam only. ME Christians are more progressive than you think, many if not most at this point are irreligious. We strongly clinge on a Christian identity because of Islam that surround us, when we say we are Christian many of the times we are actually referring to a different ethnic identity and not a religious one.

    Greater Syria was the second or third richest region of the Roman Empire, including during the Byzantine period. This so called persecution is exaggerated (majority at the time was Greek Orthodox anyway) and Christian Levant was loyal to them. Arabia was always associated with backwardness since those times, that's why the native Christians saw what was coming. Christians in the region could only enjoy some freedom again during the Crusades, and even tho the Crusaders were Latin Catholics and the native Christians were Orthodox and Syriac, there's no story of persecution from them. On the contrary, even after Muslims took back the Levant, the Europeans kept their role in trying to protect us.
    What's the judgment for an apostate in Islam? How many were perished because of it? Who still practicing it? Wasn't a Lebanese Shiite killed in Saudi Arabia for practicing witchcraft? And we're talking 2018, not 500 years ago. Anyway, it's not bayyeh 2awa min bayyak thing. All committed atrocities, point a la ligne. If anything, Christians are starting to intolerate all the accusations against them as if all are angles but them. Muslim army didn't stop their wars against Christians until Charles Martel won against them, and the Ottomans reached Vienna and were defeated there, where they started to withdraw and ultimately dismantled. Somehow this Muslim aggression gets a pass, why?

    We always draft from the main subject. Where the Shiites before or after Maronites in Keserwen, or both were together, but the Shiites decreased for one reason or another, and the Maronites increased their population?
    Some truth. But this is far fetched. You are going back to the byzantines? And The inquisition? How is it related to the region? Such poor arguments.
    We are still witnessing Islamic waves of jihad today, and counter jihads based on some hadith written by who knows who, and wars on the kuffars just like Sahaba days.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    I just have to put in a little word for my dear @manifesto and say that, despite not being Christian, he is one of the rare people on this forum (and outside of it) who has always treated these subjects fairly. He never opposes a stance strictly because it favours Christians, nor does he support a stance strictly because it favours Muslims or atheists. So go easy on him if you think he's got something wrong :) You will find that he is very easy to talk to and receptive to information and ideas that differ from his :)

    And it's ok if we don't all agree 100% of the time. We are all learning and evolving, and these exchanges help us all do that, provided we treat each other with respect and kindness.
    I am just against that there seems to blame on the christians every where you go. They don't dare blame themselves for one another or the mess they created just blame us christians ka2ano we are the devil in this country.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I am just against that there seems to blame on the christians every where you go. They don't dare blame themselves for one another or the mess they created just blame us christians ka2ano we are the devil in this country.
    @manifesto is even harsher on Islam. So, if you don't agree with a particular point he makes regarding Christianity, there's no need to be angry. Just explain what you think is wrong with his stance. He's not coming from a hateful, anti-Christian position :)
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    @manifesto is even harsher on Islam. So, if you don't agree with a particular point he makes regarding Christianity, there's no need to be angry. Just explain what you think is wrong with his stance. He's not coming from a hateful, anti-Christian position :)
    I think he is anti-christian. He is one of those from Jbeil who thinks that we took the area from him due to persecuting the shia community there.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think he is anti-christian. He is one of those from Jbeil who thinks that we took the area from him due to persecuting the shia community there.
    lol...no...

    @manifesto just likes to explore topics by arguing about them in a friendly manner.

    Consider it the forum version of rough and tumble play :)

    And he is welcome to Jbeil any time he wants :p
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    I refuse to buy into the idea that Christian societies have been historically more tolerant to minorities.
    Christianity, yes. But Christians, not so much.

    During the Inquisition, heretics who refused to recant their beliefs were hung or burnt alive.
    Byzantine emperors killed thousands of Eastern Christians whom they viewed as heretical.

    Lebanese Christians seem to overlook the fact that their persecution was often at the hand of other Christians.
    Intolerance has always been one of the cornerstones of the Church.
    Byzantine emperors are European Christians. We're talking about Lebanese Christians. You're reaching.
     
    Top