Movies like The Kingdom of Heaven portray Saladin as some great hero, and the Knights Templars (that lived as warrior-monks to protect innocent pilgrims) as wicked bastards. In short: The film makers probably didn't want to get stabbed in the streets, or bombed ETC. and thought it was safer to make the Christians into the bad guys. This is at least the idea I have. It's self-censorship.
The Christian’s were the good guys in that movie unambiguously 🤣 they’re foreign occupiers and portrayed as nothing else. Gross desert savages, who pray to some weird moon god.
Nah, the movie didn’t really depict him as a hero (if what you saw seemed in anyway heroic in the modern sense, then maybe you should reconsider your definition of a hero.) but a cunning warlord, who had respect for his enemies which a lot of medieval and ancient/classical leaders tbh had for each other. And for the crusaders it showed 2 sites. The kingdom of Jerusalem itself and characters like Baldwin, the Hospitaler, Tiberias, Bailen and Godfrey de Ibelin who were as you described mostly concerned with the safety of pilgrims and the faithul in the holy land and on the other hand it also, showed some of the more zealous people who participated in the crusades like Reynald de Chatillion purely out of fear of the growing size and power of the Muslims at the time basically a parallel to the Muslims themselves, who are already very zealous conquerers. Which also was very common, in religious conflicts. Which btw the movie showed on the Muslim side too with that zealous advisor, who Salahuddin slightly scolded for expecting God to just gift a win.
Seriously?! I guess that's why I never wanted to watch that movie. Same thing is happening today everywhere in the West. People need to study that faith and the history of its founder to really understand it...
He was neither truly magnanimous nor a great general. Not only did he get absolutely blindsided by Montgisard, Baldwin IV and Reynald de Chatillon consistently outmanoeuvred him with inferior numbers for years on end, until finally Baldwin succumbed to his leprosy and the infamously incompetent Guy de Lusignan took over (which was only allowed by the barons for the sake of preventing a civil war at such a critical time). Guy's disaster at Hattin is well known, but what is less talked about is how even against an army dying of thirst Saladin still only barely won while using every little trick. Islamic accounts speak of him nervously chewing his beard during the battle, yelling at his nephews to be quiet when they got excitied, because the Frankish charges nearly broke through his lines several times. Then when Jerusalem had fallen and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was nothing but a siege camp outside Acre, Richard the Lionheart's arrival changed everything. Richard consistently defeated Saladin at every turn, and although Jerusalem was not reclaimed, the crusader kingdom once again stretched all along the coast of Palestine and was bought another 90 years of life. Saladin died soon after, having failed in his sworn mission to drive the Franks into the sea. But that isn't all. Why did Saladin make that oath as a ruler in the first place? It was because he was a usurper and needed the political cause in order to justify himself. For while Saladin was only a middling general at best, he was very good at propaganda, and so showed "mananimity" at crucial times so as to look good for history. Enlightenment thinkers with their own agenda seized upon this and made his myth what it is today.
His win to loss ratio against the Crusader states was more like 50/50, not as consistently loosing as you are implying, He was a reasonable tactician, not as good as his opponents, but he was a far greater strategist then any of the Crusader leaders, including Richard & Baldwin IV // That's why Saladin still achieved many of his objectives in the long run despite his many losses However at Arsuf though, Richard won mainly through luck, he got very close at Arsuf to loosing everything and facing total destruction but some of Saladin's field commanders of the Horse archer units got too careless and ordered them to dismounted too closely to the enemy, in a closely packed formation no less, from which you need time to get back on your horses and there was no crucial reason to do that though aside from more accurate and comfortable shot for the frontline archers, but even before that, while mounted, their long range arrows volleys were already doing lots of damage, killing many horses, wounding lot's men at arms and overwhelming the crusader crossbowmen, If they had just kept that up, then there would've been barely any horses left for Richards knights to charge with & If they took the bait and did charge against Richards orders while the Saracen horse units were still mounted, then the latter could've lured them into a feigned retreat and destroyed them with the heavy mameluke cavalry that was waiting for that very opportunity Saladin got really unlucky at Arsuf a very wasted opportunity although the main blame wasn't on him but on his officers
@@aburoach9268 I said he was outmanouvered by Reynald and Baldwin. Saladin did manage to beat them on several occasions. However, if he was as good of a strategist as you think he was, his advantages in both numbers and proximity to support was so overwhelming that he should have been able to crush the Crusader States in no time at all. But it took him nearly 20 years to do so. And when the Third Crusade arrived, he still was at the advantage, and still yet again failed to achieve his ultimate goals. No good strategist would ever have flubbed as much as he did, with so many advantages at his disposal. So no, propaganda and politics were the only things he was actually good at, and it is long, long past time people stopped pretending otherwise.
there were no "crusader" kingdoms. The European Kingdoms in North Africa, Egypt, and the so called Middle East pre-existed Islam and even the fall of Western Rome. They, in fact, date all the way back to early Rome and beyond that to peoples like the Phoenicians. For 1400 years, western historiographers have participated in a white washing of the actual history out of fear of the Islamic conquests. Ironically, Saladin did not even eject the crusaders, at the end, he was just a warlord who enriched himself at the expense of everyone around him.
@@umbralobserver He's an internet troll of Momo Hijab and Co. let him be, he only repeats what they say Edit: I found the guy in another comment, judging from the things he said, he is obviously a follower of Momo the PDF.
After reverting to Catholic and reading up more church history, moving away from what popular culture misconstrues about Christianity, I started to realize how cringe a lot of "historical" movies are and one of the worst offenders is Ridley Scott and his forced injection of modernist prog slop into his projects, from Kingdom Of Heaven to The Last Duel, Gladiator 2(Even the first one, although not as bad as his latest ones). I recommend channels like Pax Tube(Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually) or Apostolic Majesty (Why Kingdom Of Heaven Is A Historical Failure) As bishop Fulton J. Sheen said "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
You are correct about the movies. The film Two popes is also full of lies! But people believe it. There are many as such. Luckily our All-mighty will not be cheated...It is so sad...
It's really a pretty simple principle: if a civilization has territory forcefully taken from them by an expanding rival empire, the people of that society have every right to engage in warfare to take back their stolen territory. None of these normies that hate on the Crusaders for fighting back against the constantly-expanding caliphates would ever criticize the Native Americans for inflicting violence against white settlers, based on the principle that they had the right to defend their homeland against invaders. But Europeans are not granted that right by the woke powers that be, instead we're demonized for literally everything we have ever done. None of our good deeds are even acknowledged, and ironically, most of them were instrumental in causing people to view our ancestors as monsters. Think about it: nobody would whine about "intergenerational trauma" from slavery that ended over 150 years ago (without any of these normies ever making a peep about the abundant slavery and human trafficking going on in the world right now, since slavery in Africa cannot be used to demonize white people, so they don't care about it) or demand "reparations" if not for the abolition of slavery that Europeans pioneered and enforced on a near-global scale, sacrificing many British and French sailors in the process. Hell, even the Italian Fascists played a role in abolishing slavery, invading Ethiopia under the cassus belli of freeing its millions of slaves, which they did as soon as they conquered it, in April 1935. No teacher or history textbook will ever mention that inconvenient historical fact because it flies in the face of the narrative that paints fascists as absurd caricatures à la 120 Days of Sodom. They really got done dirty by the left, completely smeared on such a universal scale that "fascist" has become the most popular buzzword to use as a synonym for "tyrannical" or "evil", although a lot of the time the far left uses it somewhat more accurately to refer to any ideology that will allow white people to live happy, secure, prosperous lives. Nothing makes me cringe harder than when centrists that claim to be conservatives or whatever (while actually being liberals) call Antifa members "the real fascists" or whatever, it just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for what fascism is and why the left hates it so much. But I digress, the anti-fascism obsession is just one part of the larger cultural narrative that paints white people as demons that have plagued humanity and caused all their problems. 90% of the anti-Christian propaganda pumped out by Hollywood and such doesn't criticize the core teachings of Jesus or the belief in a God or anything truly relating to theology (except the prohibition of homosexuality, they'll criticize that), instead they attack Christianity not because of its actual ideological content, but because they perceive it as the white man's religion. Pretty much all traditional interpretations of all ancient religions prohibit homosexuality, and yet leftists don't criticize those faiths, no matter how adamantly homophobic some may be, hence why they don't make a peep about Islam (also they're scared of being attacked), and yet they myopically focus on Christianity. Of all the religions, leftism is actually probably most compatible with Christianity, as the ideological foundations of the left were rooted in Protestantism, with some of the first leftists being Protestant sects like the Levelers and Diggers, who helped Oliver Cromwell seize power in hopes of redistributing property and owning it in common rather than having private property. But in spite of this, contemporary leftists almost invariably loathe actual Christianity, and my hypothesis as to why is because they view it as the faith of the Europeans, and they view it as traditional, and they have been programmed by social engineering to hate white people (even including the white leftists, who are brimming with white guilt and a desire to prove they are "one of the good ones") and hate anything traditional to the West.
I am creating a video series about the history of wars between Christians and Muslims. It will discuss the wars that happened a long time time before the crusades when Islam spent 300 years invading Christian lands
@@Klee99zeno Go for it and let us know really interested to see the truth . There is enough lies against christianity and we need to standup against the desert cult religion of arabia
Saladin was such a big hero, the Muslim world quickly forgot about him to the extent that his grave in Syria was dilapidated and shocked emperor Wilhelm II so much he paid to have it renovated. None of the locals knew whose grave it was. He's only become relevant after Islamists managed to create a fictional relationship between the actions of modern-day secular Western countries and the kingdoms of medieval times, turning Saladin into an anti-colonial hero.
that's Cause Mamelukes & Ottomans saved the Muslim world from far greater threats & hence their glories overshadowed that of Saladin, but he was very crucial though, just like Zengi, If he hadn't united the Saracen states, the Latin Crusaders would've most likely succeeded unless if they would be pushed out of the Levant by the Mongols
@@aburoach9268The Ottomans didn't save anything. They were never under threat and had a wonderful relationship with Catholics as they terrorized Orthodox. This whole insane stories of Ottomans are beyond immoral. You were pests and ugly people spawning in the deserts as you invaded civilized nations.
Great video. I’m from Japan, and when I was in high school, we watched parts of the film kingdom of heaven. The history teacher had a clear message, in his lectures and also from showing us this film, that Islam is good and Christianity is bad. Years had passed, and I studied Islam, and I came to the conclusion that the teacher knew absolutely nothing about Islam (and also every other religion), and the classes were basically propaganda. I remember a scene in the movie, when Saladin picked up a fallen cross, and standing it up with respect. And the teacher commented on that scene and said something or implied that, look, the Muslims respect other religions. But as for me now, I do not believe Saladin would have done that kind of thing. Respecting a cross. No.
Not only did Saladin not respect the cross, he actually had his men tear it down from the roofs of churches and dragged it through the streets to be spat upon and desecrated by his men.
Sheesh, this propaganda is inescapable! Even the Japanese schoolchildren are having anti-European programming shoved down their throats, huh? The anti-European propaganda has gotten really intense in the West, it's so bad I now consider sending white children to public schools child abuse. They criticize Christianity not on the basis of its content, but because it is perceived as the white man's religion.
That is very awesome you had that observation. It’s really up to one at this point to discover the truth, or do some research about things we are fed. Unfortunately if you see what is going on in Western Europe you see the effect Islam is beginning to have. You don’t see this with Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs doing anything that Muslims do. Muslims have a victim mindset, like a spoilt child who wants what they think they have a right to have. Once they complain that they want Sharia law, how far have they come to have the nerve to impose such a thing? There are at least 50 or more Muslim countries in the world. We don’t need any extra from Europe.
What a load of BS. It portrayed the Templars as bad, sure. But it portrayed Baldwin, Bailin, and the Hospitaliers as good. The Knights Templar are not Christianity. Hating the Knights Templar does not mean you hate Christianity.
Kingdom of Heaven injects modern-day concepts of irreligiosity, religious indifference and xenophilic levels of cultural tolerance into the minds of people and places in a time where that was pretty much non-existent.
I have always been suspended the way the West predictably fall all over themselves to fawn over Saladin. Good to see someone on here that's truthful. Subscribed.
King Baldwin IV is my favorite HERO and NOT salahudin. Despite suffering from leprosy, he did his BEST in PROTECTING JERUSALEM and even defeated him many times. He was more Christ like ⚔️ Even the Knights Hospitaller of order of St John did their best in treating the sick ( whether it may be Christians or non-Christians).
It needs to be known that crusades were a direct result of Islamic incursions into Christian lands. However it only needs to be addressed that the crusaders were in fact pretty brutal but mostly due to the mobs that joined up. I dislike how charitable our mythmakers make Saladin and Muslim caliphates. It was not great at all.
This happens a lot in Spanish Reconquista. Historians tent to idealise and white wash the caliphate of Al-Andalus. Partly to blame the tremendous defeat of the Visigoth kingdom more to the strength of the Muslims and less to the instability and corruption of the gothic rule. Partly, to enhance the Reconquista, like the Romans did with Hannibal, you elevate your enemy to elevate your victory. And specially (and here's the key point) to present the Christian as some kind of Barbarians that took advantage of a more peaceful and civilised society, when in truth, the Muslims civilization was far crueller and warmongering than Christendom.
You say that like they weren't killing Christians before during and after the Muslims. The inquisitions went on for over a thousand years. Over 200 million Christians killed and they reduce the numbers they admit to every year.
Guides at the ancient monuments in Granada, Sevilla and Marbella in Spain all portray the Caliphate as fair and generous rule where people from all Abrahamic religions rubbed along nicely, but the later dynasties as brutal, ignorant and despotic persecutors of minorities. It's quite shocking to hear. The building of Alhambra may we wonderful, but look at the difference in prosperity between the palaces and their hinterlands. If you were a Christian called inside them, you would have feared for your life.
One would be very hard pressed to find "good guys" in Middle Eastern history. No one complains about the barbarism of the Seljuk Turks, who pillaged their way from Central Asia to Anatolia, or the Mongols. The only reason the Crusaders receive such harsh treatment is because they attached themselves to the name of Christ, who said that those who live by the sword will die by it.
Yeah, and maybe there were not liked because they didn't respect any oath, like the one they took to Emperor Alexius (to restore the conquered territory to the empire), to Pope Urban II (To establish an ecclesiastic state), to the people under their protection (they got killed anyway), or maybe that they attacked Acre, even if it had made allegiance, or maybe because they killed EVERY muslim and jews in the holy city. If they attached themself to Christ, why did they persecute Christians that did not share their liturgy ?
How wonderful is it that the same day I found myself wondering about the extent to which Saladin's biography and media portrayal had been whitewashed for the same reason... well... al of islamic history has been, Mr ibrahim releases a video addressing that very same question. Sinchronicity is God whispering at the human soul. God bless you, Raymond. Thank you.
@@raymondibrahim5177 If I may, I'd like to ask a question that came to mind with this video. Saladin is portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy as one of the souls found in Purgatorio... I wonder what would you attribute this to? I don't think the consolidation of fake history stems all the way back to the XIV century (does it?). Perhaps there have always been pro-islamic intellectualism in the west? It strikes me odd to find him absolved from the punishments described by Alighieri mere decades after his passing... I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, if you can spare the time. Thanks again :).
Marxist, Atheists, Enlightenment "scholars" where always fighting against the church. The first encyclopedia was invented to discredit our christianity.
Saladin did the same thing as ISIS, he went after Muslims first before going after bigger fish "He wiped out the influence and heresy of the 'Ubaydid(-Fatimids). He advanced toward Syria and waged the holy war against the European Christians there." (Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddimah 4:06)
Islam has a 3 step system...1 when in minority..2 when they have a big minority enough to start causing problems..3 when they are the majority and will subjugate you..and know you can't fight back...most people don't understand Islam.. they think its just a religion...its a whole world system of life and politics
I hate how we just took the lies and slander. make every1 exept Christians look as truly devoted, good and noble ppl while they were horrible. I am so happy that i learned so much in past 3 years and now i see how more and more ppl are talking about it. God Bless you brother
@ The difference is that muslims act as though human history began with their “prophet” and they only rely on the quran, ahadith and sunnah which are filled with nonsensical fairytales and myths. Even worse is that they are actively trying to violently subjugate the world with this foolishness
And all the muslim will praise Salahudin based on western infidel book who wrote about Salahudin. While at the same time reject books writen by Salahudin entourage, who also a muslim, which depict Salahudin and his islamist terror army as ruthless, brutal, merciless
After the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187, Saladin and Balian of Ibelin negotiated the terms of surrender. The agreement included the following provisions: Safe Passage: Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem were allowed to leave the city safely. They were given a period of time to arrange their departure and were permitted to take their belongings with them. Ransom: A ransom was set for the Christian inhabitants. Those who could pay the ransom were allowed to leave freely. Saladin showed leniency by freeing many who could not afford to pay. Protection of Holy Sites: Saladin ensured that Christian holy sites in Jerusalem were respected and protected. Orthodox and Eastern Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit these sites freely, while Frankish (Catholic) pilgrims had to pay a fee for entry. Restoration of Muslim Holy Sites: Saladin restored Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This treaty is often noted for its relatively humane and respectful terms, especially compared to the brutal sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099.
When he said "It goes back to-" I immediately said "Ivanhoe?" I hate that piece of historical fiction and propaganda with a passion. Its message is literally "The Jews are our moral superiors, and we should give them everything they want and basically become their servants, which is our rightful place as gentiles." That attitude lies at the very core of modern Britain, and the West in general. I detest it.
@@raymondibrahim5177 yeah but why Christiians living in west Don’t spread the word more You did your part and still do Others do not If it all comes down to history repeating itself but in west this time Where would they go ? Now it’s middlee east and west If anything happens to west then middlee eastern christiians are to blame as well Who definitely don’t do enough They don’t realize the situation they are in They are in dream world now where everything is dandy Not gonna mention the dhimimitude complex and how their communities were never cleaned up properly from sympathizers Sure west isn’t sane and committing suiciide right now But who says middlee eastern chriistian aren't suicidaal ?
The legend of Saladin as a chivalrous night began in the romances of the middle ages and was created so he could act as a foil for Richard the Lionheart. It's worth noting that both of these men spent most of their fighting against members of the own religions. It was only in the last decade of both their lives did they fight against members of the other religion. Both were products of their times and would have little use for modern beliefs. Sieges were a terrible business and could only end three ways. The attacking force could withdraw. There could be a negotiated agreement. Or If the attacking army was forced to take the city, there was almost always a bloodbath. In 1099 the Muslims in Jerusalem refused to negotiate, so there was a bloodbath. When Saladin attacked Jerusalem, he agreed to a settlement, not out of mercy, but mostly so he could spare the lives of his own men who he would need in the battles to come. Respect for history seems to be in short supply these days. Hopefully this will change.
BS"D greetings from Jerusalem, Very enlightening. I've never given the subject a second thought, and was oblivious to the contemporary Arab sources. I think it's about damn time to remove that golden eyesore from God's mountain, so we can have our big family barbecue again. DEUS VULT!!!
I've read a couple of books by Thomas Asbridge which I really liked on the Crusades. I think the does a pretty good job of laying out the history in an unbiased way. I think a lot of people make a big deal about him letting the Christians out of Jerusalem alive and not avenging what had happened 100 years prior by the Crusaders but at least Asbridge's opinion is that he fully intended to sack the city and slaughter everyone right up until nearly when they negotiated the surrender and it was probably a pragmatic decision on his part and not having anything to do with charity or being merciful.
Thank you for enlightening us to the truth of the lies in Kingdom of Heaven. Like I said, Ridley Scott is a butcher of history and you prove it. Well done. I appreciate the work you do.
100% I watched the kingdom of heaven and was very disappointed as a former Muslim about how they portrayed salahuddin as an honourable man. He was pure evil
Saladin had highs and lows. Same as Richard the Lionhearted had highs and lows. There were times when crusaders stooped to cannibalism and barbarism, and there were times when Muslim forces did as well. There were times when one side was merciful or cruel, and there were times when the other was as well. It was partially tactics/propaganda and partially to help with post-conflict stability (you always have to take that into account new the end of a period of fighting). The crusades were each like every prolonged war - deeply horrifying times, propped up by both sides in glorifying propaganda. When I re-edited my comment it cut out a couple of paragraphs, but I don't have time to rewrite them - in short, though, there isn't a single character or event in history that is accurately portrayed in film (or likely even in books). WW2 wasn't won by the UK and the US alone (in fact, the US contribution was minimal). Caesar was barely a glorious hero - he was a conqueror (much like many of his peers were). Scribes had biases as well... imagine how in 2024 we have a billion ways to ascertain facts, but if you ask any "authority figures" about important people who are still alive, you can get different answers from each person.
My guy, you can’t sit there and say “there were terrible people on both sides”. Sure there were, everyone knows that. Who cares? But does it matter that for example the Nazis had the world’s best animal cruelty laws at the time? No, because they killed 11 million people in concentration camps. The animal cruelty laws don’t matter, because we don’t need to “humanize” the Nazis. It is clear they were the worst side, and in many conflicts there is an identifiable worst side. Similarly, there is strong evidence US soldiers trafficked in Japanese skulls. But it just doesn’t really matter that much in the face of say the Batan death march. The US was indeed the better side, and it’s not even close. The Crusaders were objectively better than the Muslims. Why? The Crusades were done reactively (pretty much always on the defense) instead of proactively. 1/3 of the Christian world has been permanently lost to us due to Muslim invasion. This fact is lost on a lot of people. That’s what triggered the Crusades to start! Spain would have been lost to Muslim invasion as well if not for the reconquista. Given the progress of Christian Europe and the continued backwardness of the Muslim world, I know which side was better (bad people on both sides not withstanding). Btw as for the US playing a minimal role in WWII, that is a Eurocentric view of the conflict. The Empire of Japan would disagree with you, considering we destroyed them all by ourselves pretty much. Let’s also forget about how much aid and material supplies we gave to Europe, including the Soviets. The merchant marines are an underrated story of the conflict.
Anotther myth about Saladin was his supposed military rivalry with King Rick the Lion Heart. However, King Rick's military prowess proved to be far superior to the Kurdish hero as the former beat the latter in every encounter they had, Acre, Joppa and Arsuf. Due to lack of resources, King Rick decided not to directly attack Jerusalem, however. Had the Crusaders just a tad more troops, they would have completely defeated Saladin. Note that the Templars under King Baldwin, with scant resources, defeated him at Montgisard.
Even if Saladin was merciful in the taking of Jerusalem , he wasn't when he captured a castle before then, he executed the surviving Knights Templar there.
Sadly the worst part of his legacy was his grandson & nephew, one of whom tried to demolish the pyramids, which he failed then fell of his horse and broke his neck, the other, well,.....he liked hunting with jackals, hunting Jews,...yes this did happen
I just assumed he managed his publicity well like a good politician Did not know he had people chronicling his depravity like that in sources still accessible today It will be interesting to study them as someone studying Arabic Do you know what to search aside from محمد الأصفهاني? Are these chronicles called سير
The movie was still a very good film - even if it did not reflect absolute truth. Top notch acting and cinematography, authentic wardrobe, and a good story. Yes, Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning. No doubt about it. It took Christianity about 400 years to become a State religion that was then subsequently usurped by politics. Prior to that, it was spread by the Word.
Really enjoying your books. Finished "Sword and Scimitar" and reading "Defenders of the West." Honestly these need to be made into movies or an HBO series.
funny how all contemporaneous accounts of salahuddin (even muslims) depicted him like a monster, yet the woke borgs who never picked a book to save their lives assure you he was great....
There is a wall carpet that shows how people have fought knees deep in blood around Jerusalem . There must def. been some brutal wars over there . I choose reality over religion or movies.
Well what would you have suggested he have done then ? In those times, were there large prisons where hundreds if not thousands of prisoners could be kept for years ? Slavery was a common option in those days for what became of POW's. He did offer the option to the Crusaders he captured to live and accept Islam. Which certainly is considered barbaric by 21st Century standards. But Saladin lived approximately 1,000 years ago.
Imagine a world were ignoreing logoc false information or fake news doesn't exist So everyone knows the truth all the time and nobody can lie Someone should make a film in a world like that
Yeah,that is also my wishful thinking. But it appears that we are left to ourselves indeed till the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, most of humanity chosen the wrong path to pursue.
This is such misinformation. Even DANTE (who put Mohammad in the 8th circle of Inferno) shows respect to Saladin. This is not some new Woke BS. His reputation for being Honorable is well documented by contemporary historians (even the most conservative Christians).
I have been told repeatedly the same nonsense about the great Salah Ad' Din and I always felt some dissonance. Thank you. [edit] I searched for Mohamad Al Isani (salah's biographer) but could not find anything.
Movies like The Kingdom of Heaven portray Saladin as some great hero, and the Knights Templars (that lived as warrior-monks to protect innocent pilgrims) as wicked bastards. In short: The film makers probably didn't want to get stabbed in the streets, or bombed ETC. and thought it was safer to make the Christians into the bad guys. This is at least the idea I have. It's self-censorship.
Well all you have to do is look at who runs Hollywood
The Christian’s were the good guys in that movie unambiguously 🤣 they’re foreign occupiers and portrayed as nothing else. Gross desert savages, who pray to some weird moon god.
The small hats.
Nah, the movie didn’t really depict him as a hero (if what you saw seemed in anyway heroic in the modern sense, then maybe you should reconsider your definition of a hero.) but a cunning warlord, who had respect for his enemies which a lot of medieval and ancient/classical leaders tbh had for each other.
And for the crusaders it showed 2 sites. The kingdom of Jerusalem itself and characters like Baldwin, the Hospitaler, Tiberias, Bailen and Godfrey de Ibelin who were as you described mostly concerned with the safety of pilgrims and the faithul in the holy land and on the other hand it also, showed some of the more zealous people who participated in the crusades like Reynald de Chatillion purely out of fear of the growing size and power of the Muslims at the time basically a parallel to the Muslims themselves, who are already very zealous conquerers. Which also was very common, in religious conflicts.
Which btw the movie showed on the Muslim side too with that zealous advisor, who Salahuddin slightly scolded for expecting God to just gift a win.
Seriously?! I guess that's why I never wanted to watch that movie. Same thing is happening today everywhere in the West. People need to study that faith and the history of its founder to really understand it...
He was neither truly magnanimous nor a great general. Not only did he get absolutely blindsided by Montgisard, Baldwin IV and Reynald de Chatillon consistently outmanoeuvred him with inferior numbers for years on end, until finally Baldwin succumbed to his leprosy and the infamously incompetent Guy de Lusignan took over (which was only allowed by the barons for the sake of preventing a civil war at such a critical time). Guy's disaster at Hattin is well known, but what is less talked about is how even against an army dying of thirst Saladin still only barely won while using every little trick. Islamic accounts speak of him nervously chewing his beard during the battle, yelling at his nephews to be quiet when they got excitied, because the Frankish charges nearly broke through his lines several times. Then when Jerusalem had fallen and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was nothing but a siege camp outside Acre, Richard the Lionheart's arrival changed everything. Richard consistently defeated Saladin at every turn, and although Jerusalem was not reclaimed, the crusader kingdom once again stretched all along the coast of Palestine and was bought another 90 years of life. Saladin died soon after, having failed in his sworn mission to drive the Franks into the sea.
But that isn't all. Why did Saladin make that oath as a ruler in the first place? It was because he was a usurper and needed the political cause in order to justify himself. For while Saladin was only a middling general at best, he was very good at propaganda, and so showed "mananimity" at crucial times so as to look good for history. Enlightenment thinkers with their own agenda seized upon this and made his myth what it is today.
His win to loss ratio against the Crusader states was more like 50/50, not as consistently loosing as you are implying, He was a reasonable tactician, not as good as his opponents, but he was a far greater strategist then any of the Crusader leaders, including Richard & Baldwin IV // That's why Saladin still achieved many of his objectives in the long run despite his many losses
However at Arsuf though, Richard won mainly through luck, he got very close at Arsuf to loosing everything and facing total destruction but some of Saladin's field commanders of the Horse archer units got too careless and ordered them to dismounted too closely to the enemy, in a closely packed formation no less, from which you need time to get back on your horses and there was no crucial reason to do that though aside from more accurate and comfortable shot for the frontline archers, but even before that, while mounted, their long range arrows volleys were already doing lots of damage, killing many horses, wounding lot's men at arms and overwhelming the crusader crossbowmen, If they had just kept that up, then there would've been barely any horses left for Richards knights to charge with & If they took the bait and did charge against Richards orders while the Saracen horse units were still mounted, then the latter could've lured them into a feigned retreat and destroyed them with the heavy mameluke cavalry that was waiting for that very opportunity
Saladin got really unlucky at Arsuf a very wasted opportunity although the main blame wasn't on him but on his officers
@@aburoach9268 I said he was outmanouvered by Reynald and Baldwin. Saladin did manage to beat them on several occasions. However, if he was as good of a strategist as you think he was, his advantages in both numbers and proximity to support was so overwhelming that he should have been able to crush the Crusader States in no time at all. But it took him nearly 20 years to do so. And when the Third Crusade arrived, he still was at the advantage, and still yet again failed to achieve his ultimate goals. No good strategist would ever have flubbed as much as he did, with so many advantages at his disposal. So no, propaganda and politics were the only things he was actually good at, and it is long, long past time people stopped pretending otherwise.
there were no "crusader" kingdoms. The European Kingdoms in North Africa, Egypt, and the so called Middle East pre-existed Islam and even the fall of Western Rome. They, in fact, date all the way back to early Rome and beyond that to peoples like the Phoenicians.
For 1400 years, western historiographers have participated in a white washing of the actual history out of fear of the Islamic conquests.
Ironically, Saladin did not even eject the crusaders, at the end, he was just a warlord who enriched himself at the expense of everyone around him.
Silence, my friend@@aburoach9268
@@umbralobserver He's an internet troll of Momo Hijab and Co. let him be, he only repeats what they say
Edit: I found the guy in another comment, judging from the things he said, he is obviously a follower of Momo the PDF.
After reverting to Catholic and reading up more church history, moving away from what popular culture misconstrues about Christianity, I started to realize how cringe a lot of "historical" movies are and one of the worst offenders is Ridley Scott and his forced injection of modernist prog slop into his projects, from Kingdom Of Heaven to The Last Duel, Gladiator 2(Even the first one, although not as bad as his latest ones). I recommend channels like Pax Tube(Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually) or Apostolic Majesty (Why Kingdom Of Heaven Is A Historical Failure)
As bishop Fulton J. Sheen said "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
You are correct about the movies. The film Two popes is also full of lies! But people believe it. There are many as such. Luckily our All-mighty will not be cheated...It is so sad...
It's really a pretty simple principle: if a civilization has territory forcefully taken from them by an expanding rival empire, the people of that society have every right to engage in warfare to take back their stolen territory. None of these normies that hate on the Crusaders for fighting back against the constantly-expanding caliphates would ever criticize the Native Americans for inflicting violence against white settlers, based on the principle that they had the right to defend their homeland against invaders. But Europeans are not granted that right by the woke powers that be, instead we're demonized for literally everything we have ever done. None of our good deeds are even acknowledged, and ironically, most of them were instrumental in causing people to view our ancestors as monsters. Think about it: nobody would whine about "intergenerational trauma" from slavery that ended over 150 years ago (without any of these normies ever making a peep about the abundant slavery and human trafficking going on in the world right now, since slavery in Africa cannot be used to demonize white people, so they don't care about it) or demand "reparations" if not for the abolition of slavery that Europeans pioneered and enforced on a near-global scale, sacrificing many British and French sailors in the process. Hell, even the Italian Fascists played a role in abolishing slavery, invading Ethiopia under the cassus belli of freeing its millions of slaves, which they did as soon as they conquered it, in April 1935. No teacher or history textbook will ever mention that inconvenient historical fact because it flies in the face of the narrative that paints fascists as absurd caricatures à la 120 Days of Sodom. They really got done dirty by the left, completely smeared on such a universal scale that "fascist" has become the most popular buzzword to use as a synonym for "tyrannical" or "evil", although a lot of the time the far left uses it somewhat more accurately to refer to any ideology that will allow white people to live happy, secure, prosperous lives. Nothing makes me cringe harder than when centrists that claim to be conservatives or whatever (while actually being liberals) call Antifa members "the real fascists" or whatever, it just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for what fascism is and why the left hates it so much. But I digress, the anti-fascism obsession is just one part of the larger cultural narrative that paints white people as demons that have plagued humanity and caused all their problems. 90% of the anti-Christian propaganda pumped out by Hollywood and such doesn't criticize the core teachings of Jesus or the belief in a God or anything truly relating to theology (except the prohibition of homosexuality, they'll criticize that), instead they attack Christianity not because of its actual ideological content, but because they perceive it as the white man's religion. Pretty much all traditional interpretations of all ancient religions prohibit homosexuality, and yet leftists don't criticize those faiths, no matter how adamantly homophobic some may be, hence why they don't make a peep about Islam (also they're scared of being attacked), and yet they myopically focus on Christianity. Of all the religions, leftism is actually probably most compatible with Christianity, as the ideological foundations of the left were rooted in Protestantism, with some of the first leftists being Protestant sects like the Levelers and Diggers, who helped Oliver Cromwell seize power in hopes of redistributing property and owning it in common rather than having private property. But in spite of this, contemporary leftists almost invariably loathe actual Christianity, and my hypothesis as to why is because they view it as the faith of the Europeans, and they view it as traditional, and they have been programmed by social engineering to hate white people (even including the white leftists, who are brimming with white guilt and a desire to prove they are "one of the good ones") and hate anything traditional to the West.
I am creating a video series about the history of wars between Christians and Muslims. It will discuss the wars that happened a long time time before the crusades when Islam spent 300 years invading Christian lands
@@Klee99zeno Go for it and let us know really interested to see the truth . There is enough lies against christianity and we need to standup against the desert cult religion of arabia
That's all true.
Saladin was such a big hero, the Muslim world quickly forgot about him to the extent that his grave in Syria was dilapidated and shocked emperor Wilhelm II so much he paid to have it renovated. None of the locals knew whose grave it was.
He's only become relevant after Islamists managed to create a fictional relationship between the actions of modern-day secular Western countries and the kingdoms of medieval times, turning Saladin into an anti-colonial hero.
that's Cause Mamelukes & Ottomans saved the Muslim world from far greater threats & hence their glories overshadowed that of Saladin, but he was very crucial though, just like Zengi, If he hadn't united the Saracen states, the Latin Crusaders would've most likely succeeded unless if they would be pushed out of the Levant by the Mongols
THIS
@@aburoach9268 Bad cope
that's because in the muslim world it's a sign of humility to have an unmarked grave, plenty of muslim kings and generals have unmarked graves.
@@aburoach9268The Ottomans didn't save anything. They were never under threat and had a wonderful relationship with Catholics as they terrorized Orthodox. This whole insane stories of Ottomans are beyond immoral. You were pests and ugly people spawning in the deserts as you invaded civilized nations.
Great video. I’m from Japan, and when I was in high school, we watched parts of the film kingdom of heaven. The history teacher had a clear message, in his lectures and also from showing us this film, that Islam is good and Christianity is bad. Years had passed, and I studied Islam, and I came to the conclusion that the teacher knew absolutely nothing about Islam (and also every other religion), and the classes were basically propaganda. I remember a scene in the movie, when Saladin picked up a fallen cross, and standing it up with respect. And the teacher commented on that scene and said something or implied that, look, the Muslims respect other religions. But as for me now, I do not believe Saladin would have done that kind of thing. Respecting a cross. No.
Incredible English!!
By the way, I LOVE Japan, absolutely obsessed with everything Japanese!!! You’re very lucky to have been born there❤🙏
based and redpilled です
Not only did Saladin not respect the cross, he actually had his men tear it down from the roofs of churches and dragged it through the streets to be spat upon and desecrated by his men.
Sheesh, this propaganda is inescapable! Even the Japanese schoolchildren are having anti-European programming shoved down their throats, huh? The anti-European propaganda has gotten really intense in the West, it's so bad I now consider sending white children to public schools child abuse. They criticize Christianity not on the basis of its content, but because it is perceived as the white man's religion.
That is very awesome you had that observation. It’s really up to one at this point to discover the truth, or do some research about things we are fed. Unfortunately if you see what is going on in Western Europe you see the effect Islam is beginning to have. You don’t see this with Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs doing anything that Muslims do. Muslims have a victim mindset, like a spoilt child who wants what they think they have a right to have. Once they complain that they want Sharia law, how far have they come to have the nerve to impose such a thing? There are at least 50 or more Muslim countries in the world. We don’t need any extra from Europe.
Christians glazing Saladin is nauseating. I'm glad we're waking up now.
Add Hannibal (who got his ass handed to him by Scipio) to that list, I am so tired of it all.
Yup, the quran met internet and islam got found out.
Without lies islam dies.
The idea of Saladin as a chivalrous knight originated in the Middle Ages, when he and Richard the Lionhearted made a peace treaty.
Kingdom of Heaven was a disgusting movie that was dripping with hatred for Christianity. Hollywood really hates everything good.
What a load of BS. It portrayed the Templars as bad, sure. But it portrayed Baldwin, Bailin, and the Hospitaliers as good.
The Knights Templar are not Christianity. Hating the Knights Templar does not mean you hate Christianity.
To my knowledge Saladin was a Kurd not an Arab
yep he was a Kurd
Gotta stop calling it "Extremism". It's fundamentalism, they're doing what their book tells them to do EXPLICITLY.
💯🎯
Kingdom of Heaven injects modern-day concepts of irreligiosity, religious indifference and xenophilic levels of cultural tolerance into the minds of people and places in a time where that was pretty much non-existent.
Started reading Defenders of the West two days ago and now you’re popping up on my recommended feed. You gotta love it.
fall of jeruslaem - chris de burgh
I have always been suspended the way the West predictably fall all over themselves to fawn over Saladin. Good to see someone on here that's truthful. Subscribed.
King Baldwin IV is my favorite HERO and NOT salahudin. Despite suffering from leprosy, he did his BEST in PROTECTING JERUSALEM and even defeated him many times. He was more Christ like ⚔️
Even the Knights Hospitaller of order of St John did their best in treating the sick ( whether it may be Christians or non-Christians).
They both killed Christians. They both were enemies of Jesus. Well at least I know you're not getting truth here then.
Your comment is massively ignorant. It's as bad as Muslims.
@joshportie Shirt up Sissie
@@joshportieYour comment is just pessimistic as any FAKE believer.
@@joshportieChristians like u are a bigger problems than moslims
It needs to be known that crusades were a direct result of Islamic incursions into Christian lands. However it only needs to be addressed that the crusaders were in fact pretty brutal but mostly due to the mobs that joined up.
I dislike how charitable our mythmakers make Saladin and Muslim caliphates.
It was not great at all.
Fighting Islam radicalized Christendom.
Saladin, a chivalrous knight.
Ridiculous.
This happens a lot in Spanish Reconquista. Historians tent to idealise and white wash the caliphate of Al-Andalus.
Partly to blame the tremendous defeat of the Visigoth kingdom more to the strength of the Muslims and less to the instability and corruption of the gothic rule.
Partly, to enhance the Reconquista, like the Romans did with Hannibal, you elevate your enemy to elevate your victory.
And specially (and here's the key point) to present the Christian as some kind of Barbarians that took advantage of a more peaceful and civilised society, when in truth, the Muslims civilization was far crueller and warmongering than Christendom.
Christendom isn't a real thing. That's the Catholic empires that hunted the Christians down and tortured us. For Christians they were the same.
You say that like they weren't killing Christians before during and after the Muslims. The inquisitions went on for over a thousand years. Over 200 million Christians killed and they reduce the numbers they admit to every year.
Al Andaluz was horrible.
...and they did not changed a bit. Till today....
Guides at the ancient monuments in Granada, Sevilla and Marbella in Spain all portray the Caliphate as fair and generous rule where people from all Abrahamic religions rubbed along nicely, but the later dynasties as brutal, ignorant and despotic persecutors of minorities. It's quite shocking to hear. The building of Alhambra may we wonderful, but look at the difference in prosperity between the palaces and their hinterlands. If you were a Christian called inside them, you would have feared for your life.
Had no idea you were present on youtube, thrilled and subscribed
Same! Salute!
This just came up on my recommended randomly, who is he?
#me2
One would be very hard pressed to find "good guys" in Middle Eastern history. No one complains about the barbarism of the Seljuk Turks, who pillaged their way from Central Asia to Anatolia, or the Mongols. The only reason the Crusaders receive such harsh treatment is because they attached themselves to the name of Christ, who said that those who live by the sword will die by it.
Yeah, and maybe there were not liked because they didn't respect any oath, like the one they took to Emperor Alexius (to restore the conquered territory to the empire), to Pope Urban II (To establish an ecclesiastic state), to the people under their protection (they got killed anyway), or maybe that they attacked Acre, even if it had made allegiance, or maybe because they killed EVERY muslim and jews in the holy city.
If they attached themself to Christ, why did they persecute Christians that did not share their liturgy ?
How wonderful is it that the same day I found myself wondering about the extent to which Saladin's biography and media portrayal had been whitewashed for the same reason... well... al of islamic history has been, Mr ibrahim releases a video addressing that very same question.
Sinchronicity is God whispering at the human soul.
God bless you, Raymond. Thank you.
Same to you.
@@raymondibrahim5177 If I may, I'd like to ask a question that came to mind with this video.
Saladin is portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy as one of the souls found in Purgatorio... I wonder what would you attribute this to? I don't think the consolidation of fake history stems all the way back to the XIV century (does it?). Perhaps there have always been pro-islamic intellectualism in the west? It strikes me odd to find him absolved from the punishments described by Alighieri mere decades after his passing...
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, if you can spare the time.
Thanks again :).
@@Ozymannaz See this article which coincidentally came out today: stream.org/but-why-saladin-the-wests-low-standard-bar-for-islam/
@@raymondibrahim5177 Thank you so very much.
Marxist, Atheists, Enlightenment "scholars" where always fighting against the church.
The first encyclopedia was invented to discredit our christianity.
This is why I am becoming more and more intensely supportive that historical movies need to be as authentic to the topic as possible.
Saladin did the same thing as ISIS, he went after Muslims first before going after bigger fish
"He wiped out the influence and heresy of the 'Ubaydid(-Fatimids). He advanced toward Syria and waged the holy war against the European Christians there." (Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddimah 4:06)
NEW Subscriber,
Thank you for shining light on the truth of history! More please.
Thanks for the video. It was very informative. God bless from Canada 🇨🇦
Scott and Haggard BOTH bought into the "Saint Saladin" myth. THANK YOU for this!
Good man, keep sharing the *Truth.*
8:00 describes what Muslims are currently doing in Spain and rest of the world when they feel empowered enough
Islam has a 3 step system...1 when in minority..2 when they have a big minority enough to start causing problems..3 when they are the majority and will subjugate you..and know you can't fight back...most people don't understand Islam.. they think its just a religion...its a whole world system of life and politics
I hate how we just took the lies and slander. make every1 exept Christians look as truly devoted, good and noble ppl while they were horrible. I am so happy that i learned so much in past 3 years and now i see how more and more ppl are talking about it. God Bless you brother
Muslims have always been trying to rewrite history which is the reason we need men like you! Thanks
Everyone with political motives rewrites history when deemed necessary.
@@dragonmartijnabsolutely right, everyone did it for their political motives..muslims never distorted their own history, never needed to!
@ The difference is that muslims act as though human history began with their “prophet” and they only rely on the quran, ahadith and sunnah which are filled with nonsensical fairytales and myths. Even worse is that they are actively trying to violently subjugate the world with this foolishness
@@dragonmartijnyeah but Muslims have taqyia on their side.
Im so happy that Raymond is now also making videos. Please keep it up.
And all the muslim will praise Salahudin based on western infidel book who wrote about Salahudin. While at the same time reject books writen by Salahudin entourage, who also a muslim, which depict Salahudin and his islamist terror army as ruthless, brutal, merciless
Muslim lying about their history. Quite frankly.y I’m shocked. Who would’ve thunk it.
I aopreciate you bringing proper sources. I was going to find then after the video but you had them in already.
After the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187, Saladin and Balian of Ibelin negotiated the terms of surrender. The agreement included the following provisions:
Safe Passage: Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem were allowed to leave the city safely. They were given a period of time to arrange their departure and were permitted to take their belongings with them.
Ransom: A ransom was set for the Christian inhabitants. Those who could pay the ransom were allowed to leave freely. Saladin showed leniency by freeing many who could not afford to pay.
Protection of Holy Sites: Saladin ensured that Christian holy sites in Jerusalem were respected and protected. Orthodox and Eastern Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit these sites freely, while Frankish (Catholic) pilgrims had to pay a fee for entry.
Restoration of Muslim Holy Sites: Saladin restored Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
This treaty is often noted for its relatively humane and respectful terms, especially compared to the brutal sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099.
You are in my prayers, Ray. Stay strong in your faith.
As much as these modern Historians are wont to believe that Christianity and the Crusades were atrocities... Islam is guilty of worse.
... The Crusades were a legitimate response to Muslim aggression.
Far, far worse
Glorifying Saladin goes back at least to Boccaccio.
When he said "It goes back to-" I immediately said "Ivanhoe?" I hate that piece of historical fiction and propaganda with a passion. Its message is literally "The Jews are our moral superiors, and we should give them everything they want and basically become their servants, which is our rightful place as gentiles." That attitude lies at the very core of modern Britain, and the West in general. I detest it.
Dante put him in Limbo instead of the real Hell. The Christian tradition about Saladin was that kind.
@@gf6110 Limbo is a part of hell according to dantes divine comedy
@artilleriman Yes, technically. But It's not a place for sinners meeting their punishment, just very good people lacking the Christian Faith.
@@titanomachy2217 Imma big fan of Ivanhoe myself. Then again, I only read the Great Illustrated Classic version.
"Radical" I. = The real I.
I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to make a video about the true Saladin. Finally. Thank you.
subscribed, bell button=all.. keep up the good work, Godspeed
thanks for the truth Raymond, much appreciated💯⚔
your welcome
@@raymondibrahim5177
yeah but why Christiians living in west
Don’t spread the word more
You did your part and still do
Others do not
If it all comes down to history repeating itself but in west this time
Where would they go ?
Now it’s middlee east and west
If anything happens to west then middlee eastern christiians are to blame as well
Who definitely don’t do enough
They don’t realize the situation they are in
They are in dream world now where everything is dandy
Not gonna mention the dhimimitude complex and how their communities were never cleaned up properly from sympathizers
Sure west isn’t sane and committing suiciide right now
But who says middlee eastern chriistian aren't suicidaal ?
Wow, just as I was reading your book Defenders of the West, Raymond somehow appeared on my feed. It's nice to see you on TH-cam! I just subscribed.
Very cute dog in the background, very valid points made too.
The legend of Saladin as a chivalrous night began in the romances of the middle ages and was created so he could act as a foil for Richard the Lionheart. It's worth noting that both of these men spent most of their fighting against members of the own religions. It was only in the last decade of both their lives did they fight against members of the other religion. Both were products of their times and would have little use for modern beliefs. Sieges were a terrible business and could only end three ways. The attacking force could withdraw. There could be a negotiated agreement. Or If the attacking army was forced to take the city, there was almost always a bloodbath. In 1099 the Muslims in Jerusalem refused to negotiate, so there was a bloodbath. When Saladin attacked Jerusalem, he agreed to a settlement, not out of mercy, but mostly so he could spare the lives of his own men who he would need in the battles to come. Respect for history seems to be in short supply these days. Hopefully this will change.
I'd love to see Ridley doing a an unpropagandised version of the crusades
Great video with excellent information ,new subscriber.
BS"D greetings from Jerusalem,
Very enlightening. I've never given the subject a second thought, and was oblivious to the contemporary Arab sources. I think it's about damn time to remove that golden eyesore from God's mountain, so we can have our big family barbecue again. DEUS VULT!!!
The temple on the mount was a christian church.
I've read a couple of books by Thomas Asbridge which I really liked on the Crusades. I think the does a pretty good job of laying out the history in an unbiased way.
I think a lot of people make a big deal about him letting the Christians out of Jerusalem alive and not avenging what had happened 100 years prior by the Crusaders but at least Asbridge's opinion is that he fully intended to sack the city and slaughter everyone right up until nearly when they negotiated the surrender and it was probably a pragmatic decision on his part and not having anything to do with charity or being merciful.
Thank you for enlightening us to the truth of the lies in Kingdom of Heaven. Like I said, Ridley Scott is a butcher of history and you prove it. Well done. I appreciate the work you do.
Mr Ibrahim is HIGHLY CREDIBLE! Thank you
100% I watched the kingdom of heaven and was very disappointed as a former Muslim about how they portrayed salahuddin as an honourable man. He was pure evil
Thanks for this I see it seeping into every conversation that includes him
This is perfect!! I was scrambling a couple months ago trying to watch every Raymond Ibrahim interview, now I don’t have to look any further!
Saladin had highs and lows. Same as Richard the Lionhearted had highs and lows. There were times when crusaders stooped to cannibalism and barbarism, and there were times when Muslim forces did as well. There were times when one side was merciful or cruel, and there were times when the other was as well. It was partially tactics/propaganda and partially to help with post-conflict stability (you always have to take that into account new the end of a period of fighting). The crusades were each like every prolonged war - deeply horrifying times, propped up by both sides in glorifying propaganda.
When I re-edited my comment it cut out a couple of paragraphs, but I don't have time to rewrite them - in short, though, there isn't a single character or event in history that is accurately portrayed in film (or likely even in books). WW2 wasn't won by the UK and the US alone (in fact, the US contribution was minimal). Caesar was barely a glorious hero - he was a conqueror (much like many of his peers were). Scribes had biases as well... imagine how in 2024 we have a billion ways to ascertain facts, but if you ask any "authority figures" about important people who are still alive, you can get different answers from each person.
My guy, you can’t sit there and say “there were terrible people on both sides”. Sure there were, everyone knows that. Who cares?
But does it matter that for example the Nazis had the world’s best animal cruelty laws at the time? No, because they killed 11 million people in concentration camps. The animal cruelty laws don’t matter, because we don’t need to “humanize” the Nazis. It is clear they were the worst side, and in many conflicts there is an identifiable worst side. Similarly, there is strong evidence US soldiers trafficked in Japanese skulls. But it just doesn’t really matter that much in the face of say the Batan death march. The US was indeed the better side, and it’s not even close.
The Crusaders were objectively better than the Muslims. Why? The Crusades were done reactively (pretty much always on the defense) instead of proactively. 1/3 of the Christian world has been permanently lost to us due to Muslim invasion. This fact is lost on a lot of people. That’s what triggered the Crusades to start! Spain would have been lost to Muslim invasion as well if not for the reconquista.
Given the progress of Christian Europe and the continued backwardness of the Muslim world, I know which side was better (bad people on both sides not withstanding).
Btw as for the US playing a minimal role in WWII, that is a Eurocentric view of the conflict. The Empire of Japan would disagree with you, considering we destroyed them all by ourselves pretty much. Let’s also forget about how much aid and material supplies we gave to Europe, including the Soviets. The merchant marines are an underrated story of the conflict.
@@dakotasmith1344 The phrase "objectively better" is an oxymoron.
Anotther myth about Saladin was his supposed military rivalry with King Rick the Lion Heart. However, King Rick's military prowess proved to be far superior to the Kurdish hero as the former beat the latter in every encounter they had, Acre, Joppa and Arsuf. Due to lack of resources, King Rick decided not to directly attack Jerusalem, however. Had the Crusaders just a tad more troops, they would have completely defeated Saladin. Note that the Templars under King Baldwin, with scant resources, defeated him at Montgisard.
Thank you sir, I’ve Learnt a lot from you these past few months
Very interesting video. Could you post sources in the description or a comment?
Jesuit books. As bad as the Muslims.
Salahudin amd his men are so obsessed with blonde blue ayes European women… i wonder where he learnt that?
Don't mind him. Them generations are gone long ago. We live in a peaceful world.
@@MandingEmpire1Hahahahahahahahahahaha 😂
read his treaty then talk. and where you get you sources from, I know you pulled it out of your ass.
are you dense he quoted saladins chroniclers
Even if Saladin was merciful in the taking of Jerusalem , he wasn't when he captured a castle before then, he executed the surviving Knights Templar there.
Sadly the worst part of his legacy was his grandson & nephew, one of whom tried to demolish the pyramids, which he failed then fell of his horse and broke his neck, the other, well,.....he liked hunting with jackals, hunting Jews,...yes this did happen
I just assumed he managed his publicity well like a good politician
Did not know he had people chronicling his depravity like that in sources still accessible today
It will be interesting to study them as someone studying Arabic
Do you know what to search aside from محمد الأصفهاني?
Are these chronicles called سير
He and Islam is the enemy .
The movie was still a very good film - even if it did not reflect absolute truth. Top notch acting and cinematography, authentic wardrobe, and a good story.
Yes, Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning. No doubt about it. It took Christianity about 400 years to become a State religion that was then subsequently usurped by politics. Prior to that, it was spread by the Word.
Super! Thank you.
This is shocking i always thought saladin to be rare among mslim rulers for being merciful :(.
Baldwin IV 🗿🗿🗿✝️✝️✝️✝️
Coal. Even Dante put him in Limbo and described him as "virtuous pagan".
Saladin is literally only cool on this movie lol but it’s just a movie and a heavily fictionalized one
Victor Davis Hanson is right - I too have been very impressed with your books, they are excellent.
What do you do for biceps
The dog is having crusade thoughts
That's the guy from Assassin Creed 1.
With respect to Muslims, I see a lot of exaggeration on the character and achievements of some of their heroes.
Really enjoying your books. Finished "Sword and Scimitar" and reading "Defenders of the West." Honestly these need to be made into movies or an HBO series.
Christ is King
👑☦️✝️
funny how all contemporaneous accounts of salahuddin (even muslims) depicted him like a monster, yet the woke borgs who never picked a book to save their lives assure you he was great....
Superb thank you, best wishes to you and your family for Christmas Mr Ibrahim. Deus Vult !
Always be careful of people who throw around Latin words. They're probably highly indoctrinated.
There is a wall carpet that shows how people have fought knees deep in blood around Jerusalem . There must def. been some brutal wars over there . I choose reality over religion or movies.
Thank you for telling the truth!
Age of Empires 2 kind of depicted saladin as a good guy, then again you play as him.
Lol you don’t understand how tenses work...
Excellent video
Why do you think Saladin is placed by Dante with the virtuous pagans in Limbo? The Divine Comedy goes back to the 1300’s.
The cronicle of the Kings of England, from the Norman conquest to the present time, ın 1799 by Dodsley Robert. I hope you read that book too.
Ibrahims workout routine. 1 Rep for every muslim lie
Anyone who kept to that would look like the incredible hulk.
He could defeat Goku in a week.
I’m glad you care about the truth of history so do you use the term byzantine empire to identify the later Roman Empire?
Well what would you have suggested he have done then ?
In those times, were there large prisons where hundreds if not thousands of prisoners could be kept for years ?
Slavery was a common option in those days for what became of POW's.
He did offer the option to the Crusaders he captured to live and accept Islam.
Which certainly is considered barbaric by 21st Century standards. But Saladin lived approximately 1,000 years ago.
It sounds very much like the last girl, by Nadia Marad,that sounds like the description in the Hadith.
Imagine a world were ignoreing logoc false information or fake news doesn't exist
So everyone knows the truth all the time and nobody can lie
Someone should make a film in a world like that
Yeah,that is also my wishful thinking. But it appears that we are left to ourselves indeed till the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, most of humanity chosen the wrong path to pursue.
History at its best complicated
Dante loved him.
The jacked older brother of @BluntyTV
Thank you for the truth.
Please cite the sources so we can check for ourselves
He did site the sources
This is such misinformation. Even DANTE (who put Mohammad in the 8th circle of Inferno) shows respect to Saladin. This is not some new Woke BS. His reputation for being Honorable is well documented by contemporary historians (even the most conservative Christians).
I have been told repeatedly the same nonsense about the great Salah Ad' Din and I always felt some dissonance. Thank you.
[edit] I searched for Mohamad Al Isani (salah's biographer) but could not find anything.
talk about spreading hate and misinformation
He changed Egypt and Africa into mamluks turrk fiillth
Yes. This is the truth.