Loki wrote:really wanna read where i get this?
Apart from the desperate missionary rubbish aimed at portraying the crusades as defensive wars, there's only the story of the sepulchre worthy of note. First read this, from your beloved Israel's foreign ministry.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/19 ... f%20christ
Constantines edicule survived for 600 years until it was deliberately destroyed in 1009 by order of the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, al-Hakim, in an insane and short-lived attack on the holy sites of Christianity. Within three or four years al-Hakim had relented, urged on by his mother, Maria, a Christian whose brother Orestes had been Patriarch of Jerusalem. By 1012 rebuilding had begun, and by 1014, Maria had "began to rebuild with well-dressed squared stones the Temple of Christ destroyed by her sons order."
The destruction had been very thorough: Constantines great church of the Martyrion was cut down and never rebuilt, but al-Hakims agents admitted that they could not entirely root out the tomb, and they left parts of the rotunda surrounding the tomb standing to a height of about 11 metres, as one can still see today. By the millennium of Christs crucifixion in 1030 or thereabouts, when thousands of pilgrims were again travelling to the Holy Land, the edicule and the rotunda had been put back into sufficient order for pilgrims to take part in the Easter liturgies and to observe the ceremony of the Descent of the Holy Fire.
William of Tyre, the great Crusader historian, who wrote in the 1160s and 1170s, says that the restoration was completed by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos in 1048. William is our only evidence for this, and his indications of date are inconsistent. No Byzantine chronicler believed this. John Skylitzes, writing in the mid-11th century, a strictly contemporary witness, noted that the Emperor Romanos III (1028-34) "strove eagerly to take the rebuilding in hand; but his death intervened and his successor completed the work." This was the Emperor Michael IV, the Paphlagonian, who reigned from 1036-41.
Byzantine historians of the next generation either repeat Skylitzes, or do not refer to the Holy Sepulchre at all. None attributes the work to Constantine IX. Why then did William of Tyre get it wrong? He was, he says, for this early period, a full century before he was writing, "informed solely by traditions" (solis traditionibus instructa). It looks as if he was given a wrong date, which he knew fell in the reign of Constantine Monomachos, and so attributed the work to him. This second phase of the Byzantine reconstruction lasted from about 1037 to 1040. It was begun by the Emperor Romanos III and completed by Michael IV Paphlagon. Constantine Monomachos had nothing to do with it.
As you see the issue was already resolved when Urban started his brutal campaign. Nothing can whiten dark legacy of crusades.
Now this was a rare incidence in Islamic history. But
was this really done by a Muslim? Here are interesting notes about Hakim, and how his mission coincided with that of Christians.
Al Hakim of shia (7-imam) Fatımid kingdom was apparently a mad man. In 1017 he declared that He is God's incarnate. He send
missionaries to other parts of Islamic land. He had some supporters. Druzes today trace their history back to Al Hakim as the founding father.
Salahaddin not only fought against Crusaders, he also ousted the Fatimid kingdom in Egypt. Druzes fled to Syria.
What is interesting is that,
Druzes and another wicked cult Ismailis later sided with crusaders against Muslim armies.