It’s time for another look at the inner machinations of Fake History.
For example, some time back we examined the truth about Saladin. Although much extolled in the West for magnanimous and even “chivalrous” behavior, the Kurdish sultan was what we would call today a “radical” Muslim who beheaded Christians for not embracing Islam, and enslaved thousands of Christian women and children. Now let’s look at a similar but lesser-known example of this phenomenon of Westerners gushing over what are otherwise “radical” Muslims.
Enter Muhammad bin Dawud Chaghri. (Although he is better known today as “Alp Arslan,” a Turkish honorific that means “brave lion,” for the remainder of this article, I will refer to him by his given name: Muhammad.)
The Other Muhammad
This Muhammad (b.1033) was sultan of the Seljuk Turks from 1063 to 1072. The Seljuk Turks were the Muslim group that committed so many atrocities throughout Asia Minor and the Holy Land — slaughtering and enslaving tens if not hundreds of thousands of Christians and desecrating and torching thousands of churches — that finally Europe rose up and fought back in the the First Crusade.
According to Muslim sources, Muhammad was a fanatical Muslim. Nizam al-Mulk, his vizier, and a formidable man himself, said of the young sultan: “He was exceedingly imperious and … because he was so earnest and fanatical in his beliefs and disapproved of the Shafi‘i rite, I lived in constant fear of him.”
The Shafi’i rite is one of four approved schools of Sunni law (madhhab). Even so, the vizier is saying that Muhammad, who followed the Hanafi madhhab, was so intolerant of any opposing schools of thought, even though they were fully approved by Islam, that he terrified his own vizier.
How then would Muhammad have felt about Christians? We shall soon see.
As an example of his many exploits: Soon after becoming sultan between 1064 and 1065, Muhammad besieged Ani, the capital of Armenia. Once inside, his Muslim warriors — according to sources, armed with one knife in each hand and an extra in their mouths —
began to mercilessly slaughter the inhabitants of the entire city … and piling up their bodies one on top of the other…. Innumerable and countless boys with bright faces and pretty girls were carried off together with their mothers.
But the most savage treatment was always reserved for those visibly proclaiming their Christianity: Clergy and monks were “burned to death, while others were flayed alive from head to toe,” all on Sultan Muhammad’s orders. Every monastery and church in “the City of 1001 Churches,” as Ani had been known to that point, was pillaged, desecrated, and set aflame. Crosses were ritually broken, except for a large gilded one which Muhammad sent to the caliph in Baghdad as a trophy of war.
A Single Act of ‘Magnanimity’…
Not only do several Christian sources document the sack of Armenia’s capital (one contemporary succinctly notes that Muhammad “rendered Ani a desert by massacres and fire”), but so do Muslim sources, often in apocalyptic terms: “I wanted to enter the city and see it with my own eyes,” one Arab explained. “I tried to find a street without having to walk over the corpses. But that was impossible.”
Little wonder that, for contemporary Christians, Muhammad was “like a beast crazed by its bloodthirsty nature,” a “drinker of blood,” a “venomous serpent,” a “ferocious animal,” to quote from the chronicler Matthew of Edessa. For Michael Attaleiates (b. 1022), a contemporary Greek writer, the sultan was simply the “Antichrist.”
Due to Sultan Muhammad’s ravaging of Christian territory, before long the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”) responded in the person of Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes. He led a large army against Muhammad’s forces near Manzikert in 1071. Not only was it a catastrophic defeat for the Christians; but Romanus became the first Roman emperor in over a thousand years to experience the ignominy of being captured on the field of battle.
And here is where things get interesting. Muhammad ended up releasing Romanus in exchange for a huge ransom. And because of this, all that is remembered today of Sultan Muhammad, this “drinker of Christian blood,” this “blood-crazed beast” and “Antichrist,” is that he was — wait for it — magnanimous.
Sound familiar?
…But Many Citations
Rather than comb through my books for quotes asserting Muhammad’s magnanimity — and these are many, if memory recalls — I decided to try out an AI by asking it, “Which authors say Alp Arslan was magnanimous for releasing Romanus?” It gave me several examples, some of which are pasted below verbatim:
Steven Runciman – In his famous work The History of the Crusades, Runciman refers to Alp Arslan’s release of Romanos as an act of magnanimity. He highlights that, despite the Byzantine Emperor being captured after a significant defeat, Alp Arslan showed mercy by sparing him rather than executing him, which was common practice in such situations at the time.
Alan Palmer – In The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palmer refers to Alp Arslan’s release of Romanos as an example of chivalry and noble conduct in contrast to the often brutal nature of medieval warfare.
David Nicolle – In his book The Crusades: A Short History, Nicolle discusses the event and notes that Alp Arslan’s decision to release Romanos was likely motivated by political calculation but also an act of magnanimity that contrasted with the harsher norms of warfare at the time.
Bernard Lewis – The renowned historian of the Middle East, in his book The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, briefly touches upon the release of Romanos and suggests that Alp Arslan’s act demonstrated his generosity and wisdom, as he sought to avoid further conflict and secure his dominance over the region.
I also asked ChatGPT directly, “Was Alp Arslan magnanimous to Romanus Diogenes after Manzikert 1071?” to which it responded:
Yes, Alp Arslan, the Seljuk Sultan, demonstrated magnanimity toward Romanos IV Diogenes, the Byzantine Emperor, after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Despite the overwhelming victory of the Seljuk forces, Alp Arslan acted with relative mercy toward the defeated Romanos, which is often cited as an example of his magnanimity… Rather than executing him or imprisoning him for life, Alp Arslan reportedly treated Romanos with respect and dignity…. He is said to have had a respectful conversation with the emperor, asking for his well-being and offering him generous treatment.
However, after Romanos was released and returned to Constantinople, his own court turned against him, and he was eventually deposed, blinded, and imprisoned. Alp Arslan’s mercy, therefore, did not directly lead to a positive outcome for Romanos, but it was certainly a magnanimous gesture in contrast to the ruthless norms of medieval warfare. The event reflects Alp Arslan’s character and political approach, showing a level of compassion and respect toward an enemy, which stands out in history as an example of chivalric conduct.
There are two fundamental problems with all these claims.
What the Ancient Muslim Sources Tell Us
First, although Western historians have made much of Sultan Muhammad’s apparent magnanimity, it completely accorded with sharia (Islamic law), which recommends that Muslim leaders dispense with captives in whichever one of three ways — execution, slavery, or freedom (often by ransoming) — best serves Islam’s interests.
Considering that the sultan’s Fatimid Shia rivals were launching devastating raids on his southern domains and that the execution of the Christians’ emperor might provoke a renewed Roman offensive, whereas clemency to Romanus might ease hostilities and fill the Seljuks’ coffers with money, Muhammad wisely concluded on release for ransom. Even Romanus himself had shrewdly told the sultan that “killing me will not be of any use to you.”
So in and of itself, there was nothing magnanimous in Muhammad’s release of Romanus for ransom. Based on the circumstances, it was by far the best of Muhammad’s options — allowing tensions with the Christians to ease so the Turks could focus on the Fatimids and filling their war chest with much needed gold.
The second problem here is that, while Muslim accounts do confirm that Muhammad released the emperor, they make abundantly clear that there was nothing of magnanimity to it.
“You are too trivial in my view for me to kill you,” the sultan is said to have declared to Romanus before his Turks. “Take him to the person who pays most.”
When no one reportedly wanted to purchase the “Dog of the Romans,” Muhammad scoffed that that was “because the dog is better than he is!”
Dog, by the way, is one of Islam’s main epithets for Christians.
Muslim chronicles also say that “He struck him three or four blows with his hand and [when Romanus collapsed] he kicked him a similar number of times.” Muhammad also “put him in chains and fettered his hand to his neck”; he pulled his hair and put his face to the ground, while informing him, “your troops [are] food for the Muslims.” And so on.
I don’t know about you, but such behavior does not seem all that “magnanimous” and “chivalrous” to me.
Meanwhile, and if you’ll recall, ChatGPT said this,
Rather than executing him or imprisoning him for life, Alp Arslan reportedly treated Romanos with respect and dignity… He is said to have had a respectful conversation with the emperor, asking for his well-being and offering him generous treatment.
So there it is: Yet another example of fake history; and, as with Saladin’s fake history, it too is dedicated to transforming a jihadist Muslim leader into a paragon of chivalry and magnanimity, as a stark contrast with the Christians of his (and our?) time.
Raymond Ibrahim
Photo: raymondibrahim.com
To read more articles by Raymond Ibrahim click here.
