Excuse me Vincent and Dom1, weren't most of the points of conflict mentioned by Politicon, in those areas you mentioned and in the crusades being kicked off to retake these areas, was the church not implyiong that these were lands belonging to them. Finally, you can manipulate an arguement by debating symantics but you can't break a point the same way.

I responded to you saying that the Muslims were retaking the lands of their ancestors, which is not true. The first Muslims were Arabs and their ancestors only controlled the Arabian Penisula, which didn't need to be retaken, since they already controlled it. As far as being an extension of the Persian Empire, what connection did they have to the Persians to even claim to be an extension, not to mention the fact that the Persians never extended as far as the Muslims (Arabs) did.

The Church was saying that the Holy Land belonged to them. Both the Romans and the Muslims initially acquired posession of the Holy Land through conquest, it isn't like the Muslims had any right to the land except through taking it from the Romans (Eastern/Byzantine). At that time (circa 12th century), the Holy Land would have been in posession of the Muslims for a shorter time than it had been the Romans before them, which is why historical arguments over land do not work - all land has been conquered at one time ofr another. And I disagree that the Muslims were claiming the Holy Land as an extension of the Persian Empire, since the Muslims didn't have a connection with the Persians other than the fact that they conquered them as well.