So what was the trigger event for radical islam?

[Andy H]

What kicked off the current wave of bloodshed?

The Soviet invasion of Afghan? The fall of the Shah? The abandonment of military actions against Israel?

What set the spark to the tinder for the fire that is consuming the Middle East and other areas? It isn't just jihad, because they're killing far more muslims than they are infidels.

So what set it off?

Hi AJR

For what its worth try getting hold of A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East by the esteemed historian Professor Lawrence Freedman.

Regards

Andy H

[nastle]

how much is the west complicit in aiding muslim radicals in their holy crusade against russians
lets talk about that too
this did not start in 1970, all the way back to crimean war when british and french for their own selfish interests propped up the ailing ottoman empire which had so mercilessly massacred the christians of the balkans

[Daud]

I believe that radicalism started as a reaction on aggressive secularisation of orthodox muslim societies.
After colonisation, some part of natives forced western style secularism and imitation. It was too much of a change for people.

You can find examples like:
- Ata turk forcing even adhaan to be on turkish, western clothing, baning Islam fully

- in Iran shahs police uncovered women with their bayonetes and butchered protesters

- in Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser imprisoned muslim brotherhood on their early start when all activity was giving flyers to people to teach Islam. In prison with all that molestation they became radical and violent.

- in ussr muslim identity was max. suppressed and now they ve got sime freedom and islamic revival is happening.


Now, i believe, war and fight went into center of religion and they have imperial mindset like we europeans had 17-19 century

------------------------------------

I believe that same happened in christian world and some alt right groups became stronger after they ve being attacked and even judaism/zionism in Israel became more militant after 6 day war with neighbours.

[Daud]

how much is the west complicit in aiding muslim radicals in their holy crusade against russians
lets talk about that too
this did not start in 1970, all the way back to crimean war when british and french for their own selfish interests propped up the ailing ottoman empire which had so mercilessly massacred the christians of the balkans

Let me correct you. Not radicals! Heroes !

gylUa.jpg

If AI is not developed enough in 100 years, you ll see Muhammad and George fight as brothers against Xi Jinpings family

[Snowygerry]

What kicked off the current wave of bloodshed?

The Soviet invasion of Afghan? The fall of the Shah? The abandonment of military actions against Israel?

What set the spark to the tinder for the fire that is consuming the Middle East and other areas? It isn't just jihad, because they're killing far more muslims than they are infidels.

So what set it off?

Arab wealth mostly.

If you look at history there are periods of expansionist Islam when the Arabs sit on the trade routes from Europe to the East and again from the 1970s when the oil money starts pouring in.

With periods of decline into insignificance in between.

[vikram72]

A Religion that refuses to evolve theologically.

Wants to Convert with Force.

Clears conquered territories without mercy.

Kills or Converts non believers in their religion .

This is going on from the day this Religion founded.

At the very most Christians can have peace with them easily.

Jews, followed by Hindu , Buddhist are more vulnerable.

Because in their end time prophecy it is Jesus Christ will kill the Anti Christ.

So Christians can possibly survive with them.

They also reject further messengers of Abrahamic Religions .

The Sufis may respect others.
Saints Godly people.

but Wahabi / Deobandi do not believe in Saints and enlightened persons.

So currently the Islamic traditions of Majority of World has become quite rigid.

Will the extreme thinking will change or not is the real worry.

[Salinator]

The Mongols pretty much broke the back of Islam in North Africa. Later the Ottoman empire's collapse lead to instability in the Arab countries. The sultan was more of a secular leader than a religious leader despite theocratic overtones. A more radical religiosity in North Africa and Iran was a natural reaction to new secular powers of France and Britain replacing the Ottoman empire. The Zionist insurrection in Palestine is evidence of how weak British and French control was after WWII while at the same time oil brought infidels in increasing numbers to the middle east further destabilizing a culture already in crisis. The radical form of Islam that emerged in Saudi Arabia and later in Iran created an environment and resources where terrorism was bound to emerge as a political tool in a convoluted web of conflicts. The hatred of Jews in the Koran made Israel a propaganda and recruiting tool uniting various traditions in hatred of foreigners who even partially supported Israel.

Terrorism is the natural tool of weak powers confronting foreign control. Islam itself is the perfect tool for terrorist recruitment. The existence of a "holy land" unites Muslims all over the world. The number of Muslims may be the most significant factor in how common Muslim terrorists appear to be. Fanatics willing to kill themselves for an ideology are unfortunately not unusual.

Actually you got it backwards The Mongols broke the back of Islam in the Middle East, Islam's last stronghold was North Africa.

Hulegu Khan's invasion of the Middle East should have been listed as a Crusade, by hey White Christian revisionist history does not like to share that "glory" with the yellow guys from the steppes. During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Bagdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Unlike all their previous invasions westwards which were multi-pronged lighting strikes, the invasion was slow and methodical with lots of genocide. Whereas before, they wanted submission, tribute and booty, they wanted total capitulation in the Middle East. Baghdad was razed and the earth salted, so many killed that the River Tigris ran red and the stench of all those put to the scimitar fouled the air for miles and even the Mongols themselves that relished the smell of the dead moved their camp upwind.

Unlike their previous indifference of religions, this time Mosques and worshipers were killed. Instead of advancing in clusters and columns, they cut a wide swath through the Middle East, a move that was later imitated by Sherman with his "March to the Sea".

Damascus was more or less of a rinse and repeat, and later became the capitol of Hulegu's faction, the Ilkhanate. The Mongols captured the Levant, sacked Muslim Jerusalem, and drove most Muslim forces across the Sinai and into Egypt, They achieved all that in spite of being betrayed by the Franks that allowed Muslim forces safe passage across their territory, even though the Ilkhanate in theory were allied and the Mongols were blessed by the Vatican. The Mongols and were on the verge of marching on Cairo when once again, the world was saved because yet another Mongol Great Khan had died right about when doom was inevitable and imminent.

Hulegu withdrew to Damascus, but did not personally attend the Kuriltai to elect the new Great Khan because the newly deceased Great Khan was the last to be the universally accepted ruler. Hell, the next Great Khan also did not, and a civil war broke out, The Mongols were no longer united, oddly it was the direct descendants of Genghis' four sons and religion that divided them.

Hulegu was the brother of Kublai, But between Hulegu conquering the Middle East, and Kublai conquering China, there are two factions that opposed them, and separated them for ever joining again as the Toluids (descendants of Tolui, youngest son of Genghis), the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate which both have now converted to Islam.

Revisionist history says that the Mamluks drove the Mongols out of the Holy Land. That is not true, Hulegu had already left the Holy Land to take a war stance against the Mongolian factions that stood between he and Kublai. What the Mamluks defeated at the Battle of An Julat was a rear guard left behind by Hulegu that consisted of Nestorian Christians from Georgia that disobeyed orders not to engage and in fact attacked when it fell for the old feigned retreated move that was perfected by the Mongols themselves. It was not decisive as the bulk of the Ilkhanate was not there, and Hulegu never came back because he was fighting a Mongol civil war.

Had Mongke Khan not died when he did, Hulegu would have taken Cairo without much sweat and Islam would now be a side note in history.

[wolfhnd]

Actually you got it backwards The Mongols broke the back of Islam in the Middle East, it's last stronghold was North Africa.

During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Hulegu Khan's invasion of the Middle East should have been listed as a Crusade, by hey White Christian revisionist history does not like to share that "glory" with the yellow guys from the steppes. During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Bagdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Unlike all their previous invasions westwards which were multi-pronged lighting strikes, the invasion was slow and methodical with lots of genocide. Whereas before, they wanted submission, tribute and booty, they wanted total capitulation in the Middle East. Baghdad was razed and the earth salted, so many killed that the River Tigris ran red and the stench of all those put to the scimitar fouled the air of miles and even the Mongols themselves that relished the smell of the dead moved their camp upwind.

Unlike their previous indifference to religions, this time Mosques and worshipers were killed. Instead of advancing in clusters and columns, they cut a wide swath through the Middle East, a move that was later imitated by Sherman with his "March to the Sea".

Damascus was more or less of a rinse and repeat, and later became the capitol of Hulegu's faction, the Ilkhanate. The Mongols captured the Levant, sacked Muslim Jerusalem, and had driven most Muslim forces across the Sinai and into Egypt, They achieved all that in spite of being betrayed by the Franks that allowed Muslim forces safe passage across their territory, even though the Ilkhanate in theory were allied and the Mongols were blessed by the Vatican. The Mongols and were on the verge of marching on Cairo when once again, the world was saved because yet another Mongol Great Khan had died right about when doom was inevitable and imminent.

Hulegu withdrew to Damascus, but did not personally attend the Kuriltai to elect the new Great Khan because the newly deceased Great Khan was the last to be the universally accepted ruler. Hell, the next Great Khan also did not, and a civil war broke out, The Mongols were no longer united, oddly it was the direct descendants of Genghis' four sons and religion that divided them.

Hulegu was the brother of Kublai, But between Hulegu conquering the Middle East, and Kublai conquering China, there are two factions that opposes them, and separated them for ever joining again as the Toluids (descendants of Tolui, youngest son of Genghis), the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate which both have now converted to Islam.

Revisionist history says that the Mamluks drove the Mongols out of the Holy Land. That is not true, Hulegu had already left the Holy Land to take a war stance against the Mongolian factions that stood between he and Kublai. What the Mamluks defeat at the Battle of An Julat was a rear guard left behind by Hulegu that consisted of Nestorian Christians from Georgia, I was not decisive as the bulk of the Ilkhanate was not there, and Hulegu never came back because he was fighting a Mongol civil war.

Had Mongke Khan not died when he did, Hulegu would have taken Cairo without much sweat and Islam would now be a side note in history.

Thanks for the correction I was thinking of the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 which is clearly not North Africa.

[Konzev]

how much is the west complicit in aiding muslim radicals in their holy crusade against russians
lets talk about that too
this did not start in 1970, all the way back to crimean war when british and french for their own selfish interests propped up the ailing ottoman empire which had so mercilessly massacred the christians of the balkans

The Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism began as a result of Western countries asking Riyadh to help counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Washington Post. He added that successive Saudi governments had lost track of that effort, saying "we have to get it all back." Bin Salman also said that funding now comes mostly from Saudi-based "foundations," rather than from the government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4d148820424a

[G David Bock]

What kicked off the current wave of bloodshed?

The Soviet invasion of Afghan? The fall of the Shah? The abandonment of military actions against Israel?

What set the spark to the tinder for the fire that is consuming the Middle East and other areas? It isn't just jihad, because they're killing far more muslims than they are infidels.

So what set it off?

Assuming by "current wave" you mean within the 20th century or so ...

1) UN creation of Israel as an independent state - Islamic fundamentalists saw this as a take-away from the Dar al-Islam and a strong issue to fight over. With defeat of the neighboring Islamic/Arab states that sought to extinguish Israel/Jews, the fall-back position has been global "terrorism", along with recurrent attacks upon Israel.

2) The USA support to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s. We provided funding, equipment, and training to resist the Soviets in that nation and indirectly trained, armed, and encouraged(delusioned) "Islamic Jihad" to think they are capable of defeating the rest of the World/West.

Note this is just a revitalizing of the 1400 year old agenda started by Muhammad from his post-orgasmic pederastic inspirations received back about 620s AD onward.

[Daud]

Actually you got it backwards The Mongols broke the back of Islam in the Middle East, Islam's last stronghold was North Africa.

Hulegu Khan's invasion of the Middle East should have been listed as a Crusade, by hey White Christian revisionist history does not like to share that "glory" with the yellow guys from the steppes. During the times of the Mongols, the three pillars of Islam was Bagdad, Damascus, and Cairo. Unlike all their previous invasions westwards which were multi-pronged lighting strikes, the invasion was slow and methodical with lots of genocide. Whereas before, they wanted submission, tribute and booty, they wanted total capitulation in the Middle East. Baghdad was razed and the earth salted, so many killed that the River Tigris ran red and the stench of all those put to the scimitar fouled the air for miles and even the Mongols themselves that relished the smell of the dead moved their camp upwind.

Unlike their previous indifference of religions, this time Mosques and worshipers were killed. Instead of advancing in clusters and columns, they cut a wide swath through the Middle East, a move that was later imitated by Sherman with his "March to the Sea".

Damascus was more or less of a rinse and repeat, and later became the capitol of Hulegu's faction, the Ilkhanate. The Mongols captured the Levant, sacked Muslim Jerusalem, and drove most Muslim forces across the Sinai and into Egypt, They achieved all that in spite of being betrayed by the Franks that allowed Muslim forces safe passage across their territory, even though the Ilkhanate in theory were allied and the Mongols were blessed by the Vatican. The Mongols and were on the verge of marching on Cairo when once again, the world was saved because yet another Mongol Great Khan had died right about when doom was inevitable and imminent.

Hulegu withdrew to Damascus, but did not personally attend the Kuriltai to elect the new Great Khan because the newly deceased Great Khan was the last to be the universally accepted ruler. Hell, the next Great Khan also did not, and a civil war broke out, The Mongols were no longer united, oddly it was the direct descendants of Genghis' four sons and religion that divided them.

Hulegu was the brother of Kublai, But between Hulegu conquering the Middle East, and Kublai conquering China, there are two factions that opposed them, and separated them for ever joining again as the Toluids (descendants of Tolui, youngest son of Genghis), the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate which both have now converted to Islam.

Revisionist history says that the Mamluks drove the Mongols out of the Holy Land. That is not true, Hulegu had already left the Holy Land to take a war stance against the Mongolian factions that stood between he and Kublai. What the Mamluks defeated at the Battle of An Julat was a rear guard left behind by Hulegu that consisted of Nestorian Christians from Georgia that disobeyed orders not to engage and in fact attacked when it fell for the old feigned retreated move that was perfected by the Mongols themselves. It was not decisive as the bulk of the Ilkhanate was not there, and Hulegu never came back because he was fighting a Mongol civil war.

Had Mongke Khan not died when he did, Hulegu would have taken Cairo without much sweat and Islam would now be a side note in history.

Would , could, should...


The fact is that Ain Jalut was a turning point and mongols started to lose ground further on east and got beaten several times.

It wasnt rear guard but an army with a goal to defeat Mamluks. Mongols believed 50 000 was enough for that job

That battle boosted morale of people and situation went 180° direction.

In future many mongols accepted Islam and many children of Mongol Empire -Khanates were pure Islamic, so no, it would not be end of Islam. Transition happened durring golden horde era'.

Its exactly what we believe:


يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مَن يَرۡتَدَّ مِنكُمۡ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَسَوۡفَ يَأۡتِي ٱللَّهُ بِقَوۡمٖ يُحِبُّهُمۡ وَيُحِبُّونَهُۥٓ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡكَٰفِرِينَ يُجَٰهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوۡمَةَ لَآئِمٖۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضۡلُ ٱللَّهِ يُؤۡتِيهِ مَن يَشَآءُۚ وَٱللَّهُ وَٰسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ


O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah ; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

-Sure Al-Māʾidah, Vers 54

__

Chapter (47) sūrat muḥammad Sahih International: Here you are - those invited to spend in the cause of Allah - but among you are those who withhold [out of greed]. And whoever withholds only withholds [benefit] from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.

It was just a process. Abassids were too deviant and they were torn apart.

[marktwain]

Would , could, should...


The fact is that Ain Jalut was a turning point and mongols started to lose ground further on east and got beaten several times.

It wasnt rear guard but an army with a goal to defeat Mamluks. Mongols believed 50 000 was enough for that job

That battle boosted morale of people and situation went 180° direction.

In future many mongols accepted Islam and many children of Mongol Empire -Khanates were pure Islamic, so no, it would not be end of Islam. Transition happened durring golden horde era'.

Its exactly what we believe:


يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مَن يَرۡتَدَّ مِنكُمۡ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَسَوۡفَ يَأۡتِي ٱللَّهُ بِقَوۡمٖ يُحِبُّهُمۡ وَيُحِبُّونَهُۥٓ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡكَٰفِرِينَ يُجَٰهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوۡمَةَ لَآئِمٖۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضۡلُ ٱللَّهِ يُؤۡتِيهِ مَن يَشَآءُۚ وَٱللَّهُ وَٰسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ


O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah ; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

-Sure Al-Māʾidah, Vers 54

__

Chapter (47) sūrat muḥammad Sahih International: Here you are - those invited to spend in the cause of Allah - but among you are those who withhold [out of greed]. And whoever withholds only withholds [benefit] from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.

It was just a process. Abassids were too deviant and they were torn apart.

Interesting analysis and welcome to the foras., Daud.

[Salinator]

Would , could, should...


The fact is that Ain Jalut was a turning point and mongols started to lose ground further on east and got beaten several times.

It wasnt rear guard but an army with a goal to defeat Mamluks. Mongols believed 50 000 was enough for that job

That battle boosted morale of people and situation went 180° direction.

In future many mongols accepted Islam and many children of Mongol Empire -Khanates were pure Islamic, so no, it would not be end of Islam. Transition happened durring golden horde era'.

Its exactly what we believe:


يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مَن يَرۡتَدَّ مِنكُمۡ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَسَوۡفَ يَأۡتِي ٱللَّهُ بِقَوۡمٖ يُحِبُّهُمۡ وَيُحِبُّونَهُۥٓ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡكَٰفِرِينَ يُجَٰهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوۡمَةَ لَآئِمٖۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضۡلُ ٱللَّهِ يُؤۡتِيهِ مَن يَشَآءُۚ وَٱللَّهُ وَٰسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ


O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah ; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

-Sure Al-Māʾidah, Vers 54

__

Chapter (47) sūrat muḥammad Sahih International: Here you are - those invited to spend in the cause of Allah - but among you are those who withhold [out of greed]. And whoever withholds only withholds [benefit] from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.

It was just a process. Abassids were too deviant and they were torn apart.

Hulegu had originally planned to attack the Mamluks in Eygpt, but the death of the Great Khan stopped that. He had approximately a 150,000 men army when he sent envoys to the Mamluks in Egypt. Hulegu had to attend to business because both the newly deceased Great Khan Mongke and the newly anointed Great Khan Kublai but challenged in a civil war in Mongolia were both his brothers, Upon his withdrawal with the bulk of his forces, he left only one tumen of Mongol warriors along with Christian Armenians and Georgians totaling 12,000 men west of Euphrates. THAT is the definition of a rearguard and Islamic revisionism cannot change that.

Hulegu had destroyed Baghdad, but spared all those that were Christians after the city fell. That did not sit well with Berke Khan of the Golden Horde that had converted to Islam. It was only the sheer power of Mongke, the last Great Khan of the unified Mongol Khanates that kept Berke at bay. The moment Mongke died, all gloves were off and Berke Khan's Golden Horde Khanate began to openly attack Hulegu's Ilkhanate. The "Mamluks" that fought the Ilkhanate forces included a significant number of Golden Horde forces (primarily Kipchaks) that were sent by Berke to reinforce them. That is what is now referred to as a proxy war.

In 1262, after Kublai's claim to Great Khan was established but never solidified, Hulegu returned his attention to the Holy Land and North Africa. But it was not to be because Golden Horde and Ilkhanate were in open Mongol civil war, The fourth faction Chagatai Khanate allied with Golden Horde,

If it helps with moral with the "Mamluks" defeated" the Mongols, then by all means knock yourself out. However Islam survived because the Mongols became divided. Islam did prevail. Ain Jalut had nothing to do with it because in the end, the Ilkhanate being cut off and separated from her fellow Toluiids by two other Khanates that had converted to Islam, finally herself also converted to Islam

You're confused with Mongol history and are placing far more importance on the "Mamlukes" that defeated a rearguard instead of realizing that Islam survived because it itself converted the side that wanted to destroy it.

Cairo would not have survived if not for Mongol civil war. Hulegu wanted to draft one of every ten men of the entire Mongol Empire for his planned invasion of Egypt that were never to come because the Mongol Empire was never ONE again.

[Daud]

Salinator, yes, real army had 150 000 men and Hulagu Khan went back after great Khan died. But, rear guard as you called it were aggressors, didnt have a goal to defend an army because there wasnt any threat at all, but small mamluk army. Hulagu left as much men as he believed will be enough to destroy mamluks. I cant understand why people have a wish to reduce this victory and reduce importance of this historical moment too.

This was like a Tyson losing to Douglas, his first defeat, but on a world and historical scale.
Thats why is called Ayn Jalut - spring of Goliath.

It is mentioned in the Book of Judges, chapter 7, where it is said that Gideon dismissed 22,000 potential warriors who were "fearful and afraid" and then chose 300 men to fight with him according to how they drank water from the Well of Harod.

Ain Jalut was pretty 1:1 battle but significance of that battle was not on battlefield only but alot more.

'Till that moment mongols looked invisible, won every battle and killed everyone in genocidal way.
After the battle people relized that mongols can be defeated and it was wake up moment for muslims who fought further in Syria and Iraq. Cities were liberated one after another.

There are many things to learn from this event:

- Baghdad had all money and knowledge and power in the world, was center of civilisation at that time, yet they were slain as dogs - 800 000 were killed in a most brutal fashion. They were too corrupt with partying and they cut-off military spending

- on other side, mamkluks had small province poor province, but were trained in combat at start as slaves and they had gut to fight whole army of 150 000 if needed. Mamluks killed mongol ambassador and put his head on gates of Cairo. They were not paralysed by fear as Abasids adn were decisive to fight.
Its about quality of men, not quantity. God help whom he wills.

- never in history did conquering people immitated those that were conquered. It was opposite all the time. People immitated those that were strong. But in this case it was opposite, many mongols accepted Islam and it was one of the reasons civil war started and at the end their empire died and islamic banners were still there.

- military is just one segment of and empire. Mongols were fast in spreading but were fast in decomposing. With first greater calmity they were gone.

[Salinator]

Salinator, yes, real army had 150 000 men and Hulagu Khan went back after great Khan died. But, rear guard as you called it were aggressors, didnt have a goal to defend an army because there wasnt any threat at all, but small mamluk army.

Ain Jalut was pretty 1:1 battle but significance of that battle was not on battlefield only but more.

'Till that moment mongols looked invisible, won every battle and killed everyone in genocidal way.
After the battle people relized that mongols can be defeated and it was wake up moment for muslims who fought further in Syria and Iraq. Cities were liberated one after another.

There are many things to learn from this event:

- Baghdad had all money and knowledge and power in the world, was center of civilisation at that time, yet they were slain as dogs - 800 000 were killed in a most brutal fashion. They were too corrupt with partying and they cut-off military spending

- on other side, mamkluks had small province poor province, but were trained in combat at start as slaves and they had gut to fight whole army of 150 000 if needed. Mamluks killed mongol ambassador and put his head on gates of Cairo. They were not paralysed by fear as Abasids adn were decisive to fight.
Its about quality of men, not quantity. God help whom he wills.

- never in history did conquering people immitated those that were conquered. It was opposite all the time. People immitated those that were strong. But in this case it was opposite, many mongols accepted Islam and it was one of the reasons civil war started and at the end their empire died and islamic banners were still there.

- military is just one segment of and empire. Mongols were fast in spreading but were fast in decomposing. With first greater calmity they were gone.

Mamluks were the aggressors. Mamluks came out of Egypt after knowing that Hulegu had left the Holy Land. Mamluks numbered 140,000 with Baibars and Golden Horde traitors in their ranks. It was not 1:1 as the actual battle had about 20-25,000 Mamluks that is recorded to be have engaged at Ain Jalut vs 12,000 Mongols and and friends total that were left behind to guard Hulegu's rear from the Sinai to the Euphrates.

Baghdad was an agricultural region with rich soil between two great rivers. Hulegu killed all the inhabitants except those that were Christians, so there were no one left to work the lands, He had Baghdad rebuilt and installed a Catholic Cathedral. Baghdad would would never again be a agricultural region because Hulegu had all the water canals and cut during the siege. What transformed Baghdad into a business center and wealth is that the Mongols connected the dots on the Silk Road and fiercely patrolled it.

Mongol envoy heads were about the time Mongke died and Hulegu had to leave. You're damn lucky that Mongke died is how I see it. Why do you think there is pride in killing emissaries?