Ibn al-Athir's Account:The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of Savid [Tower of David] and fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering. The Franks honored their word, and the group left by night for Ascalon [a city on the coast]. In the Masjid al-Aqsa [the Temple of Solomon] the Franks slaughtered more than 70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams and Muslim scholars, devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the Holy Place. What events do both of these accounts describe

The accounts shown above address the use of the Tower of David as a hiding place and the conflict that took place in Solomon's temple.

Explanation:

As we can see at the beginning of the story, the narrator presents the moment when the population that was not killed by the Franks, decided to use the Tower of David as a refuge, where they could stay safely hidden and save their lives. However, they were surrounded and it would be very difficult to escape the persecution. So, afraid of dying, the Muslims decided to surrender, as long as their lives were pulped, the Franks agreed and so it was done. At that same time, another conflict involving Franks and Muslims took place in Solomon's temple.

In fact, Jerusalem was taken from the north on the morning of July 15, 1099. The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of Savid [Tower of David] and fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering. The Franks honored their word, and the group left by night for Ascalon [a city on the coast]. In the Masjid al-Aqsa [the Temple of Solomon] the Franks slaughtered more than 70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams and Muslim scholars, devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the Holy Place. Background information: This account of the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 was written in 1231 by a Muslim historian who traveled with Saladin's army. The author of this account is a . As a result, his account is likely to be towards the Muslims who lost their lives. His account is likely , because he was not a witness to the event.Explanation:

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!