Which is vastly different from being murdered and having their civilizations destroyed, like for instance the Crusaders did.
The Crusaders didn’t do a fraction of what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest.
When looking at the details, Persian, Arab and Mauretanian rules over people of other religions were much more tolerant and civilized than comparable European ruling situations. I guess the saddest example of these are the Spanish Jews, who flourished under the “Moors” and got genocided and ethnically cleansed by the Catholics, after they were no longer dhimmis under Muslim rule.
I think you should go and learn the meaning of the word “firman” in the Middle-East.
Anyway - I may agree about late Muslim rule in Spain specifically and some periods of Arab rule in Armenia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
In Iran Zoroastrians were to be exterminated, they wouldn’t get that sweet dhimmi status. Which may be one of the reasons it became largely Christian after the conquest and then largely Shia.
I hope you’re just really misinformed and not just really racist but you should take a quick stroll to your local library, buy a few history books and look around.
Christianity has been far more brutal and repressive for a lot longer than pretty much every other religion out there.
Which doesn’t change anything in the conversation that started about “the Islamic world” being built on the conquest of more civilized peoples, which were mostly Christian.
Also I’m fine with reducing Christians to “middle-eastern Christians” here. Others don’t seem really Christian from there anyway. For these reasons as well:
King Leopold murdered ten million Congolese. The British empire 100 million Indians. The dutch started the slave trade.
Only I think the Portuguese started the slave trade. Not that it changes anything.
I know what I’m talking about, but I get furious over Westerners trying to find indulgence for their own ancestors’ actions at the expense of Middle-Eastern native Christians, and I see saying that Crusaders were somehow worse than any Muslim conquest as part of that.
Being furious I may sometimes say something imprecise.
Doesn’t negate the fact that Islam is not native to any place outside of the Arabian peninsula, and those areas it has invaded still have native populations and religions not yet completely exterminated, and those are largely Christian. Saying that Crusaders were the baddies, but the Muslims whom they were fighting were not, is disgusting in that context. It’s like that “Irish were like slaves too”, putting things into American context so that you’d understand better.
Same as that myth of Salah ad-Din being benevolent and honorable, mostly started by German Empire’s propaganda as part of their relations with genocidal Ottoman Empire.
Are you high or something?
The Crusaders didn’t do a fraction of what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest.
I think you should go and learn the meaning of the word “firman” in the Middle-East.
Anyway - I may agree about late Muslim rule in Spain specifically and some periods of Arab rule in Armenia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
In Iran Zoroastrians were to be exterminated, they wouldn’t get that sweet dhimmi status. Which may be one of the reasons it became largely Christian after the conquest and then largely Shia.
The Crusaders killed every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem until the streets were flowing with blood.
Go read something on
. This was casual for them. The difference is, though, that Crusaders didn’t intentionally destroy books and art.
They actually literally did. That was a huge part of the crusades.
OK, said one stupid thing. Anyway, this makes them at worst as bad as Muslims.
I hope you’re just really misinformed and not just really racist but you should take a quick stroll to your local library, buy a few history books and look around.
Christianity has been far more brutal and repressive for a lot longer than pretty much every other religion out there.
I’m Armenian, so I know you’re bullshitting me in the context of the Middle-East. We are not talking Americas and Africa here.
What does that have to do with anything lmao
King Leopold murdered ten million Congolese. The British empire 100 million Indians. The dutch started the slave trade.
Which doesn’t change anything in the conversation that started about “the Islamic world” being built on the conquest of more civilized peoples, which were mostly Christian.
Also I’m fine with reducing Christians to “middle-eastern Christians” here. Others don’t seem really Christian from there anyway. For these reasons as well:
Only I think the Portuguese started the slave trade. Not that it changes anything.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I know what I’m talking about, but I get furious over Westerners trying to find indulgence for their own ancestors’ actions at the expense of Middle-Eastern native Christians, and I see saying that Crusaders were somehow worse than any Muslim conquest as part of that.
Being furious I may sometimes say something imprecise.
Doesn’t negate the fact that Islam is not native to any place outside of the Arabian peninsula, and those areas it has invaded still have native populations and religions not yet completely exterminated, and those are largely Christian. Saying that Crusaders were the baddies, but the Muslims whom they were fighting were not, is disgusting in that context. It’s like that “Irish were like slaves too”, putting things into American context so that you’d understand better.
Same as that myth of Salah ad-Din being benevolent and honorable, mostly started by German Empire’s propaganda as part of their relations with genocidal Ottoman Empire.