A common argument in defense of the islamic conquests is to say that everyone at the time was just as violent and agressive.

A common argument in defense of the islamic conquests is to say that everyone at the time was just as violent and agressive. How true is this?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The umayyads were very nonviolent and reasonable conquestors afaik, there were no unnecessary tortures and crimes, just religious propaganda jizya and fair battles

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not talking about the degree of violence, but the act of attacking other nations unprovoked (no, refusing to convert or to pay jizya isn't a provocation).

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but the act of attacking other nations unprovoked
        kys romonkeys and persians were running roughshot over the middle east and arabs for over a thousand years

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >romans and persians=everyone
          We got a moron over here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They were the major world superpowers and literally the two entities next to arabs

            100% and the christian heretics welcomed the muslims with open arms only a bit less energetically than the israelites. They hated the orthodox so much they called them a slur "melkites"

            This

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            he's being pretty insightful

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        In islamic jurisprudence it is obligatory for the statesmen to set a time for proselytizing, 4 months, and then negotiations are made for the other state to live under the control of the muslim state supervision whilest paying only a yearly 1% tax, if the state refuses that, then a village to village conquest is initiated, the populus in each village is asked to witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, whoever does that they are transported to the muslim lands temporarily or posteriously, if they reject that then they are asked to pay the jizya, 1% tax, they will be able to judge according to their norms in their community under the supervision of the muslim state, if they refuse also that, the village is conquered the next day after a warning is given, whoever can migrates to the muslim lands or to the nonmuslim lands

        there is no imperative for killing unnecessarily

        Thats why the egyptian coptic christians ffought against their own government on the muslim side, because they thought of the religious statesmen as better, and the 1% tax as very convincing, because their state would tax the hell out of them and whatever further reasons, as Tabari relates

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/BHhDwoP.jpg

        A common argument in defense of the islamic conquests is to say that everyone at the time was just as violent and agressive. How true is this?

        I mean yes
        Romans, Sassanids, Huns, Germanics etc.....

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    100% and the christian heretics welcomed the muslims with open arms only a bit less energetically than the israelites. They hated the orthodox so much they called them a slur "melkites"

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >unhinged
    >muslim

    Pick all of the above

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's nothing wrong with using military conquests to secure an advantage/advance your religion/ideology. We used to see this with Christianity and in the modern era with capitalism and communism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There's nothing wrong with using military conquests to secure an advantage/advance your religion/ideology
      You're comparing a civilizing force like Christian capitalism to barbaric fanaticism like Islam. It's not symmetrical. Islam does not have the right to expand or convert by force.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who cares if you like Islam or not lol, what matters is the principle of conquest. You just agreed that when your guys invade and spread what you find wholesome, it's fine.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          No one disagrees with this be it in the past or now.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it’s good and civilized when we murder people but when others do it it’s barbaric
        There’s also the fact Islamic nations were kinder to the their classes and kaffir compared Christian treatment of heretics

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There’s also the fact Islamic nations were kinder to the their classes and kaffir compared Christian treatment of heretics
          Both treat heretics like shit, but christian societies are more pleasant to live in, so I'd pick being a heretic in a christian state over a muslim state.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Apples and oranges

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is nothing more cruel and evil than Islam. Not now, not then.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    romeaboos say the same thing about roman conquests

    truth is, there was no "victim" and "aggressor" back in olden times, just victors and losers

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Morality and justice exist in this world, brainlet historical nihilist. those who love justice and uphold morality will triumph over the barbarians. Stop pretending conflicts are symmetrical.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        morality is overrated
        humans were never moral to begin with

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Moral societies are the ones where you can do business, get a good education, expect the government to work and not have trust issues. Moral societies ultimately triumph over immoral ones. Which is why the cross was eventually planted over the crescent, when the last Islamic state (Ottomans) got carved up by Britain and France.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's actually ridiculous.
    How does everything a Muslim says always amount to whataboutisms -> but the Christians did this, and the Romans did that

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >and the Romans did that
      >I'm not talking about the degree of violence, but the act of attacking other nations unprovoked
      >act of attacking other nations unprovoked
      moron.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        B-b-but the Romans were mean to Arabs ;(

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      same thing could be said about charges against romans/christians
      >but, le barbaric gauls
      >but, le aztec human sacrifice
      >but, le bride burning

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *