>>621909 Okay, so the Ummayads were pretty hellbent on conquering, but like the text says, they wanted Islam to be Arab only. The Abbassids began proselytizing in conquered territories. The Ottomans are pretty much where we get this idea of Islam by the sword from, due to their harsh policies in Eastern Europe. The Ottomans left us with most of the West's cultural impressions of Islam for most of modern history, including the conversion by the sword.
>>622094 Kidnapping firstborns and forcing them to convert sure is tolerant anon! :^) They had policies that were considerably progressive for their time, but it didn't stop them from doing some deep shit in the name of conquest.
>>622112 The devshirme system was not as harsh as you make it seem. Scholars agree now that children could and did keep connections with their former families. Families also willingly participated in the system because impoverished peasants, for example, recognized that the Janissary corps offered extraordinary social mobility. In the early centuries of the empire you had Christian "slaves" receiving appointments at court, serving military commands or governement positions, or even acting in the capacity of grand vizier. Get out pleb
Thats a neat narrative that serves the political purposes of globalism pretty well, no?
"don't worry about Muslim mass immigration! They will bring about a golden age!"
The Arabs were brutal and extremely ethnocentric. There conquest of Persia was horrific.
>The Arabs who conquered Iran were generally illiterate and they were after one thing, the Persian Gold and booties, who had little or no knowledge of Mohammad's teachings. However, it appears that at first they allowed the Iranians to practice their religion so long as they paid the Jaziya (Poll Tax) and accepted Arab rule.
>Arab Commander Sa'd Ibn Abi-Vaghas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khatab about what should be done with the books at capital Tyspwn (Ctesiphon) in province of Khvârvarân (today known as Iraq). Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed." All the books were thrown into the Euphrates.
>Under another ruler Gotaibeh ibn Muslim in Khwarezmia, all the historians, writers, and mobeds were massacred and their books burned in fire, so that after one generation, the people became illiterate. Other libraries at Ray, Khorassan, Gay of Esphahan and University of Gondishapour were eventually destroyed. Only a few books that were translated into Arabic survived.
The 200 years following the conquest of Persia are known as "the 200 years of silence" because of the destruction of knowledge and the bringing of Persian culture to a screeching halt. Even today, the pejorative term for Persians in Arabic is "Ajam" which means "silent"
>>622244 It is only the ignorant who would seek to deny the role played by the Islamic world in the Middle-Ages in promoting and spreading science and understanding. The relatively open-minded and sometimes tolerant (by medieval standards) regimes in the Islamic World contrasted sharply with the fundamentalist and insular Christian world.
Consider this. In Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other countries - places that have been under Muslim control for 1400 years, there are STILL communities of Jews and Christians that survive and practice their religion. These are not immigrants like Muslims in the West, these are groups of people that have stayed there for a millennium and a half. If Muslims really were oppressive and bloodthirsty, how is it possible for these Christians and Jewish communities to survive?
Now, how many communities of Muslims, ones that have been living in the area for centuries like Christians and Jews in the Middle East, are there in Europe? There are certainly plenty of parts of Europe that once had Muslims and that they could conceivably be in - Iberia, Sicily, Malta, The Balkans. Where are they? Note I'm not trying to claim Christianity is oppressive and evil or anything, just that this shit isn't black and white.
>>622277 >That is why a lot of parents voluntarily crippled their children if they were at risk of being taken away by Jannisaries. This sounds made up desu. Crippling children would mean losing a valuable asset as well as a drain on resources maintaining a cripple.
>>622363 I don't agree that Islamic societies were perfectly tolerant, but Christian Europe, for all the things you mention, had constant warfare, crusades against heretics and eventually bitter sectarianism with the arrival of Protestantism
>>622430 > No pagans survive in Christian land While the majority of Lapp people (natives living in northern Scandinavia) are Christian, a lot of them still hold onto their old religions. And it isn't some neo-pagan bullshit but the actual religious beliefs, from father to son, they held before Scandinavia became Christianized.
>>622347 >Islam was spread by the sword >/pol/ bullshit See this is what I don't get. People who say this know nothing about Islam. Honestly I'm very anti-war, anti-Zionist, pro-Iran, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas and I absolutely detest neo-conservative foreign policy but I also care about the truth, which is that Islam was indeed spread by the sword.
>why aren't there Muslims in Spain, Malta, Sicily and Balkans Because Islam was brought to these lands by invading armies.
>>622347 >In Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other countries - places that have been under Muslim control for 1400 years, there are STILL communities of Jews and Christians that survive and practice their religion. With difficulty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts#Specific_incidents >Now, how many communities of Muslims, ones that have been living in the area for centuries like Christians and Jews in the Middle East, are there in Europe? Tatars come to mind, off the top of my head.
>>622461 You can make emotional assertions all you want but what you say is not based on historical fact. In the early twentieth century 20% of the middle east was still Christian. It was an even larger percentage during the Crusades. Your also making a huge gap in judgement by failing to mention how much Christianity owes to violence. The Northern Crusades, Reconquista, the Counter Reformation and the Conquest of the Americas all entailed the assertion of Christian doctrine by force. Imperialism in the nineteenth century also facilitated the Christian missionary movement to a huge degree.
>>622461 I think someone said it before, its not a black and white thing. It was spread UBER violently in some places like Persia, but then places like Egypt welcomed them with open arms because they were way better than the ERE. Pretty much all of North Africa went along pretty peacefully, as did some parts of Syria, Anatolia.
>>622493 The persecution of the Copts by the Arabs started a few centuries after Egypt was annexed. The Copts under the Byzantines welcomed the Muslims and helped overthrow the Greek governor because they were viewed as heretics and repressed like shit.
>>622485 >>622461 says there aren't Muslims in Spain, Malta and Sicily which are ethnic and large enough. I can agree. But the Balkans? There are at least 3 - 4 million which make up the majority of certain states. So even by the sword and conquest Islam remained and continues to be practiced. So we can't just say because Islam invaded these territories, there aren't any Muslims there. When there clearly are.
I'll give you Malta and Sicily. Spain to a lesser extent because Muslims were based in Andalusia, so their expulsion was easy during Reconquista.
>>622524 Never said that it did. Simply pointing out that at the point in time the ruling Islamic dynasties/caliphate/what have you took Egypt, and for a few centuries after, they were very accommodating of the Copts.
>>622467 The other reason would be, better a kid with one eye, working your land, than no kid at all. The world had different way of working in the past. Slightly off topic, but during the British American slave fraud days. A British farmer or merchant going to market in a big town like Bristol. Would not take his kids to help him. Because of kid nabers, people who would steal children to sell to be slaves in America.
>>622507 I didn't say Christian wasn't also spread by the sword at times. But initially, it was not. The apostles and early church fathers did not spread Christianity by the sword. The same cannot be said for the early adherents of Islam and even of Muhammed himself. These are facts. Now one could make the argument that Islam was spread by the sword because the Meccans sought to destroy Islam because they found anti-idolatry threatening and Muslims were forced to respond.
>northern crusade There is a myth that the pagans were peaceful and innocent victims. They were not, they were extremely hostile.
>reconquista The vast majority of people living under Muslim rule in Spain were Christians, the reconquista was an expulsion of a foreign invading force.
>counter reformation This doesn't mean what you think it means. This was an internal movement within the Catholic Church.
>>622508 >implying there's a problem with it >implying it's not curated by scholars and academics >implying it's founders aren't doctorate holding academics from the archaeology and anthropology department at the University of London
>>622562 >The same cannot be said for the early adherents of Islam and even of Muhammed himself. These are facts. That's incorrect. As already stated by the OP source, the early Arabs did not proselytize their religion during their conquests. Early Islam spread by the clients and slaves of the Arabs who began adopting and codifying the religion for themselves, and by heterodox preachers preaching to Berbers and Persians in revolt against the Umayyads, which is why many of these anti-Arab revolts were led by Muslim converts.
>>621909 You see OP, when you say 'Islam', you're really talking about a vaguely common religious belief-system which had a following of billions of souls over 13 centuries of existence from southern Iberian Peninsula to interior provinces of China spanning over hundreds, if not thousands, of some big, some small polities and societies.
You're never going to get a flat, unilateral, and simple answer like that for a topic as broad as this. Even in a very limited area of my study which is Islam in Al-Andalus, the policy of individual Muslim rulers over their Christian and Jewish subjects varied tremendously from active toleration of the Cordoba Caliphate to the hard-handed forced conversions of Almohads; in the times of political division (which was more frequent than the times of political unity among the Iberian and Maghrebi Muslims), the policies varied again tremendously from one taifa (an Iberian Muslim princedom) to another.
I would suggest you instead to frame your question more narrowly, and look at instead how each region belonging to the modern Muslim world was converted into its fold throughout the succession of polities and policies. Granted that you're someone who's asking this question from a genuine intellectual curiosity rather than shallow, quasi-political intention of either whitewashing Islam as a historical religion or condemn it altogether, I don't think such a broad and general question can really have one-sided simple answer.
>>622580 >The CAIS web site is the on-Line publication of The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies. The views and opinions expressed within this CAIS web site do not necessarily represent the views of the circle.
And the author's only qualification is that he's a Parsi.
>converting Indo-European man to a clearly Semitic religion at least Romans took Christianity and literally packed it up into some typical indoeuropean concepts of old Rome. I'll be only ever fine with Islam if they start a movement in Europe in another, more civilized form and they separate from Sunni/Shia
>>622562 >The vast majority of people living under Muslim rule in Spain were Christians, the reconquista was an expulsion of a foreign invading force. This just proves my argument. The Muslim rulers did not attempt to convert Christians "by the sword." They were in Spain for 800 years.
>This doesn't mean what you think it means. This was an internal movement within the Catholic Church. I have a deep knowledge of the counterreformation. It was first and formost to prevent the further spread of Protestantism. The Counterreformation forces in the Church and State suppressed Protestantism in their areas vigorously through the threat of violence, actual violence or political pressure. Protestants also had their own suppressive policies too.
>There is a myth that the pagans were peaceful and innocent victims. They were not, they were extremely hostile. And why were they hostile? Because their religion was being suppressed in favor of a new one. Vladimir's of Kiev's conversion to Christianity led to a huge pagan rebellion which he crushed. The first kings of Poland, Boleslaw and Miezko, also saw great pagan rebellions on their conversion/enforcement of Christian conformity. Hungary also experienced a pagan rebellion in the 1000s. That said, I agree that Christianity could be and was spread peacefully.
>Yes this was violent. Yes. The Counterreformation and Inquisition courts were established in the New World within decades of the conquest. But I'll also grant you that the Spaniards were not initially motivated by religious zeal but by economic motives.
You also need to respond to the fact that Islamic areas contained significant Christian, Jewish and even Hindu populations within their dominions for most of their history while Christendom had absolutely no toleration for Islam and kept their Jews under wraps
>>622596 He's a doctor, an educated man, who is a Parsi and who's analysis was received by the Parsi community. His analysis coincides with their historical tradition as well as the mainstream Persian Shi'a tradition. It is also backed up by archaeological evidence. I would like you to note that his article is highly critical of Arabs rather than of Islam.
>>621909 Abuses happened but there are many christian, zoroastrians and jewish communities scattered across the middle east as well as different denominations of islam, by comparison in western Europe it was almost 100% catholicism until the reformation.
This can be partly explained by the fact that Europe was 100% pagan before Constantine the Great, while the middle east had seen more than just the Romans in its long history. I don't think Europeans were the exception, but if there were any exceptions it was not the Muslims.
The islamic extremists seen today are a relatively modern thing.
>>622626 >>622580 >>implying there's a problem with it >>implying it's not curated by scholars and academics >>implying it's founders aren't doctorate holding academics from the archaeology and anthropology department at the University of London
After reviewing the article, there's several problems with it. The only source for the relevant section on the conquest of Iran is a medical doctor, not a historian of any repute. The author himself is a chemist and a seemingly very religious Zoroastrian with marital problems. And the disclaimer of the site does say there's no actual curating by either scholars or the founders.
The errors are quite obvious to anyone that's studied medieval Iranian history in the past decade, especially when he's referencing a source written centuries after the actual conquest.
>>622639 That's not an argument, that's a sermon. We're discussing a historical subject, and what modern Muslims believe is a far cry from what objective, academic study has to say about the subject. The video I linked you for example features a famous historian of Islam (commenting on a modern phenomenon but its her historical summary at the start that's important here).
That's the problem we have in this world: zionists defaming Islam and crying out for wars to defeat it; and brainwashed progressives defending it and supporting mass Muslim immigration to the west. Both sides are shit.
>it has always been Mafia: the religion No it hasn't, it was under Arab rule that's for sure but it didn't stay that way once power was handed over to non-Arab empire builders like the Turks and Persians.
>>622663 >He's cited all of his work and yes the site is curated. First, his only citation for the historical section is from a paper from a medical doctor at a Zoroastrian convention. His other two citations are a literal Zoroastrian priest and, finally, an actual historian who is never actually cited for the historical content outside of India and whose work, available here: http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/pdf/parsi/hodivala.pdf says nothing of the detail.
Finally, from the cais about page: >The author (s) of the pages of this site are solely responsible for the content.
So, it's not curated. And my personal life is neither any of your business nor relevant to the facts at hand.
>>622673 The sermon demonstrates the Muslim narrative and the Muslim narrative alone. The Muslim narrative was written down some 2 to 3 centuries after the fact and is a reflection of its own time period more than the 7th and 8th century. This is why we have academic history.
>>622690 >Although, the information is believed to be correct as of the date presented and every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information published on the CAIS' web site disclaims its liability to the maximum extent permitted by law for loss, injury, or damages arising out of, or relating to, the use of this information or any errors and omissions made by the web site authors. >every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information published
>actual historian who is never actually cited for the historical content outside of India oh so it had to confirm to Anglo-Saxon narratives then...
>>622733 Every effort by the editor of the site, who is not an academic but, surprise, an editor. >He is not in a position to check all your facts and references. It is essential that submissions follow some standard rules in order to minimise time-consuming problems:
Look, curating is an actual profession, and it's already clear to anyone who even thought about becoming a curator that this site is not curated. It's why submissions go through an editor, who is never once called a curator by the site itself. The two are not the same thing.
>oh so it had to confirm to Anglo-Saxon narratives then... Hodivala is not only a fine historian, but honored and awarded by those same 'Anglo-Saxons' for his work as a historian in India.
Which is to say his work only discusses India, and his almost nothing to say about the Arab conquest of Iran besides 'and some Zoroastrians left it for India.'
>>622764 I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were on /int/. I thought we were on /his/, a board for discussing history which, surprise surprise, tends to be dominated by historians.
>>622781 > I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were on /int/. I thought we were on /his/, a board for discussing history which, surprise surprise, tends to be dominated by historians. Well it's kind of hard to discuss history in an accurate way when people are only willing to accept Anglo-Saxon narratives and dismiss completely something because "oh, that's just the Zoroastrian narrative of the Arab conquest of Persia; pay no attention to it."
You also ignore the fact this is an actual quote my Caliph Umar concerning the books in Persian libraries: ""If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed."
>>621909 Anon, you had a world were religion was practically all people had to look forward too. Do you really think they just changed religions on a whim? Or do you think their "ideology" might have been changed by force?
>>622837 >Well it's kind of hard to discuss history in an accurate way when people are only willing to accept Anglo-Saxon narratives and dismiss completely something because "oh, that's just the Zoroastrian narrative of the Arab conquest of Persia; pay no attention to it." No one said this. What I said was the article did not source any historians for its section on the Arab conquest, which is a big deal considering the subject is a historical one.
Besides, if you knew anything of the subject you'd know that these aren't the Zoroastrian narratives at all, but the narratives of 11th and 12th century Persian Muslims. A sane historian would study them with the assumption that these writers could not be 400 years old and so aren't primary sources, and were most likely using topoi to discuss contemporary issues or mythologize history to the political advantage or disadvantage of someone contemporary to their times.
>You also ignore the fact this is an actual quote my Caliph Umar concerning the books in Persian libraries: ""If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed."
Case in point, said 'actual quote' is nothing of the sort, because Umar died in the 7th century while this line only starts turning up over 300 years later in a source written 1000 miles away from where Umar lived and died.
>>622504 >>Some pagans still survive in Muslim land >Such as? Zoroastrians for one. They remained a large minority well into the 15th century, and it's only after that period do they begin to dwindle. Even so, they still remain to this day.
>>622562 >There is a myth that the pagans were peaceful and innocent victims. They were not, they were extremely hostile. And for excellent reasons, considering that Christians were pretty fucking gung-ho about exclusivism even to the point of destroying sacred sites.
>>622378 >Crippling children would mean losing a valuable asset as well as a drain on resources maintaining a cripple Literally just pluck out an eye. Now they have no use for him, but it isn't going to interfere with day to day work
>>622677 > by completly eradicating the indigenous culture of Central America. You do realize that this happened because the Spaniards unintentionally spread diseases they were immune to that the Indians simply weren't, right? >believing that a pre Industrial civilization could wipe out an entire race in just 15 years How retarded are you?
>>622969 not that guy, but your making several mistakes. Central America is basically everthing below Mexico to Panama. These areas were sparsely to moderately populated with tons of rainforest. On the contrary the Andean highlands as well as Mesoamerica/Mexico had huge populations, relative to Europe even. Yes, many died of plague with the conquest, but the population of these regions would only reach their lowest points in the 1610s. So immediately after the conquest in the 1520s and 1530s there were still many millions of indigenous peoples.
The Christianization of Mexico was one of the most successful Christianization projects ever. Franciscans were extremely resourceful and landed in Mexico just a year after the conquest. Other regular clergy contributed to the effort considerably as well in the following years...
On the contrary, the Andean Christianisation project was handled quite poorly and had less dedicated and qualified priests for the task, which largely explains the persistence of indigenous practices in that region.
>>621909 As a Protestant I kinda respect the Islamic system back then.
>You want to live as a non-convert freely and do business? >Ok then you have to pay jizya tax OR give one son to the Janissary Corps to be made into a killing machine >Have you done so? >Ok now you can live in harmony with full benefits as an Imperial Citizen
If you think about it, it was incredibly liberal for an age where Catholics burned dissenters on stakes just for saying Godhead was sacrilege.
>>623028 >Who is Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (Serbian) > Who is Pargalı Ibrahim Pashe (Greek) > Who is Mehmet Ali Pasha Viceroy of Egypt (Albanian) > Who is Telli Hasan Pasha, Field Marshall (Hungarian) > Who is Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (Montenegrin/Albanian)
All of these guys had Christian extended families or dynasties.
Moreover, the Trader and Artisan class in Ottomans was almost exclusively Jewish, Greek and Armenian.
This laster literally until 1920
If you followed the Ottoman Hanafi Islamic Law as ANY Abrahamic religion, you were equal (sometimes superior) than rural Muslim Turks in the eyes of Imperial law.
>Moreover, the Trader and Artisan class in Ottomans was almost exclusively Jewish, Greek and Armenian Yes, because subordinate groups that are mostly blocked from entering politics and the military are easier for the Sultan to control. They were also a minority among their respective groups (well maybe except for Jews). Most were still rural people.
In a very basic sense, the territorial extent of the 'Islamic' (for lack of a better general term) empire was spread by the sword, but the population's embrace of Islam was something that took centuries and depended on specific rulers commitment to conversion if they had any at all. In places like Syria and Iraq which has Eastern branches of Christianity that were seen as more compatible with Islam there were many converts overtime, especially since to these Christians the Muslims were far less imposing on their rights and traditions compared to the Byzantines and Iranians. In other places it was spread by forced population dispersion as with the Turks in Anatolia. And in some cases it was spread just through trade; Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim populated country today, had its rulers convert to Islam for better trade relations with Muslim traders that were very profitable. So as with all things, it depended on the context of the areas we're talking about that's far too broad to speak of in a single post.
>>622879 It was violent, but far from coersive. From Islam's beginning the wars were about getting their right to spread their religion and practice it, not to forcibly convert people. After they gained this right, there were plenty of conquest wars, but they never forced people to convert
>>623193 >Yeah sorry I don't buy any of the mind games or selective look on history, Islamic countries are barbaric shitholes your doing exactly that by projecting the alleged features of Islamic countries today onto those of the past. youre an idiot
>>623350 Persians didn't live in the empire. Greeks did very well. The Venetians and Byzantine landlords treated their peasants terribly. Greek cultural life thrived and rich Greek families were influential in the Istanbul government and the Orthodox church in particular. Armenians didn't have it bad as far as I know before the 19th century, when they were an important mercantile community. The Croatian kingdom survived under the Habsburgs and the wars against the Ottomans were low intensity. Serb and Croatian peasants also didn't have it terrible. Not sure about Assyrians
>>623325 >Islamic countries are barbaric shitholes Yes with one exception. In some cases oil and gas act as dope for economy, thanks to the ancient dinosaurs and the ancient forests. By the way, idea of one allah near to idea of one absolute dictator.
>>623424 you literally posted everything from the final years of the Ottoman Empire, when the Young turks went full militant nationalist and were under the intense pressure of fighting a World War. The events you point out aren't representative of the previous five to six centuries of Ottoman rule
>>623251 >Ayy senpai we running this shitty desert now and you can either convert to Islam or you can live as second-class citizens permanently shut out of the upper rings of society and pay a significant tax just for the privilege of existing and your daughters will have to marry Muslims >But we're not forcing you to convert or anything
>>623430 >1. Western intervention put Islamists in power But it's still Muslims enforcing Sharia law that makes life so shitty there. It wouldn't really matter if they had seized power in a bloody coup of their own volition or just waltzed into the immensely convenient power vacuum left by western intervention because the end result is still the same.
>>623452 >But it's still Muslims enforcing Sharia law that makes life so shitty there. No, it's the US bombing the shit out of a civilized state after giving weapons to Abu and gang to "fight for freedom" (actually rape and murder).
Turks are scum. However, when Wahhab and ibn Saud tried to establish Sharia Law, the Turks made sure they got BTFO. Hafez Al-Assad did the same when the Muslim Brotherhood tried to take over Syria. Afghanistan and Gaddafi tried doing the same, yet the US intervened in both cases. Guess what? Both are no longer functional.
Now, the Syrian Arab Army is desperately fighting to keep its country from being taken over by Wahhabis. But guess what? "Assad is a tyrant we need to overthrow him by funding people who aren't even from Syria".
>>624349 your whole premise is that the ME was a desert and muslims had monopoly on grazing rights and wells. in reality they were ruling over urban societies and people didn't start to convert to islam en masse until the 1300s or so.
>>624804 I meant legitimately - if they, through sheer force of arms in a fair contest, came to occupy the same position, nothing would be different. The fact that the US paved the way for these people does not alter their character.
>>622620 So I watched that video and here argument is interesting, but I'm highly skeptical that it was Islam that allowed Iranians to rise from the social status of slaves to patrician ranks. I think it was inherent characteristic of the Iranians. They were just plain better than the Arab invaders: smarter, more cultured, more civilized and more competent. She even states in the presentation that one of the greatest Arabic poets was born to an Iranian slave woman.
Also note that this was at Princeton U, which is a hotbed for "politically-motivated" ideas. So while many of the facts she presented are certainly true, the analysis is not necessarily so.
>>624823 >I meant legitimately - if they, through sheer force of arms in a fair contest, came to occupy the same position, nothing would be different. The fact that the US paved the way for these people does not alter their character. Except there have been multiple fundamentalist uprisings that weren't backed by the US, and each has been dealt with swiftly.
1. Wahhabi War - Wahhabis defeated and ibn Saud executed
2. Islamist Uprising in Syria - Muslim Brotherhood is defeated and banished from Syria
3. Uighur Turks in China - BTFO'd
Contrary to your narrow beliefs, muslims really don't want the Wahhabis in power. That is why we are currently seeing muslims fight to the death to protect their homelands from ISIS and Al-Qaeda. However, once Westerners like you start declaring that ISIS is "the true interpretation of Islam" and start saying that real muslims are the radicals, then muslims will flock to the Wahhabis. Groups like ISIS are popular because the international antagonism towards muslims makes ISIS and affiliates look like mujahideen.
This antagonism, plus weapons and bombing runs on part of the West, creates the perfect situation for the takeover by Wahhabis.
>>624922 That's still shifting the goalposts. I'm saying that if these people came to power through some celestial coincidence that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with western civilization, their character would be identical.
Also >However, once Westerners like you start declaring that ISIS is "the true interpretation of Islam" and start saying that real muslims are the radicals, then muslims will flock to the Wahhabis. Muslims in general haven't done much to prove them false. Progressives have been banging the drum of "religion of peace" for decades and have gotten nothing but egg on their face in return. >Rotherham (started in fucking 1997) >7/7 >7/21 >Madrid >Paris >Cologne >Calais >>All of the minor incidents that have been completely swept under the rug, including several bombings >Massively over-represented in welfare and crime statistics in general and sex crimes and violent crimes in particular
As far as I'm concerned, good fences make better neighbors and the less that Islam and the western world have to do with each other the better.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.