Did Islam "preserve" Western civilization or did it

>>2819752
The problem with the idea of Islam "preserving" Western Civilization is that it implies that the Byzantines, Sassanids, etc. were going about destroying the Greco-Roman traditions, which is nonsense.

>>2819774

So why is this idea so widespread? I remember reading stuff a while back about how people like Rousseau propped Islam up and transformed it into a fantasy land like Prince of Persia to make their own political systems and countries look bad.

>inb4 /pol/ replies to this and tells me it's the jews again

File: 1.jpg (6KB, 232x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 232x230px

1.that pic is so bullshit that i don't even know where to start talking

2. you talk about "islam" like it's the driving force that makes the arabs/turks invade, when in fact the reason these wars happened was because of Umayyad/Abbasid/Ottoman empires imperialism (i.e hunger for clay and economy), Think of it as the same reason the roman empire and carthage and the mongols tried to invade lots of shit.

3.Crusaders are a meme, if they really wanted to liberate the "holy lands"' and "drive back the evil muslim invaders" they wouldn't sack Constantinople and leave it defenceless, they wouldn't go around massacring people of the Baltic and Catholics (see:teutonic knights), and what further proves my point about them is that they were too busy infighting instead of doing something effective, which got them BTFO by Saracens and whatnot.

>>2819752
Hey OP.

It seems you posted a known shit image.
If you go to the author's website and check his sources, he lists the same battle multiple times, with different dates and places according to the different sources. Further, he lists battles like the Yugoslavic Civil War or the United States hunting pirates as examples of Jihad, while not listing the crusades in the Baltics, Prussia, against the Bogomils, the Reconquista, or all the religious combat affiliated with Protestantism and so on.

Islam is still a violent mess and I dislike it greatly, but Christianity was once just as bad. We should be celebrating it changed and improved, not ignoring the fact.

Look up the sources for those dots. Have a laugh. Stop posting the image.

File: 5349d62691b85c4d03f1681253c002ea.jpg (244KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 683x1024px

>>2819791

How do you manage to reply and say absolutely nothing?

If you think the picture is bullshit, then explain why. That's the entire purpose of this thread. To bring in arguments that go against what's stated in the video and to better understand how it went.

And I wasn't talking about Islam as an abstract concept. But it's a useful umbrella term, so why are you getting stuck on semantics?

Lastly, this isn't about what the Europeans did or did not do during the Crusades. It's completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so why are you sperging out about it? I've stated the goals of the thread clearly in the beginning, and the actions of the Christians (which are well known to all of us, anyway) are not the point.

How the fuck can you be so autistic and uncharitable?

>>2819818
>If you think the picture is bullshit, then explain why.

http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

This is the list of battles. Notice the repetition. Notice the ludicrous entries. Notice the obvious missing ones for the side of Christendom.
Learn history before attempting to discuss history, and especially before trash talking people who know about history.

>>2819818
Why is this pic comparing the entirety of millitary conquest made by empires which were majority islamic which spans over a millenium with the crusades which lasted a few centuries? Also why is it assumed that literally every millitary action was made in the name of religion? I know the original pic this pic is based on.

The butthurt muslims are already here with their whataboutisms. Abandon thread.

>>2819823
>1974 Cyprus

Thats Turkey stopping the greek coup of the election to try to annex Cyprus. Not even a war, just parking soldiers on the island.

>>2819828
Translation: I got told, time to evacuate.
Every time you fags shit this image, get told its shit, and bitch how you are being censored or reddit is ruining the website or whatever.

Find new bait.

>>2819806

>Islam is still a violent mess and I dislike it greatly, but Christianity was once just as bad. We should be celebrating it changed and improved, not ignoring the fact.

Who ever ignored the fact? I don't understand why nobody can discuss these sorts of things without immediately bringing up the crimes of Christianity. They do not erase the acts done by Muslims, do they? I certainly think not.

This is like those threads where weebs, whenever they're confronted by the atrocities of the Japanese, can't help themselves from bringing up the slaughters the Chinese committed against each other during the centuries. What does that change? Nothing. We are discussing Islam and what it did, so why are you trying to slink from the topic?

>It seems you posted a known shit image.

I'll take your word for it, but it only addresses a part of the OP.

The bulk of the Latin Canon was preserved in the West, it's just that it was such an economically destitute and broken place in the Early Middle Ages that the only institutions capable of providing continuity with the classical world were monasteries that largely preserved things verbatim.

The real crucial thing was 1) the development of a rich, urban population throughout the high middle ages that provided for non-monastic sources of art patronages and 2) the fleeing of Greek scholars to the West after the 13th-15th centuries that re-united the Latin and Greek literary canons again for the first time since the fragmentation of the roman empire.

File: LELF.png (101KB, 210x195px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 210x195px

>>2819818
First of all, look at morocco and western libya, there are no battles there, meanwhile IRL there's has been a decent amount of fights between the spanish and the morococcan muslims, as for libya, there are multiple battles along the coasts, not just one

Now look at sicility and spain, there is absolutely no way so many battles happened in there

Third, look at the amount of battles in France, bitch the moors couldn't even conquer the upper part of spain let alone get to france do so many battles

As for algeria and tunisia, there are less battles than described in the picture, and all of them was due to Berber tribes infighting, nothing to do with "jihad"

i may be wrong about this, but i don't think muslims go to Sardinia or italy, let alone do many battles there.

>>2819839
>I don't understand why nobody can respond to my thread with an image minimizing christianity wars and exaggerating islam wars without bringing up christianity
Think about it, you will figure it out.

>i'll take your word for it
Take the author's word for it.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

This should be stickied.

>>2819828
>>2819850
Why do you only want to read things you agree with anon?

>>2819868
>asking religious people that question
Are you high?

>>2819823

>Learn history before attempting to discuss history, and especially before trash talking people who know about history.

Are you honestly fucking stupid? When were you trash talked? In any way whatever? You're a defensive little shit that entered the thread immediately thinking something you prize is under some sort of political attack, instead of politely answering the things at hand in detail. When I talk about things I'm knowledgeable about, I don't go into a conversation assuming that the other party is only out to "get me."

Not even once in the OP did I imply that I "know history." In fact, I made it quite clear this is a topic I know next to nothing about, so I want the other side. But it seems you're so much of an idiot you can't separate projections and lack the cogency to read other people's statements for what they are.

If you're flustered and can't handle civil conversation that's nobodies fault but your own.

This sort of behavior is going to get you fucking nowhere in life.

>>2819850
>Doesn't even know what takkia is
>doesn't read the thread
>is butthurt
You sound like /pol/ material, go back there and don't come back

>>2819873
You created a thread with a picture that is debunked twice per day, every day, since this board started.
And I can't take seriously that you accuse me of being defensive, and then write that post.

http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

Is there really anything more that needs to be said other than the fact Islam has aggressed upon Europe for virtually its entire history?

No need for this chicanery and abstraction. Muslims haven't changed in the past few centuries, so by our European standards they are undesirable.

>>2819886
read>>2819791 's second point

Next time read the thread before talking

>>2819887
Ah, good quality post.

just kidding neck yourself

>>2819890
Nah man, muslims can't have goals other than spreading islam.
They eat, shit, fuck, wage war, including among each other, only to spread islam.
They have no greed, no lust, no needs other than spreading islam.
When my sister dates a turk thats jihad and we should nuke them in a measured defensive retaliation.

>>2819890
He's sort of right. Low-IQ races agglomerate around Islam, and Islam systematizes their aggression and hostility into something vaguely resembling a civilization with hostile intents towards all its neighbors.

Gulf Arabs would still be shit skinned sub humans without Islam, they'd just lack hundreds of millions of pakis, indonigger dogs etc to do their dirty work for them

>>2819894
This isn't an argument

deosn't mean your sister is less of a whore, though.

>>2819767
Whitey dindu nuffin Muslims evil and deserved it professor Schoenberg told me so Europe must not accept refugees because of imperialism OYYYYYYYY veyyy

File: Concept-art-for-Prince-of-Persia,-Sands-of-time.jpg (209KB, 1200x723px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1200x723px

>>2819885

>You created a thread with a picture that is debunked twice per day, every day, since this board started.

Great, so now not only am I getting accused of things that weren't stated in the OP, but accused of being someone else because you happen to get triggered by an image.

>And I can't take seriously that you accuse me of being defensive, and then write that post.

No? I can't? Tell me, at what point in the OP was anything being attacked? Where? Was it a hateful statement pretending to be omniscient, or was it an open question by a person that admitted his ignorance?

Ask yourself that, you total autist.

You also keep spamming that PDF when I've not said a word about it. I don't doubt that you and the others are right in saying it's full of shit. Why do you keep shoving it in my face? When I said I would take your word for it, I wasn't being facetious. I do take your word for it.

But instead you keep strawmanning and accusing me of coming here with inimical intentions, and that I'm "That Guy." Implying that I'm somehow denying what you're saying when I've literally said I take your word for it and I expect you to expand on the rest.

Like I said, keep it up. You'll go far by acting like a bitch, I'm sure.

>>2819896
>Low-IQ races agglomerate around Islam
The same way Low-IQ sub Saharan niggers and spics agglomerate around Christianity?

File: lolcat17.jpg (120KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x768px

>>2819859
>what are Barbary raids?

>>2819923
>piracy is now jihad
>theft is religious fanaticism

>>2819923
Well fuck i guess i'll say christianity is violent because Caribbean pirates existed

see how stupid you sound now?

>>2819921
Yep.

I don't defend Christianity. I'd argue it has a bit more philosophical nuance than Islam, but that's almost entirely due to the fact it's more up in the air because of things like apostolic succession and the influence of prior Western civilization (Greco-Roman).

But a tu quoque isn't a real argument Mohammed. Just because Christianity is often proleish (much like liberalism), it doesn't make Islam any better. At the very least Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally tended to allow naturalistic art.

>>2819896
>Gulf Arabs would still be shit skinned sub humans without Islam, they'd just lack hundreds of millions of pakis, indonigger dogs etc to do their dirty work for them
But yet they invented Islam and transformed from an irrelevant back water into a massive empire in a single century.
>b-b-but if and that

>He's sort of right. Low-IQ races agglomerate around Islam, and Islam systematizes their aggression and hostility into something vaguely resembling a civilization with hostile intents towards all its neighbors.
Top kek. All civilizations are imperial if they don't have resources.

Are you balkan? You sound like a typical buttblasted balkanoid.

>>2819784
My guess is it has to do with the anti-Medievalism that was so rampant in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That's when we get ideas of the whole middle ages being one giant "dark age", the idea that all medieval people thought the earth was flat, the "black legend" of the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

I don't know for certain if those are tied to the idea of Islam "preserving" the West or not, but I'm guessing they are.

>>2819935
This is what I don't get about liberals. Muslims, far more well versed in the Quran, the Sunnah, the Hadith etc consistently tell you that they do what they do because of Islam. Because their holy book tells them to do that.

Why not just... take them at their word?

The Ottoman Empire explicitly told the British and French the exact same thing after the Bulgarian Horrors of the late 19th century. "We do what we do because these are our religious traditions. Who are you to question them?"

Why can't liberals just accept that different people are different, and that liberalism isn't some default state of existence?

>>2819937

It's fucking impossible to talk to people about whatever wrong Islam may have done, without them immediately bringing up Christian massacres, wars, etc.

And much like /pol/fags, they seem to be retarded.

/pol/

>the holocaust NEVER happened
>but it should happen AGAIN

>nazis weren't racist, they worked with slavs, arabs, and blacks
>if you aren't germanic or anglo, you're subhuman and you should kill yourself

Muslims

>lmao the crusades were nothing we don't even remember them
>look at what christians did during the crusades, it's a THOUSAND TIMES worse than all the battles done in the name of islam combined

>islam has never done anything bad!!! christians started it all!!!
>ayyylmao the only reason we conquered you and enslaved your people was for political realist reasons and because you were weak, it's just how the world works

Like, holy shit. There seems to be no moderation in these discussions at all.

>>2819940
>into a massive empire in a single century.

Landmass is irrelevant. Statistically the majority of intellectuals during the Arab Caliphates were not ethnic Arabs: The majority were Nestorian Christians, Persians, Levantines etc. This is a verifiable fact. Gulf Arabs are useless parasites. Even today they can't even exploit their own natural resources without whites or chinks doing it for them.

Even the Blue Mosque that Muslims love to cite as an example of a distinct Islamic architecture was created by an Islamized Greek/Armenian.

>Top kek. All civilizations are imperial if they don't have resources.
>if they don't have resources

This seems like a hazy standard.

Why can't you just accept Islam systematizes aggression? You're quite happy to pump the bravado about Muslim victories when it comes to 1453 and the Iberian conquests, but when it comes to any clear-headed debate you start pulling out this quasi-humanistic shit. It's laughable. Nobody believes you.

>>2819964
>>lmao the crusades were nothing we don't even remember them
>>look at what christians did during the crusades, it's a THOUSAND TIMES worse than all the battles done in the name of islam combined

It's not doublethink. It's consciously playing a double narrative depending on the situation.

When some Muslim talking head comes on TV and starts talking about how Muslims created the Renaissance, who do you think he got that idea from? Islamic historiography? It's a meme he most likely internalized from some 2-bit history channel documentary.

What I mean to say by this is, westerners are their own worst enemies, because they do all this "oh let's be introspective and criticize our own culture" stuff but its never reciprocated by other races, and then non-westerners use that self-same criticism to imply that westerners are uniquely morally evil.

>>2819940
>Are you balkan? You sound like a typical buttblasted balkanoid.

Not him but I'm Greek. What's your background, assuming you have no shame?

>>2819791
>crusades
>all things that were declared a crusade once count as The Crusades, even though the fourth crusaders were excommunicated
>I'm also mentally deficient

>>2819964
It annoys me because Christianity augmented the universalist tendencies of westerners. So many dumbshit libtards don't realize their ideology is basically just Christianity's most emotive currents secularized and divorced from any accompanying personal ethical standards (e.g. "no jew or greek, everyone is the same!" but practicing sexual abstinence until marriage isn't required).

I hate libs more than Muslims. Libs are the enemy within. They're a thousand times more dangerous.

>>2820005
>Implying you can be excommunicated by a man/office that is excommunicated

>>2819990

I think people from the West underestimate how much other cultures look into the truth of their history.

After the USSR came to a close in the Balkans, a lot of historians tried to fight back after they were gagged for decades and wrote books about the "real" histories of places like Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc., only to be attacked by nationalist entities that thought they were traitors paid off by Jews to ruin an image that nobody cares about other than themselves.

From what I've noticed, every other country that isn't America or from Western Europe just thinks everyone else is lying and refusing to acknowledge their """real history""".

The Chinese seem especially confused on this, even though there are countless reports of the Chinese government trying to bury findings that disprove the founding myths they take for granted.

>>2820011
Basically what I'm trying to say is if you were some Amerind you'd have much rather met a European Christian colonist than a European pagan colonist. Christianity leads to some seriously retarded levels of destructive empathy. That's why libs love empathy so much, they think morality is compassion - when blind compassion is just as bad as blind hate, and sometimes being shrewd requires us not just to put aside our enmity, but put aside an instinct for excessive clemency too (see: rapefugees).

File: early Michael Scott.jpg (68KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 850x400px

>>2820011

>>2820005
Funny how you didn't answer to the rest of my point

>>2820000

>implying he won't tell you he's white and an Islamic historian from Oxford when he's probably some uncredited teen from Turkey or SA that just discovered nationalism on /pol/

>>2820021
Depends, the principle of reciprocity to outgroups simply doesn't apply to most non-whites. Chinese quite literally regarded non-Han people as animals. To the point of classifying non-Han ethnic groups with the animal radical in Hanzi. Muslims don't regard non-Muslims as real humans, unless they convert. Which is why so much Islamic law is based on this slow-burn approach of making life inter-generationally miserable enough for the average non-Muslim who isn't wealthy enough to isolate himself from it that he eventually converts and forgets within a few generations. Jews also regard non-Jews as subhuman, and in a way they're worse than Muslims since the conversion process isn't as easy and is purposefully designed to be convoluted to keep the Jewish ethno-group pure. Indians I'm not sure on, oddly enough many Indian leftists I've met seem to be carbon-copies of western ones.

>>2820027

To be fair, these are just some strands of Christianity, and probably modern ones at that. I'm clear from people like Dante that he understood and took seriously the fact that some people are unrepentant sinners that deserve no pity whatever. That's the entire point of the Inferno.

It's amazing to me how deterministic look at this. Bob that beats the shit out of his wife and lives on welfare isn't a bad guy, he was just born unlucky. Muhammad that rapes children and wants to do away with Western culture and Christianity isn't an evil fucker, he's just unlucky.

But if you happen to be a half-way decent person this no longer applies to you. Now you're suddenly COMPLETELY IN CONTROL and you should feel guilty for going as far as to say an inappropriate word in anger.

Fucking hypocrites.

>>2820045

> Chinese quite literally regarded non-Han people as animals. To the point of classifying non-Han ethnic groups with the animal radical in Hanzi.

Jesus, really? I had no idea. I remember reading something about the hoi polloi being regarded as "black-haired commoners" which is what gave the rise to the whole early Chinese were white meme.

> Which is why so much Islamic law is based on this slow-burn approach of making life inter-generationally miserable enough for the average non-Muslim who isn't wealthy enough to isolate himself from it that he eventually converts and forgets within a few generations.

And yet, if you look at the accounts, most of them tried to keep local populations from converting as well, because it would lower what they got in taxes, what with the infidels being taxed a fuckton more.

>>2820072
There are quasi-deterministic elements to who we are, e.g. the predilection for aggression and your ability to regulate stress are almost certainly substantially determined by genes.

I find the irony with all this is that the one aspect of environment above all others that can keep people honest - that of a fear of law and authority - is never mooted as a solution to the myriad dysfunctions we face.

The notion that the law can play a deterrent effect in of itself is the subject of a lot of marxist critical theory actually. To the point a lot of people think it's akin to an old wives' tale that a fear of law and punishment can prevent crime.

The Crusades weren't a counter attack of Muslim aggression. There was no real Muslim aggression during the Abbasid era in fact the climate seemed to steer towards a very peaceful path with Western Europe.

Look no further than the Abbasid–Carolingian alliance against the Byzantines who were the ones actually countering Muslim agression.

>>2820087

Oh, I'm not talking about that, but, like, real determinism. That you're not consciously choosing anything but simply following the input of your brain. I mean in the philosophical sense of free will, not the psycho-social one.

>The notion that the law can play a deterrent effect in of itself is the subject of a lot of marxist critical theory actually. To the point a lot of people think it's akin to an old wives' tale that a fear of law and punishment can prevent crime.

I don't get what you mean. That it's bullshit, or that it isn't?

>>2820131
Was't the first crusade called against the Seljuqs?

>>2820135
The first crusade was a mistake, when the eastern roman emperor asked for 600 crossbowmen to put on his walls, and instead he got tens of thousands of rapists and thugs stomping across Thrace that he was in a big hurry to send on their way to Anatolia to get butchered.
Then he got a bunch of lesser nobles coming in to conquer his lost cities for themselves, which again isn't what he wanted whatsoever.
And of course in a future crusade, Constantinople gets pillaged.

Overall the people who asked for it, the Byzantines, who were the only ones encountering muslim aggression at all, got all the wrong outcomes and nothing they wanted.
Don't even need to talk about french princes dying of diarrhea in Egypt to showcase how much of a failure the whole crusade against the muslims concept was.
Crusades were much more successful against the pagans in eastern Europe, establishing lasting states and converting the locals, and against heretics in France, Spain and all over the place basically.

>>2820148

>Crusades were much more successful against the pagans in eastern Europe, establishing lasting states and converting the locals, and against heretics in France, Spain and all over the place basically.

Because eastern Europe is famous for its Catholicism.

>>2820148
>tens of thousands of rapists and thugs stomping across Thrace

And Muslim soldiers weren't?

>>2819752
>Don't worry, I'm not /pol/.
>Anyway, there's this guy on YouTube...

/his/ summed up in two lines. Well meme'd, OP.

>>2819926>>2819929

>what is Dar al harb?

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

Yes but there was still an Abbasid caliph regardless.

All the states in the Caliphate at this point in time were generally disinterested in conquer. That's why the ottomans gained such tremendous local support later on as the earlier caliphs were seen as weak.

File: emoji-thinking-3d-model-low-poly-max-obj-3ds-fbx.jpg (30KB, 1400x800px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1400x800px

>Muslims invading Europe
>More pro Islam propaganda spreading in Europe

>>2820267
>whataboutism

>>2820457
Seems like a weird thing to single out about the frankish army with such adjectives if it were commonplace.

Libtard or Muslim out of interest?

>>2820365
Something you apparently don't know what it is.

>>2820681
Just as I thought, you have no idea.
>Dar al-Harb (دار الحرب "house of war"; also referred to as dar al-Garb "house of the West" in later Ottoman sources) is an Islamic term used for countries which are not under Islamic rule.

>According to The New Encyclopedia of Islam, the dar al-harb (lit. the "abode of war") is:
>the territories where Islam does not prevail.
From: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb

Abrahamic religion as a whole set Europe back about 1000 years. Between the fall of Rome and the renaissance Europe was a backwards shithole.

>>2820703
>Somehow ottoman codewords has something to do with pirate criminals.
ok.

>>2820718
You have the reading comprehension of a teenager.

>>2820717

Except that the hyper-reasoning of Christianity is what brought about the scientific revolution.

>inb4 that would've happened anyway

Then why didn't it happen in Asia?

>>2820724
And you have the memory of a mosquito
we're talking about barbary pirates, retard.

>>2820539
Im not the poster you replied to before. Im was just pointing out that you are commiting a fallacy.

>>2820738
You are missing the point. Muslims perceive countries that are not under Islamic rule as dar al harb. That means house of war. So apparently it is all fair game to wage war on the infidel and heathens. That is a fantastic religious manner to justify any sort of military conflict. Which is precisely what happened at the Barbary raids terrorizing the coastal towns of Europe.

>>2820833
by "muslims" you mean the couple of ottoman emperors who tried to use religion as a scapegoat so they can milk money by invading nations and making them pay taxes?

fucking read about the ottoman empire's imperialism, dipshit.

>>2820867
Care to provide any sources that support your position that the division of dar al harb is restricted to Ottomans? Even the term dar al harb derives from teh Arabic language.

So far the best you have brought up is an accusation of mental retardation.

>>2819752
So a couple of things.

The presenter is not a historian and is not presenting to other historians, and is giving a speech laden with political and social agendas. He doesn't really source anything, and the PDF posted in this thread is the best he has. However, his list has several issues, namely that much of it is based on raids rather than battles or campaigns (while his list of Crusader battles are the exact opposite).

Anyway, back to his other points about Western Civilization, current archaeology doesn't find much of a destruction layer for the Arab Conquests - the point where the only material evidence it ever happened in most places is the sudden appearance of supposed mosques and Muslim burial sites. For trade routes, this was the original premise of Henri Pirenne, a French historian writing almost a century ago who posits that the Arab Conquest of the Mediterranean cut off the Franks from the Classical world and laid the foundation of Western Civilization proper - focused in Northern Europe around distinctly Frankish and Germanic free-cities and baronies. However, a century of archaeological evidence and further textual research shows that the Mediterranean's influence on France and northern Europe had been in decline beginning at least a century before Muhammad was ever born, and that the Arab conquests ushered in an era of stabilization and growth of trade throughout the continent.

Furthermore, Pirenne's thesis wasn't that the Arabs were a plague destroying Western Civilization but that they helped shift a stagnant paradigm and created the basis of the modern world. The idea that it was a destructive event to criticize comes from a conservative conspiracy theorist named Emmett Scott whose book has been making rounds in the right-wing and anti-Islam blogosphere for a few years now. This is the same Scott, however, whose other work seriously pushes Fomenko's Phantom Timeline hypothesis. So yeah.

>>2820833
That's nothing special, and in fact is derived not from Islamic theology but Classical Roman and Christian Roman theories of just war. It's a diplomatic categorization based on who was considered civilized and who was considered barbaric, with different rules of diplomacy and engagement for both.

>islamapologists

kys

Islam is cancer and should be removed from this earth.

>>2820135
Technically it was called against pagan Pechenegs and independent Turkic beys established in Nicaea and Smyrna, though if you asked the Byzantines the campaign also extended to rebel Serbs, Armenians, and Greeks.

The Pechenegs were already pacified by the time the Franks arrived however, and while the other minor powers were put down a Seljuk prince came into Anatolia around the same time and established a new Sultanate while the Franks ended up carving out new principalities in Syria which had just started breaking away from the Seljuks proper.

>>2820930
Ye, I can see the similarity in the diplomatic division of civilized world vs. barbarians, except for that "war" thing. House of war, not house of barbarians, that is an essential difference of high relevance.

>>2820833
That doesn't mean that you can kill and rob non-Muslims who are not dhimmis and who live in Dar al-Harb whenever and wherever you want. You should always take into account whether such an action would make non-Muslims start viewing Muslims and Islam itself in a bad light, and since in most cases such actions do make "infidels" more hostile towards Islam, most Muslim jurists believe that it is better to avoid committing them.

>>2820962
It's semantics, and would only be relevant if we were comparing two similar languages. But one is based on Greek and Latin while the other is Arabic, Indo-European vs Semitic. 'House of War' refers to lawlessness, not the diplomatic stance, which is why there are extensive rules for fighting within the 'House of Peace' despite the name, because Peace here refers to established (holy) law.

>>2820906
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam

Despite that it's been used as a naming system by a couple of early Shafi'i jurists, it had very little significance outside that and the ottoman empire

Look up sultan suleiman's war/foreign policy

File: 1494712875292.png (388KB, 520x609px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 520x609px

>>2820911

>911

Great and informative post. Thank you.

>>2820971
>You should always take into account whether such an action would make non-Muslims start viewing Muslims and Islam itself in a bad light,
No it will make them want to WELCOME more muslims in

>>2820971
>Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
>Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
>>2820972
"And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."
>>2820995
>wikipedia
No, the division of dar al islam and dar al harb was and still is pivotal to islamic expansion. Your notion that it was limited to roach imperialism is quite frankly amusing.

>>2821073
It's takkia don't bother.

>>2821073
Do you imply that these verses from the Quran disprove the mainstream Islamic legal view on the permissibility of killing and robbing of non-Muslims who are not dhimmis?

>>2821084
Taqiya is a Shia meme

>>2821005
Thanks, and Household Affairs is a fun read.

>>2821073
>the division of dar al islam and dar al harb was and still is pivotal to islamic expansion
If that were true, it would have been developed even just a little as a concept during the period of rapid expansion under the Rashidun and Umayyads. Instead the earliest reference to the houses concept begins in the Abbasid period where expansion had practically ground to a halt on all fronts.

>>2821164
The Quran verses speak for themselves in clear terms. There is no ambiguity. As for the mainstream Islamic legal view of kafir I have heard wonderful things on muslim behavior in Myanmar and Thailand.

>>2821199
>The Quran verses speak for themselves in clear terms. There is no ambiguity

Only if you take them out of context and ignore their mainstream interpretation.

>>2821216
It takes extreme creativity to interpret "kill them wherever you find them", "strike off their heads", "in pursuit of their enemy", as a call for peaceful and amiable relations. The context is the historical conquest of Arabia.

>>2821073
>>wikipedia
>No
Ok, then, i'm not allowed to cite one of the internet's most credible sources?
in that case, delete yourself out of this planet.

>>2821073
>>2821199
>>2821238
>>Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
>>Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

I want you to go back where you copypasta'd this, then read the whole chapter of these verses then realize how stupid and biased you are

File: sRDqHPa.gif (1005KB, 351x263px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 351x263px

>>2819972
>Even the Blue Mosque that Muslims love to cite as an example of a distinct Islamic architecture was created by an Islamized Greek/Armenian.

There is so much wrong with this, holy shit.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedefkar_Mehmed_Agha

>Mehmed was born around 1540. According to the biographer Cafer Efendi, he was believed to be originating from the city of Elbasan in what is now present day Albania.[1] He went to Istanbul in 1563 (possibly to join the janissary corps).

>hurr he wasnt a muslim, he was just a greek / armenian raised as a muslim

Absolutely everything about this is wrong.

Anyway
>Statistically the majority of intellectuals during the Arab Caliphates were not ethnic Arabs: The majority were Nestorian Christians, Persians, Levantines

>Levantines aren't Arabs because I said so
>Nestorian Christianity is now an ethnicity
>It's called Islamic Golden Age but we are suddenly talking about ethnicity

You seem to be mixing up ethnicity and religion a lot, anon.

>>2821329
Anyone can edit content on wikipedia.
>>2821335
Quran (2:191-193)
The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).

Quran (8:12)
The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.

>>2821355
>Anyone can edit content on wikipedia.
Yeah but it's fucking sourced look at the bottom of the page

Look if you're gonna argue at least make some effort or just let me leave and play some arma, at this rate i think you have the cognitive abilities of a 6 year old

>>2821355
I told you to read it's chapter not post some shitty annotation, why are you evading?

>>2820539
>Frankish army
>Franks
>any Crusade
>What is the People's Crusade
>Libtard

You have no idea what you're talking about and that final buzzword you included very clearly tells us where you come from and where you get your knowledge.

>>2821355

>The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).

>his Muslims had just relocated to Medina
It was literally the first Muslim city.

>The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina#Muhammad.27s_arrival

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
>Prior to the battle, the Muslims and the Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes in late 623 and early 624. Badr, however, was the first large-scale engagement between the two forces. Advancing to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-disciplined force broke the Meccan lines, killing several important Quraishi leaders including the Muslims' chief antagonist Abu Jahl.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud
>Marching out from Mecca towards Medina on March 11, 625 AD, the Meccans desired to avenge their losses at Badr and strike back at Muhammad and his followers. The Muslims readied for war soon afterwards and the two armies fought on the slopes and plains of Mount Uhud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench
>The largely outnumbered defenders of Medina, mainly Muslims led by Islamic prophet Muhammad, dug a trench on the suggestion of Salman Farsi,[5] which together with Medina's natural fortifications, rendered the confederate cavalry (consisting of horses and camels) useless, locking the two sides in a stalemate.

>The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah."

And they fought the infidels who attacked them
Once again you retards just keep proving you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>2821698
You're a takkia spouting idiot who should be ignored.

File: 1490447194656.jpg (241KB, 1069x1196px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1069x1196px

>>2821728
Nice argument

>>2820005

They were also un-excommunicated after they bribed the pope with loot from Constantinople.

Which is a perfect reflection of Catholicism circa 1200's.

>>2820027
It's not empathy they are even exercising. They are just jumping at the opportunity to defend a perceived oppressed group for the sole fact of fueling their own narcissism. They only use their malformed version "empathy" when it fits their own needs. They then immediately discard it when it is needed most - when dealing with your ideological opposites. '

A lot of it is just immaturity/insecurity to me. People want to be given "victim status" or to be socially viewed as oppressed w/o actually being oppressed. If they succeed it's completely based on their own merits. When the opposite happens it's the fault of the society and personal responsibility is suddenly thrown out the window.

Even if they can't reasonably achieve "victim status" (white male) then they set themselves up as an ally to get good boy points.

It's all just an attempt to make themselves feel secure rather than confronting their problems and maturing. Their worldview is absolutely fucked up. You don't fight racism with more racism (affirmative action, "x" privilege, white etc.). It only radicalizes people and drives people to the other side of things.

Worst part is that they genuinely feel ethically and morally in the right. An eye for an eye makes the who world blind. It's not justice but vengeance. Justice is humanizing the "oppressors" and understanding them. Then you are able to stop it. Vengeance is dehumanizing them and punishing/treating them with disgust. It's fucking mad.

File: Germanicus Julius Caesar.jpg (94KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x667px

>>2819784

Medieval Christians really did end up destroying a lot of Greco-Roman art and science either directly or though neglect.

>>2820539
>frankish army

LEARN HISTORY YOU FUCKING KEK.

>>2821005
name?

>>2819832
>stopping the Greek coup
>partitioned Cyprus into two parts while forcefully kicking out all Greek Cyprus from their homes and bringing in Turks from inner Anatolia to settle in north Cyprus while calling them Cypriots
It's unbelievable how this act of modern Islamic aggression has passed out unnoticed by everyone.

>>2824016
>Pre-Erdogan Turkey
>Islamic

>>2824171
They turned many churches in the northern side into mosques after the invasion. If you think that Turkey went into "wtf Im secular now" in an instant after Ataturk came to power and didn't keep the Islamic element then you are a fool

>>2824016
>greek government tries to annex independent nation with turkish people living in it
>turkish government reacts

WOW SO JIHADI

>>2824194

>meet a pretty turkish girl
>go out with her, she's not muslim or anything
>actually, she starts talking about how she wants to kill all muslims in turkey
>day after she starts asking me to post these anti-turkish government things on facebook and spam people with them
>i say no
>calls me a fascist and islamist and refuses to speak to me ever again

Maybe Muslims in Turkey aren't the bad guys tbqh.

>>2824211
And how does that excuse Turkey's later actions, you moron?

>>2819823
>my inflated sense of ego
My, my
Just provide points instead of resorting to puerile judgement and reading into lines of response

>>2824194
How does this make it "Islamic aggression" though, and not turkish aggression based on political reasons?