Muslim Conquests

>>3339076
Same for earlier Macedonian conquests. Their opposition was weakened and they had a brilliant general.

>>3339076
Religious zealotry and dehumanization of everyone that doesn't follow your cult is a hell of a drug, OP. It turns men into miniature avatars of war.

It helps that their """religion""" is pretty much tailor made for conquests.

>>3339076

The Roman Empire wasn't around to stop them anymore, and Christian kingdoms were often too divided amongst themselves to respond effectively.

>Case-and-point: The Fourth Crusade

>>3339076
Superior tactics and willpower. They used fluid mobile warfare using the desert to move around and powerful cavalry.

Check out the battle of Yarmouk; Khalid btfo a much larger Roman army.

>>3339076
God's will

File: teutonic.gif (34KB, 200x259px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 200x259px

>>3339076
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_campaigns_in_India
>Territorial
changes Umayyad expansion checked and contained to Sindh.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (100KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1920x1080px

>>3339076
So is it a KHALID thread.? Post your favorite KHALID quote.

> "The earth destroys its fools, but the intelligent destroy the earth."

> "When I am in the battlefield, I love it more then when I am in my house."

> ""Do you see a space of the span of a hand on my leg, chest, arm which is not covered by some scar of the wound of a sword or an arrow or a lance? "And here I am, dying in my bed, like cattle. So be it, may the eyes of cowards never sleep.""

>>3339131
Khalid was long since dead then tho.

>>3339149
>Muslim Conquests
but thread title says muslamic rayguns...

File: IMG_0608.jpg (27KB, 418x352px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 418x352px

>>3339146
Khaled "No truce with the Majoos" ibn al-Walid

Khalid "No more shi'a after qadissiya" al-Walid

Khalid "Turn the Ajam into Jam" al-Walid

Khalid "I love the reek of a dead Greek" al-Walid

Khalid "bye-bye-zantine" al-Walid

>>3339076
>Persians and Byzantines had just concluded a thirty year war
>Both sides were heavily depleted of their main reserves of man power and veteran soldiers and generals
>Persians had an additional seven years of civil war within the Sassand dynasty until a 12 year old grandson of their last great ruler is installed on the throne
Even then it took the Arabs over 20 years to pacify the Persians and even then on top of that still never fully directly conquered them. They had to settle with the mountainous areas being held by the Persians and other Iranians being made into "vassals".

>>3339164
Also can't forget the return of Justian's Plague which wiped out roughly half of western Persia's population, which also did not help things in the least.

>>3339146
> "At Battle of Mu'tah I broke nine swords in my hand. But I have never met an enemy like the Persians. And among the Persians I have never met an enemy like the army of Battle of Ullais."

>>3339164
>>3339167
So basically if they had larger the Persians wouldn't have been conquered.
>They had to settle with the mountainous areas being held by the Persians and other Iranians being made into "vassals".
That's how a lot of Muslim conquests tended to be. Arab, Turkic or Persian.

>>3339207
* larger hordes

>>3339207
>if
>but
>if

Majoos got conquered hard

>>3339076
radicalisation plus they weren't up against all that much in the short-term

>>3339238
The Persians lost but stop acting like the entirety of the Sassanid empire fell to directly to the Rashidun Caliphate. Significant parts of northern Iran, areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and such held out and bleed the Caliphate of its manpower so badly they had to resort to coercing the Iranian holdouts to accept vassaldom. It wasn't a question of them surviving, it was a question of how high the price in lives the Arabs were willing to take to take down those holdouts and the cost was too high for the net result.

But don't act like the Arabs didn't lose battles at times. First time they got in Pars, they got overconfident and had two of their armies wiped out and the Arab commander killed. And the third army was routed and forced to retreat.

Tabristan for example held out for 120 years before they became "vassals" in name to the Abbassids after they converted to Islam in the late 8th century.

>>3339207
>That's how a lot of Muslim conquests tended to be.
Eh, not really. When the Safavid Persians or Ottoman Turks took territory, they fully annexed it. Only exception with the Turks being the Mamlukes in Egypt I think.

>>3339167
Did the Justinian plague effect Arabia at all?

>>3339272
No. We know it affected the Byzantines and even more so the Persians. On top of the civil wars that went on for seven years following the Persian loss in the final Roman-Persian War, the plague wiped out half of the western Sassanid Empire's population and Al-Tabari also tells us that the Persians were experiencing major overfloodings causing widespread famine affecting the agricultural heartlands for the Sassanids due to the spillage from the Euphrates and Tigris.

So yeah, somehow the Arabs were not at all affected by this.

>>3339076
A lot of areas they took over resented their current leaders and at firs teh Muslims were much much more tolerant. They were a tiny minority after all so they couldn't really afford not to tolerate Christians and jews for the first several centuries.

In comparison the Eastern Romans were cracking down on the 'heretical' beliefs of the further flung African provinces for ages.

Consider this. In the middle east and north africa to this day there is still the widest variety on christian sects dating to this time period. In the West and in the Orthodox east most of these variation of Christianity were stamped out.

Another big factor was that the Byzantines and Persians literally just fought a ridiculously pyrrhic war for both of them. They really weren't prepared for the Bedouins to assemble and suddenly take over.

And lastly the Arabs took over a lot of desert land that they were accustomed to where as the former rulers or both Persian and the Roman empires had troops ready for various diverse terrain. Having most of your troops be good at one kind of combat is trouble for empires with very diverse lands but when you first start conquering with an army completely focused on one landscape you can really out do your opponents, just like the mongols did. As they took more land they could rely on the local armies for more niche conquests.

File: 1200px-Indian_Kanauj_triangle_map.svg.png (455KB, 1200x1356px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1200x1356px

>>3339131
>>3339151
>im-fucking-plying
The poo in loos were lucky they had a large stable kingdom when the Ummayads invaded. If India was the same as when the Turks invaded a few centuries later we would have seen a Abbasid caliphate that stretched from Spain to SEA.

>>3339263
>. Significant parts of northern Iran, areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and such held out and bleed the Caliphate of its manpower so badly they had to resort to coercing the Iranian holdouts to accept vassaldom.
>Ummayads conquer all the cities
>Pashtuns do what they do best in these situations and run away to the mountains to launch guerrilla attack safely
>" Yeah we fugged you A-rabs XDDD "
Also
>(f)ersian defense force

>Tabristan for example held out for 120 years before they became "vassals" in name to the Abbassids after they converted to Islam in the late 8th century.
The Mongol empire did the same. You were still conquered.

>>3339317
You aren't Mongol. You aren't even a real Turk. You are just a cockroach who larpes as the guys who invaded his ancestor's home land and pretends to be 100% pure Mongol or some shit, Memet.
>Ummayads
Umayyads*
Also they ended up getting over thrown by the Abbassids who were entirely reliant on Iranians to run not only their government but their military as well.

Stop projecting.

We know you nothing of what you talk about.

>>3339317
Why are you trying to shit up a good thread?

>>3339327
>(it's another (f)ersian chimps out thread

>Also they ended up getting over thrown by the Abbassids who were entirely reliant on Iranians to run not only their government but their military as well.

>Arabs literally use you as cattle
>t-they need us!

>>3339333
I'm not. (f)ersians need to be put in their place however.

>>3339336
>>Arabs literally use you as cattle
>literally

>>3339346
The only thing they didn't do is eat you (f)ersians but that's only out of pity because of how pathetic you (f)ersians are.

>>3339289
Actually, the plague did affect Arabia, and is even blamed for pushing out Arab tribes to migrate elsewhere.

>>3339327
Harun al-Rashid was the last true Arab nationalist Abbasid caliph. He executed a bunch of powerful Persian families who infiltrated his reign

However after his death Amin and Mamun fought, and Mamun (who was half Persian) won so after that point Persians held a somewhat better position than before but it was still an Arab empire through and throufh

>>3339289
Oh my god. This combined with all the other stuff makes it sound like the Happening for Persia.
>Finish a huge and costly war with no real rewards
>Go through a civil war right after
>Plague comes rolling
>half of the population dies from it
>Natural disasters happen
>Causes famine which kills even more people
>Zealous barbarians start attacking from the south

>>3339336
>>3339340
>>3339378
You are retarded.

>>3339086
why did you place religion in quotes, are you implying islam is not a religion?

>>3339088
but the roman empire did stop them

>>3339076
>tfw normie text books call that an empire
>even though there were no emperors

>>3339637
Asspained (f)ersian detected

File: sad.png (89KB, 318x546px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 318x546px

If only the Bulgars didn't betray their Muslim brothers

File: 1280px-Bulgars.jpg (439KB, 1280x876px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1280x876px

>>3340014
Here's them slaughtering Christians if that will make your kebab heart feel better

>>3340024
>>3340014
I didn't know Bulgars were Muslim

>>3340040
Danube Bulgarians were never Muslim - first they were pagan all archaeological and written evidence points towards Tengrinism. Their empire however consisted of people who were christian as well as slavic polytheists, They were Christianized in the 9th century

The Volga Bulgarian however were first Tengrinists then converted to Islam in the Xth century.

At the time of the Arab invasions neither Bulgar group was Muslim so the whole point of both posts is void

All the areas they took were weakly controlled.
They were turned back by a stable nation, Frankia, and then their Empire splintered like all quick conquests do, like Alexander's and the Mongols'

>>3339846
Wrong, cockroach.

>>3339389
lol

The Abbassids were never really able to divorce themselves from being militarily independent of the Persians. The Bramakids are a pretty good example of Persians running the Abbassids government before their fall.

>infiltrated his reign
There was no infiltration. The Abbassids from the get-go rising to power and beating the Umayyads was hugely due to the Iranians and Persians, especially the manpower they drew out in the East from Khorasan. al-Rashid was simply a ghost of the Umayyad beliefs which is why his reign was starting to make the Caliphate stifle and decline before his sons took over.

Also no real surprise that Ma'mun reign was another golden age for the Islamic world given his patronage of higher culture, arts, and sciences.

>>3339146

This guy along with Subutai and Bai Qi stand as the three anointed champions of Khorne. They were literally war incarnate in human form.

>>3340219
>Bai Qi
Who?

1) The Romans and the Persians were exhausted from years of war with each other

2) The Byzantines were really bad rulers of the Levantine and Egypt, it didnt help that a giant ass plague (The fact its called the Plague of Justinian tells you alot) killed alot of people. The original Arabs were welcomed as liberators

3) The original invasions were, for their time fairly tolerant and lenient. I would say they were even more liberal than ISIS. They most certainly would not have crucified christians just to spite them.

4) The North African Vandals were poorly led and prepared. The Iberians were not much better

5) They had the greatest general of the day and a form of warfare well suited to their areas of conquest

>>3339098
But they had a lot of trouble against byzantine infantry in the beginning

>>3339640
He might be doing (((this))) meme wrong and trying to imply Islam is Jewish.

>>3339654
>british empire
>didn't have an emperor (except for india)

also they had a caliph who was basically an emperor and functioned like a monarch

>>3340214
Harun al-Rashid is universally considered to the be the apogee of the caliphate, his age was the golden age. It wasn't "declining". In fact he even btfo the Byzos in several campaigns.

File: 1474668286995.jpg (808KB, 1536x1886px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 1536x1886px

>>3340832
>>3339640
>>3339086

I think the quotes might be because Islam, even relative to other religions, was used for purposes other than controlling large numbers of people as per religion's role in the pre-englightenment. It had rules for economic practice, dress, military organization and strategy, and especially politics. Unlike other religions of the time, especially in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, which had post-Roman institutions of law and government with some key bonds to religious institutions for the sake of checking both the power of kings and priests in the early feudal system, Islam during this era had rulers that were both religious figures and rulers.

TL;DR: the other abrahamic religions had kings that fought in the name of god and whichever prophet they revered, Islamic rulers rode into battle as both both king and religious figure (though not prophets as we all probably know by now is the high of heresy). While all religions were used as a tool of conquest, Islam is one of the few that was deliberately designed with conquest and expansion in mind. To call it a religion would most definitely garner quotes, as it is also an expansionist political ideology using "Abrahamic Values 2: Electric Boogaloo" as it's justification for said imperialist (not in 19th century or marxist terms) actions and rules.

(pic unrelated until you think about it)

>>3339164
>>3339167
Wow how "lucky" of them, God was really on their side.

>>3340950
Islam is proto-Ba'athism. Read "In Memory of the Arab Prophet" by Michel Aflaq, he describes it pretty good.

Muhammad didn't create a new religion, he just took what was already there and gave it a vibrant Arab spirit with a heart for conquest.

>>3340950
Hi rebbit

>make a genuine thread trying to make good discussion
>2 replies

>shitpost bait thread
>10 billion replies

yeah i think im done with this board

>>3340919
His son is considered greater than him.

>>3339327
>>3340186
>that underage amerimutt persiaboo who chimps out in every thread
would love to beat the shit out of you, you're cancerous. not even persians are this obsessed with themselves.
oh and, the "roach" maymay does not trigger us. what triggers us is your wh*Te subhumanness and inferiority
now get the fuck out of here before i kick your mongrel skull in.

File: anatolians.png (277KB, 854x797px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 854x797px

>>3339327
oh and, stop that "le assimilated anatolian" meme. or else i'll create lots of anti iran threads to set your underage anus on fire. wh*Te subhuman.

>>3342774
>or else i'll create lots of anti iran threads
Might as well do it already. Persians have infested this board.

>>3342932
actually i did for 1 month ago when their wewuzzing level reached a new peak (ie Nader was a Persian) but now i stopped it because i'm bored there's no incentive for me to create lots of anti iran threads but persiaboos are working hard on that.

>>3340950
>autism
Go back to /tg/

>>3342768
>>3342774
>>3342932
>>3342946
>>3342946
Stop replying to yourself.

File: 1334979874965.jpg (32KB, 387x378px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 387x378px

>>3342774
>posts chart that literally shows T*rks are mongrelized mutts

>>3342946
They're so obnoxious.
>Nader Shah was PERSIAN because PERSIAN is a cultural identity
>Azeris? Lol no they are ethnic Persians deluding themselves they're Turk

>>3340737
These

also most of the area the Arabs conquered was just open terrain with low populations outside of Egypt and the Levant, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were easy pickings that only took a few battles to fully secure.

Once the Arabs hit a major obstacle however, their advance was halted, with the defeat at Tours stopping all muslim advance into Western Europe permanently and the Walls of Constantinople leading arab armies to their doom time and time again until the advent of gunpowder.

>>3343197
Stop replying to yourself.

>>3343107
>I know nothing about genetics
>>3343101
>>3343235
fuck off imbecile
>>3343197
yeah i agree it's cancerous

>>3343256
>I know nothing about genetics
at least you agree with your shortcomings.

>>3343256
I know you are retarded.

>knowledge about genetics
I doubt whatever loots around in that tiny inbred brain of yours counts.

>>3340914
Caliph was more like a pope

>>3342768
>now get the fuck out of here before i kick your mongrel skull in.
Calm down keyboard warrior

>>3343634
You could kind of call the pope and emperor, like how the papacy once controlled big chunks of central Italy.

>>3343634
Not at all.

>>3342768
>cockroach e-thuggin' now

File: muslim versus racist christian dog.jpg (21KB, 230x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 230x400px

>>3343718
>>3343953
I can easily beat the shit out of any wh*Te subhuman itt and wipe the floor with him. It's proven as a fact that wh*Tes are sissy faggots with inferior genetics and low testosterone. Hence i want no wh*Te subhumans in this thread or else i'll 9/11 your mothers

>>3343229
>that only took a few battles to fully secure.
Well of course. It's the Persians and Romans fault that they thought they could zergrush the Arabs.

File: fa10cf5c36e17af6b4b76877e7608f1d.jpg (223KB, 736x594px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 736x594px

>>3339076
Just before the arabian conquest (litterally, IIRC Heraclius, the roman emperor had just gotten back to Constantinople) the ERE and the Sassanid Empire had fought a devastating, decades long war that deeply exhausted both states and basically ruined the latter. Before this time many different arabic tribes had served as mercenaries/allies in both states' armies as borderguards and raiding forces. The pre-islamic arabic tribes were basically to the eastern border what the germanic tribes were to the WRE's european borders.
When the arabs united, under great military leadership, it was a reasonably easy affair for them to conquer the Sassanid Empire and most of ERE's MENA as the two empires had no real miltary might left to repell them with.

>>3342774
Sure thing anatolian rape baby go make a thread about superior civilization.

>>3344007
No you can't manlet. You roaches are barely 5 feet tall.

i have different question
how big was arab population as they were conquering middle east from byzatines/persians? How did they muster such a manpower from some desert shitholes?

>>3344241
Taking 20+ years to defeat an exhausted Persia wracked with civil wars, a boy ruler, and plagues is not "easy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Moorish_conquest
>Both Muslim and Catholic sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders.[33] Once captured, the defense of Córdoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Málaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors.

why are the jews so mean to Europe?

>>3344241
Uh, no sweetie, you should know that the Roman Empire had completely recovered by the time the Arabs attacked, and that they fielded over 100000 elite crack Roman cataphract legionnaries at Yarmouk (as alleged by ALL ancient sources), and I'm not even counting the allies kouffar tribes they brought with them against the arab soldiers wielding only their faith.

Truely the fact than the followers of Muhammad (PBUH) who were composed of a handful of militia exhausted after the internal struggle of the Arab penisula's unification, managed to beat the 200000 Romans (as alleged by all ancient AND present sources), is the proof Khalid ibn Walid was truely the best commander in history and God's chosen.

Has there ever been another battle as decisive with such a disparity in number as Yarmouk, where Heraclius in person converted to Islam after his 500000 Adeptus Astartes lost to 20 good goatherds at the height of the Roman Empire's golden age? I think not.

>>3339076
The will of allah

Khalid Bin Al-Waleed was just too op, undoubtedly best general in history, plebs like Byzantines never stood a chance.

File: 12345.jpg (29KB, 446x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 446x357px

>>3345576

File: 1449503462791.gif (957KB, 313x232px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 313x232px

>>3340950
>the tl;dr is bigger than the extended text

I mean there have been greater and longer lasting empires the successor to the Islamic-Umayyad Arab-Caliphate (661-750C.E.), which was the "Abbasid-Caliphate," (750-1258 C.E.), how about the Roman Empire, the Macedonian Greek-Em Timurid-Empire (1370-1420), the Spanish Empire (1492-1975), the British Empire (1783-1947), how about the Islamic Gunpowder-Empires being "the Ottoman-Empire," (1299-1923), the Safavid Dynasty of Persia (1501-1736), and the Mughal-Empire (1526-1857), or the Portuguese Empire (1470-1975), the Soviet Union (1922-1991), the Third Reich being "Nazi-Germany," (1939-1945), "Imperial-Japan (1868-1945), and of course the American-Empire.
What the Arabs did was similar to what the Mongols conquer a lot of territory incredibly fast. pire, the Russian-Empire (1721-1917), the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918), the Mongol-Empire (1221-1368), the

>>3345657
he's definitely up there with Naim-Puliyan Bany al-Parte,Iskandar Zulkarnain,Ghuslian Qaysar,Jan Geis Kahan,Yahya Masjidul Tal Duke of Mahal-Baharuum and Khader Faizton

>>3345540
> people unironically think conquering the world's greatest superpowers at the time wasn't an amazing achievement because they were at war a couple years before

That's like Central America conquering the entire US and most of Russia after WW2, it doesn't matter than the world powers weren't at their peakhey they're still leagues beyond anyone else

>>3342774
how are ancient anatolians northwest asian?

>>3344007
(you)

>>3339076
The Greeks and Persians feared the desert warrior

>>3345689
Except in this case:

>Persians lost half their population to a plague that was going on since the last year of the Roman-Persian War
>7 further years of civil war
>Numbers of both the Byzantine and Persian armies despite the massive bleed off of manpower and soldiers is somehow taken at face value despite hyperbole hugely inflating them from "Islamic" sources

This would be like if Canada took over the US after 60% of the US's population was dead and 25% of the remainder sitting out hte war.

>>3345906
>Canada

Alex Jones can solo fucking Canada

>>3340696
Google him

>>3345524
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkINjqLet-U
trust me i can make you my bitch easily, wh*Te subhuman

>>3339317
What "large stable kingdom" are you referring to?

>>3346423
Can't see shit, cockro*ch.

>>3347930
wash your face then, wh*Te subhuman, and tell your BLACK bull to not cum on your face everytime.

>>3345942
careful there
you already got your presidents house burnt down once by them

>>3348061
I don't understand your gay interracial fantasies but I suppose being mentally handicapped is one of the issues you have.

>>3345540
With 'reasonably easy' I meant that they achieved it without any large failures. I might be mistaking on this point however.

>>3345576
>Has there ever been another battle as decisive with such a disparity in number as Yarmouk, where Heraclius in person converted to Islam after his 500000 Adeptus Astartes lost to 20 good goatherds at the height of the Roman Empire's golden age? I think not.
Made me kek, have a (you)!

>>3345689

What >>3345906 said.
Also:
Many of the arab soldiers were veterans who had served in the service of either the Sassanid Empire or the ERE.
The arabian desert, a great border defence in itself to the persian and roman was as navigatable as a river to the vikings meaning that the great stretches of land lay open for the arabs.
Justinian's Plague hadn't devastated the arab population.

>>3345576
>where Heraclius in person converted to Islam after his 500000 Adeptus Astartes lost to 20 good goatherds at the height of the Roman Empire's golden age
Any credible sources regarding to this?

>>3350032
>The arabian desert, a great border defence in itself to the persian and roman was as navigatable as a river to the vikings meaning that the great stretches of land lay open for the arabs.
Large battles like the battle of Yarmouk was in the desert but Khalid fought the Persians and Byzantines in all kinds of different environments. Even ones he'd see for the first time in his life.

>>3345539
They weren't big. The battles fought by the arabs were mostly outnumbered.

File: Hulagu_Khan.jpg (81KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 401x600px

>the Mongols sacked Baghdad, committing numerous atrocities and destroyed the Abbasids' vast libraries, including the House of Wisdom. The Mongols executed Al-Musta'sim and massacred many residents of the city, which was left greatly depopulated. The siege is considered to mark the end of the Islamic Golden Age, during which the caliphs had extended their rule from the Iberian Peninsula to Sindh, and which was also marked by many cultural achievements.

Why mongols were pretty much fucking autist?

>>3350142
stop misusing the word "autist" you retard

>>3350151
this

>>3350013
>two armies completely wiped out invading Pars
>third routed
I would say that's a major failure even if they only delayed the conquest.

>>3350537
Persia was in much deeper shit than Rome and they still fared a lot better.
>"At Battle of Mu'tah I broke nine swords in my hand. But I have never met an enemy like the Persians. And among the Persians I have never met an enemy like the army of Battle of Ullais."

>>3350151
stop misusing the word 'retard' you fucking autist

>>3350546
Well to be fair the Romans only had a single battered veteran army with proper war experience at the end of the Roman persian war.

The Persians still had a couple of standing experienced field armies that had got out of the war relatively unscathed, like the traitor army in Anatolia who refused to come back to fight Heraclius.

The Sassanid state as a whole may have been in deeper shit than the Roman Empire, but the Roman army was in a worse state.

>>3350546
Yeah. And parts of the Sassanid Empire via some of the Parthian Royal families did hold out from getting militarily annexed in the more mountainous areas of eastern Persia.

File: 1504048100098.png (233KB, 354x412px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 354x412px

Guy on the "history-board," some guy asked how the Arabs got such a huge empire. I said there were plenty of other empires, "the Roman-Empire, Alexander the Great's Greek-Macedonian Empire, the Russian-Empire (1721-1917), the Ottoman-Empire (1299-1923), the "MONGOL-EMPIRE," (1279-1368), and of course the Islamic-Gunpowder Empires, "the Safavid-Dynasty of Persia (1501-1736), and the Mughal-Empire in India (1526-1857). And of course the "Spanish-Empire," (1492-1975), the Portuguese-Empire (1470-1997), "Napoleon-Bonaparte's French-Empire (1805-1815), the Timurid-Empire (1370-1507), the SOVIET-UNION (1922-1991), The Third-Reich "Nazi-Germany," (1933-1945), and Imperial-Japan (1868-1945).
Not to mention the "American-Empire."
The Arabs were just really good at conquering large swaths of territory like the Mongols. That's how the Umayyad and Abbasid Islamic-Caliphates were so successful.

File: 20170902_015116.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Not to mention "the Austro-Hungarian empire," (1867-1918), the German-Empire (1871-1918), and the British-Empire (1783-1947).
The American Empire is of course the biggest bigger and more powerful than the Ottoman and Abbasid-Caliphates ever were. The United States is ultimately going to fuck "(Dar Al-Islam)," I.e. The Arab World. The real Islamic- World. FUCK SAUDI ARABIA!!!!!!
P.S. The Kurds kick ass!!!

>>3350604
>Well to be fair the Romans only had a single battered veteran army with proper war experience at the end of the Roman persian war.
>The Persians still had a couple of standing experienced field armies that had got out of the war relatively unscathed, like the traitor army in Anatolia who refused to come back to fight Heraclius
The Roman's and Persians had a fair equal amount of soldiers. It's just that the Roman's abandoned a lot of their territories so they could collect them at a single point (Yarmouk) while the Persians were throwing away a lot of their men battle after battle into the meat grinder in a desperate attempt to stop the Arabs.

>>3350609
I always viewed the conquest of Persia of being two main reasons
1. The decline of both empires after their wars
2. A diamond in the rough gem like Khalid

I honestly think that unless you're Napoleon, Subutai or Alexander that most other generals would have been unsuccessful.

>>3350651
>The Arabs were just really good at conquering large swaths of territory like the Mongols

The Arabs weren't conquering Mongol style, and were more like the British who moved in colonists, made allies, and treated each new province like a corporate venture with a governor sent to oversee tariffs and taxes.

>>3350686
>The Roman's and Persians had a fair equal amount of soldiers. It's just that the Roman's abandoned a lot of their territories so they could collect them at a single point (Yarmouk) while the Persians were throwing away a lot of their men battle after battle into the meat grinder in a desperate attempt to stop the Arabs.

They may have had the same amount of soldiers, but the Sassanids had more veteran soldiers left after the Roman Persian war. Heraclius' victorious army had circa 20k men left after Nineveh, whatever they fielded at Yarmouk, it wasn't an army of veterans.

Whereas as I pointed out, the Persians still had at least one relatively unscathed vet army after Nineveh, not counting the remnants of the armies which had faced Heraclius' commando force.

Why Arabs went full retard and forced their women to wear ninja costumes if they were more casual about their religion before?

>>3350741
The Arabs became aristocrats, and adopted Roman and Persian memes about securing their women as untouchable to the non-Muslim underclass.

>>3350604
>>3350686
>The Persians still had a couple of standing experienced field armies
Majority of which with their soldiers were already lost in a successive series of never ending civil wars in the 7-8 years following end of the Roman-Persian War after 629 AD. Shahrabaraz, an incredibly talented Persian/Parthian general for example who had beaten and stalemated Heraclius several times in the war, died causing another civil war after his short usurpation of the Sassanid throne.

If he had spent less time hungering for more power, he could've been a major detriment against the Rashidun Caliphate.

Why do contemporary Arab "sources" only pay the minimum of lip service to defeats the Caliphate had against the Persians and Byzantines?

>>3350109
I wasn't saying that the arabs stuck to the desert. That would've obviously been impossible if they wanted to conquer the persian and roman empire.
What I did say was that the arabian desert, which acted as a great barrier to any other invading force, was almost a highway for the arabian forces.

>>3350537
Oh, I wasn't aware of this. Looks like I have some learning to do. Do anyone have any good books/reading on the subject that they'd recommend?

It's a myth that the Ar*bs won against the Persians, though. The Persians converted due to trade reasons, and unfortunate marriages led to a pro-Arabic Emperor that basically handed over entire Persia to one of the Caliphs.

>>3351374
Anything written by Touraj Daryaee. The Rise and Fall of an Empire and Sassanian Iran.

>>3351365
The desert was a highway for Arabian communications, but the Arabs still had limitations on what they could and couldn't cross as a coherent army. There were important border fortifications and natural boundaries which funneled Arab forces on their way into Syria and Iraq both.

>>3339076
Arabs were already living in most lands they conquered, so they had a population that greeted them as liberators.

Also, competing empires were currently weakened, which is why they were able to take Persia so quickly.

>>3351487
>Arabs
>primary population of pre-Islamic Mesopotamia and the Levant
No.

>>3351489
>who are the ghassanids
>who are the lakhmids
>who are the nabateans

etc.etc.

>>3351489
Demographics changed a lot starting in the 5th century, and got further tilted in favor of local Arab and Aramaic tribes with Justinian's Plague.

>>3342774
ulan tahta kapandı hala asberger genetik tiradlarına devam ediyorsun :DDD

>>3351539
>>3351594
>Lakhmids
Primarily northern Arabia, part of the Arabian side of the Persian gulf coastline, and southern most region of Iraq. That does not equate to Iraq being primarily Arab in its demographics.
>Nabateans
Did not make up the majority of Aramic speaking demographics and ethinicities living on either side of Roman or Persian Mesopotamia.

>>3351594
Entirety of Arsacid and Sassanian eras; most of central Iraq was grouped with the Persian home province of Pars and primarily populated by Persians and other Iranian peoples. Northern Iraq and further westwards was Asoristan which was a province mainly populated by Aramic speaking tribes who were Semites but not Arabs.

The only major time pre-Rashidun Caliphate's rise of Arab populations in Persian territory was when Shapur II after his very successful Arab War, decided to transplant several tribes into parts of Iraq to keep an eye on them and make them into vassals under Persian suzerainty.

File: 1ep4w7.png (26KB, 241x274px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 241x274px

>>3340950
>had rules for economic practice,
only inheritence
>dress
"be modest", that's it
>military organization and strategy
no
>and especially politics
no
>Islam is one of the few that was deliberately designed with conquest and expansion in mind.
also no.

unless you can give a [citation] for your bullshit get out of my face.

>>3339161
golden post

>>3351641
So pretty much the same it is today. Southern Iraq was arab, while the northern parts are iranian, levante was partially arab, etc. Basically the ethnographic map didn't change that much with the conquests. So the reason why Arabs conquered so much was because they were pretty much the biggest single ethnic group already.

File: portrait-of-osman-i-sogutt-1258-1326-founder-of-ottoman-dynasty-and-first-sultan-of-ottoman-empire-illustration-from-turkish-memories-arabic-manuscript-cicogna-codex-17th-century-163242395-58dc7d1d3df78c5162fa8d71.jpg (132KB, 768x785px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 768x785px

Hey "Osman I," here!
Conquered a pretty big empire lasted from about 1280 A.D. to the early 20th century after WWI in 1922.
A little thing called the "OTTOMAN FUCKING EMPIRE!!!!!!!"

>>3351713
>So pretty much the same as it is today.
No? Majority of Semitic populations in the Near East were Aramic speakers, not Arabs.

>>3339088
>The Roman Empire wasn't around the stop them
>Byzantines held off Islamic invasions in the East for over 800 years

Blame the fucking Sassanid-Byzantine rivalry that fucked up both superpowers

>>3352009
>Byzantines held off Islamic invasions in the Esat
They lost most of the Levant, all of North Africa, and even before the fall of Constantinople lost Greece and parts of the Balkans.

>>3339640
Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion. It's sort of in a weird spot.

>>3352535
But it's not a political system at all. This is a modern Islamist meme.

File: mwgsg1myaokz.png (479KB, 835x676px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 835x676px

>>3352748
It definetely 100% is
t.Muslim

>>3353056
>t. muslim
suuuuuuuure.

>>3353056
you're either a saudi extremist or a trollbait.

File: DDygbjTUAAE9UGB.jpg (24KB, 243x277px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 243x277px

>>3353076
No seriously i am and saying that there is no political element to Islam is really ignorant or a deliberate lie ;
“…..And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are disbelievers(Kafiroon)” [5:44]
".....And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers."[5:45]
".....And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient."[5:47]

"But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission." [4:65]

"Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (RH) stated:
“Whenever a person makes Halaal what is haraam by consensus or makes haraam what is halal by consensus or replaces the Shari’ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kaafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.” [Majmu al-Fatawa (3/267)]"

"Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) said: “And it is known from the religion (of Islam) by necessity and by the consensus of all Muslims that whoever legalises to follow other than the religion of Islam or a Shariah other than the Shariah of Muhammad (SAW), he is a Kaafir. And his kufr is similar to that of the one who believes in some part of the book (Quran) and reject some of it.” [Majmua al-Fataawa (28/524)]"

"Ibn Kathir (rh) said: “So Whosoever abandons the wise Shariah which was revealed upon Muhammad ibn Abdullah, the seal of the prophets, and goes to other abrogated Shariah for judgment, he becomes a Kaafir. So how about the one who goes to al-Yaasiq (man-made law) for judgment and gives it precedence (over the Shariah of Muhammad (SAW). Whosoever does this has become a Kaafir by the Ijma of the Muslims.” [Al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, (Vol. 13, p119)]"

Abu Abdullah Al-Khadali reported: I asked Aisha about the character of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Aisha said, “The Prophet was not indecent, he was not obscene, he would not shout in the markets, and he would not respond to an evil deed with an evil deed, but rather he would pardon and overlook.”

File: 1495429351822.png (293KB, 953x767px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 953x767px

>>3353056

File: 1496416403473.jpg (226KB, 1248x960px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1248x960px

>>3353161
/pol/ can go to hell my dude i'm just stating facts, there is no diluting my faith for Westerners or anyone else.
But i don't want to derail the thread, proceed friends.

>>3350741
The burqua was originally a north African practice

>>3350741
>if they were more casual about their religion before?
They really weren't but there were definitely dips

>>3353231
Source ?

>>3353108
Or maybe they've read actual books on what a political system is and not quotes from an Islamist pamphlet.

>>3353264
That's not really a counter argument to any of the points i brought up you're literally proving the "everyone i don't like is a Wahhabi" pic right

>>3353267
What points? You just dumped quotes and said people who don't agree are stupid.

And I never once talked about Wahhabis, not all of whom are even interested in politics.

A political system is much, much more than moral pronouncements in scripture and theological opinions on who is and who isn't a true believing Muslim.

>>3353192
well your people fucked those lands forevers and thanks to you, germanics are now on tops

there arent phoenicians, assyrians, other semitics to stop them. there arent iranians to stop them

all thanks to your people and now your people are just puppets to germanics


thanks, my muslims arab brother

thanks for fucking everything up

>>3353303
Yes but these quotes aren't from just random people that's like quoting Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for a Catholic, they're pretty authoritative on the matter and these are just two i've quoted besides the Qur'an itself is crystal clear and reducing an argument to a snappy comment like "you just dumped quoted" is not a counter argument, my point is if that was supposed to disprove anything i've said then it fell short but either way your very exclusive definition of a political system does not interest me.

>A political system is much, much more than moral pronouncements in scripture and theological opinions on who is and who isn't a true believing Muslim.
I didn't even remotely imply that i reduced it to that.

Byzantines and Persians were exhausted from fighting each other. The Byzantines also suffered a plagues that kept them from recovering their population. The Christians from Europe sacked Constantinople because (((Venetians))) wanted their money. Serbs were competing with Byzantine for head of the Orthodox Church. So the Byzantines invited the Ottoman turks to help them fight the Serbs. Even though the Ottomans were also trying to conquer Asia Minor.

North Africa was just a bunch of former Roman/Byzantine possession. That was ground down from goths and vandals.

File: AYZEuIe.png (825KB, 1053x1271px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 1053x1271px

>>3353317
It's the eternal anglo you should be worried about

>>3353327
and guess what, they are a germanic tribe

>>3353319
No, those aren't random people, those are instead random quotes pulled out of their original contexts by modern Islamist thought to fit into their ideology of an Islamic political system that never was.

Reducing it to a snappy comment wasn't supposed to be a counter argument - you need an argument for me to counter in the first place. The Quran casts Muhammad as an archetypal semitic style judge-arbiter who can intercede on tribal level disputes because of his piety and moral fortitude. This is not however the foundation of a political system, but a judicial one that existed separate from historical political bodies in the Middle East until the 21st century. And commentators on the Quran were themselves opining on their moral authority to judge who should be protected by or condemned by Islamic jurisprudence in a theoretical perfect, moral society that did not require political rule or enforcement apply the law, only moral submission to it as an existence beyond politics. This is not however a detailed treatise on political sovereignty and delegation of legal power.

>>3353339
The historical context is crystal clear as well both were writing against the law that the Mongols who claimed to be Muslim were using at the time and even if Historical context wasn't being provided i don't see how much you can twist such clear directives and opinions but keep pulling your modern Islamist boogyman.

So you're just arguing semantics then not really against the fact that the shari'a is a requirement in Islam ?

>>3353398
So you know the context, but lied through your teeth about them anyway. Otherwise, what does a diatribe against hypocrite and/or false Muslim powers like the Mongols have to do with establishing a political system? These are statements of excommunication and absolving those who would fight them of the moral sin of murdering co-religionists. The only one twisting them out of their original, historical context is you.

>Islamist boogeyman
>arguing semantics
Stop using words you don't understand. I'm already mad about you misusing the term 'political system.'

>>3353422
How was it a lie though ?
The lie i attempted to refute was that Islam has no political component and i quoted scholars excommunicating those who did not apply it i'm not even sure what you're going about ?
I have a feeling you think shari'a is just hudud punishments but there are five maqasid (goals), the preservation of ;
1.Faith
2.Life
3.Intellect
4.Lineage
5.Wealth
I doubt something that would encompass all five of those and guarantee them to its citizen wouldn't count as a political system.
Again i'm not sure why you're being autistically mad about this i'm not even sure what you're getting at.
>what does a diatribe against hypocrite and/or false Muslim powers like the Mongols have to do with establishing a political system?
I was aiming at the imperativity of establishing said political system in response to someone who said that this isn't a thing.
Please clarify what you want to say or what your point is and stop rambling.

>>3353192
>sources: Koran and SWORDOFALLAH.com
Hmm.

>>3353458
>The lie i attempted to refute was that Islam has no political component
No. The lie you tried to push is that Islam has anything resembling a political system. No one said anything about there being components, this is just an attempt to shift goal posts and save face.

And now you're trying to quibble with vague, passive aggressive nonsense.

>I have a feeling
>I doubt
>I'm not sure

All while trying to assume my level of knowledge on Islamic theology and history and attacking this strawman of your own making. I'm not interested in your beliefs or doubts about this subject at all, and you've only reasserted your skewed ideals on what constitutes a political system (as if moral, judicial, and social systems don't also exist and are not even more descriptive of what Islam and Sharia actually have been for most of its history).

This isn't a thing. It wasn't when you first regurgitated talking points from historically and religiously illiterate 20th century political movements, and it won't be in your response that I won't bother reading.

>>3353501
>No. The lie you tried to push is that Islam has anything resembling a political system.
It does i'm not denying that either but that was my original point.

"political system
noun
a coordinated set of principles, laws, ideas, and procedures relating to a particular form of government, or the form of government itself"
Islam covers all of these all you've done is throw insults around without even bothering to make any arguments that weren't supported by your pre supposed historical and theological illiteracy of the Islamist boogeyman.
But again you didn't even bother defining the term and merely kept attacking me or these "Islamists" you're not even willing to talk just throw shit around and call others stupid.

>>3350948
>Shahrabaraz, an incredibly talented Persian/Parthian general for example who had beaten and stalemated Heraclius several times in the war, died causing another civil war after his short usurpation of the Sassanid throne.
>If he had spent less time hungering for more power, he could've been a major detriment against the Rashidun Caliphate.
Redpill me on him. From what I read he doesn't seem very impressive.

>>3350083
No, but Islamic history LARPs harder than Christians did to the Jews. It's hilarious. For some reason God had Abraham send off the truly blessed son to Mecca, traveled there to help build the Kabba (Gods first and actual house) but then instructed the Hebrews to build the temple anyways.
The Hadith has crazy shit like Heraclius converting to Islam because Muhammad sent him a letter telling him that Islam is true, as well as an unhealthy fascination with conquering Constantinople/Rome (Red Apple)
Islam is a fucking joke, but it's got some cool parts nonetheless

>>3353690
whenever someone misuses the word LARP i want to brutally murder him and rape his mother in front of him.

>>3353557
From what I read from your post, you seem pretty dumb.

>>3339081
generals, not general?

>>3353905
i felt the hurt too, you have to understand its a forum of a wide range of ages and abilities though, the youngest and/or stupidest being unable to not spatter their sentences with meme words.

>>3346394

So he won 5 battles, murdered hundreds of thousands of surrendering troops, then refused to fight because he thought he would lose honour if he lost, and eventually killed himself

What a hero

>>3353108
do you know what the fuck does "shariah" even mean you hillbilly?

shariah is how you pray how you do the abolution and general practices

the shariah law maymay has debunked so hard so many times that a simple google can give you many results

unironically kys

>>3339076
Do you really have to ask? Allah (swt) is with the Ummah

>>3354566
I should know since i speak Arabic friend and a buzzfeed article "refuting" what the scholars of Islam have repeated for 1400+ years is not debunking anything

>>3356108
>I should know since i speak Arabic
I highly question this. because i also speak Arabic

> buzzfeed article "refuting"
tons and tons scholar websites and videos refuting your gay wahhabi retardation does not count as "buzzfeed"

>>3356145
Give me an example of those scholar websites

>>3339076
superior tactics in the battlefield.

>>3356549
literally google any of those ""violent"" verses (that muslim haters drool over so much) just the numbers like 4:32
and you'll find an explanation for all of them
same thing for any verse than involves "cutting heads or hands" and whatnot