876
the final boss after you clear Donald Knuth
(hexbear.net)
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3062545
Important history
Which is vastly different from being murdered and having their civilizations destroyed, like for instance the Crusaders did.
The Crusaders also did not stop from slaughtering orthodox Christians either.
When looking at the details, Persian, Arab and Mauretanian rules over people of other religions were much more tolerant and civilized than comparable European ruling situations. I guess the saddest example of these are the Spanish Jews, who flourished under the "Moors" and got genocided and ethnically cleansed by the Catholics, after they were no longer dhimmis under Muslim rule.
Are you high or something?
The Crusaders didn't do a fraction of what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest.
I think you should go and learn the meaning of the word "firman" in the Middle-East.
Anyway - I may agree about late Muslim rule in Spain specifically and some periods of Arab rule in Armenia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
In Iran Zoroastrians were to be exterminated, they wouldn't get that sweet dhimmi status. Which may be one of the reasons it became largely Christian after the conquest and then largely Shia.
The Crusaders killed every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem until the streets were flowing with blood.
Go read something on
. This was casual for them. The difference is, though, that Crusaders didn't intentionally destroy books and art.
They actually literally did. That was a huge part of the crusades.
OK, said one stupid thing. Anyway, this makes them at worst as bad as Muslims.
I hope you're just really misinformed and not just really racist but you should take a quick stroll to your local library, buy a few history books and look around.
Christianity has been far more brutal and repressive for a lot longer than pretty much every other religion out there.
I'm Armenian, so I know you're bullshitting me in the context of the Middle-East. We are not talking Americas and Africa here.
What does that have to do with anything lmao
King Leopold murdered ten million Congolese. The British empire 100 million Indians. The dutch started the slave trade.
Which doesn't change anything in the conversation that started about "the Islamic world" being built on the conquest of more civilized peoples, which were mostly Christian.
Also I'm fine with reducing Christians to "middle-eastern Christians" here. Others don't seem really Christian from there anyway. For these reasons as well:
Only I think the Portuguese started the slave trade. Not that it changes anything.
Pretty sure Persia, India, and China all had great empires and knowledge well before Christianity was even a little sperm cell in the Judean god's sac but sure
Which btw most of foundational mathematics was created in the Eastern and Persian world, not by Christians. And it was from there that the Greeks got their knowledge. To the point Pythagoras was not the one who created or realized the Pythagorean theorem, it was just named after him because of the western world. And that was a couple thousand years before Christianity existed.
The literal word Algebra comes from Al Jebra and his works.
So yeah you're just racist and misinformed.
I said that most civilized areas conquered by Arabs during the initial Muslim expansion were mostly Christian, and they were. That would be Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia and the Iberian peninsula. Berbers in Northern Africa yeah, mostly weren't Christian.
The Sassanian Empire was obviously a Zoroastrian theocracy with a huge Christian population.
What does this of yours sentence have to do with what I said requires clarification.
You do realize that this is even truer for Islam, right?
And as I've said already once, the Middle-East was Christian at the moment of the Arab invasion, and Iran was Zoroastrian. Thus attributing praise for any of the achievements the conversation was about to Muslims is fucking asinine.
I've forgotten on this subject more than you ever knew.
Also how does contempt for the Muslim religion make one racist, I wonder? It's (in Sunni variants, I'll admit Shia Islam is better) every bit as worthy of contempt as the Christian religion, but without the upsides.
Yet ignore the entire part where I talk about the non Christian world. And advancements before Christianity advent, which is not attributing that to Muslims. Do you have some reading comprehension issues?
I don't consider it useful to continue conversations with such fools who also can't stop insulting people better than them. Fool blocked.
There's a difference between relatively non-destructive "advent" of a religion in a certain culture and conquest by illiterate Bedouins burning and sacking everything "immodest" they see.
Again, go pick up a history book. Glad to be blocked by a racist and a fool
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I know what I'm talking about, but I get furious over Westerners trying to find indulgence for their own ancestors' actions at the expense of Middle-Eastern native Christians, and I see saying that Crusaders were somehow worse than any Muslim conquest as part of that.
Being furious I may sometimes say something imprecise.
Doesn't negate the fact that Islam is not native to any place outside of the Arabian peninsula, and those areas it has invaded still have native populations and religions not yet completely exterminated, and those are largely Christian. Saying that Crusaders were the baddies, but the Muslims whom they were fighting were not, is disgusting in that context. It's like that "Irish were like slaves too", putting things into American context so that you'd understand better.
Same as that myth of Salah ad-Din being benevolent and honorable, mostly started by German Empire's propaganda as part of their relations with genocidal Ottoman Empire.