I think islamic conquests were fundamentally different from colonialism.
A lot of historians disagree, in fact by definition they were colonizers

Colonialism is a practice by which a one group of people, social construct, or nation state controls, directs, or imposes taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies,[1] generally for strategic and economic advancement of the colonizing group or construct.[2] There is no clear definition of colonialism; definitions may vary depending on the use and context.[3][4][5][6]
The historical phenomenon of colonization is one that stretches around the globe and across time. Ancient and medieval colonialism was practiced by the Phoenicians, Greeks, Turks, and Arabs.
In that I don't believe islamic conquerors ever displaced the native population, as in the case of America or Israel, or subjugated the native population in order to funnel wealth back to the mother country, like with India or Africa
When it comes to ethnic cleansing idk enough to comment, but they definitely did exploit the regions they conquered and even used the native population for slave trading

rThe Arab-Muslim conquests followed a general pattern of nomadic conquests of settled regions, whereby the conquering peoples became the new military elite and reached a compromise with the old elites by allowing them to retain local political, religious, and financial authority.[119] Peasants, workers, and merchants paid taxes, while members of the old and new elites collected them.[119] Payment of taxes, which for peasants often reached half of the value of their produce, was not only an economic burden, but also a mark of social inferiority.[119] Scholars differ in their assessment of relative tax burdens before and after the conquests. John Esposito states that in effect this meant lower taxes.[128] According to Bernard Lewis, available evidence suggests that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was "welcomed by many among the subject peoples, who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters".[129] In contrast, Norman Stillman writes that although the tax burden of the Jews under early Islamic rule was comparable to that under previous rulers, Christians of the Byzantine Empire (though not Christians of the Persian empire, whose status was similar to that of the Jews) and Zoroastrians of Iran shouldered a considerably heavier burden in the immediate aftermath of the conquests
They [the Arabs] export black slaves...belonging to the Mira, Zaghawa, Maruwa, and other black races who are near to them and whom they capture. I hear that the black kings sell blacks, without pretext and without war
Colonialism is not a "western" thing lol
 
Last edited:
Don't know much about Iberian history, but from my understanding, it was the spanish that did the displacing.

They expelled all of the jews and muslims from the land. That's why there were so many jews in North Africa. All the ones that got expelled from Spain went there.

However eventually there was a rise in antisemitism due to the Arab Israeli conflict and jews in muslim countries got kicked out in the mid 20th century. That's why Israel is like 50% mizrahi, despite the original zionists being ashkenazi jews.
So you're not familiar with the Moorish invasion of the 800s? Yes the Spanish did expel the moors, but they arrived there after invading the whole peninsula in the first place (not that it was morally justified to expel them). As for the sephardic jews, they were closely related to the Ashkenazi, a lot of them did end up in north africa and the american colonies, hence why most latin americans can claim sephardic ancestry.
 
If you just throw blanket statements like that instead of explaining the logic behind the aforementioned claim then it just comes across as preachy. How can you call yourself an "analyst" when you don't even support the basis of your claim?
Fair.
I see god as nothing but a concept. BUT in the case that a "god" exist, first I wouldn't call it a god and looking at the things they allowed and have done, they would need to be taken care of.
 
So you're not familiar with the Moorish invasion of the 800s? Yes the Spanish did expel the moors, but they arrived there after invading the whole peninsula in the first place (not that it was morally justified to expel them). As for the sephardic jews, they were closely related to the Ashkenazi, a lot of them did end up in north africa and the american colonies, hence why most latin americans can claim sephardic ancestry.

This is the reason for the longest war in history
I know the muslims conquered spain

but I don't think they expelled the natives from the land like later colonial movements did
 
What someone reps is important when pointing out cognitive dissonance. You can’t go around shitting on the west for “colonialism” when your entire society is based on basically the same shit.
Society, but not religion. And in many cases society in the past tense. At this point in history for all the assholes we've uncovered, you just have to take societies at their modern value
 
IDF using their civilians has human shields...

Whatever the IDF/Zionists accuses the palestinians/anyone else off, 99.99% chance its actually them thats doing it.


It's not gonna be long before we start seeing evidence of the police/IDF that killed the festival goers. Sick fucks
That is reaching now.Plenty of survivals,some were tourists.They would have spilled the beans by this point.
 

Nuit Rouge

Well, I give up. Can't win against fools.
They didn't they were only forced to pay taxes if they did not convert to Islam.
For Jews and Christians I think. Other minorities were less protected. Jews and Christians are the people of the Book. From Islam's vision, they're more similar to heretics than to heatens. Today's Islam is more harsh and less open than Islam during it's Golden Age. Maybe the result of being colonized and invaded by Western powers.
 
For Jews and Christians I think. Other minorities were less protected. Jews and Christians are the people of the Book. From Islam's vision, they're more similar to heretics than to heatens. Today's Islam is more harsh and less open than Islam during it's Golden Age. Maybe the result of being colonized and invaded by Western powers.
Islam doesn't change, that's its point. Times, people, and regions change.

So in North America you have medical professionals, realtors, and store owners being lumped in with these warlords of no relation.
 

Nuit Rouge

Well, I give up. Can't win against fools.
Islam doesn't change, that's its point. Times, people, and regions change.

So in North America you have medical professionals, realtors, and store owners being lumped in with these warlords of no relation.
I meant by these that the way people praticized Islam and the impact it had in their life changed.
 
For Jews and Christians I think. Other minorities were less protected. Jews and Christians are the people of the Book. From Islam's vision, they're more similar to heretics than to heatens. Today's Islam is more harsh and less open than Islam during it's Golden Age. Maybe the result of being colonized and invaded by Western powers.
Islam is the same as it was
However, the current countries with a majority Muslim population are more concerned with National identity than with religious identity - something adopted due to Western colonialism
Post automatically merged:

Can't believe Hamas forced him to out himself as a clown:crazwhat:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...apons-manual-biography-bomber?utm_source=Klix
 
Last edited:
Top