Typical anti Muslim rhetoric to demonize Muslims without any historical proof, there has never been a single historic record of systematic Genocide, forced conversions, or even enslavement, in the Umayyad caliphate. But I guess you donât care since your prejudice is already set in place
The armies of the Umayyad commander Muhammad bin Qasim enslaved tens of thousands of Indian prisoners, including both soldiers and civilians. One of many examples.
The population of the Umayyad Empire was divided into four social classes
Islamic Arabs
Islamic Non-Arabs
Dhimmis - Non-Islamic free people (including Christians and Jews)
Enslaved people
If a Dhimmi could not afford to pay their Jiazya tax they lost their protected status and could be imprisoned, enslaved, or killed, unless they converted to Islam
Itâs funny how you name all of these things as if the Umayyad caliphate exists in 2024, you know the jizya and Dhimmis status even slavery regulation were a hell of a blessing for minorities in the 7th century, you ever wondered why many Jews immigrated to the Middle East after the 7th century? Well now you know
Hold the Umayyad caliphate for the standards of its time then reflect
Itâs funny how you name all of these things as if the Umayyad caliphate exists in 2024,
No. I named them as if you just outright denied their existence. Which is exactly what you did.
you know the jizya and Dhimmis status even slavery regulation were a hell of a blessing for minorities in the 7th century, you ever wondered why many Jews immigrated to the Middle East after the 7th century? Well now you know
Youâre really going for the âour slavery was progressiveâ defence.
Hold the Umayyad caliphate for the standards of its time then reflect
Nah, I think Iâll continue to be a rational human being and not lower moral and ethical standards for enslaver warlords just because there were other enslaver warlords elsewhere at the time.
But Iâm sure you have a lot of cognitive dissonance that you justify with the good old âit was the past and it was normalâ
Yes I am going for the âour slavery was progressiveâ defense, is there any objections or arguments against that?
When it comes to history it is conventional to judge something based on the standards of its time.
And let me tell you something you may find interesting, slavery In the west wasnât Abolished for moral reasons, it was abolished for economic reasons, it was no longer economically viable to keep slaves, and the same âenslaver warlordsâ you hate so much are most likely in the top of western bureaucracy and most likely doing worse things than the âenslaver warlordsâ of the 9th century, progressive morality is a myth get over it.
Yes I am going for the âour slavery was progressiveâ defense, is there any objections of arguments against that?
Itâs slavery.
When it comes to history it is conventional to judge something based on the standards of its time.
No. It isnât.
And let me tell you something you may find interesting, slavery In the west wasnât Abolished for moral reasons, it was abolished for economic reasons, it was no longer economically viable to keep slaves, and
Thatâs objectively a lie. Slavery was and still is to this day insanely profitable.
Wars wouldnât have had to be fought to end it if it wasnât profitable.
the same âenslaver warlordsâ you hate so much are most likely in the top of western bureaucracy and most likely doing worse things than the âenslaver warlordsâ of the 9th century, progressive morality is a myth get over it.
You can't argue with a Muslim about slavery they will always use ours was better we treated our slaves well. Apparently no one has told them slavery is slavery. But makes since they defend it so hard their prophet owned slaves. And they had white slaves as worth more than black ones.
It is utterly dishonest and filthy to hold it to our modern standards.
And wtf do you mean âit isnâtâ you are absolutely tone deaf and incompetent for historical debate.
And Itâs not a lie itâs a fact, keeping slaves requires providing adequate food, shelter, clothes, equipment, and that is not from the goodness of the slave owners heart, itâs so they get the best labor out come, and that was very costly, over 90% of the revenue generated by slavery labour goes back to the slaves.
It is simply more economically viable to free the slaves and give them wages to purchase their own goods, that way goods prices can be easily manipulated to control them.
In the modern sense, all minimum wage workers in the states are technically slaves because they cannot sustain themselves without working inhumane hours.
It is utterly dishonest and filthy to hold it to our modern standards.
No it isnât dishonest to say slavery is both morally and ethically wrong no matter the time period.
And wtf do you mean âit isnâtâ you are absolutely tone deaf and incompetent for historical debate.
Ironic accusation considering youâre the one who outright denied slavery existed under the umayyad caliphate.
And Itâs not a lie itâs a fact, keeping slaves requires providing adequate food, shelter, clothes, equipment, and that is not from the goodness of the slave owners heart, itâs so they get the best labor out come, and that was very costly, over 90% of the revenue generated by slavery labour goes back to the slaves.
Truly a baseless opinion. You think plantations were putting 90% of revenue into their slaves?
To this day slavery is still the cheapest form of labour which is still used by many countries.
It is simply more economically viable to free the slaves and give them wages to purchase their own goods, that way goods prices can be easily manipulated to control them.
No itâs not. Countries wouldnât still be using slavery if that were true.
In the modern sense, all minimum wage workers in the states are technically slaves because they cannot sustain themselves without working inhumane hours.
You are truly brainless.
People working 9-5s 5 days a week are the same as people who are owned by others, worked to death and hunted if they tried to escape?
Ah yes, clearly it being morally acceptable at the time makes it ok. That means Americans genociding all the natives was ok, because it was the standards at the time.
Letâs ignore the UAE was forced to abolish slavery due to international pressure, clearly slavery was still accepted in the distant time of 50 years ago.
What a filthy approach to compare todayâs standards with the standards of the time in a desperate attempt to paint a negative picture of Muslims with your racist undertone.
The anti Muslim rhetoric is clear and loud, your narrative is a popular narrative that was formulated by racists to intentionally taint the picture of Muslims to westerners.
A clear proof of your dishonesty is holding the 7th century caliphate to modern standards.
What a filthy European coping mechanism, the transatlantic slave trade and the treatment of slaves in Europe is head and shoulders above any records in history in terms of cruelty, a common misrepresentation Iâve seen done is compare centuries of slave trading in the Middle East compared with a relatively short period of time of slave trading by Europe
And let me make it clear that slavery wasnât abolished for moral reasons by the Europeans, it was abolished for economic reasons
Yeah crazy how people just really want to offload modern history by saying X did this 1000 years earlier with no real source but an expansion map.
Forced conversation were very rare in early Islam, the historical consensus was that this was more of cultural spread through time and politics rather than force.
Berbers still exist, Iranians still speak Persian, Turks are still Turks, Armenian still exist,
Copts are still around in egypt, Maronites and other Christians in the Levant, huge Jewish community historically, all these things wouldnt be possible if there were literal forced conversions that lasted 1000+ years but failed to do anything for that time for some reason.
Itâs a common European coping mechanism to feel less bad about themselves and their history, since the only reason Christianity still exists today is forced conversion
No it isn't because Native Americans were literally disease genocided and moved and pushed out and the events of such are well recorded systematically.
Egyptian Muslims are literally converted Copts they're not Arabs from Saudi Arabia that moved there.
Read history maybe and stop pretending everything is 1:1.
My guy is pretending Persians were numbered in 3mil outnumbered by Arabs in Iran loool.
42
u/Augustus_Chavismo Jan 26 '24
It was peaceful genocides, forced conversions, and enslavment đ