Islamic conquests - not Arab. It’s worth remembering that the longest-lasting Caliphate was the Ottoman Caliphate. As I’ve noted, Islam transcends race and ethnicity. Scholars have acknowledged that mistakes were made by some during these conquests, but such actions were contrary to the core teachings of Islam and have been openly recognized as such.
What is happening in occupied Palestine today—witnessed by the world and actively enabled by certain Western powers—is a tragic chapter in human history. History will judge it with the same moral clarity and horror as the atrocities committed by a certain German regime during and around the WWII era. Already, we are seeing a growing awareness among Western civilians, who are beginning to recognize and challenge what their governments are supporting.
> It’s worth remembering that the longest-lasting Caliphate was the Ottoman Caliphate. As I’ve noted, Islam transcends race and ethnicity.
Yes, but I was talking specifically about the Arab conquests that preceded the Ottoman Empire by centuries. The Arab conquests were in the 7th and 8th centuries. The First Crusade was in the 11th century. The Ottoman conquests were in the 14th century.
> Scholars have acknowledged that mistakes were made by some during these conquests, but such actions were contrary to the core teachings of Islam and have been openly recognized as such.
I'm not talking about religion but about history in response to a statement about the crusades having introduced warfare to the Middle East. Not only is that obviously not even remotely true, but the Arab Empire conquered and colonised the Levant, Maghreb, and Europe's Iberian Peninsula centuries before the crusades. All of this happened a long time ago, no one who was there is alive today, and I'm not trying to sit in judgment. This is just something that happened.
> History will judge it with the same moral clarity and horror as the atrocities committed by a certain German regime during and around the WWII era.
Not everything needs to be compared to the holocaust, nor, for that matter, to the atrocities in Syria this past decade that killed over half a million people and displaced almost 7 million. The atrocities in Palestine are bad enough without being "the same horror" as the killing of 80-90% of Eastern Europe's Jewish population. Nothing justifies mass killings, and each of those atrocities stands on its own.
If you look at the citation for the latter designation, you will see that it is a non-Muslim/non-Arab source. Never have I heard the term (الفتوحات العربية) in any proper source.
As far as I know "Arab conquests" is a modern phrasing used in English (orientalist historiography). It reflects the ethnic origin of the initial armies (mostly Arab tribes) but is not how pre-modern Muslim sources described them.
> Yes, but I was talking specifically about the Arab conquests that preceded the Ottoman Empire by centuries
If you mean the Rashidun, Umayyad, or Abbasid Caliphates, then those were not simply "Arabian" empires - they were Islamic. Non-Arab peoples were deeply involved at every stage. The unifying goal wasn't to spread Arab nationalism but the spread of Islam.
> Not only is that obviously not even remotely true, but the Arab Empire conquered and colonised the Levant, Maghreb, and Europe's Iberian Peninsula centuries before the crusades
They certainly conquered territory, yes. But the term "colonization" (especially with the European background involved) is very loaded, if not misleading. Unlike European colonialism, which involved stealing natural resources, dispossession, and often depopulation - Islamic conquests generally integrated local populations as I previously pointed out. Andalus was ruled by a combination of Arabs, Berbers, and large numbers of local converts. Likewise, in the Levant and Maghreb, indigenous societies weren't replaced or erased. They remained, adapted, and in many cases thrived under Islamic rule.
> Nothing justifies mass killings, and each of those atrocities stands on its own.
Agreed. But my point was that the Western-backed Israeli regime and WWII Germany share a disturbing structural resemblance: both are rooted in ethno-supremacist, ethnic-cleansing ideologies, and both commit mass killings against civilian populations. At least the nazis tried to hide their crimes; the israeli regime doesn’t even bother, and they boast about it (there are countless video interviews and confessions of israeli soliders that affirm this - several recent ones of israeli soldiers confessing their PTSD symptoms in court because of their crimes are very telling and distrurbing). The so-called "allies" hardly had clean hands either, their own history of indiscriminate mass killings during WWII (firebombing cities, nuclear attacks, colonial massacres) shows the same willingness to treat civilian life as expendable.
On a side note, what happened in Syria was a direct result of French colonial policy when they and Britain colonized the Levant, and israel is trying to follow the exact same play book in post-liberation Syria today. I won't get started on Lebanon either.
> If you mean the Rashidun, Umayyad, or Abbasid Caliphates, then those were not simply "Arabian" empires - they were Islamic. Non-Arab peoples were deeply involved at every stage. The unifying goal wasn't to spread Arab nationalism but the spread of Islam.
Well, nationalism is a very modern concept, and things gets murky once we go further back. The very same could be said about applying the moniker "European" to the Roman Empire or even to the crusades. They were no more European than the Arab conquests were Arab.
> But the term "colonization" (especially with the European background involved) is very loaded, if not misleading.
That's true, but that would also apply to Israel and Zionism. There is no kind of European colonialism - of the settler or non-settler variety - that would cleanly apply. Even the Jews living in Europe who were the ancestors of a minority of Israeli Jews, created the Zionist movement because Jews were not considered European or Western by their environment.
The point is that in history, there are often important similarities and important differences, and we need to be careful when it comes to the extent of comparisons.
> both are rooted in ethno-supremacist, ethnic-cleansing ideologies, and both commit mass killings against civilian populations
Yes, and the same, of course, applies to Arab nationalism, which, at least in part, expressly allied itself with Nazi Germany.
There are many prisms of historical analysis. You can look at similarities or at differences; you can look in a specific era or across era. But if you apply different prisms to different groups and then compare them, it starts looking as less of an attempt of historical understanding and more as an attempt to use history carelessly to judge the politics of the present.
What is happening in occupied Palestine today—witnessed by the world and actively enabled by certain Western powers—is a tragic chapter in human history. History will judge it with the same moral clarity and horror as the atrocities committed by a certain German regime during and around the WWII era. Already, we are seeing a growing awareness among Western civilians, who are beginning to recognize and challenge what their governments are supporting.