https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
What do you think about this guy and his research? Do you think his summary of Islamic history is accurate? Are his conclusions correct?
>>317799
Stop posting that stupid shit. It's obvious you already agree with him and will spend this thread defending.
But no, he talks shit, his summary of Islamic history is completely wrong and so are his conclusions. He's an incredibly biased hate preacher spreading fear of Islam to make money off gullible Americans.
>>317799
This is like the fourth time we've had this thread. Is it gong to become the new 'Christian Dark Ages map' meme?
But no, it's not great research if you're looking for something that'll stand up to a historian's scrutiny. His accuracy can't be judged because he doesn't offer any data on any of the dots for criticism, doesn't explain why he compares 'Muslim Conquest Battles' with only 'Crusade Battles' and not 'Christian Conquest Battles', and his conclusions are based off of the writings of non-historians.
>>317799
I have said it before, what a shitty map.
>>317799
You can tell from the moment you look at the map that no serious history is occurring but rather a political motive.
>>317799
>No Reconquista
>No Edessa campaign
>No Sinai campaign
>No muslim battles in Ethiopia
>No invasion of sicily
>No invasion of Algeria
>No crusades against tunis
>No Byzantine-muslim wars on christian side
>No Malta
>>317825
Not OP, do you have any arguments aganst what he says?
>>317799
You're that guy, aren't you OP?
>>317881
For a start his map blatantly ignores a lot of Christian battles. To him any battle by Muslims is a Muslim conquest, but any battle by Christians is not.
Highlight his main points otherwise because im not watching an hour.
>>317881
Not the guy you were responding too, but in the beginning of his video he states: "Mohammed spent the end of his life killing chritians"
While he did fight some battles against the byzantines he did not kill prisoners or pillage villages of christians. Mohammed never started massacaring Christians so while he might have killed some christians in battle the phrase "Mohammed spent the end of his life killing chritians" is quite weird and misleading.
He actually had quite a great respect for christians, they (ethiopia) had harbored some of his followers in their time of trouble.
>>317825
>le fearmonger islamophobe xd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBpmPXv1R4
>>317991
Your excellent refutation of his point really makes me want to watch your video.
I think it's dumb to argue about wars that happened centuries ago. Muslims thought that it was justified to spread their religion through conquest and so did christians. Basically everyone was an asshole back then.
>>317799
Most of those batles in the map above are made up while the one below are actually all real documented battles.
>>317799
>muslim conquest battles
Dude, the early caliphate even discouraged their new subjects to convert to Islam.
>>318087
>I think it's dumb to argue about wars that happened centuries ago
You're on the wrong board m8
>>318179
Notice how the muslim ones are just dots but the Christian ones are crosses.
Whats he trying to prove
>>318210
I mean, people in real life use crusades as evidence how christians are evil and others use muslim conquests to prove how muslims are evil. It's fucking retarded.
>>317799
>getting a PhD in physics and maths to make reliable and objective historical essays
Maybe we should get Stephen Hawking to write a book about the Mongol invasions next.
>>317799
>This thread again
As I said before, he is a retarded revisionist.
And that fact will not change if you post it 1, 5, or 1,457,289 times again.
>>318223
Yeah people who nitpick history to justify their ideology are the worst.
I can't watch this video right now. What is it about?
The view that Crusades were not done by material motives by second sons? That would be true. Runciman was very biased.
Or is it something else?
>>318617
Some old guy saying Islam is basically Nazism and they are all a hive monolith plotting to take over the world.
>>317799
He isn't right, but don't believe faggots who go "muh muslims dinduniffin".
If it was an empire anytime from the last decade to the dawn of mankind be sure they did things modern people would consider morally questionable.
>>318631
Ah, I see.
They expanded not because of religion, but because they were stronger. The stronger conquered the weaker.
When European Christians got stronger, they aldo did a lot of conquest. When the Shinto Japanese got strong they tried to conquer China.
The only ones that expanded less were the Chinese, mostly because they thought there was nothing of value in the rest of the world.
>>318194
Everyone always seems to ignore this point. Muslims didn't burst into peaceful Byzantium and force everyone to convert. They just conquered the region exactly like any other empire would do, and people slowly converted to the newly dominant religion.
>>318683
A PhD in History doesn't qualify you as a biologist just because you later subscribe to Intelligent Design religious or political beliefs.
In the absence of qualification, you'd need actual work shown that stands up to peer review.
>>318194
Yes, because Islam's objective is to unite all the world under its political dominion and leech off Christians and Jews by collecting jizya, not really to convert all people.
>>317799
anything this biased isn't worth any sort of serious analysis. Honestly belongs in /pol/
