Islam

[Guest]

“None of that was based on Islam because Islam was made up much later than you think. All of the imagery from around the time of the supposed origin of Islam is really just Christian, because Muhammad is really just Jesus. They did a Cultural Appropriation to justify Arabic ""identity"". “

Are you referring to the Hagarene hypothesis? I haven’t seen any support of that idea amongst mainstream scholarship or even otherwise. (It came out during the counter jihad apogee online). Are you claiming that the Arab conquests were just some sort of heretical Christian sect? (I have heard that idea, but I don’t see much evidence for it).

The Ottomans broke the Hungarian nobility on the plains of Mohacs and smashed a crusader host at Varna. Landing in Otranto. The Golden Horde terrorized the Slavs at the same time the English laid colonies in America.

One doesn’t have to have a humiliation fetish or be “brown” to acknowledge a successful foe when they do exist. Even Edward Gibbon felt the fate of the west was decided at Tours.

The fact is, in world historical terms Islam is incredibly successful. You can argue that’s due to a 100 and one reasons but Islamic armies did penetrate deep into Europe, did break the Hindus, and even gave the Chinese a bloody nose.

Islam spread via the sword and the merchant’s coin in the Indonesian archipelago and West Africa. Overcoming resistance in Nubia, and reaching down to the African coast both the Atlantic and the Indian.

(Also I said Bronze Age mindset rhetorically). Though if any deserve such a moniker-Tamerlane would be a fair candidate. 

If you want to argue none of that’s relevant because well it just isn’t okay, I won’t further the argument.

The Ottomans do deserve some credit for their impressive feats and victories on land foreign to them. But one thing I can't seem to shake off is how they were held up for years against much smaller foes like Wallachia, Skanderbeg's Albania, (to some extent Serbia and Hungary before they were defeated at Varna), the knights at Malta, the Portuguese in Ethiopia and Southern Arabia (which capped the Ottomans from expanding in the rest of Africa and India), and perhaps many other smaller foes I have forgot to mention. While I am aware in the first two cases the Ottomans were still victorious in the end, one can't say the same for the rest of the conflicts I listed after them. Is it just due to the geography/terrain they fought on? Or am I just overthinking it and we can chalk to up to nothing more than successful resistance movements.

[The Green Groyper]

That video is referring to the Hagarene hypothesis.

[The Green Groyper]

“None of that was based on Islam because Islam was made up much later than you think. All of the imagery from around the time of the supposed origin of Islam is really just Christian, because Muhammad is really just Jesus. They did a Cultural Appropriation to justify Arabic ""identity"". “

Are you referring to the Hagarene hypothesis? I haven’t seen any support of that idea amongst mainstream scholarship or even otherwise. (It came out during the counter jihad apogee online). Are you claiming that the Arab conquests were just some sort of heretical Christian sect? (I have heard that idea, but I don’t see much evidence for it).

The Ottomans broke the Hungarian nobility on the plains of Mohacs and smashed a crusader host at Varna. Landing in Otranto. The Golden Horde terrorized the Slavs at the same time the English laid colonies in America.

One doesn’t have to have a humiliation fetish or be “brown” to acknowledge a successful foe when they do exist. Even Edward Gibbon felt the fate of the west was decided at Tours.

The fact is, in world historical terms Islam is incredibly successful. You can argue that’s due to a 100 and one reasons but Islamic armies did penetrate deep into Europe, did break the Hindus, and even gave the Chinese a bloody nose.

Islam spread via the sword and the merchant’s coin in the Indonesian archipelago and West Africa. Overcoming resistance in Nubia, and reaching down to the African coast both the Atlantic and the Indian.

(Also I said Bronze Age mindset rhetorically). Though if any deserve such a moniker-Tamerlane would be a fair candidate. 

If you want to argue none of that’s relevant because well it just isn’t okay, I won’t further the argument.

The Ottomans do deserve some credit for their impressive feats and victories on land foreign to them. But one thing I can't seem to shake off is how they were held up for years against much smaller foes like Wallachia, Skanderbeg's Albania, (to some extent Serbia and Hungary before they were defeated at Varna), the knights at Malta, the Portuguese in Ethiopia and Southern Arabia (which capped the Ottomans from expanding in the rest of Africa and India), and perhaps many other smaller foes I have forgot to mention. While I am aware in the first two cases the Ottomans were still victorious in the end, one can't say the same for the rest of the conflicts I listed after them. Is it just due to the geography/terrain they fought on? Or am I just overthinking it and we can chalk to up to nothing more than successful resistance movements.

I would definitely give credit to the Knights of Malta and Skanderbeg. Don’t take anything I say as denying the courage and martial spirit of those who fought against Islam. Far from it.

But the Ottomans defeated them and ruled the Balkans for four hundred years.

[Guest]

Conflating the balkans with europe = not white, disregard, hopeless

[The Green Groyper]

I wondered when someone would say something so retarded. I am not surprised it was a guest.

[Guest]

“None of that was based on Islam because Islam was made up much later than you think. All of the imagery from around the time of the supposed origin of Islam is really just Christian, because Muhammad is really just Jesus. They did a Cultural Appropriation to justify Arabic ""identity"". “

Are you referring to the Hagarene hypothesis? I haven’t seen any support of that idea amongst mainstream scholarship or even otherwise. (It came out during the counter jihad apogee online). Are you claiming that the Arab conquests were just some sort of heretical Christian sect? (I have heard that idea, but I don’t see much evidence for it).

The Ottomans broke the Hungarian nobility on the plains of Mohacs and smashed a crusader host at Varna. Landing in Otranto. The Golden Horde terrorized the Slavs at the same time the English laid colonies in America.

One doesn’t have to have a humiliation fetish or be “brown” to acknowledge a successful foe when they do exist. Even Edward Gibbon felt the fate of the west was decided at Tours.

The fact is, in world historical terms Islam is incredibly successful. You can argue that’s due to a 100 and one reasons but Islamic armies did penetrate deep into Europe, did break the Hindus, and even gave the Chinese a bloody nose.

Islam spread via the sword and the merchant’s coin in the Indonesian archipelago and West Africa. Overcoming resistance in Nubia, and reaching down to the African coast both the Atlantic and the Indian.

(Also I said Bronze Age mindset rhetorically). Though if any deserve such a moniker-Tamerlane would be a fair candidate. 

If you want to argue none of that’s relevant because well it just isn’t okay, I won’t further the argument.

The Ottomans do deserve some credit for their impressive feats and victories on land foreign to them. But one thing I can't seem to shake off is how they were held up for years against much smaller foes like Wallachia, Skanderbeg's Albania, (to some extent Serbia and Hungary before they were defeated at Varna), the knights at Malta, the Portuguese in Ethiopia and Southern Arabia (which capped the Ottomans from expanding in the rest of Africa and India), and perhaps many other smaller foes I have forgot to mention. While I am aware in the first two cases the Ottomans were still victorious in the end, one can't say the same for the rest of the conflicts I listed after them. Is it just due to the geography/terrain they fought on? Or am I just overthinking it and we can chalk to up to nothing more than successful resistance movements.

I would definitely give credit to the Knights of Malta and Skanderbeg. Don’t take anything I say as denying the courage and martial spirit of those who fought against Islam. Far from it.

But the Ottomans defeated them and ruled the Balkans for four hundred years.

Absolutely, I understood the original point, one must give credit to a foe who has been in constant battle with Whites for the better part of 1,000+ years.

[The Green Groyper]

Glad you agree.

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

Call me a Brown sympathizer if you wish-but I have always had a small amount of respect for what Islamic armies achieved.

Within a century of Muhummad’s death, Islamic armies were in southern Gaul, and western China, fought in burning Central Asia and laid siege to Byzantium. While having broken pre Islamic Iran. Reducing the byzantines to a rump garrison state.

The sheer zeal and martial success of the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries as well as the fact they broke the classical world is something I have to give credit for.

Then of course, the Ottomans, Mughals and Timurids seven hundred years later. With the Ottomans and their vassals reaching Central Europe, Tamerlane laying waste to cities and riding his horse up pyramids of skulls(bronze age mindset?), Islamic armies driving the Hindus back further into their own lands.

Corsairs in Northern Africa terrorizing Europe for hundreds of years and Tatars raiding Muscovy well into the 18th century.

I realize it’s passé to give credit to “brown” cultures here, but the entire history of the west-only Islam has put true terror in the hearts of Europeans.

And that I think is laudable, if for no other reason than martial prowess and vigor themselves always are.

In this house, Timur is a hero. There were many European Knights during the Late Middle Ages who served under him, including a particular one by the name of Jacques de Fey, a Frenc Knight. What is known is that he was released from Timur's service so he could serve under the Crusader Coalition in the Crusade of Nicopolis against the Ottomans. Bayezeid I unfortunately won that engagement, due to the Burgundian knights being arrogant and charging into the Ottoman forces against the advice of the other commander. However, Tartar warriors sent by Timur recognized Jaques due to his service under him and saved him from execution. Also, Timur was receptive to many offers of an alliance against the Ottomans from European powers. This includes an embassy sent to him by the Kingdom of Castile, as well as a delegation from the kingdom of France.  He even offered King Charles VI of France an offensive alliance but unfortunately died before he could get an offer of acceptance from the French King.  He managed to utterly destroy the Ottoman army at the battle of Ankara, which prevented the fall of Constantinople for another 50 years and probably prevented the Balkans from being completely overrun by the Ottoman forces and gave the europeans time they desperately needed, as it plunged the turks into an 11 year long civil war that prevented them from expanding in any significant fashion until the reign of Sultan Mehmet II. The guy also completely destroyed Delhi, in one of the most keyed moments in Islamic history.

---

[Guest]

Not a fan of Muhammad and all this "Allah" business but he must be respected for contributing to institutionalized child marriage and widespread access to cunny