Islam

[Guest]

There is a large contrast between American and European Muslims.

This would make sense just from numerical population. European Muslims arrive with a pretty solid diaspora community, whereas American Muslims are much fewer in number and therefore more atomized.

The "religious but also not" aspects are probably mostly to do with cultural difference in sense of religiosity and what that looks like. As far as I can tell Muslims don't bother much in their own countries with teaching young men about general sexual self-control as a virtue, but control sexually directly through patriarchal structure, hence all the rapey stuff when they get thrown into a country where most of the women walk around half-naked and without any sort of formal guardian. And of course hookah is quintessentially Muslim, despite their general prohibition on intoxicants. This is to say, they are being more or less "good Muslims", for what it's worth.

True, they need a high concentration of their own people in specific areas to be radical. We have loads of such places here in the UK, like Bradford, Alum Rock, Ilford etc. As for their rapey nature, many of them also think that its ok to do it as long as you do it to kaffir girls, we have seen this throughout all the grooming gangs. 

Another thing for the "religious but also not" aspect which I didn't mention is that many of them think its ok to live the degenerate lifestyle when they're, and when they get a bit older (say around 30+) all they need to do is go to Hajj and ask forgiveness for their sins. This is such a disingenuous mindset and they think that's how it actually works.

[Opossum]

As for their rapey nature, many of them also think that its ok to do it as long as you do it to kaffir girls, we have seen this throughout all the grooming gangs.

While this is true in part, that it wouldn't be hard to read most Islamic commandments as being in reference to how one should treat other Muslims (with the implication that outsiders are basically animals, as rabbinical judaism is interpreted), in the case of British grooming gangs specifically this seems to be a Paki ethnic thing, and while I've never interacted with these, my inclination would be to attribute their worst traits less to their religion and more to their Hindu race.

Another thing for the "religious but also not" aspect which I didn't mention is that many of them think its ok to live the degenerate lifestyle when they're, and when they get a bit older (say around 30+) all they need to do is go to Hajj and ask forgiveness for their sins. This is such a disingenuous mindset and they think that's how it actually works.

Let's cool it with the anti-Catholic remarks.

[Leverkühn]

There was a greentext where a Syrian guy says that all those refugees going to Europe and such are the types of people the locals call "garbage"

I imagine the quality of Islamic refugees going to Europe is similar to that of the hispanics who come to the United States via the southern border. In other words, the dregs of society, mostly all uneducated, skill-less men, plus a few women and their anchor babies.

This would make sense just from numerical population. European Muslims arrive with a pretty solid diaspora community, whereas American Muslims are much fewer in number and therefore more atomized.

True, they need a high concentration of their own people in specific areas to be radical. We have loads of such places here in the UK, like Bradford, Alum Rock, Ilford etc.

Will add that this seems to be true of basically any minority group, whether religious or ethnic. When there's a low percentage of some minority-group in a specific area, its members will assimilate into the dominant culture much better, or at the very least not 'act out' as much. While a few pakis or niggers in a small town is still not preferred, it's unlikely they're going to form rape gangs or chimp out and have 'Magic Moments.' As soon as you get to points like the Guest described, where you have high concentration 'ethnic neighborhoods,' it's all downhill. The minority group can live a majority lifestyle within that small community, and they never have to assimilate to get by.

[Guest]

As for their rapey nature, many of them also think that its ok to do it as long as you do it to kaffir girls, we have seen this throughout all the grooming gangs.

While this is true in part, that it wouldn't be hard to read most Islamic commandments as being in reference to how one should treat other Muslims (with the implication that outsiders are basically animals, as rabbinical judaism is interpreted), in the case of British grooming gangs specifically this seems to be a Paki ethnic thing, and while I've never interacted with these, my inclination would be to attribute their worst traits less to their religion and more to their Hindu race

I don't think its a Hindu race problem, if in Britain the Pakis are doing it, in other European countries such as Sweden and Germany it is the Muslims of other ethnicities. In those countries there's a lot of North African, Middle Eastern and Black Muslims who are at the forefront of all the crime. 

I'm pretty sure in India itself the 14%+ Muslim population is highly over represented in rape and other crimes. They also have this "Love Jihad" thing going on there which is somewhat similar to the grooming gangs of Britain.

[FruitVendor]

If you ever want to watch an Indian go 1488 nuclear rahowa fire up the ovens tell him Pakis and Indians are the exact same race (they are). Hindus have the exact same weird sexual perversions, Islam is just a different outlet.

Hinduism is a mistake - but that is a thread for another time.

[cats]

Hinduism is a mistake - but that is a thread for another time.

I certainly have no idea why otherwise respectable neo-pagans like Survive the Jive choose to associate with Hindus. For the interest of comparative religious study? I thought the whole point was to separate oneself from a foreign religion.

[FruitVendor]

I certainly have no idea why otherwise respectable neo-pagans like Survive the Jive choose to associate with Hindus. For the interest of comparative religious study? I thought the whole point was to separate oneself from a foreign religion.

I peek in Tom's telegram every now and then and I believe he's more interested in the linguistic connection. He acknowledges the IE invasion in a video with an instrumentalized "bitch lasagna" as bgm and the comment section is loaded with seethe. He could be more saucy with what he really wants to say but being fully deplatformed would severely cut his income.

STJ believes Vishnu and Shiva are more Indo-European rather than Dravid but I don't see it. Going by the Rigveda Vishnu was a minor deva along with Shaivism being fleshed out much later during the Puranic period as the Rigvedic devas were supplanted and humiliated or rendered powerless by puranic IVC deities.

With advancements in genetics, archeology and history the fraud of Indology is being exposed. Everything notable came from the outside. The IE invasion being proven correct and Buddha-dharma was a response to Mazdaism (monotheism, cosmic dualism, eternity) rather than the red-herring of "Hinduism". Shakyamuni being of Saka-Scythian IE/Steppe origin pointed out the vedas were gradually corrupted (Rigvedic Sanskrit is completely different from the rest) while acknowledging the IE-Rigvedic deities (Indra) as a beings of good karma that were once human who essentially rule over an Olympian cognate (Trayastrimsa). The concept that Buddha-Dharma is more in line with the original Vedas - which I fully believe.

[Guest]

I peek in Tom's telegram every now and then and I believe he's more interested in the linguistic connection. He acknowledges the IE invasion in a video with an instrumentalized "bitch lasagna" as bgm and the comment section is loaded with seethe. He could be more saucy with what he really wants to say but being fully deplatformed would severely cut his income.

STJ believes Vishnu and Shiva are more Indo-European rather than Dravid but I don't see it. Going by the Rigveda Vishnu was a minor deva along with Shaivism being fleshed out much later during the Puranic period as the Rigvedic devas were supplanted and humiliated or rendered powerless by puranic IVC deities.

With advancements in genetics, archeology and history the fraud of Indology is being exposed. Everything notable came from the outside. The IE invasion being proven correct and Buddha-dharma was a response to Mazdaism (monotheism, cosmic dualism, eternity) rather than the red-herring of "Hinduism". Shakyamuni being of Saka-Scythian IE/Steppe origin pointed out the vedas were gradually corrupted (Rigvedic Sanskrit is completely different from the rest) while acknowledging the IE-Rigvedic deities (Indra) as a beings of good karma that were once human who essentially rule over an Olympian cognate (Trayastrimsa). The concept that Buddha-Dharma is more in line with the original Vedas - which I fully believe.

Not being mentioned as much as other deities doesn't make Vishnu a minor deva. He was a companion of Indra and they killed Vritra together. Your allegations of Rigvedic deities being humiliated and rendered powerless is a gross generalisation and doesn't hold up in light of evidence either. It is the Avatars of these deities, such as Rudra, Varuna and Vishnu, that are worshipped by millions of modern day Hindus, as it was in the Puranic period. There was no absolute new deities which were created and suddenly became more powerful than the Rigvedic deities and humiliated them. Rigveda is mostly about good karma, and how to reach paradise, of which Indra is the King hence he is so often mentioned. If you look at the other Vedas you will learn the significance of Vishnu but you probably just disregard them as "dravidian texts". 

You may be right only to an extent because of Indra's battle with Krishna (Vishnu's avatar). Indra became corrupted later on but he did redeem himself afterwards. Such metamorphosis is completely normal.

Shakyas being Saka/Scythian origin is wholly based on the similarity of those 2 words, which is quite laughable. This is because if we base and ancestry entirely on similarities of words then we could create so many new false lineages. The evidence for your claims is weak. Bhuddist texts also mention that the Shakyas were descendants of King Ikshvaku from Mahabharata. 

I peek in Tom's telegram every now and then and I believe he's more interested in the linguistic connection. He acknowledges the IE invasion in a video with an instrumentalized "bitch lasagna" as bgm and the comment section is loaded with seethe. He could be more saucy with what he really wants to say but being fully deplatformed would severely cut his income.

STJ believes Vishnu and Shiva are more Indo-European rather than Dravid but I don't see it. Going by the Rigveda Vishnu was a minor deva along with Shaivism being fleshed out much later during the Puranic period as the Rigvedic devas were supplanted and humiliated or rendered powerless by puranic IVC deities.

With advancements in genetics, archeology and history the fraud of Indology is being exposed. Everything notable came from the outside. The IE invasion being proven correct and Buddha-dharma was a response to Mazdaism (monotheism, cosmic dualism, eternity) rather than the red-herring of "Hinduism". Shakyamuni being of Saka-Scythian IE/Steppe origin pointed out the vedas were gradually corrupted (Rigvedic Sanskrit is completely different from the rest) while acknowledging the IE-Rigvedic deities (Indra) as a beings of good karma that were once human who essentially rule over an Olympian cognate (Trayastrimsa). The concept that Buddha-Dharma is more in line with the original Vedas - which I fully believe.

I peek in Tom's telegram every now and then and I believe he's more interested in the linguistic connection. He acknowledges the IE invasion in a video with an instrumentalized "bitch lasagna" as bgm and the comment section is loaded with seethe. He could be more saucy with what he really wants to say but being fully deplatformed would severely cut his income.

STJ believes Vishnu and Shiva are more Indo-European rather than Dravid but I don't see it. Going by the Rigveda Vishnu was a minor deva along with Shaivism being fleshed out much later during the Puranic period as the Rigvedic devas were supplanted and humiliated or rendered powerless by puranic IVC deities.

With advancements in genetics, archeology and history the fraud of Indology is being exposed. Everything notable came from the outside. The IE invasion being proven correct and Buddha-dharma was a response to Mazdaism (monotheism, cosmic dualism, eternity) rather than the red-herring of "Hinduism". Shakyamuni being of Saka-Scythian IE/Steppe origin pointed out the vedas were gradually corrupted (Rigvedic Sanskrit is completely different from the rest) while acknowledging the IE-Rigvedic deities (Indra) as a beings of good karma that were once human who essentially rule over an Olympian cognate (Trayastrimsa). The concept that Buddha-Dharma is more in line with the original Vedas - which I fully believe.

I peek in Tom's telegram every now and then and I believe he's more interested in the linguistic connection. He acknowledges the IE invasion in a video with an instrumentalized "bitch lasagna" as bgm and the comment section is loaded with seethe. He could be more saucy with what he really wants to say but being fully deplatformed would severely cut his income.

STJ believes Vishnu and Shiva are more Indo-European rather than Dravid but I don't see it. Going by the Rigveda Vishnu was a minor deva along with Shaivism being fleshed out much later during the Puranic period as the Rigvedic devas were supplanted and humiliated or rendered powerless by puranic IVC deities.

With advancements in genetics, archeology and history the fraud of Indology is being exposed. Everything notable came from the outside. The IE invasion being proven correct and Buddha-dharma was a response to Mazdaism (monotheism, cosmic dualism, eternity) rather than the red-herring of "Hinduism". Shakyamuni being of Saka-Scythian IE/Steppe origin pointed out the vedas were gradually corrupted (Rigvedic Sanskrit is completely different from the rest) while acknowledging the IE-Rigvedic deities (Indra) as a beings of good karma that were once human who essentially rule over an Olympian cognate (Trayastrimsa). The concept that Buddha-Dharma is more in line with the original Vedas - which I fully believe.

[FruitVendor]

Not being mentioned as much as other deities doesn't make Vishnu a minor deva. He was a companion of Indra and they killed Vritra together. Your allegations of Rigvedic deities being humiliated and rendered powerless is a gross generalisation and doesn't hold up in light of evidence either. It is the Avatars of these deities, such as Rudra, Varuna and Vishnu, that are worshipped by millions of modern day Hindus, as it was in the Puranic period. There was no absolute new deities which were created and suddenly became more powerful than the Rigvedic deities and humiliated them. Rigveda is mostly about good karma, and how to reach paradise, of which Indra is the King hence he is so often mentioned. If you look at the other Vedas you will learn the significance of Vishnu but you probably just disregard them as "dravidian texts". 

You may be right only to an extent because of Indra's battle with Krishna (Vishnu's avatar). Indra became corrupted later on but he did redeem himself afterwards. Such metamorphosis is completely normal.

Shakyas being Saka/Scythian origin is wholly based on the similarity of those 2 words, which is quite laughable. This is because if we base and ancestry entirely on similarities of words then we could create so many new false lineages. The evidence for your claims is weak. Bhuddist texts also mention that the Shakyas were descendants of King Ikshvaku from Mahabharata. 

A wild Indian appeared. 

Vishnu was a minor Rigvedic deva and only in later puranas written in ~700 AD onward the concept of Narayana being the supreme Godhead would become established. In these later Puranic texts (Brahma-vaivarta Purana) Krishna gleefully said : 

"Listen to the story of the humiliation of the king of the Devas, celebrated throughout the three worlds. It is as pleasing as a drop of nectar to the ears." 

You haven't read your source material, post vedic texts humiliate Indra by making him into a lustful drunk cursed with growing vagital orifices all over his body and kneels before Vishnu after la mountain was lifted with his pinky. They were not "Buddy-Buddy" and it clearly signaled an indigenous IVC deva gaining more significance. Vishnu 'helping' Indra slay Vitra is a complete puranic retrofit. 

The Mahabharata is myth and Buddha does not mention it whatsoever or pay any attention to it. A great piece of literature but falls short in comparison to genetic, historic, geographic & linguistic truths. Indians will tell you it was written in 4000 bc and the Ramayana written in 12000 bc - it's all a bunch of bullshit. 

Shakyas were a foreign steppe derived clan of warriors who formed their own republic and practiced Sun/Surya worship. Buddhism predates Jainism btw. Western sources > the jumbled mess of a religion with no continuity.

[Guest]

A wild Indian appeared. 

Vishnu was a minor Rigvedic deva and only in later puranas written in ~700 AD onward the concept of Narayana being the supreme Godhead would become established. In these later Puranic texts (Brahma-vaivarta Purana) Krishna gleefully said : 

"Listen to the story of the humiliation of the king of the Devas, celebrated throughout the three worlds. It is as pleasing as a drop of nectar to the ears." 

You haven't read your source material, post vedic texts humiliate Indra by making him into a lustful drunk cursed with growing vagital orifices all over his body and kneels before Vishnu after la mountain was lifted with his pinky. They were not "Buddy-Buddy" and it clearly signaled an indigenous IVC deva gaining more significance. Vishnu 'helping' Indra slay Vitra is a complete puranic retrofit. 

The Mahabharata is myth and Buddha does not mention it whatsoever or pay any attention to it. A great piece of literature but falls short in comparison to genetic, historic, geographic & linguistic truths. Indians will tell you it was written in 4000 bc and the Ramayana written in 12000 bc - it's all a bunch of bullshit. 

Shakyas were a foreign steppe derived clan of warriors who formed their own republic and practiced Sun/Surya worship. Buddhism predates Jainism btw. Western sources > the jumbled mess of a religion with no continuity.

Oh yes indeed a wild Indian appeared 

All you have done is regurgitate the same old talking points without refuting anything I've said with any actual evidence. The greatness of Vishnu was not established in the later Puranic texts, but it happened in the Rigveda itself. 

"Who verily alone upholds the threefold, the earth, the heaven, and all living creatures"
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01154.htm

"Both thy two regions of the earth, O Viṣṇu, we know: thou God, knowest the highest also"
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07099.htm

"This, Viṣṇu's station most sublime, the singers, ever vigilant,
Lovers of holy song, light up"
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01022.htm

All of these Hymns clearly show Vishnu as being the most supreme deity of the Rigveda, even though he doesn't have as many Hymns as Indra does.

As for Indra and Vishnu slaying Vritra together, it is not a Puranic retrofit. This very companionship of both is mentioned in the Rigveda once again. Not only do they slay Vritra together, they also enjoy the Soma juice together. So yes, they are indeed "buddy buddy" during Rigvedic times. Later on one became corrupted and the other still reigned supreme. 

"When thou, Impetuous! leagued with Viṣṇu, slewest Vṛtra the Dragon who enclosed the waters" 
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv06020.htm

Lastly, about your point on Shakyas. You have provided no evidence for Shakyas being descendants of Scythians are are mindlessly reiterating the same old talking point. I have told you that Bhuddist (not Hindu) sources themselves claim the Shakhyas to be descendants of King Ikshvaku. 

There lived once upon a time a king of the Sākya, a
scion of the solar race, whose name was Śuddhodana.
He was pure in conduct, and beloved of the Śäkya like
the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful,
and steadfast, who was called the Great Māyā, from
her resemblance to Māyā the Goddess.
—Buddhacarita of Aśvaghoṣa

[FruitVendor]

The Vedas are a mess with no continuity. If there are 5 hymns dedicated to a minor deva and 255 hymns dedicated to another who both boast the same superiority anyone with a triple digit iq from a country with running water and working sanitation can grasp the latter had much more importance especially during that time period. 

According to the clusterfuck of Hinduism Vishnu in his elephant and human form wrote down all the Vedas yet forgot to mention Karma in the earliest one along with no mention of Vishnu "upholding" Karma like in later Puranic texts composed in 700-1500 AD where concepts like Bhakti& Ashtanga begin to take form and Vishnu gained importance over rigvedic devas. 

Hinduism = Indians copying concepts like Karma/Dharma and making a spaghetti code religion out of it on top of coomerism. 


I do not care what some Indian poet wrote about Buddha ~700 years after his death. Stick to your ritualism of drinking and bathing in the ganges filled with dead bodies and human shit.

[Guest]

The Vedas are a mess with no continuity. If there are 5 hymns dedicated to a minor deva and 255 hymns dedicated to another who both boast the same superiority anyone with a triple digit iq from a country with running water and working sanitation can grasp the latter had much more importance especially during that time period. 

According to the clusterfuck of Hinduism Vishnu in his elephant and human form wrote down all the Vedas yet forgot to mention Karma in the earliest one along with no mention of Vishnu "upholding" Karma like in later Puranic texts composed in 700-1500 AD where concepts like Bhakti& Ashtanga begin to take form and Vishnu gained importance over rigvedic devas. 

Hinduism = Indians copying concepts like Karma/Dharma and making a spaghetti code religion out of it on top of coomerism. 


I do not care what some Indian poet wrote about Buddha ~700 years after his death. Stick to your ritualism of drinking and bathing in the ganges filled with dead bodies and human shit.

As I've said before the Rigveda specifically has a different purpose to other texts, you do know what the other Vedic texts say about Vishnu right? You do not care about what Buddhist poets wrote about Buddha 700 years after, but everything that the whities wrote thousands of years after must be right, hmm curious. If anything we have the greatest religious continuity then most places in the world, and specifically much more then Europe. Once again you have decided as hominem instead of constructively addressing my points and that's fine because it must be hard to uphold these low iq beliefs made up by random whities within the last 200 years.

[FruitVendor]

Turkish friend telling me Syrians and other "Refugees" are a huge pain in the ass and causing some displacement with arabic signs and language and demanding better accommodations from native Turks.

These "people" are just human cockroaches lmao.

[Svevlad]

what dysgenics does to a mf... But it can be reversed

[anthony]

Rezzing thread because this is funny.




Islam is the grindset religion for the spiritual dogs and browns of humanity.

[BillyONare]

"Some days I made no money. Which was soul destroying."

"SOLE DESTROYING" pops up on screen

Being able to spell things is not the definition of intelligence, but it is highly G-loaded. Jobs should be mandated to have IQ tests in which spelling English words is a large part of the grade.

How did no one catch this and tell the editor to fix it? Low quality garbage third world society.

[The Green 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.

[august]

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.

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"". 

It is well known that the best way to find out about a place and a period is to use artifacts from that period, and from that place, especially if they don't disintegrate nor deteriorate. They are even more important if they contain items written on them which give us names, dates and religious reference points. Coins do all of that! This includes the coins of the Middle East in the 7th century. When rulers came to power in that part of the world, they quickly minted new coins to introduce themselves to the populace, knowing that the coins would soon be in everyone's hands. They would put their image on the coin, with their name, and always a religious icon to tell the world what religion they belonged to. So, Christian coins had crosses, and Zoroastrian coins had fire-altars. Every coin minted in the Middle East, in the very areas where Islam supposedly began and expanded, and in the very century Islam was created, are either Christian or Zoroastrian. Not one of them up to 692 AD, 60 years after Muhammad's supposed death, is Muslim! Interestingly, however, what those coins tell us about Islam goes completely against what Muslims have been telling us for centuries, because what they know is solely from the 9th and 10th century Traditions, which are just too late and too far north.

Nowhere on any of these 7th century coins is there any references to any man called Muhammad, nor a city called Mecca, nor people called Muslims, nor a religion called Islam, nor even a book called the Qur'an. Yet, these 5 areas are at the very center of Islam, and would be the first items any ruler would have imprinted on these coins. Yet they aren't found anywhere until after 692! The fact that there is nothing Islamic on any of these coins suggest pretty strongly that Islam probably did not exist that early, nor in that place!

Remember, coins don't lie...

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.

(bronze age mindset?)

Idiotic. 

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.

Why do you describe it so? It comes off with too much excitation and the amount of valorisation that you give them makes me think that maybe you come from a "brown" culture yourself. That or you're into racial humiliation which, given how you're always blackpilling, I could also see being the case.

[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.

[august]

Are you referring to the Hagarene hypothesis?

No. I was referring to the video that I linked and the accompanying quoted text.