Arab who makes sense

[Khostai]

a.) There was no Arab nation, so there could be no national policy
b.) No policy to repatriate Arabs to other regions
c.) no policy of economic exploitation
d.) Lack of a social class policy based on national origins in most instances*

*Only in maybe the case of the Ummayads who used Mawali system can it be argued they had a class policy. But both predecessors and those who defeated them didn't have such policies.

There was an Arab culture and relligion that was spread out
Arab were the number one class of citizens the rest were underneath
Everyone who did not pay taxes or converted to Islam were killed
A lot of local wealth was luted and redestributed among the arabs

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

There was an Arab culture and relligion that was spread out
Arab were the number one class of citizens the rest were underneath
Everyone who did not pay taxes or converted to Islam were killed
A lot of local wealth was luted and redestributed among the arabs

This doesn't match the current evidence we have about the early Muslim annals, there were Non-Arabs Muslims among Arab Muslims like Salman Al-Farsi and Bilal Al-Habshi.

Also the Religion was contrary to the Arab culture it arose in in many pertinent ways. Thus it would be inaccurate to say "Arab culture and religion"

When

a.) Even in it's inception it was not exclusive to or property of Arabs.
b.) Islam was contrary to prevailing Arab cultural standards

The Arab Class system you're referring to, really only happened during the Ummayads, which is an exception, not the rule. So there's no need to expound on that.

All Armies conquering armies looted, this is to ensure that material power to exact revenge would be limited. but Colonialism was based around a policy of economic exploitation. For example in India the British used to control all sources of commerce and economic production, with Silk, Rice and Salt. The Muslims never did this as Islam spread.

The Arabs only took taxes as you stated, and some superficial wealth, but never a policy of economic exploitation. In fact on the contrary Non-Arab Muslim societies flourished, while Arabs did not flourish. This is even alluded to in the video Karachi posted.

Colonialism has a SPECIFIC definition and Muslims do not meet within that definition.

[Khostai]

This doesn't match the current evidence we have about the early Muslim annals, there were Non-Arabs Muslims among Arab Muslims like Salman Al-Farsi and Bilal Al-Habshi.

Also the Religion was contrary to the Arab culture it arose in in many pertinent ways. Thus it would be inaccurate to say "Arab culture and religion"

When

a.) Even in it's inception it was not exclusive to or property of Arabs.
b.) Islam was contrary to prevailing Arab cultural standards

The Arab Class system you're referring to, really only happened during the Ummayads, which is an exception, not the rule. So there's no need to expound on that.

All Armies conquering armies looted, this is to ensure that material power to exact revenge would be limited. but Colonialism was based around a policy of economic exploitation. For example in India the British used to control all sources of commerce and economic production, with Silk, Rice and Salt. The Muslims never did this as Islam spread.

The Arabs only took taxes as you stated, and some superficial wealth, but never a policy of economic exploitation. In fact on the contrary Non-Arab Muslim societies flourished, while Arabs did not flourish. This is even alluded to in the video Karachi posted.

Colonialism has a SPECIFIC definition and Muslims do not meet within that definition.

Then European colonialism did not excist either. Western civilization excsist for thousand of years only 17 en 18 century big colonization happend, so what does that mean?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Then European colonialism did not excist either. Western civilization excsist for thousand of years only 17 en 18 century big colonization happend, so what does that mean?

No it did, there is consensus about this even by Western historians themselves. There's evidence of actual policies that denote the constructs of colonialism. And one way we know this is because colonialism was coined by Europeans themselves.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The entire video is about various topics. Only a portion of it is about Colonialism.

What the secularist says about critically looking at our history is true.

Muslim conquest of non-muslim lands is not colonialism from a religious perspective. Only if conquest occurs in accordance with the Islamic guidance, we can call it legitimate islamic conquest and expansion.

However, Muslims are not always acting upon true islamic guidance. Greed and corruption exists among us all. The Ummayyad dynasty was very corrupt and unjust. They have oppressed fellow Arabs, even companions of the prophet Muhammed sal allahu alayhi wasalam. What they did to non-Arabs is much worse.

This is why there were many revolts during their era. Similarly, the Abbasid dynasty had its good and bad days. There were cases of corruption, usurpation and oppression.

The Othmans started off well but they weren't any better than others.

As Muslims we have to acknowledge the good people have done and disapprove their bad deeds.

All these crimes, corruption, oppression, usurpation and greed of rulers this secular Arab is talking about are DOCUMENTED IN ISLAMIC HISTORY BOOKS WRITTEN BY MUSLIM HISTORIANS.

So nobody is denying what happened. We just need to speak about it more often in our discussions about our past and its relevance to our current situation.

With regards to Europeans, I can say that after studying their history extensively, I have arrived at the following conclusion. The height of western civilization is the current era we are living in. They have never been more just and civilized as they are now. Their history is written in blood of their own and other people they have oppressed.

Today, Europeans are far better than their ancestors. Their governments function better than ours and they are more effective and efficient in the way they deal with problems in their own countries with minimal violation of other peoples rights.

However, they still support oppression outside their own borders in foreign lands. It means they have made allot of progress and they have surpassed us in many ways. But they are still not free from faults.

Instead of worshipping them like secular liberals do here on PF, I'd rather study their succes and learn from what they have done. I also disapprove of arrogance of some ignorant muslims who live in their own delusion of grandeur.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That's actually a reasonable assessment; we should attempt to look at history objectively without the mires of ideology Conquest and Colonialism while sometimes overlapping, are distinct enterprises.

[Damir9000]

The entire video is about various topics. Only a portion of it is about Colonialism.

What the secularist says about critically looking at our history is true.

Muslim conquest of non-muslim lands is not colonialism from a religious perspective. Only if conquest occurs in accordance with the Islamic guidance, we can call it legitimate islamic conquest and expansion.

However, Muslims are not always acting upon true islamic guidance. Greed and corruption exists among us all. The Ummayyad dynasty was very corrupt and unjust. They have oppressed fellow Arabs, even companions of the prophet Muhammed sal allahu alayhi wasalam. What they did to non-Arabs is much worse.

This is why there were many revolts during their era. Similarly, the Abbasid dynasty had its good and bad days. There were cases of corruption, usurpation and oppression.

The Othmans started off well but they weren't any better than others.

As Muslims we have to acknowledge the good people have done and disapprove their bad deeds.

All these crimes, corruption, oppression, usurpation and greed of rulers this secular Arab is talking about are DOCUMENTED IN ISLAMIC HISTORY BOOKS WRITTEN BY MUSLIM HISTORIANS.

So nobody is denying what happened. We just need to speak about it more often in our discussions about our past and its relevance to our current situation.

With regards to Europeans, I can say that after studying their history extensively, I have arrived at the following conclusion. The height of western civilization is the current era we are living in. They have never been more just and civilized as they are now. Their history is written in blood of their own and other people they have oppressed.

Today, Europeans are far better than their ancestors. Their governments function better than ours and they are more effective and efficient in the way they deal with problems in their own countries with minimal violation of other peoples rights.

However, they still support oppression outside their own borders in foreign lands. It means they have made allot of progress and they have surpassed us in many ways. But they are still not free from faults.

Instead of worshipping them like secular liberals do here on PF, I'd rather study their succes and learn from what they have done. I also disapprove of arrogance of some ignorant muslims who live in their own delusion of grandeur.

European colonialism also had a religious aspect to it.
They planted Crosses where they landed & tried to convert the indigenous population.
As a result, many Native Americans from North America are now Christian & pretty much all of South America is Christian.
The Europeans Colonizers believed their religion justified their horrendous action toward the native population.
These Native Americans were forced to adopt the language & Culture of their Conquerors.
Now just look at the Muslim world.

[Sarbani]

The entire video is about various topics. Only a portion of it is about Colonialism.

What the secularist says about critically looking at our history is true.

Muslim conquest of non-muslim lands is not colonialism from a religious perspective. Only if conquest occurs in accordance with the Islamic guidance, we can call it legitimate islamic conquest and expansion.

However, Muslims are not always acting upon true islamic guidance. Greed and corruption exists among us all. The Ummayyad dynasty was very corrupt and unjust. They have oppressed fellow Arabs, even companions of the prophet Muhammed sal allahu alayhi wasalam. What they did to non-Arabs is much worse.

This is why there were many revolts during their era. Similarly, the Abbasid dynasty had its good and bad days. There were cases of corruption, usurpation and oppression.

The Othmans started off well but they weren't any better than others.

As Muslims we have to acknowledge the good people have done and disapprove their bad deeds.

All these crimes, corruption, oppression, usurpation and greed of rulers this secular Arab is talking about are DOCUMENTED IN ISLAMIC HISTORY BOOKS WRITTEN BY MUSLIM HISTORIANS.

So nobody is denying what happened. We just need to speak about it more often in our discussions about our past and its relevance to our current situation.

With regards to Europeans, I can say that after studying their history extensively, I have arrived at the following conclusion. The height of western civilization is the current era we are living in. They have never been more just and civilized as they are now. Their history is written in blood of their own and other people they have oppressed.

Today, Europeans are far better than their ancestors. Their governments function better than ours and they are more effective and efficient in the way they deal with problems in their own countries with minimal violation of other peoples rights.

However, they still support oppression outside their own borders in foreign lands. It means they have made allot of progress and they have surpassed us in many ways. But they are still not free from faults.

Instead of worshipping them like secular liberals do here on PF, I'd rather study their succes and learn from what they have done. I also disapprove of arrogance of some ignorant muslims who live in their own delusion of grandeur.

Many fatwas were given for the conquest and jihads were declared by Muslim leaders. The leaders during Islamic conquests held the power of religious authority and often times were caliphs themselves. The mission in the end of Islamic colonialism is to convert non-Muslims to Islam, mostly done by force, which is absolutely a legitimate Islamic conquest and expansion.

I agree with you on Europeans mostly. They still need to learn to stop oppressing people in foreign lands, but their societies are at its peak of civility. Muslim societies have been regressing since the 1970's which is around the period that the re-Islamization started.