My Christian family survived 1400 years of Islamic "rule" in Palestine. All of my uncles died in exile since the founding of Israel and our family presence in Palestine today is a shadow of what it once was. So as a descendant of Christian Palestinians who heard first hand accounts from my grandfather about how Turkish rule vs British rule vs Zionist rule differed, the Zionists were by far the worst. Even the British were angels in comparison.

Each time I see this man's videos, I watch and save them. Thanks for educating those of us who are new to Islam ☪️ and seek knowledge. May Allah keep you and bless you. InshaAllah

Islam came to south east asia, specifically my country malaysia and also Indonesia because of dawah effort of muslim merchants to convert rulers of the region, no forceful conversion by the sword was ever used...

can you make a video comparing slave trades in the islamic empire vs those done by the europeans?

Thank you. I'd been made to believe that reason for Islamic battles post the death of the propeth PBUH was self defense, but left confused with the extend of the territorial expansion. It clearly looked as colonialism to me, more than just self defense. Thanks to you, I now can see that there are differences between colonialism and expansion. The constant humbleness of Mecca and Medina is a briliant insight. Thank you again... ❤

i really hope this video gets the appreciation it deserves. succinct, elaborative and to the point. thank you so much for your efforts brother

Whenever I'm notified of your uploads, I immediately save it to my Watch Later playlist and I always make sure it's my first watch of the day! Terrific content as usual ❤

I would like to add few points correct me if I am wrong. Islam does not allow taxing the muslim. but it did allowed taxing the non-musilm. So it was in the khilafas interest to create a friendly environment for non-muslims to thrive otherwise they wont be able to give taxes.The rashedun khilafat is the first welfare state in humanity. But the honest muslim traders are the ones who actually spread islam to the entire globe.Ex Bangladesh malaysia indonesia, phillipines, china etc. The interest free , free market economic system made a huge impact on the hearts of people.The reason why most muslim countries are majority muslim is because islam spread not only from top down but also buttom up. and I have read(not 100% sure if its correct), The phrase "islam spread by the sword" is actually from british propaganda to create enmity between muslims and hindus. Thanks!!!!!Great videos!!!!!!!!

During the European colonisation there were countless of inhuman brutality we know from the history..they don't talk about those..but they pick some exceptional cases from the early Islamic history and tell us that Islam also was a colonizer..thanks Tareq for your mind opening videos❤

Islam didn’t only conquered people land but Islam conquered people hearts. Western colonialism and colonizer always looted colonized land but Islam establish equality and human right in conquered land. Islam is light where Islam arrived Islam enlighted these land. Most beautiful ideology in this world is the ideology of Islam.

Very informative and fun to watch. Great Job Tarek.

Just wanted to say, Mr. Tareq, how much I appreciate your work. I've followed many of your videos, and you're doing an extremely good job. Your ability to describe historical events with such clarity is truly impressive. Your subscriber count doesn't reflect just how good your content is, but I believe your channel will see a significant increase in subscribers soon. Keep up the fantastic work! Sincerely, one of your early followers from Saudi Arabia. وفقك الله 👍

This is one of the most high quality well written videos i have seen, simple enough without overcomplicating yet an effective way of getting the message across using facts to base up an argument. Keep up the good work Salam

The Crescent and Star is Seljuk symbol which they adopt from the Byzantine. Islam have no iconography, like how Christians use the cross or Buddhist use the Dharma wheel. Which is how it should ideally be kept.

Tareq, Your constant shining 🌟 of the light 🕯️ is so needed 🚨 & very much appreciated. And you make information fun, increasing further interest & desire to learn more with your talents shared, in hopes for a better human experience for all. ☮️🕯️Amen Ajma'een!🕯️☯️

Truly amazing and thoughtful video, I've never been so happy to learn about the beauty of Islamic history and even learn to appreciate my faith more

This is a great video! It has to be noted that Omar AS exempted the Christians of Levant from paying Jizya

This is well researched and structured Allahumma barik. Thank you.

Great video as per usual. Not surprised.

Another great episode

Youre one of the channels i that i switch on the notfications.. Love your videos! You deserve more subscibers brother. Really learnt alot. Made me love Islam More. Allahuakhbar!

I don't understand, how such quality video get very few recognition

Great content brother!❤

nice video but please on next videos put the sources in the description that way it gives more credibility

Great insight into an often overlooked subject

It is also worth noting that during the abbasid caliphate, the Arab (arabs for arabia) element of the islamic empire become almost non existent In the west we had amazigh taking control, in the middle turk, and persian, and the east afghans, It is like having the entire British empire government and lords being from South Africa, india and Egypt

Mr.Tareq you elaborated the whole concept amazingly ❤. Islam conquering heart even today..... Masha Allah We can see the rise of Islam..in each part of world... .even when the Muslims are oppressed around the globe

i really liked this video!

What about the Dark Ages in Iran after the Arab conquest? The Iranians could not use their own language till 10th century and Ferdowsi.

Tariq again a fabulous and i definitely enjoyed☺️! Will drop my thoughts when I find time. By the way It’s been a while hear anything from you anymore you must also be bussy. Keep it up and take care bro 🍀

Thank you for your work!!👌🌺

I appreciate that you brought in mention about North Africa as sometimes it is heavily overlooked with Umayyads on that matter, although the revolt was so significant it had large consequences to the Umayyad Caliphate especially in the West in Andalus and Southern France.

Wonderful work brother.

Great explanation...

From a historic standpoint, people used to do messed up stuff. We still do

If anything Europe is having a real problem right now. And I am not sure if any of it is non-violent.

The sophistry and equivocation on display here is mind blowing.

Mashallah bhai .... what a video!!!! Magnificent!! I'VE saved it. Muslims never exploited the populations they conqured like the white fellows..... And Islam has enhanced Persian Culture, Islam enhanced Indian Culture! And Amazigh Culture... not to forget Islam Enhanced Turkic Culture

BarakAllahu fik, brother. I think this video is very accurate, and although you do not need sources for every point you made (some are common knowledge and/or rational), I would still advise you to cite your sources in the description, as this is more convincing and trustworthy.

Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were not "humane" or "benevolent". The conquest of Sindh itself was a brutal affair and was resisted strongly for years before the locals were overwhelmed. The later Turkic invasions into the subcontinent were even worse. Please don't try to sugar coat these things...

Sir,the Arab religion's trademark was a warrior on a horse with a sword in hand. This has not changed in 1400 years except guns replacing swords and armored vehicles/ 2 wheelers replacing horses.

Many now islamic lands, like Persia or Egypt, had a high culture before Islam, probably higher

In anyway, whether I like it or not, or one likes it or not, this is how I see the development of the State of Israel in its modern inception. A small minority of a people (both globally & in the region as well) for protection from larger empires & entities, and even just coming off of an Industrial tier genocide. Attempted Negotiated agreements between land allotment between the 2 groups or even integration into the other (you can become citizens & keep your culture, language & religion) or have your territories which were drawn up. Then mutual conflict with one side winning & being victorious & thus conquests and acquirements of lands through that. And still, the point of citizenship & integration in Sovereign territories still stands

My only problem with the video is a complete lack of citation which is important to prove your case

Assalamualaikum where are you from ....very well articulated refute to the argument

Free palestine.

Super Video 👍❤

Thanks for mentioning the political/cultural/spiritual situation during the Umayyad rule in Berber territory. I understand your frustration with orientalism. Heres a rub. I am a Muslim convert ( in the US. Have been for most of my life and getting old). I concede to Ibadi theology and Fiqh. I often get the same inability to talk to other Muslims about the FIqh and Theology of the Ibadi Muslim. If they know anything we are Khawarrij (another term we should revisit - stood up... or cast out?) and if not they even go so far as to say I made it up. Both Northern Iraq (Basra), The Oman, and the once Rustamid empire regions (Parts of Northern Africa and the Swahili Coast) had a similar dynamic with caliphal rule prior to the Umayyad, going back to Uthman for some of the very same reasons you explain. I would differentiate this from the Shia-Sunni cross-objections however, as the views on leadership are based on other factors at their core, but both the Abassid and the Rustamid empires capitalized on these feelings of mistreatment from the top of the federated state. Islam spread the fastest when the RELIGION saved people from the Leaders, and not the other way around, even in already Muslim ruled lands.. Many what we today would call "human right revolts" initialized an Islamic endeavor that often spilled out of the initial region through common support making the previous offending parties territory even larger, but no longer in their hands. Spain had the reverse dynamic and acted very differently toward different groups when "re"conquered. We can clearly see the historical difference if we are only honest.

The Egyptians never spoke Arabic...for centuries they had their own Coptic language. Arabic was imposed on them

The Prophet ﷺ said: ❰ A true believer does not taunt or curse or abuse or talk indecently. ❱ Riyad as-Salihin 1734

Great. 👍🏽

Good video

For centuries, Muslim☪️ minorities ruled over Christian☦️ majorities, that were intentionally degraded by the law. Greeks and Spanish were ruled that way. And as it was happening, no other future could be seen. I would call it Apartheit. And it lasted much longer than South African Apartheit. Without Arab immigration, how did people switch from Aramaic and Coptic, to speaking Arabic. Land was taken from non-Muslims and giving to Muslims in a system called Kharaj. That is not colonialism? Thank you for accepting my comment!

No mention of the the Zanj rebellion and other authorities commited by arabs...

5:00. Before one could agree whether it was conquest or colonisation, its important to realise not all defeated tribes were treated equally. The 3 choices offered to the vanquished tribe only applied if they were deemed the people of the book, namely the Christians and the Jews. All others were classified as idol worshippers. The Idol worshippers were to be fought regardless whether they had acted in a hostile manner or were friendly and welcoming to muslims, period. The idol worshippers that were not killed in battle had two choices. They could choose between converting to Islam or be killed. The historical experience of Hindus in India and the paganistic Sumateran tribes from the inlands of Indonesia is well documented to disapprove the assertion that Islam was spread peacefully and incidents involving violence was an exception. In that manner, the Almighty in the Holy Quran mirrored the Supreme God described in all other religions, both monotheistic or politheistic. A tribalistic war God that specified the chosen tribes cultural norms and the rules laws the tribe had to obey and observe. The rest were enemy tribes who should be viewed as hostile.

أحسنت بارك الله فيك يالكندري

Nice video

For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive. From the late 14th to the mid-17th century, the Ottomans pursued a policy of imposing a levy of male children (devşirme) on their Christian subjects in the Balkans with the goal of supplying the Ottoman state with capable soldiers and administrators. The compulsory conversion to Islam which these boys underwent as part of their education is the only documented form of systematic forced conversion organized by the Ottoman state.[4]

Tabaraka Allah feek ya akhi, very well explained and concise! #Freegaza #freepalestine #istandwithpalestine 🇵🇸❤️

An important thing to also mention is that some of the early conquests were something the Muslims themselves actually wanted to avoid: قال عمر: حسبنا لأهل البصرة سوادهم والأهواز، وددت أن بيننا وبين فارس جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه ولا نصل إليهم، كما قال لأهل الكوفة: وددت أن بينهم وبين الجبل جبلا من نار لا يصلون إلينا منه، ولا نصل إليهم. تاريخ الرسل والملوك (٤/٧٩) Conquest was a result of the status quo not being viable, with the aggressors being the Roman and Persian Empires. It was after the battle of Nahavand that the Muslims really were fully conquering territories with full force.

7:22 I really get annoyed with this painting used for Umayyads when it's clearly 1000 years after Umayyad Caliphate happened. The painting name is Caliph of Constantine, with Ali ben Ahmet and his harakta entourage around 1840s.

يعطيك العافية أخي طارق توجد أربعة قضايا ارجو أن تعالجها أيضاً لمخاطبة المسلمين وغير المسلمين الناطقين بالانجليزية وهي بالغة الأهمية جداً لأنها ضدنا كعرب مسلمين : 1. كل المسلمين والغربيين يقولون أن اغلب علماء المسلمين والذين قادوا النهضة العربية هم الفرس ! كلهم قرروا ذلك بناء على كتابات ابن خلدون في كتابهُ المقدمة . ألف د.ناجي معروف كتابهُ المشهور عروبة العلماء المنسوبين إلى البلدان الأعجمية ، ذكر الكثير جداً من علماء العرب الذين نسبوا للفرس والروم والامازيغ وهم عرف معروف نسبهم ، وكان للشعوبية دورفي محاولة طمس عروبتهم : يمكن معالجة هذه المسألة في اربعة نقاط 1. ان كثير من العلماء العرب نسبوا للفرس ولدينا مايثبت ذلك . 2. أن كثير من علماء الفرس هم تلاميذ لدى علماء العرب وهذا يعود للفضل إلى العرب لأنهم من علموهم بدلاً من اضطهادهم لذلك كان العبيد والخدم يتعلمون بجانب أمراء العرب لذلك العرب المسلمين كانوا أمة تعلم البشرية ولم تمارس اضطهاد بجعل الفرس دورهم في الرعي والزراعة بل تم تمكينهم في دار الحكمة وغيرها من الحواضر ( فمثلاً الكندي كان ابو الفلسفة وتتلمذ عليه الكثير من الفرس ، المبرد من علماء الأدب تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس والذين اصبحوا علماء في الأدب ، الخليل الفراهيدي تتلمذ على يديه الكثير من الفرس ومنهم سيبوية الذي الف كتابهُ المشهور الكتاب مع عدداً من تلاميذ الفراهيدي ، نفس الشيء مع علماء الحديث والفقة الخ..) 3. أن علماء العرب أسسوا الكثير من العلوم الحديثة وطوروها ولم يكونوا فقط علماء لذلك أثرهم كبير على الحضارة الإنسانية فمثلاً ابن حيان هو مؤسس علم الكيمياء ، ابن الهيثم مؤسس عالم البصريات ، الزواهري مؤسس علم الجراحة ، ابن معاذ الجياني" عالم الفلك الأندلسيّ الذي أسس علم المثلثات الكروي ، إبراهيم الفزاري صنع الأسطرلاب ، والعالم الجزري اختراعاته العلمية وتطبيقاته الميكانيكية ،ابن خلدون مؤسس علم الاجتماع ، الفراهيدي أول مؤسس للقاموس في قاموس معجم العين ومؤسس لعلم العروض ، الإمام علي وابو اسود الدوؤلي مؤسسي علم النحو ، هذه أسماء سريعة وغيرهم الكثير 4. ان خلفاء الدولة العباسية احتضنوا الفرس في قيادات دار الحكمة وهذا جعل لهم نفوذ أكبر في العمل والتعلم في دار الحكمة وهذا يحسب على الخليفة انهُ مكنهم مالم يمكن فيه العرب وهذا ماقم به الخلفاء العباسيين ايضاً في ابعاد العرب عن الجيش مما جعل الفرس يؤثرون على القرار السياسي في الدولة 5. ان كثير من العلماء لا يعرف لهم نسباً في كتب التاريخ لا للعرب او للعجم ولا يوجد دليل انهُ فارسي سوى انه عاش في خراسان علماء بأن الكثير من القوميات كانت تعيش فيها . هذه مناقشة مختصرة تعالج النظرة القاصرة لدى العجم في محاولة تهميش العرب اخيراً يمكن ذكر بعض اسهامات علماء الفرس و الامازيغ والترك في الحضارة الإسلامية لأن الهدف ليس الإساءة لهم أو التقليل من جهودهم بالحضارة الإسلامية لكن ذكر انجازات العرب التي يحاول الكثيرين من الاكاديميين الغربيين والمسلمين تجاوزها بسبب كتابات ابن خلدون . ونحن كعرب نعرف قيمة الحضارة الفارسية واهميتها قبل الإسلام لكن محاولة تهميش العرب اعتقد أنها خطأ وصار كأمر مسلم به لدى الأكاديميين الغرب والشرق ، فمن يستطيع حصر كل العلماء لمعرفة ذلك ! 2. كتاب الصحراء العربية لعالم الانثرولوجيا سعد الصويان يعالج اخطاء ابن خلدون في كتاب المقدمة والذي جعل من البداوة بدائيّة وانتقد البدو العرب ، والدكتور سعد الصويان يعالج اسباب الصورة النمطية الخاطئة عن العرب تاريخياً في كتابه المميز ، وكذلك المسلمين يحاولون ترديد مقولة جاهلية العرب قبل الإسلام والمقصود فيه جاهلية الإيمان وليس الحضارة لكن الشعوبيين يحاولون اجترارها بأننا أمة غير متحضرة ويمكن شرح هذا الخطأ وذكر حضارات العرب الكثيرة واسمهاماتهم العرب في علم الفلك قبل الإسلام ، وفي علم العمارة والبتراء ومدائن صالح شاهدة ، واسهاماتهم في الطباعة الثلاثية الأبعاد وفي سكاكا هي الأقدم تاريخيا ، ودور العرب في التجارة قبل الإسلام ، واسهامات العرب في الأدب قبل الإسلام ، وجزيرة العرب مليئة بالكثير من الكتابات قبل الإسلام واعتقد ان العرب سبقوا الحضارة المصرية في الكتابة الأبجدية الخ.. سأذكر موضوعين آخرين في المرة القادمة .

I think too many people look at islams early expansion through a lense that reflects their own beliefs. What’s more likely imo the Rashidun caliphate and the following Ummayads expanded primarily because they could. The leaders of the caliphate probably saw the weakness of both the sassanids and Roman’s and realised that there was a huge opportunity to expand their power base and make a lot of wealth from plunder and then taxation of the conquered populations. Not exactly colonialism as we would think of it now but for the time period basically the norm.

Ali never took part in military expansion outside of Arabia as far as I've studied

Forcing subject peoples to pay a special kind of tax IS a form of resource extraction. If money can be used to purchase resources then taxation is a form of resource extraction.

What happened to the religious symbols of the Pagans and polytheists in Arabia? Who destroyed them?

Lets see what prominent trusted historians said about this time period: Proffesor Thomas Walker Arnold (A major Scholar of 19th Century) mentions in the preaching of Islam on page 134, he states: " A forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude toward the Christian religion that facilitated the accusation of the country. " De Lacy O'Leary in his book "Islam and the Cross Roads" published in 1923. In page 8, he states: " History makes it clear, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping though the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquering races, is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated! " A.S Triton in his book "Islam" Published in 1951, page 21, he states: "The picture of the Muslim soldiers advancing with the sword in one hand, and the Quran in another is quite false. " Laurence E. Browne in his book "The prospects of Islam" published in London 1944, page 14. He states: "Incidently, these well established facts dispose the idea, so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword" Hugh .N. Kennedy, in his book "The Great Arab Conquest" published in London 2008, page 50. He states: "The Quran certainly provided scriptural support for the idea that the Muslims could and should fight the Unbelievers. But at no point does it suggest that they should be represented with the alternatives of conversions or death. " Michael Bonner in his book "Jihad in Islamic history" published by Princeton university press in 2006, page 89-90. He states: "To begin with, there is no forced conversion, no choice between Islam or the Sword. Islamic law following a clear Quranic principle prohibited any such things." Micheal Bonner states in the Quran chapter 2, verse 256, Where Allah has said: "There is no compulsion in the religion, verily the right path has become distinct with the wrong path."

عفية والنعم منك ومن اصلك الطيب

i love your content,,, but i have an advice ... i wish you set straight facing the camera. not leaning little to the right like now.... facing straight looking the viewer,, will get your voice and attention directly the the viewer ... thanks

❤❤❤❤

When talking about western colonialism, everyone talks about how the western world brought advanced technology and ideological advancements to their subjects, even though to attain that, they had to go through countless famines and massacres , while funding some native factions to do their work for them, and then betraying them. When talking about Islamic "colonialism", it's everything that western colonialism is guilty of but amped up to the amount that they aren't guilty of compared to the western ones, while ignoring the actual advancements and progress the Islamic ones made, not just in terms of technology but culture. Islam has made the Arab lands flourishing. Not to mention the accusations of anti-semitism... despite european anti-semitism is insane. The projection as well as the lack of acknowledgement of events that makes the Islamic nations look better is something that I dislike westerners "who are into history".

I salute you Br.Tarek for your efforts in educating us. thousand years of Muslim rule in India, hindus were always the majority.they could have been forced converted. Forein Minister of Saddam Hussein-tariq aziz was a chaldenian christian. The onlly forceful conversin from sunni to shia,happened during Safavid period.

The need to compare Military force with others before and since is "Whataboutism" . I maintain that it should be examined on it's own actions and not on the actions of others. Wether in defence of early Islam in the life of the Prophet PBOH . Or later in expansive war across the Levant Anatolia and on into Iberia. A substantial number of people who resisted were put to the sword. How is it that something So Devine. So True So God given as the message needed to be spread in such a way? No matter how benigne by comparison to the government of others in the context of the times. How about one compares the spread of the teachings of the Bhudda ? Or for that matter the teachings of the early Christians before the foundation of Orthodoxy in 325 CE. A religous belief that spread across the Roman Empire from Hadrian's wall to the Borders of Persia. such that by the 4Th. Century between 5 to 8 % of the Urban population were converted. Little if any violence required. Some violence even directed to the Christian minority. I am not suggesting that therefore Christianity is true and Islam false. I just desire to know why the divine God needs such Help from Swords and Spears however benevolant killing people might be to spread his Message.

Simple additions were nicely done: 1. Many peoples were occupied and persecuted by the Byzantine Empire, such as the inhabitants of the Levant and northern Morocco, or were persecuted by the Persian Empire, such as the people of Iraq and perhaps Ahwaz or the Gothic state in Andalusia. They were persecuting the indigenous people and their salvation was from the Muslim Arabs. Some of them were corresponding with the Arabs for support,These were defeated peoples subject to imperialism at that time. When the Arabs reached Al-Ahwaz, the Persian raids continued despite the existence of a peace charter. Therefore, the Sassanid state had to be overthrown so that the Muslims and their people of all races and religions could live in peace, and this is what happened. As for the raids of the Byzantine state against the Umayyads and then the Abbasids, they did not stop after the liberation of the Levant, so there were continuous invasions in Anatolia, and the Byzantine invasions with the Seljuk state did not stop either. 2. Islamic law guaranteed their freedom in the law that they believe in in their religion, and this is a freedom that Christians, Jews, and Muslims in liberal countries do not dream of, but it still exists today in Arab churches that practice laws such as family law, etc. 3. The jizya is like a tax paid to the Islamic state to protect them and return to them when they need it, and it is insurance like retirement. The story of Caliph Omar al-Khattab with the poor Jew is well known, because a non-Muslim is not required to pay zakat because it is in the religion of Muslims only. 4. The law of war in the message of Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq to Muslims is found in the United Nations and is a moral standard for all the peoples of the earth. Unfortunately, most imperialists do not take this message seriously, so they steal the wealth of the peoples of the world and destroy their countries with internationally prohibited weapons.

Please islam united

Something else about the moving of captials, this wasn't done because the arabs cared about the natives or tried to be more inclusive, it is actually for quite opposite reason to slave the natives more by moving the center of authority from the far away desert to a place were they could easily send armies to stamb out revolts. Another point related to the moving is that they did to better exploit the resources of the lands. The mongols diid this numerous times and same with the arab rulers. The reason why the never returned to arabia is because they were stealing the land and planning to stay in it and never leave funnily enough the mongols did something similar while pilliaging throughout asia they changed their captials and moved the resoucres that they collect through their plundering to their new captials.

I find a lot of stuff in this video misleading and at a lot of times revisioning history. Firstly, you commented how oppressive were the previous two empires before Islam. While that's true for the Byzantines, the Persians is a more complicated story. The Sassanian empire was infamous for their toleration of cultures and religions. What you describing here is the last years of the empire in which Mesopotamia was devastated from the war so they demanded higher taxes from the people. That's why people welcome the Muslims, just like the thirteen colonies did after the British raise the taxes because they were sort of money after the seven years war. Now that we mentioned colonies, let's talk about your response to the allegations about colonization. In your definition of colonization you described only the modern definition of it and even then only the economic aspects and I cannot help myself from thinking that this was intentional. So a complete definition of colonialism is "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people( that's the only part you mentioned). The colonizer monopolizes political power and holds the conquered society and its people to be inferior to their conqueror in legal, administrative, social, cultural, or biological terms. While frequently advanced as an imperialist regime, colonialism can also take the form of settler colonialism, whereby colonial settlers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace an existing society with that of the colonizers, possibly towards a genocide of native populations." And all those things the Arabs did. Especially in the two first Caliphates( not that it went away afterwards). Not to mention the militaristic expansion in the name of Islam sounds very similar to the Christian justification of colonialism. So were the Muslim Arabs colonizers? Yes. As we opened the discussion for the Caliphates, I want to discuss a comment of you that the Islamic empire( so the Umayyad Caliphate) didn't work to benefit of one people. 7:24 But this is totally wrong. The Umayyad Caliphate was an Arab supremacist empire (especially harsh towards Persians) that even non Arab Muslims were treated as second class citizens. This notion can also be supported by the fact that the Abbasid revolution was mostly supported by non Arabs. As for the "all kinds of cultures thrived" it would have been true if only by all those cultures you mean Arabs, Persians and later Turks. Lastly I want to comment on the conversion to Islam 5:24. You said that no-one was forced to convert but instead they had a choice to become second class citizens and pay extra taxes. With all respect this line here made fun to all people that suffered under those states. Because no, being a second class citizen, pay extra taxes, be far easier to become a slave and be prohibited to practice your faith freely is not an option. The only thing you are doing is to make others being even more angry about you and rightfully so. So people converting because of societle pressures it's not something to brag about. So please don't try to hide or lie about your history, all cultures have done terrible things. The only thing you are doing now is to make the other more pitiful about you and also lying to yourself.

There's a key difference between colonialism and how Muslim empires historically handled conquered territories. Colonialism aimed to fundamentally reshape societies, often through forced assimilation and cultural suppression. In contrast, Muslim conquests primarily focused on establishing political control and collecting taxes. Conquered populations were often allowed to maintain their own religious practices, legal systems, and social customs. This included freedom of religion, denominational courts for internal matters, and autonomy regarding marriage, divorce, and child custody. When we examine military history in general, it's clear that modern colonialism stands apart from past conquests. Unlike Muslim empires or even traditional societies like the Indians, Mongols, and Chinese, modern colonial powers exerted far greater control over the lives of conquered peoples.

Watch from Bangladesh

thank you very much for reading and for showing the truth but allow me to add , jiziah tax was paid only by those who can pay it and was a fixed tax unlike zakat which was 2.5 of wealth stored for a year on every muslim whose wealth reached the threshold of paying , plus jiziah was dropped off if the non muslim citizen wanted to join the army as it was in exchange for that , some people claimed that this is how people were forced into islam and this can't be true for the previously mentioned reasons and also because at one time in an emirate the ruler didn't drop off the jiziah on the people who converted to islam , still they continued conversion as for the sword argument it is just impossible as muslims didn't have the means or the numbers to do that especially against warrior people like the modern day tunisia , algeria and morocco as they were much stronger than muslims and outnumbered them , in egypt my country for example the liberation force was of 6000 muslims only against the romans who occupied egypt and the population of egypt at the time reached about 4 million people according to official records , while the entire population of the arabian peninsula was about 1 million

Colonization is a recent post medieval form of expansion

Nothing can come close for the vileness of the Islamic conquests back in it's days.

Framing the narrative you are: 1. Why do you use "colonialism or conquest" and not just "imperialism"? 2. Why do you insist on Muslim tolerance when Zoroastrianism was persecuted since day one. 3. How you differentiate a dhimmi from a colonial subject with diminished rights? Look, I'm Basque and it was Islamic expansion which death one of the worst blows to our sovereignty... even if the Muslims lost and the Franks reaped the benefits of success as "liberators" (with imperialist conditions) after Tours. It was my people who stopped the Muslim expansion and nobody even remembers that almost and my people fought so bravely because they had conquered freedom to the Christians (Romans, Goths, Franks) via peasant revolution (bagauda) and even after the first Frankish (Merovingian) invasion still managed to break free and established their own compromise independent Great Duchy (Vasconia and Aquitaine), which was good until the Muslims came by and attacked us right away without any casus belli whatsoever. And they lost, of course: Vasconia was not any rotten door to throw down just out of fanaticism and massive armies, it was a free nation manned by free people, not serfs. 18 years of war of conquest by the Arabs against my little country more than a thousand kms away from Arabia, 18 years of Muslim defeats... until Al Gafiqi was sent by Damascus with the most massive army seen over here since Rome collapsed... an army that was pretty much unstoppable and that was indeed conquering us all the way to the Loire, where, with harsh conditions, the Franks agreed to lend a hand. The rest is history: Al Gafiqi was defeated, and also legend: in Roncal it's founding legend that Abdelrhaman Al Gafiqi wen through that valley in their scrambled retreat and was ambushed by the locals. Then everyone claimed the honor of having killed the new Hannibal until a woman came by and said it was she who did slay the invader, the men laughed and she threw a human tongue to their feet, they looked at the severed head of the invader general and realized it had no tongue and she was cheered as championness of the Basques. Since then, Roncal has a schuteon with a crowned head and the legend "Abderraman" (the legend may well refer to some other battle, nobody really knows for sure, but "si non e vero, e bene trovatto". The problem was then what to do with the Franks, who kept coming and causing trouble, so a status quo emerged of peace and cooperation between Cordoba and Pamplona (a diminished version of Vasconia), which resulted in that other Abd el-Rhaman, "the Great", the first Caliph of the West, being the Basque-est Umayad ever. The Cordoba Caliphate, once it had renounced to expansion, it was also probably the best that happened to Andalusia since the days when Tartessos was still a sovereign nation able to shower Phocaea with silver, why? Because instead of being a colony of the Phoenicians, the Romans or whoever else (including the distant Arabs of Damascus and Mecca) but it was finally its own thing again: it was sovereign even if the dominant elite was more or less foreign and orientalizing (that would change with the dictator Al Mansur, the subsequent imposion of the Cordoba Caliphate, and almost simultaneously of the Pamplonese min-empire in the north, and the invasion of fanatic jihadists from North Africa: the Almoravids and Almohads, but that's another story). Look: Christianity was already the first large scale fascism (the church is the totalitarian party, with one political comissary in every parish and surveying every soul for the Augustus, that's the main difference between classical and medieval Rome: tolerance was much much greater under polytheism) and Islam is just a version of Christianity, heretic as it may be, with the very same goals since inception but with Arab instead of Greco-Roman ethnic centrality, with an Empire to be built instead of one "inherited" via military coup. One of the keys of all this confusion is that everybody with an agenda wants to radically differentiate Islam and Christianity (and by extension other Judaisms such as Talmudism or the distinct and diverse ancient Judaism but also Baha'ism, Mormonism, etc.) Muslims want that, Christians want that, and peoples from other traditions are dazzled by the millenary sectarian conflict between Islam and Christianity and, as the former eventually lost hard (and suffered colonization as result), tend to pack it with other victims of Christian/European imperialism and adopt it as "one of their own", even in some cases to the point of conversion (but more commonly whitewashing). The reality however is that Christian or European imperialism followed largely the steps of Muslim imperialism, especially in relation with Black Africa, where both pseudo-camps behaved very parallely and generally awfully. The main difference has to do with the timelines of illustration or scientific intellectual hegemony, which in the Muslim World was earlier than in the Christian one but was later abandoned in favor of the most decadent religious obscurantism and growing intolerance (as had happened among Christians, especially Western ones, earlier but was a trend reversed by Renaissance anyhow).

First 🥇 ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

what happened to the Christian populations of North Africa, The Horn, Levant, and Mesopotamia? There were even Christians in the Arab peninsula, what happened to those populations?

Look about what Winston Churchill say about Islam.

6:35 But there was greed for land.

So who would you prefer to be ruled by Britain or Oman?...... We all now the answer to that. And my country has been ruled by both in the past.

What happened to the idols of the Qureish? Who destroyed them since according to you Islam respects religious symbols.

5:46 If they don’t pay Jizya, they die.

Why should everything be viewed through Western lenses. It is like when Islam was called Mohammadians because Christianity is named after Christ

lol, Colonialism has nothing to do with what you just said. Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. I think the Islamic colonial conquest checks every one of those boxes and more. It was a foreign people who went into another peoples lands, set up shop and ruled over them, taxing them and creating systems in which it enslaved, ethnically cleansed partially or in whole, their cultures, languages, alphabets, religions, endonyms, etc. Have you heard the term “Arabized”? How many of these peoples believe themselves to be “Arabs” to this day, because of this? That’s like if the native Americans, Indians and all the other places the English conquered thought themselves to be “British.” And what’s wild is it has no intention on stopping either. I can go on but I’ll stop there. How is this not colonialism in your perspective?? 🤦🏽‍♂️🤔

Is this guy ai?

4:36 Still doesn’t justify stealing other people’s land.

If you look at the map of the spread Arabic language is the same map of the part of the afro asiatic language all the people who speak Arabic who the Old language is related to Arabic that why the transition to Arabic is easy second all the language Who before the Conquest of Islam oppressed by the Greek and Roman because the language of the government in the Levant and Egypt are Greek in North Africa are Latin people want to forget this part of History

Well explained i like the distinction you make between expansion and colonialism I had not looked at it like that. For me Islam under our blessed prophet and his successors was a revolutionary force, out to reform and better the destiny of mankind reconnecting to God, its modern day equivalents being the french, russian and the islamic revolution in iran ( the latter sadly losing its way from what was envisioned ), expansion and exporting these highly ideological ways of life and thinking was very much built into these revolutions as was with early Islam. For me personally with my forefathers coming from the indo pak subcontinent I am ever so grateful for this expansion, for it gave my forefathers the chance to embrace the beauty and simplicity of Al Islam, and because of them today I worship the One God alone as commanded by Him, instead of confused worship of a plethora of blue coloured statues all the while oppressing my own soul. Love your channel

Uh huh, and how would you explain the uhh drastic decrease in the Assyrian and Aramean Christian population? What about the laws under the Caliphates that prevented the building of Churches? What about the Jizya tax and Dhimmi system? I do not understand how paying a heavy tax every year for being just member of the Abrahamic faiths for, protection? Procreation against whom? The Assyrians were forbidden from carrying weapons, riding horses, holding any position of office. I do not see how conquering a region, then their ethnic and religious populations just happen to disappear over the course of 200 years. I will tell you know that Assyrians and Armenians, as well as Arameans did not convert to Islam nor did they rebel to just cause the various genocidal acts against Christians. Imagine getting by treated as second class citizen, having various restrictions on movement, religious expression, cultural and traditional engagement and finally repeated genocides. It’s interesting to wonder how 80% of Mesopotamia was majority Assyrian and suddenly by 800 AD they were less then 5% of the total population.

Improtant thing to remember is that unlike the British in India who were complete foreigners, the Arabs in the Levant, Mesopitamia and Egypt werent. There is evidence about arab kingdoms in the Levant and mesopitamia. There is also evidence about interactions between Assyria a mespotiamian kingdom 1000 years prior to the revelation of the prophet pbuh with the Arabs as well as minor arab migration into Egypt. The prophet pbuh and quraysh used to do trade in the Levant so these people in the levant and mesopitamia are exactly like us (semites) we lived together, interacted and intermixed for thousands of years. In-fact there is a theory that suggests that every semitic people and civilization like the Pheonicians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Hebrews and Arameans are actually arabs who left the Arabian peninsuila since ''Arab'' used to mean to old civilizations like with Assyria (dessert dwellers). Even if the theory isnt true we are all semites afterall, Arabic deviates from Aramaic. A historian made a list of civilizations where the semitic civilization at its endpoint was Islam and the Arabs. Keep in mind this semitic civilization includes all other forms of semites like Pheonicia and Carthage, Akkadia and Assyria, then The Israelites. Basically Arab is a unitary Semitic identity, the only semites who resisted such assimilation were the jews because they were spread out even before Israel many Jews in Arab land were called ''Arab-jews'' and spoke arabic like a everyday language sadly our idiotic nationalistic leaders kicked them out, affecting the economy and providing Israel with a population surplus to repopulate ethnically cleansed Palestinian land.

Islamofascism 641

Islam is not a religion like the word is used in occident. It is better a political movement.