Did Christians of the Middle East truly welcome the islamic armies as their liberators from the oppressive byzantine tyranny that they have been oppressed by for centuries, and perceive their dhimmitude as being a protected class? You'd think thousands upon thousands of militaristic, religious fanatic nomads from the desert would be quite rough around the edges but apparently historians think otherwise.
all of your post is ahistorical drivel because we still live in a world where if your scholarship doesn’t align with muslim legend you risk your life and livelihood
On other words, if credentialed historians don't regurgitate my trash, then they're controlled by israelites. You will never have an ethnostate.
wtf? meds. your headcanon is out of control
>A Greek inscription on a marble slab from the Roman-era baths at the site of Hammat Gader in northern Israel. The inscription is the only known epigraphic attestation of Umayyad Caliph Mu'awiya I in the region of Syria, the province which he governed from 639 until 661 and which served as the metropolis of his caliphate from 661 until his death in 680. The inscription, which begins with the symbol of a cross, translates in English as:
>In the days of Abd Allah ("Servant of God") Mu'awiya, the commander of the faithful, the hot baths of the people there were saved and rebuilt by Abd Allah son of Abuasemos the Counsellor, on the fifth of the month of December, the second day of the 6th year of the indiction, in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs the 42nd year, for the healing of the sick, under the care of Joannes, the official of Gadara
>The years quoted correspond to the year ca. 663 AD
>The inscription, which begins with the symbol of a cross
>The inscription, which begins with the symbol of a cross
>The inscription, which begins with the symbol of a cross
>The years quoted correspond to the year ca. 663 AD
What's your point?
You really can’t figure it out?
>Christcuck thinks Shitrael existed in that era
Every time
nope
Eastern trash (Egyptians and Syrians) were duplicitous and treacherous. It was a good thing they were taken
t. Byzaboo
why do you say that? at least you admitted you’re a byzaboo.
They were useless members in the imperial state. Not an ounce of loyalty. Just let the Persians take over leaving the rest of the empire in a huge bind. Not to mention the Persians sacking jerusalem and killing all the christians. Right after that they then let the arabs walk all over them. I'm guessing you're probably some MENA Christian who thinks you have a connection with us westerner. You don't.
I’m a polack and my wife is an armenian/syrian orthodox girl from turkey. you should stop being christian if you hate those people so much. I’m sorry to break it to you but christianity did not begin in greece. it started in palestine and egypt and syria. you should renounce your christianity if you hate them so much
>my wife is an armenian/syrian orthodox girl from turkey
That explains it. You are a pathetic man
I’m actually very happy, you are the virgin seething over things that happened a thousand years ago.
Why don’t you renounce christianity since you hate the Middle East and North Africa so much despite it being a product of those places? Can you answer the question?
>Why don’t you renounce christianity since you hate the Middle East and North Africa so much despite it being a product of those places
Christianity is Greek. You have to be really moronic to think otherwise
How come when I read the gospels it’s all in palestine syria and egypt can you explain it
He has a family of his own, you don't.
You're the loser here.
>christianity did not begin in greece
>NT all wirteen in Greece.
>all relevant early communities were in greek cities
Imagine being this moronic
it started in palestine syria and egypt I don’t know why this bothers everyone so much. worship Thor if it bothers you I don’t know what to tell you?
Learn what language the gospels written in
irrelevant, you are recounting tales of an aramaic speaking man who operated in palestine syria and egypt. end of story.
>irrelevant
Yeah Greeks being the ones who the apostles preached and who became the next generation of christians is irrelevent. The Gospels (good news) written in greek for a greek audience is also irrelevant
yeah and they wrote stories set in syria and palestine and egypt with an aramaic judean protagonist and they read about said aramaic judean protagonist in syria egypt and palestine
I've never seen a christcuck cope so hard. Christianity was founded in the Middle by brown people. It was as Greek as Cleopatra was Egyptian.
>Conquered by Greeks for hundreds of years
>No! We have nothing to do with Greeks!
>aramaic speaking man
WE WUZ JESUS N SHIT
Jesus wasn't white. Get over it homosexual.
post pics of your wife
guaranteed you won't since she's not real and you are a LARPing gay
How come when I read the gospels it’s all in palestine syria and egypt can you explain it?
need to see her pic first
then we'll talk
otherwise you are a lying LARPer
it’s a simple question. Why can’t you answer it?
BTFO
BTFO
this is like trying to argue beowulf is of british origin
Why should anyone give a shit where Christianity started when the people of those places couldn't maintain their own religion, and depended on the Greeks and Romans to preserve the correct teaching for them?
>to preserve the correct teaching for them?
Anthanasius was Egyptian, he was a Black person manlet they called “the black dwarf” and he was exiled five times.
And the Egyptian Church fell out of the faith less than 80 years after he died.
>fell out of the faith
pathetic. and no I’m not a copt or an arab. you homosexuals are so repellant.
There are plenty of Muslim martyrs out there, they don't go to heaven when they die either.
you’re going to heaven but the copts beheaded by ISIS aren’t even tho your figurehead says so?
yes because catholics rape iconography like they rape children. this board knows jack shit about iconography like they know jack shit about art history in general. it’s impressive that such rabid ortholarpers could know so little about it.
Reminder that the old homosexuals (and I mean literal elderly homosexual men) of the Catholic Church praised these martyrs who this moron anon calls faithless
>treat them like shit and consider them heretics
>be mad when they turn on you
frick off byzantiBlack person dont except loyalty from those you oppress
Not "liberators" but "lesser evil", and when you compare the survival of Copts in Egypt to all the heresies the Byzantines extinguished it's possible they were right.
wait who are you saying may have been right, the copts?
The ones who welcomed Arab rule, yeah. I know they were divided on that point though.
Early muslims aren’t a millions horde like the mongols, if they were oppressive they wouldn’t have succeeded
>if they were oppressive they wouldn’t have succeeded
The mongols weren’t a million horde either.
Being a Dhimmi under Muslim rule was better than being a heretic under Roman rule
>thousands upon thousands of militaristic, religious fanatic nomads from the desert
sounds peak kino to me, like something out of D U N E
There's something funny about the mental image of schismatics kissing the feet of fresh off the dunes armed nomads and prostrating themselves before them like born b***hes while the old elite who were christians for centuries and some of whom had their roots in pre-ptolemaic times are being enslaved in the background.
Bet they're really glad now for choosing them rather than the byzantines.
based and D U N E pilled
I now want Denis Villeneuve to make a epic historical drama about the Islamic conquests
>thousands upon thousands
Here’s where you’re wrong
I'm a Muslim so I obviously have bias but, while they were obviously not unanimously in favor of Muslim takeover, most small religious sects preferred Muslim rule to Byzantine orthodoxy and the Sassanid meme Zoroastrian orthodoxy. I would say however, this applies more so to Christians and other religious minorities in the Sassanid empire, heretics in the Byzantine empire didn't have it that bad in comparison. There's a reason the Byzantines survived for so long while the most the Sassanids could do was flee to China and create a small rump fiefdom on the coast of the Caspian Sea. Well there are many reasons but you get the idea.
>Abgar V was king of Osroene with his capital city at Edessa, a Syrian city in upper Mesopotamia. According to the legend, King Abgar V was stricken with leprosy and had heard of Jesus’ miracles. Acknowledging Jesus' divine mission, Abgar wrote a letter of correspondence to Jesus Christ asking to be cured of his ailment. He then invited Jesus to seek refuge in Edessa as a safe haven from persecution. In his alleged reply, Jesus applauded the king for his faith but turned down the request. He expressed regret that his mission in life precluded him from visiting the city. Jesus blessed Abgar and promised that after he ascended into heaven, one of his disciples would heal all of the illnesses of the king and his subjects in Edessa.
>According to the legend
>Eusebius tells us that he translated the correspondence from Syriac into Greek from a Syriac original from the royal archives at Edessa
also
>that bad, stupid legend
>virgin birth is fine
>gospels written in Greek
>letters of Paul
>Romans
>Corinthians
>Galatians
>Ephesians
>Philippians
>Colossians
>Thessalonians
Uh sand monkeybros why doesnt Paul mention us?
>They sent this letter by them, ‘The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia - Acts
> I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. - Galatians
>mentioned in passing with no dedicated epistles
Imagine being an arab rapebaby who thinks he's special because he's under the delusion that Jesus was like him
that’s not it at all anon. this board is also under some sick delusion that you can only study things or feel ways about stuff if you are a part of that thing’s community. It’s really weird outlook for so many to hold on a history discussion site.
All those places were Greek in Jesus' time.
Nabatean Arabia was not Greek, moron. That want even the issue in question, some moron, possibly you, said these places weren’t mentioned by Paul - which is incredibly stupid considering the whole Damascus affair - then when I pointed out Paul mentions them and goes to them it wasn’t good enough for the moron.
>In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me - 2 Cor 11:32
>Aretas IV Philopatri was the King of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40.
also
>Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. - Acts 2:11
just stop. I don’t know why this makes you so uncomfortable, just stop.
Miaphysites and nicaeans hated each other much more over petty bullshit, so muslims beating the nicaean romans made the miaphysite MENA shitters feel like they also "won". Never underestimate the power of petty conflicts and losing sight of the greater good.
as weird as it is, it’s accurate
>Dated according to the Hijri calendar, many of Arabic Christian manuscripts show obvious Islamic literature influence. They start with the greeting Bismillah, literal for ‘In the Name of Allah’, and conclude with al-Hamdulillah, literally ‘Praise be to Allah’. Some books of the Holy Bible in many manuscripts begin with Bismillah.
>Many of the Christian apostles and saints are called al-Mustafa, meaning the Chosen One, instead of the traditional Christian al-Bashir, meaning the Evangelical or the Bearer of Good News. Most of these manuscripts are decorated with paintings and ornamentation of birds, flowers, botanical motifs and frames in the Arabic style. - Watani, Egyptian National Portal
Add to this the Oriental Church's habit of having pictures of... clouds, behind the altar. Catholic churches might have some woodcuts of saints and of Christ Crucified; and Orthodox, of course, do icons. But the Church which was under Islam the longest just paints the wall to look like Heaven, Dome-of-the-Rock style
I believe you are thinking of Assyrian churches, anon. The funniest part is you can tell which Assyrians have been cucked into submission to Rome by the unseemly statues they are forced to put up by their masters, lol (picrel)
the black sun behind Christ makes this kino and Gospelpilled. although, yes, 'tis clear their heart isn't in it.
That's a window at night time, you moron!
Everyone in this thread should STFU and read Robert Hoyland's "Seeing Islam As Others Saw It". even if only the PDF.
The Christian authorities in the Middle East would be men like Sophronios and John bar Penkaye. They all agreed that the Arabs were rapacious and bloodthirsty, and also that they promoted israelites as equals to Christians.
Some of them sucked up to the Arabs, usually in Monophysite / Nestorian rivalries, but they would rather have been the sultans themselves.
Is that book more of a historiographic investigation or a sourcebook?
I remember this guy who wrote about the syriac experience under early islamic rule and pointed out how muslim rule must have been great because like 99% of writings from that place and time are more or less positive, while also completely ignoring that writing dissident literature would have been a death sentence and therefore those either weren't written at all or circulated in such small circles that they were never transmitted to us. I guess lack of evidence is evidence of absence!
It's a sourcebook but it has a summary at the end.
It makes clear that the sources are highly slanted toward, duhh, people who could write, which in those days meant pious Christians of one sect or another. We don't really get a fair-minded (Christian) take until the Theophanes / Nicephorus synopsis, probably Trajan the Patrician circa AD 720. Otherwise it's just Sect A throwing poo at Sects B and C, and at israelites. Sometimes at Arabs but since they're in charge, not as much as we'd hope. Remember if you're trying to rat out your rival schoolkids to teacher, you don't want to annoy teacher.
>It's a sourcebook but it has a summary at the end.
>It makes clear that the sources are highly slanted toward
Most of it is just christian or israeli polemics which are just as useless as hadith
But this is a thread about the polemicists, anon. This is a thread about what the Christians of the Middle East thought about their new sultans.
>the one book I read is the only relevant source of information on this subject.
Kys homosexual.
I think the Muslim Arabs destroyed and conquered a lot of Christian sites. They spent their entire existence attacking The Byzantines but ultimately failed to destroy this durable Christian Empire. I think some Christian’s might have welcomed them as liberators, such as the demilitarized Syrian Christian’s, as well as the demilitarized Egyptian Christian’s; however, the Arab Muslims were oppressive and treated all Christian’s as second class subjects, anyone that says otherwise is a lier, and spewing revisionist history…or they are Muslim trying to cover up their crimes.
The destruction of the Holy Sepulcher was an act of sacrilege and justified ALL, yes I said it, ALL the massacres of the First Crusade. I also thing it was Gods will that the Barabriab Christian hordes of northwest Europe succeeded in the utter genocide of the Muslim city states in the levant.
God bless militant Christianity, the First Crusade was justified and succeeded.
>The destruction of the Holy Sepulcher was an act of sacrilege and justified ALL, yes I said it, ALL the massacres of the First Crusade
based
>The destruction of the Holy Sepulcher was an act of sacrilege and justified ALL, yes I said it, ALL the massacres of the First Crusade
Literally ISIS-tier reasoning.
The destruction of the holy sepulcre was instigated by that one butthole ruler (al-hakim), and was ordered rebuilt by his son. If muslims really wanted it gone, they would've done so hundreds of years earlier and replaced it with a masjid in its entirety.
Meant for
>butthole ruler (al-hakim
He was based.
He was the Muslim world's Nero, traditional accounts made him out to be an evil supervillain so modern historians go in the opposite direction for kicks
Ending slavery during his rule > destroying christcuck building
Islam never ended slavery. Europeans ended slavery, but only in the West. Slavery still exists today in the muslim and israeli world. You are full of shit.
Imagine having such shitty reading comprehension. Ill state again Al Hakim ended slavery during rule amomg other things.
No he did NOT you blithering idiot. Muslims never ended slavery. A haram is a form a slavery, there are many forms of slavery and slave markets that exist to this day within muslim countries. Thee only people to end slavery is that of the Western World and that of Far East Asia.
Can you do me a favor? And stop posting here? Im sick and tired of you people being so full of shit.
>asiatics
>ended slavery
LOL
Lmao I wish I could just deny reality to prove myself correct
Still seething about losing the Crusades kek.
The First Crusade was a complete success.
>The destruction of the Holy Sepulcher was an act of sacrilege and justified ALL, yes I said it, ALL the massacres of the First Crusade
It justified the crusaders killing every israelite they saw between the Rhine and the River Jordan?
Monophysites, AM I A JOKE TO YOU!
Many Christians welcomed the Persians when they came in who where brutal and oppressive just as much as the arabs if not worse they activley talked about desecrating the cross so it is reasonable to assume some collaberated with the arabs.
>Did Christians of the Middle East truly welcome the islamic armies as their liberators
No. There was no great rebellion against Roman rule and in fact, they even invited the Romans back into Egypt. But the Egyptians at the time considered themselves to be Roman, the powers that be in Constantinople were not foreigners to them.
Crusaders massacred the Coptic population, who were the majority, when they invaded Egypt in the 12th century
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The majority of Amalric's invasions of Egypt were dickwaving at cities and attempted sieges. Other than his campaign path there wasn't much deliberate destruction.
western christianity is a repulsive abomination
This can be changed in one generation.
>hmm today i will worship my secular leaders and commit idoltary
Why are Orthodox Christians like this?
Eastern Orthodoxy is still western. it just means eastern Rome. It is still western. Moreso, the theology and philosophy of the Latins and Greeks are essentially the same and come from Greek thought concerned with the nature of reality. The Syrian strain of Christianity is more grounded in a israeli understanding of theology, that is, that God is actively involved with and affects history by acting through his prophets. Both “Oriental” and “Church of the East” churches literally mean they are eastwardly outside of Rome, whereas Eastern Orthodoxy means the Eastern part of Rome.
I know everyone will seethe at me but I’m right
>eastern Rome (literally located in the Middle East, aka present day Turkey etc.) is "western" because muh Rome = western
wow I'm definitely curious to read the rest of your neckbeard opinion /s
it’s not an opinion
Just because the theology is basically identical, does not mean that the practice is the same. The secular subjugation of the Orthodox church makes it a significantly different church in practice, acting like a puppet for whatever leader they had.
>Crusaders massacred the Coptic population, who were the majority, when they invaded Egypt in the 12th century
Based
>Did Christians of the Middle East truly welcome the islamic armies as their liberators from the oppressive byzantine tyranny that they have been oppressed by for centuries, and perceive their dhimmitude as being a protected class? You'd think thousands upon thousands of militaristic, religious fanatic nomads from the desert would be quite rough around the edges but apparently historians think otherwise.
'Christianity' and 'Islam' and related ideologies don't matter that much to people on the streets when they're being brutally oppressed. They just want the oppression to stop.
All the coping here by whitecels trying to claim Christianity as Greek instead of middle eastern when Greeks and other Southern Europeans are closer to the Middle East than they are to northern/Western Europe
>Greeks
>White
Thanks for the laugh. Keep coping lmao
>Greeks and other Southern Europeans are closer to the Middle East than they are to northern/Western Europe
WE WUZ GREEKS. The absolute state of araps
Not even arap, cope harder you low test angloid
This has nothing to do with White or where Christianity came from. This has to do with the destruction of Christian holy places by Islam and Judaism, as well as what sects of Christianity aided the invaders. Male no mistake about it, it was White people of European stock from Northwest Europe that truly avenged these acts of sacrilege and aggression by muslim and their israeli friends during the First Crusade.
are these people white?
Not him but yeah. One of them is literally a redhead.
according to islamic sources: islam is the most perfect thing ever and everyone welcomed it and accepted it with open arms even changing their entire cultural identity and haplogroup and language <3. that's why a lot of major figures fighting islam were copts, syrians, etc.
It goes against the fee-fees of vgh what covld have been types but over and over internal intrigue precipitates invitations of outsiders to help locals against their brethren. The idea of racial/religious solidarity trumping realpolitik concerns is the kind of fever dream homosexualry that makes Russians think Ukes will welcome them as brothers against a bunch of non-slavs. It never holds.
Eastern Christcucks are so cringe
yeah it’s the East that’s the problem sure
>Literally in Byzantine style