Early arab conquests were an act of civilization and libation

Look at all the lands the Persians and romans ouccpied, imagine all the people they killed and humiliated in the course of thousands of years, imagine all the goods and resources that would've went to their own land instead of Italy or Persia, the arabs came and stopped these oppressive systems and barbaric empires.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >“…It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs…thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, ‘If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it”…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture.”
    Why are Arabs such savages?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not reading that

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Persian Scholars asked themselves this.
      Why where they Muslim then? Cultural inertia and self-preservation.

      I even know Arabs who agree Arabs are uncouth savages.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't take forginers opinions

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      no wonder the Islamic golden age ended when the mongols sacked Baghdad, they essentially destroyed the "brain" of Islam.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it

      The biggest larp fake quote of all time

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nomadic arabs raping and pillaging everyone
      >civilizing former roman provinces
      Mudslime moment.

      If they were roman only 4 thousand arabs wouldn't have conquered egypt so easily, it was a colony, a milking cow, nothing more or less, arabs came and made egypt great again after a thousand year of romans and Christians shiting all over the place

      Maybe because it was colony that the romans only cared to plunder?

      >That doesn't even make any sense considering that all people in Egypt were citizens with the same rights as anyone in Italy had
      Except than having and army and getting alot of their resources shipped to Italy.
      >They called themselves Romans, they participated in Roman politics
      Proof? And don't give me a singular case with someone that was latinized
      >If they were trying to plunder Egypt they were doing a terrible job by giving them state services like free courts,
      They already had that, egypt was a civilization before the romans not some backwater
      >citizenship
      That didn't exist
      >you're still supposing something stupid to begin with
      If they were roman then why didn't the romans defend them properly like Anatolia, italy, Greeceand antioch, You know, actual romans. They were only facing an army of 4 thousand arabs that was effected by the plague, the negatives of holding that colony just out done the positives by that point.

      Every place mudslimes conquered or occupied turned into a dysgenic, inbred shithole whose people gave up all of their traditions and identities to kowtow to mecca while larping as the ethnic Arabs they'll never truly be. Embarassing fricking religion with great cultural hallmarks like bacha bazi.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >nomadic arabs raping and pillaging everyone
    >civilizing former roman provinces
    Mudslime moment.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    People stopped being almost anything other than Roman by that point though. It wasn't exactly Egyptians being liberated as it was Romans coming under new leadership, which they didn't like. Which is why they invited a Roman army into Alexandria to expel the Arabs from Egypt.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If they were roman only 4 thousand arabs wouldn't have conquered egypt so easily, it was a colony, a milking cow, nothing more or less, arabs came and made egypt great again after a thousand year of romans and Christians shiting all over the place

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're questioning as to why a region which had not been militarized since the Late Bronze Age did not engage in activities that a militarized society would?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe because it was colony that the romans only cared to plunder?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't even make any sense considering that all people in Egypt were citizens with the same rights as anyone in Italy had. They called themselves Romans, they participated in Roman politics, their military and economy. If they were trying to plunder Egypt they were doing a terrible job by giving them state services like free courts, citizenship and rights. But of course you're still supposing something stupid to begin with, they didn't have a military force nor were they capable of producing one to expel the Arabs on their own. You could say that for literally every single culture and peoples of the Near East. Why didn't the Assyrians rise up to expel the Babylonians, why didn't the Lydians go against the Persians? There's an easy answer, they weren't capable of doing so. They had no military force of their own outside of the state.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That doesn't even make any sense considering that all people in Egypt were citizens with the same rights as anyone in Italy had
            Except than having and army and getting alot of their resources shipped to Italy.
            >They called themselves Romans, they participated in Roman politics
            Proof? And don't give me a singular case with someone that was latinized
            >If they were trying to plunder Egypt they were doing a terrible job by giving them state services like free courts,
            They already had that, egypt was a civilization before the romans not some backwater
            >citizenship
            That didn't exist
            >you're still supposing something stupid to begin with
            If they were roman then why didn't the romans defend them properly like Anatolia, italy, Greeceand antioch, You know, actual romans. They were only facing an army of 4 thousand arabs that was effected by the plague, the negatives of holding that colony just out done the positives by that point.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Except than having and army and getting alot of their resources shipped to Italy.
            Italy hadn't been the central part of the Empire for over a century by that point and neither did Eastern armies serve in the West outside of extraordinary cuircumstances. They would have joined the army of the Levant or local policing forces.
            >They already had that
            The Roman court system did not exist in Ancient Egypt and in fact wouldn't even exist across the Roman Empire in the form it took in Late Antiquity until Diocletian.
            >That didn't exist
            https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/Antoniniana_johnson.html
            >If they were roman then why didn't the romans defend them properly like Anatolia, italy, Greeceand antioch
            The armies that attempted to keep it were destroyed. Two armies were sent, first by Heraclius then by Constans II. Failure to defend does not mean they didn't try to, and they very much did considering they sent two entire field armies to try and recover it.
            >They were only facing an army of 4 thousand arabs
            No they weren't. The army with Amr ibn al-As was 12,000 strong. This is on par with the 200,000 Byzantine soldiers in every battle kind of stupid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Italy hadn't been the central part of the Empire for over a century by that point
            It was for hundreds of years, and besides, all the wealth still went to the byzantine heartland so it doesn't matter.
            >The Roman court system did not exist in Ancient Egypt
            Sure, they had their own system
            >The armies that attempted to keep it were destroyed. Two armies were sent, first by Heraclius then by Constans II.
            Of course they'd try, it their most profitable colony, Britain would've defend India at all costs, that doesn't mean they cared about india and Indians or viewed the place as part of Britain and people as equal British citizens.
            >No they weren't. The army with Amr ibn al-As was 12,000
            Nope it was only 4,000 might have even been 3,500.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            4 thousand was the initial strike forces that were then reinforced with 8 thousand more. So the total was from 8 to 12 thousand depending on losses

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Christians
        That is the main question really. The church had splintered in theory over heresies and in practice along language lines. One of them the copts in Egypt resented the orthodox and just a decade before the roman restoration after the persian occupation was seen in retrospect as a benefit to only the orthodox. They would revolt from the jyzia like the syrians did but it mostly amounted to the few individuals that could afford to feeling to Byzantium.
        Economically what changed was the severing Egypt from the north mediterranean and like everywhere else in the former roman empire it got poorer throughout the middle ages from the decrease in trade most of all from the decreased availability of foreign grain. Remaining was just the syrian coast a region better for its wood and likely to rely on the egyptian grain, and NW africa that declined from the rich farmlands it had in the roman period from overgrazing as berbers from the interior came into power. In practice more years of bad harvest resulted in famines. Medieval passerby in Alexandria couldn't help but remark how the ancient city was much more impressive.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Conquest isn't liberation anon.
    But liberation is often used as a justification of conquest to convince small brained individuals such as yourself.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >meanwhile arabs killed way more than both of them combined

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Any proof of that statement

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Afro-asiatic liberation

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      asiatic sure but hardly African liberation. the first people to BTFO the Islamic Arabs were Africans, their first major revolt were by African slaves and they could never expand deep into the African interior like they did easily into Europe and Asia.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Semitics = afro asiatic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *