[declan_roberts]

> During this period, from the late fourth to the mid-seventh century AD, Christianity became the dominant religion, towns expanded across the country and Egypt served as one of the empire's richest provinces.

It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD.

[hechang1997]

> It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD.

It’s easy to forget because it’s a fabricated perspective. Islamic/Arabian conquest of MENA isn’t really that different from what Romans or Persians did. That region is literally the source of human civilization (in the Old World at least) and had seen empires come and go ever since the Bronze Age, and along with them all sorts of cultures and religions. What fundamentally changed the dynamics of the region is not the islamic conquest but the shift of the center of the global trade away from Middle East and the Mediterranean to the Western Europe.

[miroljub]

None of the previous empire changes led to the population replacement. Islamic expansion (colonisation, conquest) brought Arabs and their way of life everywhere.

[wqaatwt]

It is somewhat different. Romans or Greeks didn’t really violently impose their culture, religion and language to a comparable degree. Without the Islamic invasions Egyptian would likely still be speaking Coptic these days.

[ghostDancer]

That's not exactly true. Spain, Portugal and France, at least, speak languages derived from Latin, while the original languages went extincted. And Christian religion taken by the Romans annihilated all the rest of religions in Europe.

[madspindel]

> And Christian religion taken by the Romans

It was not taken by the Romans. It was persecuted by the Romans for nearly 300 years.

[ghostDancer]

In the beginning it prosecuted the Christians but later the Roman empire embraced Christianity and imposed all through the empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_as_the_Roman_stat...

[swasheck]

i’m no apologist for christian history but you are both dancing around the nuances to make your own respective points. both things can be true but they require a lot of words: the roman republic, and subsequent empire were happy to allow conquered peoples to maintain their own ways of life as long as a few basic (in their estimation) requirements were met (taxes, fealty, etc). it was ripe for corruption to the conquered peoples tended to rebel and they got put down with severe violence

christianity offered a unifying thematic message and de facto polity under which constantine believed he could more effectively maintain power and peace. this system was ripe for corruption but now the people are generally kept in line by the conflation of church and state.

islam arises primarily as a repudiation of polytheism and what is perceived as loose monotheism and nonviolently sweeps through the area quickly.

regional leaders quickly learn the same lesson that constantine learned and use islam to prevent rebellion and exert control, with the added lesson learned that it’s best to just ensure everyone follows the same code from the start so that you don’t have to do a lot of political cleanup in the transition to a new belief system.

fractured “european” leaders realize how much power they’ve lost and decide that they should unify under the christian brand to go take back their power.

and the cycle goes on and on

[wqaatwt]

Well yes it highly varied. However Romans were generally more motivated by plunder and subsequent economic exploitation. To an extent they didn’t really suppress local cultural practices or imposed forced assimilation in cases where it didn’t conflict with that and even often allowed alternative power structures to exist. Assimilation largely happened over time and was mostly voluntary. To be fair gradual voluntary conversion to Islam to enhance your social/economic status was the main mechanism in the Muslim empires as well. However in Rome the transition wasn’t as binary and “multiculturalism” was much more tolerated. Also Romans were way more open to integrating and assimilating foreign cultures and practices (which is why the Roman Empire eventually turned into a “Greek Empire”) what being a “Roman” meant was way more malleable and flexible than being a Muslim.

[carlosjobim]

Weren't all the conquered obliged to worship the emperor along with their own gods?

[gglanzani]

No. Jews didn’t, f.e.

[thisislife2]

And if the British hadn't conquered and exploited my country, modern India wouldn't have been an impoverished country that is now a developing nation whose identity and culture has been forever changed due to European imperialism. The Islamophobia (and the general lack of respect for most non-western cultures) in this discussion is based on real ignorance:

1. There are indeed many things to admire about the west. However, for all the cultural and scientific advancement made by the west, westerners choose to ignore that the backbone of the current western "empire" was also built on the knowledge and wealth you looted from other non-western empires. The reason that you are now the most "developed" nation is because you now follow the same political pattern as all the "superpower" empires of their time - you hoard the wealth and knowledge now, and deny it to others. (Please read about the The fate of the Library of Alexandria - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Library-of-Alexandria/The-f... to understand, for one, how much knowledge was created, collated and valued in the eastern cultures - even by the "barbarian" muslim empires.)

(I know there have been books written in the west trying to justify that slavery and imperialism isn't why the west are wealthy. I partially agree with some points in them but disagree that the wealth that you stole was inconsequential. If the west truly believes that the wealth stolen from us wasn't what made your economies rich, but only your own culture and ingenuity, why don't you repatriate that amount that was diverted to your economy and actually test that theory? Mughal India, for example was one of the richest economies that accounted for 24% of the world GDP - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5724162 - before the British conquered and transferred most of that wealth to enrich itself).

2. Many of you pretend (or rather seek comfort in the idea) that State violence of ancient non-western empires is something cultural to only non-western cultures. That western / Christian nations are more "peaceful" by nature. A study of the history of crusades, and western imperialism, should immediately dismiss that notion. (Shamefully, even today, many western nations sponsor and support the ethnic cleansing and genocide of native populations by your allies in Africa and the middle-east).

3. Some of you resort to selectively applying modern cultural perceptions to criticise historical societies. That is not how history is studied - one strives to understand history based on the cultural contexts of their period.

E.g. Prophet Muhammad didn't marry a 9 or 10 year old Ayesha because he liked to diddle young girls. During his time, puberty was treated as someone entering adulthood. While marriages may be arranged between pre-pubescent kids, it was only after they had reach puberty that they were allowed to consummate the marriage. Marriage to Ayesha was also political - Muhammad was actually forced to marry someone from every tribal leader's family as that was the diplomatic equivalent of establishing a political alliance during his time! (That is why he is an exception to the rule that a muslim can only have up to 4 wives). Note that even before Muhammad, Mary, mother of Christ, was considered eligible to be married to Joseph (an old man, past his middle-age) when she turned 12. She was still a teenager when she became pregnant ( https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12317/is-th... ) - is Christ's father / God a paedophile too? By today's modern standard, you would say yes, that's ephebophilia.

The nomenclature of "Child marriage" or even "teen marriage" is a modern cultural phenomenon because of the advancement we have made in understanding our own biology (i.e. reproductive systems) and our changing moral and cultural norms on the ideas of sexuality. Despite this, note that most of the world still can't agree on a universal age of consent or marriage. For example, Japan only recently raised the minimum age of consent for sex from 13 to 16 ( https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/83755/why-was-t..., while in some parts of the US, an adult can still marry a teenager with the consent of their parents ( https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/ )! My own grandparents were only 13 and 9 when they were married in the 1920's, a really common practice in India until the late 20th century, till it was made illegal and is nearly abolished now.

4. Some of you resort to judging other cultures by the worst members of their community. How would the west like it if only the Nazis were considered as their true representatives, and were solely judged based on their ideology?

[throwaway30213]

There is a certain irony in your comment written in English posted on July 11, the 2026th year of Our Lord (though not mine), according to the Gregorian calender (named after Pope Gregory XIII who issued the papal bull that ordained said calendar) at 08:34:41, Universal Standard Time (the local time in London, United Kingdom). And the fact that i am reading this comment in the weekend (the Christian and Jewish days of Sabbath) and replying in similar fashion, (which is mostly historically rooted in the fact that these customs and culture were originally imposed on my country, India by our conquerors, than because it won out in some nebulous contest in the marketplace of ideas)

[declan_roberts]

Ah yea, Christianity, famous for spreading around the Middle East via the sword.

[trhway]

>It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD.

it naturally looked differently due to different climate. For example there was booming agriculture in Carthage back then - modern Tunisia. The climate warming during the first millennia made Mediterranean Basin less grain-production and animal farming suitable while more suitable for the nomadic Arabs riding out of Arabia. That warming also made life more convenient (in particular conditions became much better for agriculture, the backbone of the civilization) in the previously cold and swampy Mid and North Europe where as a result we see the wave of rise of the civilization.

Coincidentally, we have Caliphates decline and Reconquista happening when the climate started to cool down toward the Little Ice Age. The map of Reconquista looks like a geographical climate regions map https://stuffedeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/what-was-... (compare to https://www.spanish-town-guides.com/photo/spain_climate_map....)

[gaiagraphia]

Islam has sure done a number on cultural diversity in the world.

It's such a shame that the various cultural holdouts in the Middle East never get much attention when they're systematically wiped off the map.

The Mandaeans in the marshes near Basra will probably be next to disappear into the sands of time. Not even a whisper in the media.

Oil sure has a way of drowning out 'human rights' in conversation.

[senderista]

Try reading about Kafiristan, where primitive Hinduism (think Rig Veda) survived for 3500 years before being wiped out in the 1890s by a British-appointed Islamic despot.

[gaiagraphia]

Always amazed me how the Kalash in Chitral Valley have managed to peacefully get on with things. I guess the terrain helps.

I always like to think how the region would've looked if all these remnants of peoples had thriving nations.

[senderista]

The Kalash are very similar genetically and culturally and are also facing cultural genocide by Islamists. Truly one of the most fascinating ethnic minorities extant.

[throwaway30213]

There is a certain irony in your comment written in English posted on July 11, the 2026th year of Our Lord (though not mine), according to the Gregorian calender (named after Pope Gregory XIII who issued the papal bull that ordained said calendar) at 03:42:12, Universal Standard Time (the local time in London, United Kingdom). And the fact that i am reading this comment in the weekend (the Christian and Jewish days of Sabbath) and replying in similar fashion, (which is mostly historically rooted in the fact that these customs and culture were originally imposed on my country, India by our conquerors, than because it won out in some nebulous contest in the marketplace of ideas)

[openuntil3am]

Christianity is no different.

[carlosjobim]

Christianity was very different, and the evidence for that is undeniable and gigantic. The fruits of diversity within christendom is offered in great treasure heaps within science, music, art, philosophy, theology, lifestyles, ways of worship, mysteries of the faith, and culture in general.

Christianity merged with local cultures, removing some aspects and adding some aspects.

[gaiagraphia]

I didn't claim otherwise. Thankfully Enlightenment values cleaned things up a little.

In the current day, I just find it very worrying when you line up a map of global conflicts and where Islam is thriving.

[throwa356262]

What about Ukraine, Venezuela, North Korea, Taiwan, Panama, Greenland, Congo, Mexico, El Salvador, ...

[throwaway30213]

How many of those global conflicts are being fuelled, driven or outright perpetrated by western countries?

[graemep]

Which Enlightenment values? Racism? Sexism? Colonialism?

[KaiserPro]

Translating the arabic texts of science (either copied and expanded from greek, latin and other places, or new research) and claiming that it was widom of the ancients?

[jsemrau]

Please educate yourself more on this. Step out of your bubble. Christian nations have created the cultural and technical achievements over the last thousands of years. There is nothing even remotely comparable.

[sdsdssweew213]

I wouldn't thank Christianity for the scientific advancements of the West, except maybe for protestant work ethic. Science only started to flourish when Catholic church started to lose power, and religion became a bit more separated from law and politics.

Best religion for progress of humanity is the one that embraces work, tells people to treat each other fairly, and otherwise keeps its hands off from irrelevant details of people's lives - things like what consenting adults do in bed, what they eat or drink, what they can or can't say.

Unfortunately Christians have been historically way too focused on the bad parts while ignoring the good parts, leading to madness like wars between Catholics and Protestants and discrimination of minorities. Think of the current conservative elite in America for example - it's hard to find people who are further away from teachings of Jesus Christ than those greedy, hateful idiots.

[throwaway30213]

More like the last 500 years. Before that the cultural and scientific centers of the world were variously in muslim, hindu, chinese, roman and other civilizations.

[disgruntledphd2]

And without the Muslims maintaining the Greek and Roman texts, that would've taken far longer. Even algebra and algorithm come from Muslim names.

[warumdarum]

Mostly enslaved yehudi and persian scholars..

[wqaatwt]

The Roman/Byzantine empire was pretty much destroyed by Muslims, though. Its a but like thanking the Franks/Goths/etc. for preserving Roman cultural identity in Western Europe by preserving some of their texts..

[disgruntledphd2]

> The Roman/Byzantine empire was pretty much destroyed by Muslims, though

This is hilariously untrue, if one is talking about the Western Roman empire. An islamic state did conquer Constantinople, which I presume is what you mean.

The Roman empire (western) basically fell apart due to infighting more than anything else.

[raffraffraff]

I love hearing the guys from The Rest Of History discuss this from their different perspectives!

[defrost]

The subject wasn't the creation of technology, it was the propensity of theocracies to beat the native out of natives.

eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06...

[Chu4eeno]

Isn't Canada a secular state? I think the grandparents point was to separate plain old xenophobia from religiously motivated erasure of culture.

[defrost]

The Vatican is a theocratic state, Catholic churches, schools, etc are effective theocracies.

There's a long list of questionable behaviour, eg. enslavement for Jesus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Jesuit_slave_sale

[conception]

Thousands of years… christian nations… educate yourself… hmm

[wqaatwt]

To be fair for the most part Christianity didn’t spread top down through violent conquest (obviously with some huge exceptions) at least in the Middle East and surrounding regions. Also it’s historically better at integrating local cultural practices and languages.

Unlike Islam which which usually wiped out local cultural and linguistic identities (during the periods of Arab conquests, that shifted quite a but later on of course)

[KaiserPro]

I'm Just looking at the rich indigenous culture and languages of the US and how widespread and celebrated it is.

thats why all the signs in downtown Manhattan are in Munsee....

[alfiedotwtf]

Did you just hand wave off the crusades?

And when you say “historically better at integrating local cultural practices”, India, China and Australia, would like a word with you. Holy shit you should just delete your account right now

[wqaatwt]

No, why would you say I did that? Also if everyone ever referencing any historical event ever would have to explicitly list and condemn every single thing they think was wrong it would become rather verbose and boring to read. Overall the crusaders were worse than some violent conquerors and better than others.

[Hikikomori]

Well the crusades, northern crusades and most of imperialism.

For the most part it's enough to conquer a place. People below the timing elite would switch religions as it would be beneficial for them, and eventually trickle down to peasants and such.

[wqaatwt]

> Crusades

Many of the regions they invaded were still (or until quite recently) majority Christian. After all initially it was a defensive relief expedition organized by the pope and the Byzantine emperor to free the territories the empire lost in Anatolia very recently. Of course it was massively more successful than anyone anticipated and they just kept on going and then the whole thing got “slightly” out of hand..

But yes, as I said there were some huge exceptions. However early on the way Christianity spread was fundamentally different to Islam. It was usually not through violent conquest but bottom up.

European imperialism was quite mixed as well. Christianity played a huge part in the Spanish conquests of the Americas. Much less so in British India and other similar places.

[Hikikomori]

Very peaceful when you convienently ignore all the violence.

Northern crusades were extremely bloody and defeated people would accept baptism or be executed.

Charlemange was more of the same deal.

Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?

Christian history is littered with these examples, it has not been a peaceful religion since it merged with Roman society. The only real good examples you could have are missionaries and top down conversion as kings and such voluntarily switched religions.

[tclancy]

Hang on a tick, who made the oil valuable and happily pays for it while turning a blind eye?

[flyinglizard]

It doesn't absolve those who commit the atrocities, even if there are externalities involved. It's not always the White Man's fault - neither in Africa nor the Middle East. We can and should hold the societies in those places to a certain global standard of conduct.

[MomsAVoxell]

Whose standard of conduct should the cultures you deem inferior be held to, exactly?

[flyinglizard]

That's an easy one - to the same standard we hold Israel. No more, no less.

[MomsAVoxell]

Hell no, that's ridiculous. Israel is a wholesale violator of human rights at massive scale, along with its criminal 5-eyes cronies, and it is in the midst of an imperialist genocide, murdering children every single day. If a state cannot defend itself against children, it is failed and should be refactored by its citizens, immediately and with haste.

We also strike the USA off the list, which cannot even take care of its peoples' most basic needs.

Switzerland. The answer you're looking for, is Switzerland. /s

[MomsAVoxell]

>Islam has sure done a number on cultural diversity in the world.

So has Christianity and Capitalism.

[fragmede]

And then there's math.

[MomsAVoxell]

Yes, that's definitely done a few numbers.

[miroljub]

Whataboutism

[MomsAVoxell]

No, "so-has'ism". Not whataboutism.

[dismalaf]

Not just Islamic conquest but Arab conquest. Up to this point Arabs lived mainly in, well, Arabia. The indigenous peoples of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc..., were all non-Arab. Nowadays those indigenous groups are known as Copts, Syriacs, Chaldeans, etc...

[einpoklum]

Local populations adopted Arabic. Somewhat like, several centuries earlier, they adopted Greek; and elsewhere and at other times, Latin. The peoples of the regions were not replaced by Greek or Roman colonists.

[senderista]

We call Arabic speakers “Arabs” but there wasn’t that much genetic replacement.

[dismalaf]

85% of Egyptians have some Arab DNA. Only 15% don't have Arab DNA.

Even if the amount of DNA only adds up to 20% of their mix (the average), it's still very significant.

[senderista]

Black Americans have on average 20-25% European ancestry but we don’t call them “Europeans”.

[gaiagraphia]

Isn't this fuelling the conflict in Darfur? UAE-backed Arabs trying to muscle out the Africans?

[throwaway30213]

And indigenous groups in France (just to use an example) are called Occitans, Bretons, Catalonians, Flemish, Alsatians, Corsicans, etc., etc. This isn't a unique phenomenon.

[dismalaf]

Flemish, Alsatians and Corsicans are literally Dutch, German and Italian, who are just part of France due to recent history. Occitans and Catalans are near Spain.

Bretons are Celts just like Gauls, whom you missed. You also missed other Celtic groups. And they (Celts) were the majority before invasions, still the majority.

Indigenous doesn't mean minority, it means the original inhabitants.

[taeric]

Legitimate question, in the early days was this a large distinction? Specifically, my understanding was that the earliest raids where this distinction is most accurate, they didn't actually change the local societies much. Mostly were raids for resources and did not stay.

That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?

[thaumasiotes]

Well, the distinction mattered. But because the distinction mattered, the modern labels aren't really accurate.

Arabs were the highest-prestige ethnicity within their empire. But they were numerically insignificant. You have "Arabs" and "Copts" in Egypt today, but most of the "Arabs" are Copts whose ancestors decided they wanted more respect. Same thing is true farther west, where the "Arabs" are Berbers.

[taeric]

That isn't really addressing my question, I don't think? The assertion is that most of the Arab mixing into region came at the same time as the later invasions. Yes, they would have remained fewer in absolute numbers. But they weren't even there after the earlier raids.

[soperj]

You had one group of people who believed in God that were completely wiped out by another who also believed in the same God.

[yowo]

Completely wiped out? Christian copts were the majority for more than a century after Egypt became under Islamic rule, the shift took centuries of immigration and fertility rate changes. Many churches still stands in Egypt where they were before Islamic rule.

The copts themselves welcomed Islamic conquest as Muslims gave them more rights than previous rulers.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/From-the-Islamic-conq...

You are attempt to disguise your hate as history is a failure.

[stogot]

I’m not OP but to say Your article is incomplete and washed. It makes no mention of the jizya, Janissary, of slavery, persecution, or rape. Read a history book written by a copt like Sword & Scimitar and then look at the references. He references the Muslim sources themselves. Determine the truth from that. The west keeps washing the truth

[Chu4eeno]

Two, don't forget the jews.

[madspindel]

Allahu akbar = (Our) God is greater

It's true that Islam is a Christian heresy but to be fair, Islam tries to be it's own State Religion only for the Arabs. So in that sense it's not the same God since they don't believe in the Trinity.

[alfiedotwtf]

Fun fact - not every Christian sect believes in the trinity.

Another fun fact, the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same… it’s just that the Jewish God didn’t have a son who was also himself that killed himself only to resurrect himself negating the sacrifice

[asabil]

Incorrect translation, Allahu Akbar means “the god is the greatest”

Allah is not a name that came with Islam but existed before, it just means deity. the Al prefix is the definite singular form. It just says one thing: god is a singleton and nothing is above it.

[madspindel]

No, the correct translation is "God is greater". And it was used as a war chant against Christians.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKCx0JHzPs2/

[thisislife2]

When Indian army regiments, with predominantly Sikh soldiers, fight any army, they rally themselves for battle with cries of "Wahe Guru ki Khalsa, Wahe Guru ki Fatah" (which roughly translates to "[We] the pure are of the almighty, and the triumph in making is also of the almighty). Pakistani army, predominantly Muslim soldiers, do use the rallying cry of "Allahu Akbar". It's debatable whether these chants are meant more for themselves, than directed at their "enemies".