American Reacts Muslim Conquests: Eastern Roman Perspective

[@nosmokejazwinski6297]

A little correction, Muhammad to Islam is not what Jesus is to Christianity. Rather, Muhammad to Islam is what Jesus is to Islam. Both men are seen as prophets in Islam and Islam makes no distinction between them. Whereas in Christianity Jesus is seen as part of the trinity and thus also as god himself.

[@onemoreminute0543]

3:44 More modern scholarship seems to dispute the claim that these Christian minorities greeted Arab Muslim rule as a 'lesser evil'. In fact, by the time of the Arab conquests, relations between these minorities and Constantinople had actually improved due to a theological compromise known as 'Monotheletism' being introduced (which ironically caused more issues with western Christians than those in the Middle East) For many of these Christian minorities, they weren't all that enthusiastic towards the Arabs due to the fact that they were seen as 'godless' (non-Christian) foreign invaders who in some cases caused much bloodshed. They also disliked being treated as second class citizens by the Arabs via the 'jizya' system, where Christians and Jews had to pay a special tax to the authorities. Even if they converted to Islam, many of them still faced restrictions due to the early Caliphates bias against non-Arab Muslims and their desire to gain more revenues from the jizya. The situation only improved for these Christians after 750, when the new Abbasid Caliphate opened up the establishment to them.

[@austinlondon3710]

Connar, the problem with this video, is that they constantly refer to ‘Hebrews’ as “Jews”. Hebrews and Jews are NOT the same people. Hebrews are the descendants of those North African Slave, who migrated to Canaan with Moses in 1050 BC; Jews are the descendant of the Khazars from Central Asia (western modern-day Iran), who were forced to convert to Talmud Hebrew Laws based on Moses ‘Ten Commandment’ in the mid-9th century AD. In fact, the name “Jews” was invented by the English theologian, John Wickliffe who first used the name in his English translation of the Bible, in 1326 AD, as a shorthand term to refer to the population of Judea and Samaria. His reference was to the geographical population, not the religion. The European Khazars, starting using the name “Jews” to refer to themselves from that time to now.

[@arthurfilipe7380]

Wrong

[@austinlondon3710]

@@arthurfilipe7380 NO YOU are WRONG!! Jews are NOT Hebrews! That why "Jews" are "Jews", and 'Hebrews' are 'Hebrews'. They are two separate people. Jews are the descendants of 9th Century CONVERTS to Talmud Hebrew Laws - the European Khazars.

[@onemoreminute0543]

1:08 With the First Crusade, it's somewhat complex as both the Byzantines and Crusaders had different goals. The Byzantines wanted to use the Crusaders as a mercenary army of sorts to help them reclaim Anatolia and the city of Antioch from the Seljuk Turks, which had recently been lost to the nomads. The Crusaders wanted to go beyond these goals to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims and in the process set up their own feudal states in the Levant. Such a military expedition would allow for Christians in Europe to stop fighting each other and unite against a common enemy, grant lands to agressively expanding feudal lords such as the Normans, secure the road to the Holy Land for pilgrims, and demonstrate the power of the Catholic Church. These goals of the Byzantines and Crusaders thus often conflicted during the course of the Crusade, such as when the latter captured Antioch and refused to hand it back to the Byzantines. But all in all, despite much tension, the goals of both sides were... MOSTLY achieved by the end of the campaign (to varying to degrees of success)

[@Lottaquizzes]

I think you’re right about religion being a unifier and a powerful tool in war, especially if the soldiers believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife, that God is on their side.

[@Janie_Morrison]

I love to hear you talking because you're very sensible what you talk about

[@playerunknown8976]

Dude it's been years since you did early Muslim expansion season 1

[@SSMasseus]

Next watch islamic expansion series then to mongol chinese war with muslim not only romans same with.

[@YQKjack]

map men just posted

[@anacasanova7350]

Tanto el cristianismo como el islamismo tiene diferencias. No son unitarias. Hay muchos tipos de cristianismo y de islamismo. Lo cual lo complica más.😊

[@NeyGeneral]

W Video 🎉

[@billdoor3140]

All I know is for some reason I'm no longer allowed to say I don't believe "God" would tell a 50 year old man to get it on with a 6 year old....

[@c_n_b]

Yes you are. Don't believe all the scare mongering. It's not "hateful" to question a religion.

[@spruce381]

Don’t think any religion advocates 6, 9 yes. One lie we were told from the 60s on is that all cultures are valid and should be respected - bollox - FGM, clerical abuse and repression of women is not cool.

[@nosmokejazwinski6297]

Except that this isn’t the case to begin with. Her age is a matter of dispute among Muslim scholars, according to one argument she was 9 at the time of marriage (marriage was only arranged when she was 6 which was a common practice in history to arrange marriages before they happen), according to another argument she was around 18. Either way it doesn’t matter as age of consent as we know today is subjective to our own time and culture, historically this wasn’t the case. It’s also something completely made up and there is nothing objective about modern age of consent, it’s an arbitrary number some people agreed upon and imposed on others. The only objective way to asses what the appropriate age of marriage would be is by looking at human biology. Biologically, your body is telling you that you’re ready for reproduction when you hit puberty, and Aisha got married after she hit puberty so their marriage was perfectly fine whether you like it or not. The only argument you have against it is based upon the fallacy of presentism and made up age of consent which isn’t based upon anything objective, it’s an arbitrary number.

[@billdoor3140]

​@nosmokejazwinski6297 why do you NEED to lie mate? It's ONLY been "disputed" in very recent times due to justified criticism...I would happily Qoute you MANY verses but unfortunately it won't be allowed on here...STOP LYING

[@billdoor3140]

​@@nosmokejazwinski6297oh and BTW as your defending the use of a SIX year old as "subjective" why didn't "GOD" explain it was wrong? "GOD" is apparently the one who told him to marry her...STOP LYING...

[@sovereigns757]

You seem like a nice guy and all that, but you really should educate yourself a bit more regarding matters that you are going to comment on. But hey, we're all here to learn more I suppose.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

Islam spread fast because it spread by the sword. Yet it is their territory that spread fast. Even then, it took a long time for conquered people to convert.

[@animalchin5082]

As opposed to Christianity that spread through the sword and forced baptisms? The early Frankish empire for example had to contest with tons of revolts from their subjects that it turned to Catholicism.

[@nosmokejazwinski6297]

That’s factually wrong. Islamic rule spread fast by the sword, but the religion itself didn’t. The largest Muslim majority country in the world (in terms of population) is Indonesia which was never conquered by any caliphate.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@@nosmokejazwinski6297 Yet islamic history in Indonesia is extremely bloody

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@animalchin5082 In fact, no. Christianity didn't spread by the sword. A revolt is not "Conversion to islam, payment of the jyzia or death".

[@thedstorm8922]

​​@@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE Yes it pretty much did It was spread by the sword across 4 continents including Europe It was either convert or die

[@mango2005]

Kings and Generals is very good. Regarding the Byzantines request for help from the West, that was around 1091 by Alexius I. But by then the situation was much worse, with Anatolia (Asian part of Turkey) having been lost. The Albigensian crusade was a crusade against the Cathars in southwestern France. The Armenian Church is Monophysite (believing in Christ only having one, divine nature, not two natures divine and human which is the view of the Catholic, Orthodox and nearly all Protestant churches) and this led to persecution by the Byzantines. This was still an issue even in the 11th century, with similar results after Armenia had been recovered and then lost again. Also, Catholicism and Orthodoxy were the same church until 1054, but there were disputes over jurisdiction between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Coptic Church is Miaphysite (Christ having one nature that is both divine and human) though there were some Monophysites there too in the 7th century. Im less familiar with Nestorianism but I think it objected to calling Mary "Mother of God".

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

Religion is culture. A society without religion is a society without culture.

[@animalchin5082]

Religion is part of culture as much as food, entertainment and other aspects of daily life like living space and societal hierarchy. A society without religion still has secular culture.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@@animalchin5082 There is no such thing as secular culture.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@animalchin5082 There is neither a society without religion. All societies either have The Religion, or a form of idolatry. And they are guided by idolatry. And the entire society revolves around this idolatry and the worship of the sin it brings forth. So, partaking is such "secular culture" is nothing more than practicing another form of worship. Not of God, but of the World.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

Islam is not an abrahamic religion.

[@animalchin5082]

It is

[@nosmokejazwinski6297]

Islam is the only abrahamic religion. Abraham predates Judaism which means he cannot be a Jew. He also predates Christianity which means he cannot be a Christian. The word “Islam” means submission to the will of God, “Muslim” means “the one who submits to the will of God”. Abraham did indeed submit to the will of God which makes him a Muslim by definition.

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@nosmokejazwinski6297 what is the name of the God of Abraham?

[@thedstorm8922]

​@@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE Allah

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@thedstorm8922 allah is a generic term meaning the god. Like elohim. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob has a Divine Name. The God of Moses told Him they would recognize the true God trough His true name. Most of the prophets, until Isa have theophoric names. So I ask you, what is Isa's name in hebrew?