Saudi Arabian student killed in Colchester attack named by police

[Solis]

You're talking about violent acts on religious basis, crusades are the Christian equivalent.

Well golly, if Crusades are the Christian equivalent of, say, the Ottoman empire, then certainly Christianity seems to be more benevolent than Islam is. Just compare the Crusades vis-a-vis Ottoman expansionism throughout Eastern Europe and Africa; slave raiding of European Christians in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and of blacks on the Horn of Africa, plus the Armenian/Greek genocide of the 20th century. Just off the top of my head.

Just like the modern colonization of the whole world from approx 1898 onwards which usually went together with wiping out the natives.

I frankly don't even know what you're talking about here.

If you like to talk about Petar's Balkan ancestors, the 90ies Balkan war was started and waged by Orthodox Christians.

Indeed, a lot of innocent people from both sides died in those wars.

If you like to place islam in such a bad light, you might take religion as a whole with you in order to sound less biased, friend.

I'm surprised you'd accuse me of being biased when I responded to another poster (Rami) who was even more biased than myself, and not even sticking to factual history.

I'm certainly biased, but it's just a fact that Islam has screwed a lot of people throughout History. But whatever, keep pointing fingers at others and saying "you're bad too" if it makes you feel better.

[Borus]

Well golly, if Crusades are the Christian equivalent of, say, the Ottoman empire, then certainly Christianity seems to be more benevolent than Islam is. Just compare the Crusades vis-a-vis Ottoman expansionism throughout Eastern Europe and Africa; slave raiding of European Christians in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and of blacks on the Horn of Africa, plus the Armenian/Greek genocide of the 20th century. Just off the top of my head.

Funny thing is that I don't even have to cherrypick Christian violence as the most obvious example here would be the killing of heretics and those who denied Christianity within Christian-dominated state boundaries. While you speak of expansionism, lets mention the crusades yet again, which had exactly the same goals (killing & conquering those who are non-Christian), unless you believe in the pope's Godly call to slaughter others for believing the 'wrong' religion of course . But hey you want some good examples? How about, without mentioning the crusades again , the Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive conflicts in European history (estimated death toll at approx. 11 million).

slave raiding of European Christians

Nothing Columbus and his gang didn't do, right? But then with the natives.

I frankly don't even know what you're talking about here.

No one stops you from looking it up.

I'm certainly biased, but it's just a fact that Islam has screwed a lot of people throughout History. But whatever, keep pointing fingers at others and saying "you're bad too" if it makes you feel better.

Funny thing is that you are implying I'm pointing fingers while it seems to me that you're the one having trouble accepting the death toll the Christian religion has brought upon the world as well and refuse to look at it both ways.

[Solis]

Funny thing is that I don't even have to cherrypick Christian violence as the most obvious example here would be the killing of heretics and those who denied Christianity within Christian-dominated state boundaries.

Yes, you're not cherry-picking, you're just bringing the most cliché examples which have been brought over a thousand times before, while again failing to see the obvious difference in the magnitude of the people killed. It's just like the people who cite the Spanish Inquisition, as if it was one of the most heinous crimes in History, not knowing only 2% were executed. Same for the witch hunts, maximum estimates of the number killed is around 50,000.

I'm sure you realize why, going by death toll alone, it wasn't as malign, specially considering it occurred over the course of centuries.

While you speak of expansionism, lets mention the crusades yet again, which had exactly the same goals (killing & conquering those who are non-Christian), unless you believe in the pope's Godly call to slaughter others for believing the 'wrong' religion of course .

The Crusades waged around the Baltic/German region against the pagans living there was actual religious expansionism. The Crusades waged in the eastern Mediterranean, the ones most people know, weren't. It was a call to restore access to the Holy Land and a safe passage for Christian pilgrims, and the individual actors that killed civilians (oddly enough, most were Christians and Jews, not Muslims) were perpetually criticized and excommunicated by the Papacy.

As is usual, when talking about the Crusades, most people conveniently ignore the Islamic expansionism taking place in the Levant/Anatolia against the Byzantine empire. If it wasn't for the Muslim aggression, the Crusades wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

Nothing Columbus and his gang didn't do, right? But then with the natives.

I guess you believe the black legend circulating about Columbus in recent years, most of which is exaggerated and, surprisingly, just relegated to the Anglophone world. But go on, tell me how many did he and his gang enslaved.

No one stops you from looking it up.

I'm well aware of a good deal of what happened in the 20th century when it comes to death tolls, and I don't know what you mean or why would you pick that year.

Funny thing is that you are implying I'm pointing fingers while it seems to me that you're the one having trouble accepting the death toll the Christian religion has brought upon the world as well and refuse to look at it both ways.

Have you not seen the paragraphs where I accept that Christians killed people too? Besides, why should I have to look at it both ways? This topic was centered around Muslims and hate crimes, not Christianity.

I'm not a Christian and haven't been for over five years. Of course Christianity has killed a lot of people, just not as many as Islam has. I'm surprised Muslims always have to derail these kinds of arguments by pointing fingers at Christianity, as if only Christians were capable of disliking what Islam has done around the world.

Nevertheless I still felt the need to correct common myths like the one about the Crusades or the witch hunts. Continue talking about Christianity as if it exonerates Islam.

[Vincent_Corleone]

What about Lee Rigby, then? Huh? He got stabbed to death during the day on a busy street in UK just because he was a soldier.

If they want to live in UK, they should to live by UK laws, they should to respect the English, Irish, Welsh and Scotish culture, and last but not least, if muslims want to eat in Europe, they should to leave the burqa back in the 3world countries where it actually belongs.

[Borus]

Yes, you're not cherry-picking, you're just bringing the most cliché examples which have been brought over a thousand times before, while again failing to see the obvious difference in the magnitude of the people killed. It's just like the people who cite the Spanish Inquisition, as if it was one of the most heinous crimes in History, not knowing only 2% were executed. Same for the witch hunts, maximum estimates of the number killed is around 50,000.

>gives clichés
>doesn't like cliché replies

I'm sure you realize why, going by death toll alone, it wasn't as malign, specially considering it occurred over the course of centuries.

The Ottoman expansion didn't happen in a year either.

The Crusades waged around the Baltic/German region against the pagans living there was actual religious expansionism. The Crusades waged in the eastern Mediterranean, the ones most people know, weren't. It was a call to restore access to the Holy Land and a safe passage for Christian pilgrims, and the individual actors that killed civilians (oddly enough, most were Christians and Jews, not Muslims) were perpetually criticized and excommunicated by the Papacy.

The Pope literally proclaimed a war-campaign. How is this a matter of Christianity vs. Islam as I'm pointing out that it caused death just like the expansion of the Ottoman empire did, which you both thankfully already explained.

As is usual, when talking about the Crusades, most people conveniently ignore the Islamic expansionism taking place in the Levant/Anatolia against the Byzantine empire. If it wasn't for the Muslim aggression, the Crusades wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

But then you should blame the Byzantine Empire for conquering as well, as well as all the empires and lands that exist to this date. Everything has been conquered by violence, thus I again fail to understand why you clinch to the Ottoman empire only.

I guess you believe the black legend circulating about Columbus in recent years, most of which is exaggerated and, surprisingly, just relegated to the Anglophone world. But go on, tell me how many did he and his gang enslaved.

I'm well aware of a good deal of what happened in the 20th century when it comes to death tolls, and I don't know what you mean or why would you pick that year.

Columbus was an example, an example of a proclaimed 'hero', who wiped out an entire nation of natives for the white and Christian people (just like the Portuguese and the English colonies), and many years later, leading up to the slave trade.

Have you not seen the paragraphs where I accept that Christians killed people too? Besides, why should I have to look at it both ways? This topic was centered around Muslims and hate crimes, not Christianity.

I did, but you continue on bringing Islam as the big evil empire of destruction and death, ignoring everything else.

I'm not a Christian and haven't been for over five years. Of course Christianity has killed a lot of people, just not as many as Islam has.

Now for that, I'll need some numbers and their sources.

I'm surprised Muslims always have to derail these kinds of arguments by pointing fingers at Christianity, as if only Christians were capable of disliking what Islam has done around the world.

Nevertheless I still felt the need to correct common myths like the one about the Crusades or the witch hunts. Continue talking about Christianity as if it exonerates Islam.

I'm not muslim, nor am I attempting to defend Islam and point fingers. I'm pointing out your Islamophobia. Look around you, everything is build by blood. Focusing on one thing, blaming it for all evil and cherrypicking is exactly the finger pointing you seem to dislike, but which you ironically are doing.

[Solis]

>gives clichés
>doesn't like cliché replies

>Using meme arrows anywhere else than 4chan
>Doesn't even know what cliché means

The Ottoman expansion didn't happen in a year either.

Yet it did cause more deaths in those centuries than the witch-hunt and Spanish inquisition did with its 50,000-60,000.

But then you should blame the Byzantine Empire for conquering as well, as well as all the empires and lands that exist to this date. Everything has been conquered by violence, thus I again fail to understand why you clinch to the Ottoman empire only.

Really? That's your argument again? Forgetting for a moment the fact that the Byzantine empire inherited a lot of its land from the defunct Roman empire, we're once again talking about Islam while you try to avoid it.

I'm only "clinging" to the Ottoman empire because that's what was brought up. Of course, I can also talk about other Islamic empires that happened across History.

Columbus was an example, an example of a proclaimed 'hero', who wiped out an entire nation of natives for the white and Christian people (just like the Portuguese and the English colonies), and many years later, leading up to the slave trade.

Just like Muhammad is also considered a proclaimed 'hero', huh. Unbeknownst, of course, most of the native Americans died from introduced diseases and not war or other anthropological causes.

I did, but you continue on bringing Islam as the big evil empire of destruction and death, ignoring everything else.

I also believe that the Mongol conquests and Japanese imperialism in WW2 are examples of other empires that brought destruction and death. But, as it's been said countless times, the talk here is about Islam.

Now for that, I'll need some numbers and their sources.

I'll just put two examples: the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Arab slave trade. One was done by Christians, the other by Muslims. The first enslaved around 12 million Africans, the other 18 million. The latter was done over a larger period (about a millennium versus three centuries) and was abolished way after the Atlantic slave trade was. You can easily find this on the first page of Google.

I won't be arsed to put more numbers and sources since you haven't done anything like that despite my requests.

I'm not muslim, nor am I attempting to defend Islam and point fingers. I'm pointing out your Islamophobia. Look around you, everything is build by blood. Focusing on one thing, blaming it for all evil and cherrypicking is exactly the finger pointing you seem to dislike, but which you ironically are doing.

About time you used that buzzword! Because, of course, criticizing the bad aspects of Islam is Islamophobia. Ironically, what you been doing here is precisely the same. "Christophobia" or something, I guess? Never have I said Islam is responsible for all evil, and what I've done so far is not cherry-picking at all. The problem here is not what wasn't built by blood, but how much blood has been shed.

[Borus]

>Using meme arrows anywhere else than 4chan
>Doesn't even know what cliché means

>using the term meme arrows unironically
>using them yourself
>implying I don't know what a cliché means

Yet it did cause more deaths in those centuries than the witch-hunt and Spanish inquisition did with its 50,000-60,000.

the Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive conflicts in European history (estimated death toll at approx. 11 million).

Really? That's your argument again? Forgetting for a moment the fact that the Byzantine empire inherited a lot of its land from the defunct Roman empire, we're once again talking about Islam while you try to avoid it.

Actually, you're avoiding to accept that many empires before the Ottoman empire have caused millions of death due expansionism as well, yet keep repeating your argument of 'this is a topic about Islam'. I simply asked to you explain the actions of deaths caused by Christian nations, because I am 100% sure you could use the same explanation for the Ottoman Empire, meaning you'd present yourself with an answer. Instead, you continued to clinch onto the bad and evil Islam.

I'm only "clinging" to the Ottoman empire because that's what was brought up. Of course, I can also talk about other Islamic empires that happened across History.

Wait, are you saying the Ottoman empire expanded solely on religious basis?

Just like Muhammad is also considered a proclaimed 'hero', huh. Unbeknownst, of course, most of the native Americans died from introduced diseases and not war or other anthropological causes.

You are comparing a godly prophet with a historical person, not really a valuable comparison. Are you also implying all the natives were wiped out only by disease and not due Western warfare overpowering the technologically disadvantaged natives, and that the only thing the colonizers wanted to bring is sophistication to the poor savaged people? Because from what I heard, they wanted to find India through another route to find prosperous recourses, which usually went together with extensive wiping out of the natives and enslaving the rest for workforce.

I also believe that the Mongol conquests and Japanese imperialism in WW2 are examples of other empires that brought destruction and death. But, as it's been said countless times, the talk here is about Islam.

And why did they bring destruction and death? If you can answer this in general terms, you'll have your answer for the big bad Ottoman Empire.

I'll just put two examples: the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Arab slave trade. One was done by Christians, the other by Muslims. The first enslaved around 12 million Africans, the other 18 million. The latter was done over a larger period (about a millennium versus three centuries) and was abolished way after the Atlantic slave trade was. You can easily find this on the first page of Google.

Even though you refused to provide sources, I'll bite anyway; what value did this part bring to your argument really? Assuming these are correct numbers for both, does this mean the Arabs are 'more' evil because they had a bigger death toll to you? If so, provide the total number of deaths caused by Christian states as well (including Nazi Germany), to compare it with the total number of deaths caused by Islamic states.

I won't be arsed to put more numbers and sources since you haven't done anything like that despite my requests.

Um no, you didn't really request anything as from what I recall.

About time you used that buzzword! Because, of course, criticizing the bad aspects of Islam is Islamophobia. Ironically, what you been doing here is precisely the same. "Christophobia" or something, I guess? Never have I said Islam is responsible for all evil, and what I've done so far is not cherry-picking at all. The problem here is not what wasn't built by blood, but how much blood has been shed.

I didn't give you that 'buzzword' because of your criticism. I gave it to you because you fail, or refuse, to look at it in different ways, where the actual answer lies. I assumed you did that on purpose with the only goal to demonize Islam, at which point that word would be fitting. Calling it a buzzword and marking me something I am not, or believe I'm not, is in my opinion pretty childish. Didn't really expect something like that from you, Solis. What you do is exactly cherry-picking, because you're mentioning a state that caused death which had the Islam as its global religion, but like I said before, fail to say the same about other states of different religion. I keep hearing you are implying Islam has caused more bloodshed,  well then bring the sources, and I can bring mine, and we'll be able to compare. If not, I'll end this conversation for it being pointless, friend.

[Solis]

the Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive conflicts in European history (estimated death toll at approx. 11 million).

If you followed the conversation you'd know you were talking about the Crusades compared to the Ottoman empire. Still, I'll grant you your goalpost-moving, and have nothing to say about that war except your estimate is above the average estimates of 7-8 million.

Actually, you're avoiding to accept that many empires before the Ottoman empire have caused millions of death due expansionism as well, yet keep repeating your argument of 'this is a topic about Islam'. I simply asked to you explain the actions of deaths caused by Christian nations, because I am 100% sure you could use the same explanation for the Ottoman Empire, meaning you'd present yourself with an answer. Instead, you continued to clinch onto the bad and evil Islam.

I've been reading about this aspect of History (the number of deaths humans have inflicted on each other) for several months now, so I'm probably the last person you should accuse of avoiding to accept the killings other empires have done too. Not trying to show off, it just needs to be said. Yes, multiple empires have also killed millions of people. I have known this for years, I accept it. And? This is about Islam in the first place, not Christianity or Hinduism or anything else. Besides, I don't know what were you trying to say with "actions of deaths".

Wait, are you saying the Ottoman empire expanded solely on religious basis?

No. It likely was a major reason, but never did I say or even hinted it was the sole reason, you should ask yourself how did you even read it that way.

You are comparing a godly prophet with a historical person, not really a valuable comparison.

You were calling Columbus a proclaimed 'hero' that's supposedly loved by the masses, so I brought Muhammad who also is.

Are you also implying all the natives were wiped out only by disease and not due Western warfare overpowering the technologically disadvantaged natives, and that the only thing the colonizers wanted to bring is sophistication to the poor savaged people?

*Sigh* The quote clearly says, "*most* of the native Americans died from introduced diseases and not war or other anthropological causes." The second part of your sentence was not written or implied by me anywhere in this thread.

Because from what I heard, they wanted to find India through another route to find prosperous recourses, which usually went together with extensive wiping out of the natives and enslaving the rest for workforce.

Actually, no, Columbus was thinking about going to the East Indies in order to resume trade with China and India. It's been said he actually planned to land in Japan. How opportunistic that we're talking about the Ottoman empire and Columbus, since it was the Islamic aggression in the Mediterranean (by the Ottomans and their lackeys in North Africa) and embargoing that forced southern European nations to find other routes to continue the trading with the East along the millennial Silk Road.

And why did they bring destruction and death? If you can answer this in general terms, you'll have your answer for the big bad Ottoman Empire.

In order to conquer the territories and subjugate its inhabitants. With the Muslims, of course, it was usually in the name of Allah and the religion of peace.

Even though you refused to provide sources, I'll bite anyway; what value did this part bring to your argument really? Assuming these are correct numbers for both, does this mean the Arabs are 'more' evil because they had a bigger death toll to you? If so, provide the total number of deaths caused by Christian states as well (including Nazi Germany), to compare it with the total number of deaths caused by Islamic states.

That's like comparing apples to oranges. Not because Nazi Germany had little to do with Christianity, but because it's hard to estimate how many died in the initial Muslim conquests, in the Timurid conquests, or the conquests of the Indian subcontinent, only thing certain is that millions did die. Comparing it to WW2 that killed a lot and where it was possible to predict how many died, will only shift the death toll against Christian countries.

Um no, you didn't really request anything as from what I recall.

I guess you believe the black legend circulating about Columbus in recent years, most of which is exaggerated and, surprisingly, just relegated to the Anglophone world. But go on, tell me how many did he and his gang enslaved.

I'm well aware of a good deal of what happened in the 20th century when it comes to death tolls, and I don't know what you mean or why would you pick that year.

I didn't give you that 'buzzword' because of your criticism. I gave it to you because you fail, or refuse, to look at it in different ways, where the actual answer lies. I assumed you did that on purpose with the only goal to demonize Islam, at which point that word would be fitting. Calling it a buzzword and marking me something I am not, or believe I'm not, is in my opinion pretty childish. Didn't really expect something like that from you, Solis. What you do is exactly cherry-picking, because you're mentioning a state that caused death which had the Islam as its global religion, but like I said before, fail to say the same about other states of different religion. I keep hearing you are implying Islam has caused more bloodshed,  well then bring the sources, and I can bring mine, and we'll be able to compare. If not, I'll end this conversation for it being pointless, friend.

And what is the actual answer? That other empires also killed people? Yes, that isn't the point though. Islam already does a fine job of demonizing itself. "Islamophobia" has become a trendy word, thus it's a buzzword. Nothing childish about this. And no, what I'm doing isn't actually cherry-picking. For it to be I would have to pick only the data that supports my bias, which I haven't done, since I'm aware and have accepted other people have also killed people.

The only one who "fails to say the same about other states of different religion" is you. I have talked about Christians waging war against the pagan Baltic, Japanese waging war on East Asia and Mongols waging war on everyone else. You haven't talked about anyone that wasn't European and Christian, even after I said I wasn't Christian, suggesting me you have some weird complex about them.

"I'll end this conversation for it being pointless". I'll end it for you. The conversation is only stirring in circles and away from the original thread. You're already losing track of what's being discussed and are even starting to hear things I didn't say. Let's just agree to disagree.

[JDC]

Can't we have any sensible discussion-worthy news topic in this board without people pointing fingers at and insulting each other like a bunch of immature elementary school kids?

Religion in general is a system of control by powerful men with an agenda, meant to keep the populace submissive. What better opium to keep the masses content than the promise of paradise after death?

That being said, some of you in this board should remember that you can actually discuss ideas without filling your posts with insults.

[Borus]

If you followed the conversation you'd know you were talking about the Crusades compared to the Ottoman empire.

The only reason I ever mentioned the Crusades was as an example of violence by another religion but the Islam.

I've been reading about this aspect of History (the number of deaths humans have inflicted on each other) for several months now, so I'm probably the last person you should accuse of avoiding to accept the killings other empires have done too. Not trying to show off, it just needs to be said. Yes, multiple empires have also killed millions of people. I have known this for years, I accept it. And? This is about Islam in the first place, not Christianity or Hinduism or anything else. Besides, I don't know what were you trying to say with "actions of deaths".

Well then that's sort of my point. I never denied Ottoman agression. I simply pointed out that it's been done everywhere else as it seemed to me you, as well as Petar, liked to clinch to the Ottoman Empire theme and accuse it of being all evil of the world, together with Islam. That's how I interpreted your reaction.

No. It likely was a major reason, but never did I say or even hinted it was the sole reason, you should ask yourself how did you even read it that way.

Reason I asked this is because you kept refering to the term 'Islam' rather than 'Ottoman'.

You were calling Columbus a proclaimed 'hero' that's supposedly loved by the masses, so I brought Muhammad who also is.

But that's like one and probably only common aspect they have, which wasn't really my point in that post anyways.

*Sigh* The quote clearly says, "*most* of the native Americans died from introduced diseases and not war or other anthropological causes." The second part of your sentence was not written or implied by me anywhere in this thread.

It seemed to me you implied natives mainly died because of diseases, in order to put the colonizers in a brighter light, whereas it basically just easened the process of the 'war' against the natives. It would end the same either way, the diseases just 'aided' that process.

Actually, no, Columbus was thinking about going to the East Indies in order to resume trade with China and India. It's been said he actually planned to land in Japan. How opportunistic that we're talking about the Ottoman empire and Columbus, since it was the Islamic aggression in the Mediterranean (by the Ottomans and their lackeys in North Africa) and embargoing that forced southern European nations to find other routes to continue the trading with the East along the millennial Silk Road.

And all of this, in the end, comes to the making of wealth, which is sort of my point yet again. Empires existed due violence, used because of the hunger for power (money & wealth is a part of this). Columbus & co. were driven for same reasons.

In order to conquer the territories and subjugate its inhabitants. With the Muslims, of course, it was usually in the name of Allah and the religion of peace.

The first part is your answer. The second part is more of a subject of looking at the misuser (Ottoman empire), and not the misused (Islam) really. People didn't die because of 'Islam', they died because people misused Islam. Just like Christianity was misused multiple times for the killing of others, and several other religions undoubtfully.

That's like comparing apples to oranges. Not because Nazi Germany had little to do with Christianity, but because it's hard to estimate how many died in the initial Muslim conquests, in the Timurid conquests, or the conquests of the Indian subcontinent, only thing certain is that millions did die. Comparing it to WW2 that killed a lot and where it was possible to predict how many died, will only shift the death toll against Christian countries.

Again, Nazi Germany was only an example. And yes, they actually did act, or atleast partly, under religious motivation. And now, you have basically proven my other point as well. It's pretty useless to compare deaths, and who killed more, because that's as good as impossible. Besides that, it really doesn't show anything, which is why I requested 'numbers' because you said, or implied, you knew that 'Islamic' states have caused more deaths.

And what is the actual answer? That other empires also killed people? Yes, that isn't the point though. Islam already does a fine job of demonizing itself. "Islamophobia" has become a trendy word, thus it's a buzzword. Nothing childish about this. And no, what I'm doing isn't actually cherry-picking. For it to be I would have to pick only the data that supports my bias, which I haven't done, since I'm aware and have accepted other people have also killed people.

This might've not been 'the' point for you, but that was 'my' point from the moment I mentioned the Crusades. "Islam demonizing itself" is an incorrect phrase, as to the people abusing religion in order to gain personal goals are the ones to blame, and not the means (religion) that were used in order to gain personal goals. I also explained already why I used 'Islamophobia' as well, and the 'childish' part was meant to the second part of your previous post where you accused me, be it ironically or not. Yet again, I do find that you were cherrypicking on Islam, whereas I pointed out other subjects that underwent comparable history as you continued to clinch to the deaths caused by Islam.

The only one who "fails to say the same about other states of different religion" is you. I have talked about Christians waging war against the pagan Baltic, Japanese waging war on East Asia and Mongols waging war on everyone else. You haven't talked about anyone that wasn't European and Christian, even after I said I wasn't Christian, suggesting me you have some weird complex about them.

"I'll end this conversation for it being pointless". I'll end it for you. The conversation is only stirring in circles and away from the original thread. You're already losing track of what's being discussed and are even starting to hear things I didn't say. Let's just agree to disagree.

Actually, I never 'disagreed' with you. I simply was pointing things out in the other direction with the same 'theme'. Seeing this post all in all makes me think you kind off missed this. My point was simply that everything was build by blood, including the Ottoman Empire, sure. Demonizing the Ottoman Empire alone made me think you were indeed cherrypicking due, perhaps, certain misconceptions you might have of the Islam.