@Victoribus Spolia
It was intended to amuse. I'm glad you didn't take seriously. It would be a shame if you did.
I simply appreciate the fact that he is the only other Iranian here who understands Iranian history and I thanked him for representing me and other Iranians. If you were one of the only conservatives on this forum and a liberal was spouting misinformation about conservatism wouldn't you too be thankful for anybody who corrected him?
So…..when he blows his load in your mouth, do you require a beverage to wash it down? Or do you prefer a chaser after choking it down? I am legitimately curious as I am not privy to the dynamics of such a relationship.
And now I love you. You've now solidified your status as a top-tier poster in my eyes. You're certainly an eccentric poster with your quite unique ideas and crass language (something that isn't seen in PoFo that much) and not only that, but you're one of the few crass PoFo users that's actually intellectually debatable and that, my friend, is what matters to me. If I met you in real-life I would give you a big 'ol hug and buy you a beer. It'll be a pleasure for us to cross swords in the future.
If that is the case then I would like you to re-link those sources. Furthermore I am not criticizing you for linking to Wikipedia. I myself linked to the Arabic Wikipedia to provide information on ethnically Arab Jews. Furthermore I am not criticizing you for being un-scholarly but for being too scholarly. As I said in the conclusion to my first point, simply because some scholars think so doesn't mean that it's correct, far from it actually. First, academia is heavily divided, there's multiple opinions on several different subjects. Second, history in academia is especially divided as most historical events are heavily based on interpretations rather than concrete fact. Just as there is a theory that the Sassanid Empire was once Christian there could be another theory that the Byzantine Empire was once temporarily Muslim. One is not less implausible than the other as both depend on the interpretations of one specific, irrelevant recording's implications.
This is why you need to give me the evidence that these scholars have to prove that the Sassanid Empire was temporarily Islamic because otherwise it's as meaningless as an average joe claiming that the Greeks were black.
Then the entirety of the Crusades was meaningless since, during the Islamic Golden Age and even throughout the Umayyad Caliphate, the Caliph funded churches and many high ranking officials prayed in churches. This means that the Caliphate was secretly Christian according to your logic. Not only that, but the Ottoman Empire even made Christianity a major part of it's Empire and also funded churches as well. This is even more proof that Caliphates are secretly christian!
Your certifications for what constitutes a Christian nation are too broad to be meaningful. It means that any nation or empire that funds a church is or was a Christian nation. This would mean that India and Japan were once Christian nations which is ridiculous to think about.
Constaintine I's Rome had Christianity as the official state religion. This is completely different from Iran, which never had Christianity as the official state religion at all throughout it's entire history. This was your original claim or at least the one that I have seen.
Listen, dude, you're not expressing on opinion here, you are arguing that an historical event was due to a specific factor. This requires evidence and proof to back up, not a personal specification. Nowhere in Crusade propaganda did Persia pop up at all and even if Iran was Christian at one point, the Crusaders wouldn't be aware of it because, chances are, they know nothing about Iran. There wasn't anything known about Iran at all outside of Exodus and some Persian merchants. The only interactions Europeans had with the Middle East was through the port cities of Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey. I don't even think the Europeans even knew Baghdad existed.
You have no historical evidence to back up your claims at all, that's why your claim is wrong.
I don't care about what your opponent thinks. I would've responded to your post anyways regardless if @anasawad at all. I responded to a specific part of your post I think is wrong, that's all there is to it. I'm not in kahoots with @anasawad and planning world domination with him or something. I'm just some average poster who simply disagrees with your post.
Furthermore, if the Islamic Slave Trade is irrelevant here then why did you mention it in the first place?
Ok so? I'm not @anasawad. He can respond to you himself. I'm completely independent from him and I act independently. The reason why I responded to you is because you, in essence, were trying to defend the British colonization of India. I disagreed with it and gave reasons for why the British colonization of India was horrible for everyone involved. Anasawad's claim doesn't matter me.
I never claimed that these were civilizations so I have no idea what you're talking about. You were the one who claimed that they weren't civilizations and since my point isn't that African civilizations are civilizations, you have the burden of proof to prove that African civilizations weren't civilizations.
You simply don't know if there are or aren't many accomplishments that are significant enough to display the civilized nature of Africa so you can't be right or wrong. Your original claim was that African civilizations weren't civilizations because there is nothing Africa has to show for in terms accomplishments, this claim is neither right nor wrong because Africa has certain accomplishments that show hints of civilization. There just isn't enough information about these accomplishments. That's why you can't be sure that you're right or wrong.
Listen, when you become a big boy, then you'll move on to bigger and better things. You're still too little for that right now.