Historically Islam has been far more peaceful than Christianity, traditionally perhaps the bloodiest religion in History. Terrorism is a modern movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Ottoman_Empirehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine-Ottoman_Warshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian-Ottoman_warshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Serbian-Turkish_conflicts (also see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB9WgR_N4h4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocidehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocideanyway the europeans eventually got sick of this when they took like half of hungary and then tried sieging vienna. this is when the ottobongs started to stagnate
"but muh ottoman tolerance of cuckstains!!!" yeah because everyone in the places they conquered were christian. they had no choice but to accept it, just like the mughals who ruled hindus
islamic conquest map (before ottomans):
the qu'ran on apostasy:
Qu'ran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Qu'ran (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."
also a friendly reminder that the crusades were attempts to RETAKE christian or otherwise holy territory such as jerusalem. they were not wars of aggression. they failed due to corruption and incompetence on the fighters' parts, not the clergy.
another friendly reminder that when spaniards and the portuguese conquered muslim iberia it was called the RE-conquista
"but muh protestantism and christian conflicts!!!" yeah those were based off of the fact that the church became a super-government and as all governments eventually do it turned corrupt. the bible didn't cause it. the orthodox world was only involved when it was politically beneficial. hell, catholic france aided the protestants because forget habsburgs. and yes, the old testament is debatably bad but 99% of christians follow the new testament nowadays.
i haven't even mentioned how anti-gay the qu'ran is. muslims who deny all this stuff are simply the type of theists who are like "no no see the [religious book] is just a rough moral guideline to be vaguely interpreted" until you ask them for proof that their deity(s) exist and then it's hard proof because muh old book
i will applaud the ottomans on one thing, though.
they managed to keep the stuffhole that is the middle east stable. but when we killed them (ww1) (rightfully so though) and forgeted up the region with stufftily drawn borders (ww1) and "giving the jews their own country" (aka finding an excuse to deport the jews lol) in ww2, we sort of ensured the region would devolve into ass
also cold war spheres of influence on the region
the thing is, i am a classical liberal. (not loving modern communist leftists aka social liberals who also happen to be marxist/victim feminists) which means rights for all except when a right involves removing rights of others. islam violates this because of things such as apostasy and stoning the gays. also women are forgeted over but western feminists only care about destroying white men
