There was definitely a period when western Europe was very backwards whereas a lot of meaningful and important progress was made in Muslim countries. There have been Islamic empires that were relatively tolerant about differences, and certainly didn't destroy everything they deemed heretic.
We have a strong tendency to generalise: everything that's a bit distant from us has to be either one thing of the other thing. We're terrible at nuance, yet it's vital in order to understand history.
1. I'm not singling out anything but the subject. If you want a different response to compare it with, pick a different subject.
2. It's not venomous, and even if it were, it's irrelevant to everything here (quite the feat). You're supposed to show prejudice, venom with reason and/or evidence is not prejudice.
3. Since a) my point was not about a race and b) the subject is not a race, then it's not a racist argument. Far from it.
4. Hence, I'm not a racist. Or maybe I am but you certainly can't ascertain it from your fatuous logic nor anything I've written here.
5. Also hence, and however, you are an apologist.
You need to up your game.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda#Decline_and_destructio...
Edit - As I can't reply to stuff like this (it deserved to die) but in case I get anything more like it:
> Find me an "empire" that wasn't destructive. You're disingenuous, and likely racist as all hell. Fuck off.
I'm making that exact point, all empires are destructive, hence the it's not exceptional in either sense. Thanks to all those who can read and all those who don't go around calling others racists for no good reason.