the linked article describes military campaigns between state armies, not genocide

Armies famously never kill anyone right?

are you contending that every battle where someone is killed by an army counts as genocide?

This is such an incredibly ridiculous statement it's hard to believe it's in good faith.

No, the battle itself isn't genocide. But generally invading a country and defeating the defenders is a precursor to slaughtering civilians, aka. genocide.

In the case of the Middle East, they were Greek/Syriac/Coptic and Christian, then they were conquered, then they were Arab and Muslim. Demographic changes like that that accompany an invasion aren't exactly a coincidence.

If you read about Islamic conquests, you would see that in the vast overwhelming cases, no such events took place, if ever. Demographics changed because people entered Islam. Islam is against genocide.

Muslim colonization of India resulted in 80 million hindus being killed.

https://www.firstpost.com/opinion-news-expert-views-news-ana...

Because hindus are not of the people of the book (jews, christians and zoroastrians), they weren't offered the choice of becoming dhimmis (pay jizya, 2nd class status), but the choices were convert to islam or muslims would fight you.

This is not how it works, and that statistic is wrong. You cited an opinion piece, not a proper primary source.

Jizya does not mean second class status; and non-People of the Book are not forced to convert (neither are People of the Book).

Without lies, islam dies.

https://quran.com/9:29/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir

> Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

> Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

> Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.

You can't do religious flamewar like this on HN, regardless of which religion is being discussed. No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So za3faran can just lie about islam and you punish me for correcting his lie?

You didn't correct anything. My email is in my profile if you wish to have a proper academic discussion with primary sources.

The qur'an verse and Ibn Kathir's tafsir are not enough for you?

Not at all. I'm asking you to refrain from religious flamewar (or any flamewar) on HN, and to stick to the rules when commenting.

If you expect moderators to adjudicate complex questions of religious scholarship, we can't: we're unqualified, and it's not our job. We prefer to stick to things that (a) are our job, which (b) we're qualified for. Those tasks are altogether more mundane, such as telling HN users they're not allowed to put down entire religions or each other.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How can “genocide” apply to a voluntary religious group? And even if it could, the linked wikipedia article doesn’t seem to support your claim, either. Do you have anything else we could review?

Genocide, as defined by the UN, includes religious groups.

https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

I didn’t know that, thank you! Now to find if the original claim holds up, and not just the semantics.

Citation needed. Since year 1300 or for 1300 years? The former is closer to the truth than the latter, AFAIK.

Neither are true.

Ok, so an edit to the parent post cites my comment as an incorrect citation needed as if it's incorrect.

Another statement also claims that genocide was performed because it also includes religious groups.

None of that is wrong.

What is wrong is claiming that they actually performed genocide. They overtook, yes. Did not perform genocide. Even the cited article says, that "christian communities were dissatisfied with the change". If there was genocide, who was left to be dissatisfied?

Not a lot different from what the Christians did to non believers in the West, really.

Or the soviets did to believers, for that matter

while tribal hunters simply killed for access to the best hunting grounds? Mongols killed why? IMO you can reconstruct this line of thought easily -- humans killed other humans brutally and without fail; some humans interpreted the world in divine terms and guarded fertility; Religion combines many strands with intention, while the killing for other reasons does not cease.

Don't forget the crusades.

The first crusade in 1096–1099 was to drive out the muslim colonizers from the holy land

> it's because your education is western-centric

Your education seems to be Facebook-centric.

Useless comment. At least say why you think I'm wrong or something. But no, you brought a Reddit comment to a debate.

You're all over this thread, I replied to you once substantively elsewhere and that was enough. But this comment of yours was especially ridiculous (to borrow your description of those who "debate" you) and I couldn't control myself, my apologies. I stand by my point though.