An interesting question, and a couple of interesting responses on a social media posting.
In trying to promote proper English, it might be better to say “perpetrators of genocide” or something similar. (But the point is clear. Readers, what do you think of the comments on this posting?)
And yes, Muslims, starting way back in AD 632, have often included and sponsored and run regimes (governments and “non-state actors” both) that committed genocide. Whether we use the popular definition or the scholarly/legal definition of genocide. As Islam expanded between its founding and the mid-1600s when their threat to Europe’s nations was at its greatest, Islam has promoted and perpetrated large scale killing of individuals based on their beliefs and locations. At the same time, history documents actions taken by Muslims with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group, as stated in the Genocide Convention and the UN.
Colonizers? Definitely. Huge areas of today’s Middle East, Africa, and even Europe were colonized by Islamic armies and populations, as Arabic and Muslim communities spread. And in a scale more like seen in the New World (some areas) than the European colonization of Africa and Asia in more recent centuries. These were areas in which various ethnic groups and religious groups lived, many of which were wiped out or driven out. (See genocide above.)
Oppressors? Yes, of both their own people and other people, and not just in their colonies. For those people in both the original Arabian homeland of Mohammad’s followers and their conquests who were not wiped out or driven out, the Jizra and many other aspects of the Quran, the Tafsir, Hadith, Sunni, and Sharia require and encourage many acts of oppression. Particularly against women, and others of their own faith.
Slave traders? According to at least some sources, this is still true today, and is well-documents in earlier times. Indeed, more than just slave traders, many Muslims have been actual slavers: kidnappers or stealers of men, women, and children. Not just slavers, but slavers honored by their religious authorities and coreligionists, and their activities endorsed by the Islamic holy books we list above.
Imperialists? Today’s Iran is still an imperial regime, as the dominant “nation” or “tribe” rules over a large number of separate, often previously independent, ethnic groups and nationalities. So too is modern Turkey, and Mesopotamia (“Iraq”) at least pretends to be so. (Kurds and others in Mesopotamia and Armenians and many others in Turkey strongly disagree. Historically, the caliphs and sultans were most definitely empires, expanding by continued aggression against other people. Starting with the time of Mohammed. Muslims created empires in what is now India and Pakistan, and small elites (of distinct nationalities) have and do rule many other Islamic nations.
Their hypocrisy concerning European empires is as obvious as it is denied. Both by the Muslims and by the Woke in Europe.
We end by again asking “Why?” It is more than just Wokeness and a desire to destroy the West and what is left of Western Civilization. Though those certainly are a part of why so many in the West refuse to condemn Arabs’ and other Muslims’ actions. It is a mental dissonance: a refusal to look at things objectively and correctly evaluate and compare people and their beliefs and actions. That includes ignoring and twisting history.
Would we be correct is stating that a refusal to call Muslims colonizers, oppressors, “genociders,” slave traders and imperialists is a sign of mental problems? If not actually insanity?
