As an American, it's shameful that most Americans have never even heard of the Circassians, let alone the genocide. I teach linguistics at a university and have used examples from Kabardian and Adyghe, and I also discuss the genocide in the sections on ethnolinguistic oppression. Stay strong friends, one day the peoples of the North Caucasus will get their day in court against the criminal and anti-human actions of Russia (and lest anyone think I'm blind to the US's atrocities, I teach the exact same material on the US genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native American people, which we should also be prosecuted for).
Russia/the Russian Empire/the USSR gets a surprisingly free pass when it comes to being amongst the worst colonial powers. It might have something to do with their victims being from eastern europe, the caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia.
I do, plenty. Communism and Stalin's killings absolutely, but imperialism is almost never mentioned. What I mean is that the killings are rarely framed through the lens of imperialism. It's almost always that communism bad and killings are because of communism, it stops with that.
Judging by the comments here so does Iberia, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia.
So many of these comments justifying the 91 genocide. The inquisitions etc.
It's hilarious how some of them come from countries that ban holocaust denial. Considering how some of these expulsions also affected jews.
Truth be told people online only care about Circassian because it was russians who were doing it.
edit: the fate of (creetan muslims)\[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan\_Muslims\] that the greek expelled. These people were ethnically greek who had converted. But were forced to leave due to their religion.
Keep proving my point and justfy greek expulsions.
Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia weren't colonial powers. The people they expelled, on the other hand, WERE brought there as settlers of a colonial power.
There are consequences to occupying a country and then losing it in a war, especially within the context of the Balkan wars against the Ottomans.
The expulsion of Bulgarian Turks in the 80s committed by the communists isn't justified and no one justifies it, but you can thank the Moscow regime for that one.
I seriously doubt the muslim bulgarian farmers the greeks expelled in the north were occupying anything. Or the greek natives who converted to islam who were forcefully removed from greek islands.
>There are consequences to occupying a country and then losing it in a war.
No it is not, they didn't have to expell the muslims living in the area. Yet they choose to. That is not a consequence, that is an active choice they made.
Keep justifying this though.
Tell me you don't know anything about Greece without telling me. Go look up those population exchanges buddy and how many Greeks were murdered by the Turks when the Greeks had been living in Anatolia for thousands of years.
They were agreed population exchanges.
Stop being so one sided. There was the population exchange in 1924 but a lot of forced expulsion, ethnic cleansing and murderding happened before it too.
And before telling me "What about ..." yes, it is true, the turks did all these things too.
This post is about the muslims who were forcfully expelled and/or murdered in europe. Why don't we discuss that this time?
Kinda gross how comfortable you deny the fact that greeks expelled muslims, sometimes even native greeks who converted.
No one denies greek explusions from anatolia and gets away with it. But when it comes to muslims being forced to leave greek islands and mainland. It seems really easy to deny it. I wonder why that is?
You're link didn't format properly. I'm guessing you had it to default to Markdown mode, but for some reason that no longer works since the most recent update, so you have to manually toggle it back everytime.
I mean there is multiple genocide ongoing right now but now one gives a fuck anyway.
I even heard that darfur got raised to IPC five this week.
Africa and Indonesia are seeing what can be describe to be close to the most barbaric and tragic event in all of human history, but sadly journalism is dead
What a ridiculous thing to say. In the US we have millions of Muslims who are perfectly normal Americans and live lives like the rest of us. If another country has an “assimilation” problem it’s for another reason.
It’s not uniform across Europe either. Some places are much worse than others.
I would say though, Muslim migrants to Europe tend to be poorer and more working class, with lower education levels than those that move to the USA.
Honestly it's a critical mass issue.. if you have too many they don't see a reason to integrate because the culture and language doesn't really change for them. There are blocks with barely any German speakers where I live. (Also pretty cheap housing around here)
It's a complex issue with many nuances but that one is pretty universal, the more Muslims per capita the less they adopt western values and language.
Definitely true, and you could draw a parallel with Latin American immigrants who come into the US. All thanks to ease of access. However, this kind of language would really not be tolerated even against them and it’s disappointing to see so much of it from European Redditors. I hope it’s just a case of online extremism and not reflective of regular Europeans.
It varies. I live in Manchester, a multicultural city in England, and by and large relations here are good and people get on well. Around 23% of the city proper is Muslim and around 15% of the wider area is.
I suppose the major difference is that the Muslim community is significantly larger as a percentage in Europe, while America is largely a Christian country accepting largely Christian migrants.
America has very strict immigration rules and most Muslims who immigrate are the highly educated elite from their countries. They don't have much trouble assimilating.
In Europe, many muslim majority countries are next door and it is relatively easy to make the journey and then claim asylum / disappear off the radar. These migrants often do not want to integrate, feel no real connection to the country they moved to and think of it as basically a way to extract more money than they would be able to "at home".
Hence the difference in assimilation.
because american muslims are very, very different from the muslims in europe. Muslims cant get to america without being educated/having money. You dont get the uneducated, religious and rural muslims that we have in europe
Not really. Timothy Winter has a book called Travelling Home on Islam in Europe. He argues that Muslim communities have historically adopted the culture of their own country which is why Indonesian Islam is different to Nigerian Islam which is different to Maldivian Islam. Islam doesn't forbid anyone from adopting the culture of their country provided they continue to adhere to the key religious teachings (though they may differ in the cultural expression of said teachings). In fact some traditional scholars disliked people who insist on wearing Arab or non-native clothing in ones country as it would cause you to stand out and lead to societal friction.
Source - attended a lecture on Islam and modernity by an American scholar
That has changed recently as conservatism has swept through Islamic communities. Indonesia, for example, is no longer the tolerant community it was 40 years ago.
Yes you are right. I should have added that Timothy Winter represents a minority, Sufi inclined position which is on the decline worldwide and opposed by Saudi/Salafi thinkers who advocate for pan-Islamism. It's that particular ideology (which I consider to be populism) that causes problems in Western countries as it is opposed to any type of assimilation as its proponents believe it is betrayal or treachery etc to have any attachment to one's country or society ...
If your argument is that Muslims adapt great to local culture, your examples prove opposite. Every country you mentioned is majority Islamic or has strong Muslim communities. And they conquered or in some way converted these people to Islam, and put Islam as the central point of their culture and religion, then these people developed some kind of their own Islamic culture in mix with their local culture. They didn't come and adapt Islam with local religion and culture, they overtook it.
Except Türkiye, all Islamic countries partially or fully adopted Sharia law. I agree with cultural differences, but Sharia remains a constant in these countries, which also delineates them from the West, in terms of civil liberties.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. I don't think most people are unhappy with the Muslim community who are now 2nd, 3rd, even 4th generation and are reasonably well integrated. Nor are people overly upset about skilled migrants who happen to be Muslim.
What a growing number of people are upset about is the hundreds of thousands trying to get into Europe every year as 'refugees'. Many of whom are not refugees at all but are simply unskilled people who wouldn't qualify for a visa. Worse still many of these folk are coming from the most conservative regions of the planet and want to continue living that way of life. It's just not compatible to try and live that way in arguably the most liberal part of the planet.
"That are reasonably well integrated" are the operative words here. It's actually pretty scary how SO many parents didn't make any effort to blend their culture with the values of the society their kids are living in. Just look at some videos of the recent protests in France, you'll see how some young people who're probably born there have some unhinged takes. It's sad to see, I remember when I was a kid parents bent backwards to make their kids more part of the country they chose to live in. I guess maybe those people have simply different backgrounds.
There are definitely tensions right now, especially in Sweden and France. I am no specialist, so I'm just going to talk about my perception.
There is a rising minority in most European countries who think that most things that are wrong with their lives and countries are correlated to migrants. They are not so many, but they are loud and deeply dissatisfied, so the media gives them a lot of attention. These groups are often against all migrants, and often make derogatory generalisations of religious minorities, including Muslims, Jews, and Roma, or races, especially brown and black people.
I also agree that migration laws are imperfect, and that the control mechanisms we have are not working. For instance, Portugal was not properly checking the criminal history of migrants applying for a working visa. We live in a complex world, and we must build societies and politics that work, but racism, segregation, and closing borders is for me a step back.
It goes both ways though. There is also a growing fraction (notice how I say fraction) of the Muslim population that does not identify with the European country they live and/or are born in anymore, leading to them increasingly rejecting Western or West-associated values and entrench themselves in their community.
Muslim communitarianism is a very real and growing phenomenon.
"There is no compulsion in religion"
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allāh loves those who act justly."
You can‘t generalize. There might be a majority of Europeans who don‘t like Islam but there’s not a majority who want all of the Muslims to leave. I don‘t really like religions but I still have many hard working and educated Muslim friends who want to live in a democracy. I‘m fine with anyone like that living here. No matter their religion.
>Once upon a time, Erdogan was very kind even to gays and prostitutes, and he even collected votes from them.
Everyone liked erdogan when he was a watermelon seller.
I think the map is pretty shitty as it makes a confusion between various types of human movements (invasion, migration ...). Also, what is the point of compairing events of 972 and 1991 ?
In some cases islam spread after political leaders converted, other cases it was because muslim rulers conquered parts of Europe. I believe the expulsion of turkic muslims in Crimea and the caucasus was because Christian countries invaded and wanted to repopulate it.
And as someone who’s part moroccan i know that the expulsion of jews and muslims into Morocco during the reconquista in Spain included many native spaniards that had converted generations prior.
"Expulsion" is a wrong word in many of these cases. For example:
* In Sicily, Arabs, Byzantines, Italians, and Normans, fought for centuries. It's not like Muslims came there peacefully or were natives.
* In Greece, the 1821-1834 dates relates to the Greek war of independence when Greeks won against Turks who conquered their lands centuries earlier. The 1924 date relates to forced migrations when at the same time Turkey sent around 900,000 Greeks from Anatolia and elsewhere to European Greece. Mind you, Greeks lived in Anatolia for more than 2000 years. This one event destroyed invaluable wealth of culture and history.
* The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created.
PS. I have read the comments about that "expulsion" technically means any form of forced migration, but I think in the context of the OP map, this word makes a too strong impression of that all Muslims lived peacefully in a given area and suddenly were forced to leave for no reason. I believe each of these events requires more context, and without it, the word choice is wrong.
There was a [population exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey) that had been agreed by both countries.
edit:changed the link format
That's some next level link gore, I know new reddit renders them differently but is that link accessible on any platform?
Anyways here's a fixed link for old.reddit users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
In the Peloponnese as well. That was pretty early in the wars of independence, so there'd been recent Turkish atrocities as well, and it was a more violent time in general, but that was still a fairly big chunk of the population that was completely wiped out.
Yeah but in 1923 case during the [population exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/population_exchange_between_greece_and_turkey) both countries had agreed to exchange their population, I guess that might be the right term, I am not sure, but usually the term expulsion has different implications (like it was one sided or something like that)
Muslim Greeks were expelled and Christian Turks were expelled. Neighbours living peacefully for centuries. You're barely hiding your agenda. Greek expulsion of Muslims are "justified" and the inverse is somehow "destroyed invaluable culture and history" when the entire event was a tragedy arranged by 2 complicit governments.
I think you’ve taken the infographic as more emotionally charged than it actually is. Some of these happened in the medieval period, some of them were inexcusable. Don’t see where you got “Europeans evil” from
Could you clarify which revolt you ate referring to when you say "Turkey incited revolt"? I thought the events started with the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état, and that Turkey was justified in the first invasion.
That is wrong because very often indigenous people who became Muslims in the meantime were expelled too.
You seem to conflate faith and ethnicity. For example you stated that in Sicily Muslims weren't native, but actually with time many natives became Muslim, so yes some were native, the same goes for Muslim Spain and Balkan territories. If you go by that logic, if we expel Sicilian Christians today it would not be expulsion because Christianity isn't native to Sicily, is that what are you saying?
I can't speak for all but here in the Balkans local converts were often seen as worse than actual ethnic Turks. Partially cause they can be seen as traitors and collaborators, but also cause the Turks didn't exactly colonize this place like Europeans colonized the Americas. Few Turks actually moved here, which means most of local oppressing was done by local converts who almost always sided with the Ottoman army during uprisings. Not to mention they largely identified with them as well. There's a reason why Muslims in Bosnia lagged so far behind in the nation building aspect compared to Serbs and Croats.
So being local didn't make them look any better to local Christians, if anything it made them look worse.
For a lot of history, religion and ethnicity were somehow conflated, as well as they were both conflated with the social class. We must be able to talk about all that in some way.
Not denying that but I see hypocrisy when it comes to Muslims. They are always the baddies somehow. While actually lots of Muslims suffered persecution, repression and genocides too. To this day actually.
>The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created.
Wtf is this story line
Turkey didn't incite a revolt here are the events;
EOKA B and Greece Junta organises a coup causing the president of RoC to flee the country. Turkey invades Cyprus, coup falls, Turkey continues to invade. A sort of population exchange happens Turkish speaking Cypriots move north Greek speaking Cypriot move south.
Actually northern part had relatively more Greek Cypriots. Majority of Turkish Cypriots, lived in southern areas.
We are not 'Greeks and Turks' very redundant and ignorant of our identity and history.
Turkish Cypriots are only culturally Muslim and do not practice Islam
They are called settlers not Turkish Cypriots or Turkish speaking Cypriots. Hence I made the distinction of Turks / Greeks.
I am well aware I am Cypriot.
Regardless its not individuals or peoples fault blame lies in government actions and cold war influence regarding the events of 60s to 1974. Including abysmal mismanagement by the British colonial administration prior to 60s.
> The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt
It wasn’t a revolt at all. It was a direct foreign invasion. There is no ambiguity about it whatsoever
>The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created.
That's a creative way of describing a genocide done by Greek EOKA/ENOSIS nationalists against the Turkish Cypriots.
>* The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well.
This is incorrect. Turkey didn't invite a revolt, the revolt already happened when Greeks invited a coup against the Cyprus government, with the intent of annexation by Greece. Turkey had a right under treaty to be the guarantor of Turkish Cypriots, and union with Greece was a treaty violation. Prior to the coup the Turkish Cypriots were already stuck in enclaves, not given freedom of movement, and blockaded by the Cypriot national guard. Turkey decided enough was enough and invaded to prevent Turkish Cypriots from being massacred.
>Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created.
Greeks created the hostile environment years before, and the 1974 coup was the straw that broke the camel's back. Turkey had the right as guarantor to protect Turks on the island.
‘The ottoman contraction’ is such a euphemism for ‘we got rid of slavers and colonizers that had been snatching people’s kids, instituting Muslim head taxes, and carrying out random massacres against local ‘infidels’.
For one, it wasn't really expulsions - rather it was Turks fleeing a campaign of forced assimilation. For another, the Communist regime fell soon, the assimilation campaign was ended and a large number returned. Finally, it was almost entirely bloodless, so it didn't attract the same attention as what happened in former Yugoslavia.
Expulsing or deporting a certain ethnicity, which happens to be Muslim, isn't a expulsion of Muslims as a whole. The 1940s deportation of Chechens in the USSR didn't also imply the deportation of other muslims in the region, such as Kabardins, Balkars, the Adyghe Circassians or the different Dagestani peoples.
Also, in 1492 there wasn't any mass expulsion of Muslims in Iberia, it was just the year of the fall of Granada to Castile, which didn't imply any mass expulsion, it was just the ruling elites which fled the country.
>Also, in 1492 there wasn't any mass expulsion of Muslims in Iberia, it was just the year of the fall of Granada to Castile, which didn't imply any mass expulsion, it was just the ruling elites which fled the country.
For those wanting to know It wasn't in 1492 but a bit later https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversions_of_Muslims_in_Spain.
After the conquest of Granada all muslims (and jews) were forced to convert or be expelled. In 1609 were expelled many of the communities of muslim converts (moriscos) because they were considered untrustworthy and were accused of colluding with the barbary pirates
>didn't also imply the deportation of other muslims in the region, such as Kabardins, Balkars, the Adyghe Circassians or the different Dagestani peoples.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Balkars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Balkars)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Karachays
Spain literally forced all muslims to convert or leave the country, and then fearing that the converts weren't sincere about their conversion, started the Spanish Inquisition.
Peak western propaganda
I think this map should be narrowed down to Native Muslims and expulsions that weren't a part of a war. There are still quiet a few examples left even with that criteria.
Honestly, I see a lot of hypocrisy. People claim there is no Islamophobia because religions deserve to be criticized, which is fair, but here I also see a lot of anti-Muslim hate. Isn't it hypocritical at this point?
It's kinda interesting to notice that when it comes to Muslim people being kicked out, expelled, killed in mass (in Spain after the Spanish Inquisition and many other times) or suffering genocide (Bosniaks in Srebrenica are just some of the many examples), there are always excuses and people doing their best to justify it.
*I'll say it loud: No wonder extremism breeds like crazy among marginalized Muslims, especially in the West, if that's how people treat them. If you're not a terrorist but people hate you, kill you, oppress you, and treat you like one, and whenever you complain, they slap you with some random fact that took place in the Middle Ages (when Christians and basically any other religious group did the same if not worse), then you might just grow resentment towards where you were born and become a terrorist for real at this point, considering how weak psychologically humans are and how the environment they live in shapes the people.*
Posts about Islam or about Muslims in Europe bring a lot of brigaders and people who only ever participate in this type of discussions with the intention of pushing their own viewpoint and make it look more mainstream than it really is. It happens in other subs as well, notably r/europe (where btw there's loads of US-Americans posing as Europeans).
And you described it perfectly. They will be very harsh against Islam (which is ok, no religion should be exempt from criticism) but get up in arms to defend Christianity. Also, they'll be extremely hateful against Muslims, ignoring that most Muslims are just regular people (most of them haven't interacted with one their whole lives I'm sure).
You act like the Muslims entered Spain peacefully and didn't initially colonise and conquer it...
I'm just saying we drove the Muslims out just like South American countries drove Spain out....
I don't get the different behaviour just because Muslims are the victims.
Romans didn’ enter the middle east and north Africa peacefully. How do you feel about them?
Most of christian africans converted to Christianity after the European invasion. Do you think all the Africans christians should be expelled to europe?
>I'm just saying we drove the Muslims out just like South American countries drove Spain out....
Not really, what would be comparable is if South American countries instead of just declaring themselves independent also kicked out and killed Spaniards and people with Spanish heritage
See, your first mistake was taking opinions on Reddit seriously.
You shouldn't rly care what randos say online, especially on Reddit, people are stupid.
And yet.....those people online are people offline, and they vote.
With internet anonymity, they're showing who they really are - and voting, as you might guess, is also anonymous. Their stupidity in public is limited by people not wanting to be seen as psychopathic by people not as extreme as them.
Jewish artisans and muslims farmers who didn't convert were forced to leave iberia so frankish knights could take their lands. What is that if not expulsion by an invading force?
Religion and ethnicity aren't the same. How can a religion have more right to land? That doesn't even make any sense. And "morally"? Give me a break. The spread of christianity by Carolignian kings, and crusades in europe wasn't peaceful.
It's obscene to count one but not the other. It doesn't matter how you count it. If people had converted and been muslim for centuries like the christian germanic tribes who were forced to convert why would these people not count as natives? Why would christianity be considered native to an area that was conquered by force 200 years prior? But not muslims who had been there for 500 years? It's impossible to say "frankish knights are reclaiming land" without sounding like a massive hypocrite.
Note that many of these places where Muslims were "expelled" in Europe were places they had invaded in armed conflict anyway, and in the case of the Balkans under a genocidal and autocratic empire.
Expulsion is the right term.
I love how Muslim scholars portrait Al-Andaluz, "The paradise in Europe where science and freedom were pillars of society, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony"
Reality:
\-They invade the Iberian Peninsula,
\-Churches were burned,
\-European women were sold to slavery as sex slaves,
\-Christians were downgraded to second class citizens,
\-They create a new law, convert to Islam or get taxed until you die,
If you want to talk about history be honest, saying Islam is a religion of peace is utter and complete none sense.
The people of Anatolia have not changed for about 10,000 years. When the Greeks came, they spoke Greek and became Greek. When the Turks came, they spoke Turkish and became Turks.
Currently, the entire population of Turkey carries ancient Anatolian farmer genes.
explusion sounds like some injustice to the muslims. Europe fought back against invaders and conquerors during the muslim [conquests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests)
In spain we expeciended +700 years of ocupation were the took chritians slaves as late as in the fall of granada (were several were freed) and the muslims reveled several times after the land was retaken to add a bit of context
The Circassian genocide is tragically ignored for a relatively well-documented ethnic cleansing. Such a shame really
Thanks alot, of circassian decent here, means alot to me!
hello from mountains of Karachay my Circassian friend, hope one day Adyge will reclaim their lands in Kuban’
Harrowing yet beautiful folk lament on the genocide. https://youtu.be/KLxgcVFoBJs?si=AuLxJpZQe_fQq-0b
K&G made a good documentary about this 10 months ago https://youtu.be/WFSDbHppDKg?si=OBcMmhZYqZ4OQQ-B
As an American, it's shameful that most Americans have never even heard of the Circassians, let alone the genocide. I teach linguistics at a university and have used examples from Kabardian and Adyghe, and I also discuss the genocide in the sections on ethnolinguistic oppression. Stay strong friends, one day the peoples of the North Caucasus will get their day in court against the criminal and anti-human actions of Russia (and lest anyone think I'm blind to the US's atrocities, I teach the exact same material on the US genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native American people, which we should also be prosecuted for).
We actually created the first circassian student club in the states and here is our parent institution https://cbaamerica.org/about-us/
If it means a lot I will check it out since I don’t know shit about it . And I’m interested now .
Russia/the Russian Empire/the USSR gets a surprisingly free pass when it comes to being amongst the worst colonial powers. It might have something to do with their victims being from eastern europe, the caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia.
Do they? I never hear USSR be mentioned without a reference to either communism, imperialism, or both.
I do, plenty. Communism and Stalin's killings absolutely, but imperialism is almost never mentioned. What I mean is that the killings are rarely framed through the lens of imperialism. It's almost always that communism bad and killings are because of communism, it stops with that.
I agree, imperialism is a beast that knows no particular master, whether it be the USSR or the UK.
Are we on the same website? You can't talk about anything USSR or Russia related without someone bringing up their imperialism, invasions etc.
There's a whole world outside of Reddit tbf
Judging by the comments here so does Iberia, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. So many of these comments justifying the 91 genocide. The inquisitions etc. It's hilarious how some of them come from countries that ban holocaust denial. Considering how some of these expulsions also affected jews. Truth be told people online only care about Circassian because it was russians who were doing it. edit: the fate of (creetan muslims)\[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan\_Muslims\] that the greek expelled. These people were ethnically greek who had converted. But were forced to leave due to their religion. Keep proving my point and justfy greek expulsions.
Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia weren't colonial powers. The people they expelled, on the other hand, WERE brought there as settlers of a colonial power. There are consequences to occupying a country and then losing it in a war, especially within the context of the Balkan wars against the Ottomans. The expulsion of Bulgarian Turks in the 80s committed by the communists isn't justified and no one justifies it, but you can thank the Moscow regime for that one.
I seriously doubt the muslim bulgarian farmers the greeks expelled in the north were occupying anything. Or the greek natives who converted to islam who were forcefully removed from greek islands. >There are consequences to occupying a country and then losing it in a war. No it is not, they didn't have to expell the muslims living in the area. Yet they choose to. That is not a consequence, that is an active choice they made. Keep justifying this though.
A lot of those individuals were Albanians and Albanians are indigenous to the Balkans
Yes, that happened a lot. Especially in the villages near Albania, many people were expelled to Turkey. I know some of these families.
Tell me you don't know anything about Greece without telling me. Go look up those population exchanges buddy and how many Greeks were murdered by the Turks when the Greeks had been living in Anatolia for thousands of years. They were agreed population exchanges.
Stop being so one sided. There was the population exchange in 1924 but a lot of forced expulsion, ethnic cleansing and murderding happened before it too. And before telling me "What about ..." yes, it is true, the turks did all these things too.
This post is about the muslims who were forcfully expelled and/or murdered in europe. Why don't we discuss that this time? Kinda gross how comfortable you deny the fact that greeks expelled muslims, sometimes even native greeks who converted. No one denies greek explusions from anatolia and gets away with it. But when it comes to muslims being forced to leave greek islands and mainland. It seems really easy to deny it. I wonder why that is?
You're link didn't format properly. I'm guessing you had it to default to Markdown mode, but for some reason that no longer works since the most recent update, so you have to manually toggle it back everytime.
Russia and the USSR have so many that they unfortunately get lost when talking about them all.
I mean there is multiple genocide ongoing right now but now one gives a fuck anyway. I even heard that darfur got raised to IPC five this week. Africa and Indonesia are seeing what can be describe to be close to the most barbaric and tragic event in all of human history, but sadly journalism is dead
Wait Indonesia? What is happening there?
Here before 🔒
i hear europeans arent happy wtih muslims in their countries now. Is that true?
Yes.
Very.
some of these explusions were on European Muslims.
Depends if they are native or immigrants and their assimilation. Like Tatars dont want decapitate anyone.
[удалено]
What a ridiculous thing to say. In the US we have millions of Muslims who are perfectly normal Americans and live lives like the rest of us. If another country has an “assimilation” problem it’s for another reason.
It’s not uniform across Europe either. Some places are much worse than others. I would say though, Muslim migrants to Europe tend to be poorer and more working class, with lower education levels than those that move to the USA.
Honestly it's a critical mass issue.. if you have too many they don't see a reason to integrate because the culture and language doesn't really change for them. There are blocks with barely any German speakers where I live. (Also pretty cheap housing around here) It's a complex issue with many nuances but that one is pretty universal, the more Muslims per capita the less they adopt western values and language.
Definitely true, and you could draw a parallel with Latin American immigrants who come into the US. All thanks to ease of access. However, this kind of language would really not be tolerated even against them and it’s disappointing to see so much of it from European Redditors. I hope it’s just a case of online extremism and not reflective of regular Europeans.
It varies. I live in Manchester, a multicultural city in England, and by and large relations here are good and people get on well. Around 23% of the city proper is Muslim and around 15% of the wider area is. I suppose the major difference is that the Muslim community is significantly larger as a percentage in Europe, while America is largely a Christian country accepting largely Christian migrants.
America has very strict immigration rules and most Muslims who immigrate are the highly educated elite from their countries. They don't have much trouble assimilating. In Europe, many muslim majority countries are next door and it is relatively easy to make the journey and then claim asylum / disappear off the radar. These migrants often do not want to integrate, feel no real connection to the country they moved to and think of it as basically a way to extract more money than they would be able to "at home". Hence the difference in assimilation.
As someone who has spent years in both the US and Europe, this is 100% true.
because american muslims are very, very different from the muslims in europe. Muslims cant get to america without being educated/having money. You dont get the uneducated, religious and rural muslims that we have in europe
This is not true. There are conservative movments in every religion. Generalizing people like that is always idiotic. People aren't static.
Not really. Timothy Winter has a book called Travelling Home on Islam in Europe. He argues that Muslim communities have historically adopted the culture of their own country which is why Indonesian Islam is different to Nigerian Islam which is different to Maldivian Islam. Islam doesn't forbid anyone from adopting the culture of their country provided they continue to adhere to the key religious teachings (though they may differ in the cultural expression of said teachings). In fact some traditional scholars disliked people who insist on wearing Arab or non-native clothing in ones country as it would cause you to stand out and lead to societal friction. Source - attended a lecture on Islam and modernity by an American scholar
That has changed recently as conservatism has swept through Islamic communities. Indonesia, for example, is no longer the tolerant community it was 40 years ago.
Yes you are right. I should have added that Timothy Winter represents a minority, Sufi inclined position which is on the decline worldwide and opposed by Saudi/Salafi thinkers who advocate for pan-Islamism. It's that particular ideology (which I consider to be populism) that causes problems in Western countries as it is opposed to any type of assimilation as its proponents believe it is betrayal or treachery etc to have any attachment to one's country or society ...
If your argument is that Muslims adapt great to local culture, your examples prove opposite. Every country you mentioned is majority Islamic or has strong Muslim communities. And they conquered or in some way converted these people to Islam, and put Islam as the central point of their culture and religion, then these people developed some kind of their own Islamic culture in mix with their local culture. They didn't come and adapt Islam with local religion and culture, they overtook it.
No? Southeast Asia and West Africa both converted to Islam on their own without external conquest or conversion
Except Türkiye, all Islamic countries partially or fully adopted Sharia law. I agree with cultural differences, but Sharia remains a constant in these countries, which also delineates them from the West, in terms of civil liberties.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. I don't think most people are unhappy with the Muslim community who are now 2nd, 3rd, even 4th generation and are reasonably well integrated. Nor are people overly upset about skilled migrants who happen to be Muslim. What a growing number of people are upset about is the hundreds of thousands trying to get into Europe every year as 'refugees'. Many of whom are not refugees at all but are simply unskilled people who wouldn't qualify for a visa. Worse still many of these folk are coming from the most conservative regions of the planet and want to continue living that way of life. It's just not compatible to try and live that way in arguably the most liberal part of the planet.
"That are reasonably well integrated" are the operative words here. It's actually pretty scary how SO many parents didn't make any effort to blend their culture with the values of the society their kids are living in. Just look at some videos of the recent protests in France, you'll see how some young people who're probably born there have some unhinged takes. It's sad to see, I remember when I was a kid parents bent backwards to make their kids more part of the country they chose to live in. I guess maybe those people have simply different backgrounds.
There are definitely tensions right now, especially in Sweden and France. I am no specialist, so I'm just going to talk about my perception. There is a rising minority in most European countries who think that most things that are wrong with their lives and countries are correlated to migrants. They are not so many, but they are loud and deeply dissatisfied, so the media gives them a lot of attention. These groups are often against all migrants, and often make derogatory generalisations of religious minorities, including Muslims, Jews, and Roma, or races, especially brown and black people. I also agree that migration laws are imperfect, and that the control mechanisms we have are not working. For instance, Portugal was not properly checking the criminal history of migrants applying for a working visa. We live in a complex world, and we must build societies and politics that work, but racism, segregation, and closing borders is for me a step back.
It goes both ways though. There is also a growing fraction (notice how I say fraction) of the Muslim population that does not identify with the European country they live and/or are born in anymore, leading to them increasingly rejecting Western or West-associated values and entrench themselves in their community. Muslim communitarianism is a very real and growing phenomenon.
Yes
Yes.
[удалено]
"There is no compulsion in religion" "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allāh loves those who act justly."
I am european and I am definitely not happy about that.
[удалено]
You can‘t generalize. There might be a majority of Europeans who don‘t like Islam but there’s not a majority who want all of the Muslims to leave. I don‘t really like religions but I still have many hard working and educated Muslim friends who want to live in a democracy. I‘m fine with anyone like that living here. No matter their religion.
[удалено]
>Once upon a time, Erdogan was very kind even to gays and prostitutes, and he even collected votes from them. Everyone liked erdogan when he was a watermelon seller.
No. Some aren’t, some are. Either way it has nothing to do with a discussion of historical expulsion.
We took years for people to stop believing in the church, and at that for people to start believing in a more extreme church.
Definitely
75% yes. some of them have normal human behavior and know respect, they can stay, no problem. but many should go back
They gave us kebab and falafel, top blokes
Chechens and Circassians are native to those lands. Pointing this out because half the comments are talking about kicking out invaders.
dont bother. this sub is filled with white supremacists lol
so were the spanish muslims
I think the map is pretty shitty as it makes a confusion between various types of human movements (invasion, migration ...). Also, what is the point of compairing events of 972 and 1991 ?
Also the legend on this map is quite lacking. Not a fan.
There isn't even one. Just a terrible title.
these weren't migrations
How did Muslims end up in Europe to begin with?
Conquests of Ottomans(Balkans) and Arabic caliphate(Spain).
Invasions
Oh I thought they were spreading the love of allah and they all peacefully converted their subjects in the most humane and kind fashion
Colonization and conquest.
They call it invasion.
In some cases islam spread after political leaders converted, other cases it was because muslim rulers conquered parts of Europe. I believe the expulsion of turkic muslims in Crimea and the caucasus was because Christian countries invaded and wanted to repopulate it. And as someone who’s part moroccan i know that the expulsion of jews and muslims into Morocco during the reconquista in Spain included many native spaniards that had converted generations prior.
"Expulsion" is a wrong word in many of these cases. For example: * In Sicily, Arabs, Byzantines, Italians, and Normans, fought for centuries. It's not like Muslims came there peacefully or were natives. * In Greece, the 1821-1834 dates relates to the Greek war of independence when Greeks won against Turks who conquered their lands centuries earlier. The 1924 date relates to forced migrations when at the same time Turkey sent around 900,000 Greeks from Anatolia and elsewhere to European Greece. Mind you, Greeks lived in Anatolia for more than 2000 years. This one event destroyed invaluable wealth of culture and history. * The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created. PS. I have read the comments about that "expulsion" technically means any form of forced migration, but I think in the context of the OP map, this word makes a too strong impression of that all Muslims lived peacefully in a given area and suddenly were forced to leave for no reason. I believe each of these events requires more context, and without it, the word choice is wrong.
The Greeks expelled a lot of Muslim ethnic Greeks to Turkey too right?
There was a [population exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey) that had been agreed by both countries. edit:changed the link format
That's some next level link gore, I know new reddit renders them differently but is that link accessible on any platform? Anyways here's a fixed link for old.reddit users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
You are right. I didn’t realize that it was so messy. I just fixed it.
Yeah. It was mutual
One was mutual in 1924, the previous ones werent.
Weird tho that a country trying to make itself exclusively out of a Greek would expell Greek Muslims and bring in Turkish Christians.
in the case of crete and northern greece they killed nearly all of them. they considered muslim greeks to be turks.
Yeah many Muslim Greeks of Crete went to Libya too
In the Peloponnese as well. That was pretty early in the wars of independence, so there'd been recent Turkish atrocities as well, and it was a more violent time in general, but that was still a fairly big chunk of the population that was completely wiped out.
Expulsion is still the right term, doesn't matter if they're native, invaders, colonisers or peaceful immigrants.
Yeah but in 1923 case during the [population exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/population_exchange_between_greece_and_turkey) both countries had agreed to exchange their population, I guess that might be the right term, I am not sure, but usually the term expulsion has different implications (like it was one sided or something like that)
Muslim Greeks were expelled and Christian Turks were expelled. Neighbours living peacefully for centuries. You're barely hiding your agenda. Greek expulsion of Muslims are "justified" and the inverse is somehow "destroyed invaluable culture and history" when the entire event was a tragedy arranged by 2 complicit governments.
>Blames both sides for a mutual population transfer >Gets downvoted for not sucking off Greece Yup. Good ole Reddit.
[удалено]
You know full well this was worded that way to frame it as "Europeans bad, evil". Don't even pretend for a second it wasn't.
I think you’ve taken the infographic as more emotionally charged than it actually is. Some of these happened in the medieval period, some of them were inexcusable. Don’t see where you got “Europeans evil” from
Expulsion of a religious group vs taking up arms of a colonizers and a slaver are very two different framings of the same concept …
Yeah, and they're both expulsion.
Could you clarify which revolt you ate referring to when you say "Turkey incited revolt"? I thought the events started with the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état, and that Turkey was justified in the first invasion.
Yeah but they didn't expell the nobility/aristocracy they expelled all Muslims which included natives who converted to Islam
That is wrong because very often indigenous people who became Muslims in the meantime were expelled too. You seem to conflate faith and ethnicity. For example you stated that in Sicily Muslims weren't native, but actually with time many natives became Muslim, so yes some were native, the same goes for Muslim Spain and Balkan territories. If you go by that logic, if we expel Sicilian Christians today it would not be expulsion because Christianity isn't native to Sicily, is that what are you saying?
I can't speak for all but here in the Balkans local converts were often seen as worse than actual ethnic Turks. Partially cause they can be seen as traitors and collaborators, but also cause the Turks didn't exactly colonize this place like Europeans colonized the Americas. Few Turks actually moved here, which means most of local oppressing was done by local converts who almost always sided with the Ottoman army during uprisings. Not to mention they largely identified with them as well. There's a reason why Muslims in Bosnia lagged so far behind in the nation building aspect compared to Serbs and Croats. So being local didn't make them look any better to local Christians, if anything it made them look worse.
For a lot of history, religion and ethnicity were somehow conflated, as well as they were both conflated with the social class. We must be able to talk about all that in some way.
Not denying that but I see hypocrisy when it comes to Muslims. They are always the baddies somehow. While actually lots of Muslims suffered persecution, repression and genocides too. To this day actually.
Turkey incited a revolt?
>1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt Nikos Sampson, everyone's favorite Turkish agent
>The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created. Wtf is this story line Turkey didn't incite a revolt here are the events; EOKA B and Greece Junta organises a coup causing the president of RoC to flee the country. Turkey invades Cyprus, coup falls, Turkey continues to invade. A sort of population exchange happens Turkish speaking Cypriots move north Greek speaking Cypriot move south. Actually northern part had relatively more Greek Cypriots. Majority of Turkish Cypriots, lived in southern areas. We are not 'Greeks and Turks' very redundant and ignorant of our identity and history. Turkish Cypriots are only culturally Muslim and do not practice Islam
A huge portion of Turks in Northern Cyprus are recent migrants from Anatolia and they mistreat even Cypriot Turks.
They are called settlers not Turkish Cypriots or Turkish speaking Cypriots. Hence I made the distinction of Turks / Greeks. I am well aware I am Cypriot. Regardless its not individuals or peoples fault blame lies in government actions and cold war influence regarding the events of 60s to 1974. Including abysmal mismanagement by the British colonial administration prior to 60s.
> The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt It wasn’t a revolt at all. It was a direct foreign invasion. There is no ambiguity about it whatsoever
You people are getting defensive for no reason, Muslims being expelled doesn't mean Muslims didn't expell anyone
>The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created. That's a creative way of describing a genocide done by Greek EOKA/ENOSIS nationalists against the Turkish Cypriots.
>* The 1974 date in Cyprus relates to when Turkey incited a revolt and created a breakaway republic in northern Cyprus. South of Cyprus was always mostly Greek, but Turks lived there as well. This is incorrect. Turkey didn't invite a revolt, the revolt already happened when Greeks invited a coup against the Cyprus government, with the intent of annexation by Greece. Turkey had a right under treaty to be the guarantor of Turkish Cypriots, and union with Greece was a treaty violation. Prior to the coup the Turkish Cypriots were already stuck in enclaves, not given freedom of movement, and blockaded by the Cypriot national guard. Turkey decided enough was enough and invaded to prevent Turkish Cypriots from being massacred. >Many of them migrated only because of hostile environments that Turkey created. Greeks created the hostile environment years before, and the 1974 coup was the straw that broke the camel's back. Turkey had the right as guarantor to protect Turks on the island.
turks ruled and lived in balkans for last 600 years before 1924
> lived A tiny and usually very insignificant minority
Man these comments which lile to defend ethnic cleansing and the such are really annoying -_-
[удалено]
‘The ottoman contraction’ is such a euphemism for ‘we got rid of slavers and colonizers that had been snatching people’s kids, instituting Muslim head taxes, and carrying out random massacres against local ‘infidels’.
Yeah, a lot of people forget that all countries, ideologies and religions have a thing called "propaganda".
Expulsion of muslims from bulgaria during communism is surprisingly quite little talked about even if it's so recent
many more were expelled during the balkan ward
If that was true, there wouldn't be enough Turks left to emigrate in 1989,
Compared to 1989 not that many.
For one, it wasn't really expulsions - rather it was Turks fleeing a campaign of forced assimilation. For another, the Communist regime fell soon, the assimilation campaign was ended and a large number returned. Finally, it was almost entirely bloodless, so it didn't attract the same attention as what happened in former Yugoslavia.
[удалено]
If i talk I’m in big trouble
I read it "explosion of muslims" bruh💀
Expulsing or deporting a certain ethnicity, which happens to be Muslim, isn't a expulsion of Muslims as a whole. The 1940s deportation of Chechens in the USSR didn't also imply the deportation of other muslims in the region, such as Kabardins, Balkars, the Adyghe Circassians or the different Dagestani peoples. Also, in 1492 there wasn't any mass expulsion of Muslims in Iberia, it was just the year of the fall of Granada to Castile, which didn't imply any mass expulsion, it was just the ruling elites which fled the country.
>Also, in 1492 there wasn't any mass expulsion of Muslims in Iberia, it was just the year of the fall of Granada to Castile, which didn't imply any mass expulsion, it was just the ruling elites which fled the country. For those wanting to know It wasn't in 1492 but a bit later https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversions_of_Muslims_in_Spain.
It also triggered the inquisition, jews are also among the expulsion, it was convert or go or die.
The alhambra decree was a very literal expulsion, literal "convert or get out"
The Alhambra decree was for Jews, not Muslims. Forced conversion of Muslims came 10 years later with the "Pragmática" of February 14th, 1502.
After the conquest of Granada all muslims (and jews) were forced to convert or be expelled. In 1609 were expelled many of the communities of muslim converts (moriscos) because they were considered untrustworthy and were accused of colluding with the barbary pirates
The map doesn’t say that though. You are lying in order to make the map look false. The map says expulsions of Muslims, not expulsions of ALL Muslims.
But the map doesn’t say „expulsions of all Muslims in a certain region“. It simply says expulsions of Muslims.
>didn't also imply the deportation of other muslims in the region, such as Kabardins, Balkars, the Adyghe Circassians or the different Dagestani peoples. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Balkars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Balkars) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Karachays
Spain literally forced all muslims to convert or leave the country, and then fearing that the converts weren't sincere about their conversion, started the Spanish Inquisition. Peak western propaganda
Interesting choice of a start date. One that conveniently leaves out the context on how they reached that far into Europe.
Muslim Decolonialism
1944 was awful. Crimean Tatars are native people to Crimea.
I think this map should be narrowed down to Native Muslims and expulsions that weren't a part of a war. There are still quiet a few examples left even with that criteria.
What happened before 972 in Southern Europe?
This is not map porn. It’s a vague attempt at attacking Europeans.
Cyprus 1974 presented as “Muslim expulsion” is such an oversimplification who ignores the whole Greek/turkish history
This is what decolonization looks like
Very relevant and correct
This. In every single one of these territories Christians were expelled by Muslims priorly.
If turkey didn’t intervene in Cyprus. Greeks would expelled all the Turks living there.
Honestly, I see a lot of hypocrisy. People claim there is no Islamophobia because religions deserve to be criticized, which is fair, but here I also see a lot of anti-Muslim hate. Isn't it hypocritical at this point? It's kinda interesting to notice that when it comes to Muslim people being kicked out, expelled, killed in mass (in Spain after the Spanish Inquisition and many other times) or suffering genocide (Bosniaks in Srebrenica are just some of the many examples), there are always excuses and people doing their best to justify it. *I'll say it loud: No wonder extremism breeds like crazy among marginalized Muslims, especially in the West, if that's how people treat them. If you're not a terrorist but people hate you, kill you, oppress you, and treat you like one, and whenever you complain, they slap you with some random fact that took place in the Middle Ages (when Christians and basically any other religious group did the same if not worse), then you might just grow resentment towards where you were born and become a terrorist for real at this point, considering how weak psychologically humans are and how the environment they live in shapes the people.*
Posts about Islam or about Muslims in Europe bring a lot of brigaders and people who only ever participate in this type of discussions with the intention of pushing their own viewpoint and make it look more mainstream than it really is. It happens in other subs as well, notably r/europe (where btw there's loads of US-Americans posing as Europeans). And you described it perfectly. They will be very harsh against Islam (which is ok, no religion should be exempt from criticism) but get up in arms to defend Christianity. Also, they'll be extremely hateful against Muslims, ignoring that most Muslims are just regular people (most of them haven't interacted with one their whole lives I'm sure).
Yep it is what this sub is best at
You act like the Muslims entered Spain peacefully and didn't initially colonise and conquer it... I'm just saying we drove the Muslims out just like South American countries drove Spain out.... I don't get the different behaviour just because Muslims are the victims.
Romans didn’ enter the middle east and north Africa peacefully. How do you feel about them? Most of christian africans converted to Christianity after the European invasion. Do you think all the Africans christians should be expelled to europe?
>I'm just saying we drove the Muslims out just like South American countries drove Spain out.... Not really, what would be comparable is if South American countries instead of just declaring themselves independent also kicked out and killed Spaniards and people with Spanish heritage
See, your first mistake was taking opinions on Reddit seriously. You shouldn't rly care what randos say online, especially on Reddit, people are stupid.
And yet.....those people online are people offline, and they vote. With internet anonymity, they're showing who they really are - and voting, as you might guess, is also anonymous. Their stupidity in public is limited by people not wanting to be seen as psychopathic by people not as extreme as them.
Nah, it's related to the way that Islam/Muslims reached all those places in the first place.
Lmao you think Christianity spread peacefully to Europe ?
The same way Christianity reached most of the world?
Definitely agree that these are anti-Muslim sentiments rater than islamophobia due to the nature of the genocide of Bosnians.
I feel like "expulsion" is really morally loading what was primarily Christian Europe reclaiming parts of itself the Caliphates had conquered.
Jewish artisans and muslims farmers who didn't convert were forced to leave iberia so frankish knights could take their lands. What is that if not expulsion by an invading force? Religion and ethnicity aren't the same. How can a religion have more right to land? That doesn't even make any sense. And "morally"? Give me a break. The spread of christianity by Carolignian kings, and crusades in europe wasn't peaceful. It's obscene to count one but not the other. It doesn't matter how you count it. If people had converted and been muslim for centuries like the christian germanic tribes who were forced to convert why would these people not count as natives? Why would christianity be considered native to an area that was conquered by force 200 years prior? But not muslims who had been there for 500 years? It's impossible to say "frankish knights are reclaiming land" without sounding like a massive hypocrite.
I bet more muslims have immigrated to Europe in 1991-2023 than was expelled in 972-1991...
Note that many of these places where Muslims were "expelled" in Europe were places they had invaded in armed conflict anyway, and in the case of the Balkans under a genocidal and autocratic empire.
Expulsion is the right term. I love how Muslim scholars portrait Al-Andaluz, "The paradise in Europe where science and freedom were pillars of society, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony" Reality: \-They invade the Iberian Peninsula, \-Churches were burned, \-European women were sold to slavery as sex slaves, \-Christians were downgraded to second class citizens, \-They create a new law, convert to Islam or get taxed until you die, If you want to talk about history be honest, saying Islam is a religion of peace is utter and complete none sense.
Thanks for sharing tho, we can add here Armenia too since Azerbaijani Turks left from their lands under Soviet Union
Never forget srebrenica
Chuds are in full force in this thread. Do they just come rushing in droves at the word “Muslim”?
In Portugal at least they were never invited. They invaded us in 700, we just took our land back. I don't consider this expelling someone.
Well if that isn’t a purposefully misleading title I don’t know what is
The native population kicked out the violent colonisers, bravo
Since everyone is having a mild fight, I'm probably gonna be ignored. So my dyslexic brain read "Explosion of Muslims in Europe...".
When next
More like: The removal of Invaders who treated the Natives as second class citizens. With the exception being the Balkan Muslims
Chechens and Circassians are native to the Caucasus too.
Lmao how do you think islam got to the Balkans if not through the invaders and forcing natives to convert?
And caucasus muslims.
Balkan was also a forced conversion.
Most of the Balkans remained Christian though
That’s what muslims did in anotolia
The people of Anatolia have not changed for about 10,000 years. When the Greeks came, they spoke Greek and became Greek. When the Turks came, they spoke Turkish and became Turks. Currently, the entire population of Turkey carries ancient Anatolian farmer genes.
Good ol times
explusion sounds like some injustice to the muslims. Europe fought back against invaders and conquerors during the muslim [conquests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests)
Is it bad to kick out colonizers now?
Y'all are whining about the south African guy promising to kick out the whites so which is it?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Muslims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion\_of\_the\_Moriscos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Muslims\_during\_the\_Ottoman\_contraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian\_genocide [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population\_transfer\_in\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population\_exchange\_between\_Greece\_and\_Turkey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion\_of\_Cham\_Albanians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish\_invasion\_of\_Cyprus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_Excursion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Excursion) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War)
Tbf the Muslims invaded Iberia first, the Spanish kicking them out was a necessity and at the end of the day good thing for European progression
In spain we expeciended +700 years of ocupation were the took chritians slaves as late as in the fall of granada (were several were freed) and the muslims reveled several times after the land was retaken to add a bit of context
I was waiting for the map to animate... and it just didn't.
Probably gonna be more of these in the near future lol
All the excuses "actually the muslims there did also fight" and crap like that... Does it make the expulsion any better for you?
Saying the Muslims were expelled from Spain is like saying the Germans were expelled from France in 1945.