Gur

The Selective Amnesia of the Left: Why Islamic Colonialism Is Ignored From the 7th century onward, the Islamic Caliphates spread through relentless military conquests stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa, Persia, the Levant, the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, and parts of Europe. The expansion of Islam was political, legal, and cultural imperialism enforced by the sword. The doctrine of jihad explicitly legitimized the conquest of non-Muslim lands, the enslavement of non-believers, and the imposition of dhimmitude, a state of second-class citizenship for Jews and Christians, and total persecution for polytheists. Over 300 million people are estimated to have died directly or indirectly as a result of Islamic conquests, slavery, and institutionalized persecution over 14 centuries. This includes the Hindu genocide in India, where historians like K.S. Lal estimate 80 million Hindus were killed; the decimation of Zoroastrianism in Persia; the obliteration of ancient African tribal cultures in the Sahel; and the destruction of the Byzantine Christian civilization across the Eastern Mediterranean. Islamic imperialism did not merely conquer lands, it Arabized them. Persian, Berber, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, and countless African languages and cultures were either marginalized or erased. The Arab identity became the default face of Islam, even in non-Arab lands. Cities like Alexandria, Carthage, and Damascus, once bastions of classical thought and Christian theology, were transformed into outposts of Islamic rule, their libraries burned, their churches converted, and their populations forcibly converted or reduced to servitude. And yet, when the modern left speaks of cultural appropriation, linguistic erasure, or settler violence, these episodes never appear in their moral inventory. The only colonialism that matters, it seems, is that which emerged from Europe. Why is this massive, centuries-long imperial project not only ignored but actively whitewashed by the progressive intelligentsia? Three reasons: 1.Victimhood Hierarchy: In the left’s worldview, Muslims occupy the role of “oppressed minority,” especially in the West. Criticizing Islam, even when grounded in historical fact, risks disrupting this victimhood narrative and is swiftly branded as “Islamophobic.” 2.Postmodernism and Cultural Relativism: The academic left, steeped in Foucault and Said, often refuses to judge non-Western cultures by universal standards. Thus, Islamic slavery, misogyny, or religious violence is excused as “contextual,” while similar Western practices are condemned as unforgivable. 3.Political Expediency: Islam, despite its imperialist core, is increasingly seen as a geopolitical ally against Western conservatism, capitalism, and Zionism. Therefore, its historical crimes are either downplayed or completely omitted. It is incoherent to denounce European colonialism while ignoring Islamic colonialism. If moral consistency is the standard, then Islamic empires, from the Rashidun and Umayyads to the Ottomans, must be held accountable for their conquests, forced conversions, enslavement, and genocides. The left’s moral outrage is not rooted in historical justice, but ideological selectivity. By refusing to acknowledge Islamic colonialism, they betray their own stated principles and reduce the idea of decolonization to a weapon, not a value.

Dave Smith also said that Israel can’t morally or legally escape responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza. Well, Israel’s war in Gaza is a moral dilemma engineered by Hamas. Imagine a trolley is speeding down a track. Five people are tied to the rails ahead. You have one chance to pull a lever that will redirect the trolley to another track, but on that track, one person is tied down. Ethically, you face an impossible decision: do you let the trolley run over the five, or do you pull the lever and sacrifice one to save them? Most people, after weighing the situation, would pull the lever, saving the five lives at the cost of one. Now, let’s take it further. What if that one person is your own child, and the five are strangers? What would you do then? This is where Israel stands. Hamas kidnapped Israel’s child and tied him to the tracks. Not only that, but Hamas also tied five Palestinians to the other track. So now, what should Israel do? Should Israel pull the lever and save the five Palestinians, sacrificing its own people? Or should Israel save its own people and let the Palestinians die in the process? Hamas hides behind civilians. They store weapons in hospitals, launch rockets from schools, and turn neighborhoods into human shields. Hamas forces Israel into impossible decisions. If Israel targets Hamas, Palestinian civilians, whom Hamas intentionally puts in harm’s way, are killed. Hamas ensures Israel gets blamed. No matter what happens, Hamas has rigged the game so that the world condemns Israel for defending itself. Israel does not want Palestinian civilians to die. It warns them before strikes. It allows humanitarian aid. It adheres to international law far more than any other military in history. But Hamas deliberately engineers Palestinian casualties to weaponize them against Israel. This is not war as the world understands it. This is a terrorist organization holding its own people hostage, turning every death into propaganda, and making sure Israel loses no matter what. And the world falls for it. Every. Single. Time. So, what is Israel supposed to do? Let Hamas win? Let its people be slaughtered? Pull the lever and sacrifice its own children? No nation would accept that choice.