it's also funny if you know Islamic history. Islam has a universialist and egalitarian creed.
You really think that?!
Yes. Within the Muslim community. I should perhaps have added that qualification.
Islam has a radical egalitarian and meritocratic creed, within Islam. They have always struggled with living up tp their own ideals. But it is very much an Islamic creed
There's numerous examples of capable slaves who came into the caliphate, had their abilities noticed, converted and went on to have great careers.
There was always a tension between the ummah and ruler. I'd say its an inevitable and inbuilt tension.
In the west the tension was between the king and pope. I'd say the Islamic model is better. Since the Quran acts as a constitution, that can stop a misbehaving caliph. The members of the ummah was and is a meritocratic institution that always was, pretty much open to anyone who wanted to devote time to it.
I've studied both the Quran and Bible. I personally think the books are interchangable. People make a big thing about doctrinal differences. I can't see it. Or that Islam doesn't separate state from religion. Yes, they do. The caliphs, in general, got involved in religion less than the western kings did. They were busy running their absolutely massive empires. They didn't have time to get involved in theological hairsplitting. Most of them spent every waking hour on a horse galloping towards the nearest rebellion to crush.
Shia Islam has old roots. But the Shiism of Iran is a 15'th century syncretistic religion cobbled together with Zoroastrianism and tengrism. You can’t really blame that one on Mohammed. Its something that arose from the ashes after the Mongols absolutely devastating invasion.
Another thing, the Muslim expansion, when it gobbled up Persia and half of Rome. It coincidenced with Heraculous stepping up marginalisation of Syriac Christians and tried forcing all Jews to convert to Christianity. If you look at the map, the Muslims managed to conquer exactly those parts that were Syriac Christian and Jewish. I don't think that's a coincidence. Islamic theology is extremely similar to Syriac Christian theology. They're basically the same.
The Muslims didn't force anyone to convert. They just let the Jews and Christians get on with it. That was extremely progressive by the standards of the day
At the same time the Persians tried forcibly converting all Persians to Zoroastrianism. Christianity and Judaism had spread in the empire. While the army mostly consisted of Syriac Christian Arabic mercenarys. You don't need to be a tactical genius to see what the flaw in the Persian plan was.
The Jews and Christians of Persia were super happy about the Muslims taking over
Anyway.. I can say a lot more. I'll stop there