Muslim I know finds Genghis Khan offensive? Should he be condemned for actions?

[Frosty Mist]

During the period of Genghis Khan's rule he tried to commit genocide against Muslims much like how Hitler tried to do so to the Jews. One of his generals even conspired to try and work together with the crusaders to wipe out all of Islam or the Islamic world as a whole and fight to Mecca in order to destroy it but failed fortunately.

Genghis Khans acts against Muslims were apparently extremely brutal and absolutely no pity or mercy was shown under any circumstances. It was way worse than any other places he invaded and unparalleled by any of the non-Muslim world he invaded.

Almost a huge portion of the Muslim population was killed off by his genocide against their race. People even hid in graves and were forced to eat rats or other animals and even cannibalize human corpses around them to survive. They were butchered relentlessly for 40 days and despite many crying while pleading for mercy still none as ever shown.

Even today in places like Mongolia there are statues of Genghis Khan and stories of him around the world talking about how supposdly of a 'great conquerer' he was. There is a Muslim I know who finds Genghis Khan offensive for reasons because of what he did to Baghdad, Merv and the Muslim world?

They showed me this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA4foarxj_o

[One Sun Mirror]

Muhammad did some pretty morally questionable things too, but I'm sure he's not going to be offended by that.

Genghis Khan did not have a specific hatred for Muslims, but he fought against a number of Muslim nations. Neither Merv nor Baghdad were sacked by the Great Khan. Merv was by his son Tolui (though I guess Genghis was Great Khan at this time, so you can hold him responsible if you like. Likely he would have laughed in your face and told you it made him great though). Baghdad was sacked by Hulegu, a grandson of Genghis, and well after the death of the his grandfather. Of course, nobody is going to claim the Mongols were brutal to those they conquered in such a way, but it's very rare indeed (especially for the time) that conquered peoples were treated well.

Genghis and his descenants employed a great number of Muslims within the administration of his empire and allowed them to freely practise their own reigion (something with non-Muslims in Muslim nations have been historically either forbidden from or penalised for), something highly progressive and humane for its time.

Instances of Genghis taking a specific dislike to Muslims might be the Hashashin order (the deadly Assassins) who tried to kill him. Personally I think this is entirely justified, and he rooted out this fearsome order and drove them out of his lands and into the west. He also didn't very much like the Shah of Kwarezm, who executed his emmissaries and went back on his agreements with the Mongols. Again, I can't say I blame him. But again, these are quite specific people or groups of people, not a blanket hatred of Muslims.

And of course, there's the Mongol military doctrine of wiping out unruly populations. Due to a large portion of the Mongol Empire following the Muslim faith, I'm sure there were a great many Muslims who bore the brunt of the terrors unleashed by the Mongols. More of them means there's more chance of attempted uprisings or unrest, leading to more cities being severely deminished or being wiped off the face of the earth. Astoundingly brutal by today's standards. Still pretty nasty, but not unheard of by contemporary ones.

The "Muslim World", if it is defined as Muslims ruling over Musilim populations, was certainly damaged severely by Mongol expansionism. However, given that Genghis allowed his new Islamic subjects to freely and openly practice their religion as long as they didn't hinder him, Islam lived on under him and his successors. Some of those proto-Mongolian hordes that splintered from Genghis' empire once it began to fall apart even converted to Islam!!

To be genuinely offended by Genghis Khan for what he "did to the Muslim World" is like modern Spain being offended by the Prophet Muhammad for what he "did to Iberian lands". Ridiculous.

And lastly, comparing Genghis Khan to Hitler is way more trouble than it's worth unpacking fully. They are two very, very different historical contexts and goals.

Hopefully your friend can take less personal offense to history that's way out of living memory and put their energy into more positively impacting the world around them.

[airmikee99]

Genghis Khan died in 1227.

Islam arrived in Mongolia in 1254.

At least it's nice to know that Americans aren't the only ones with such a pisspoor understanding of history and a love of retarded conspiracy nonsense.

[Matthew]

It is pretty ridiculous when people apply modern standards of morality to a thousand years ago. And even more so when they act offended with the results. Tell your Muslim friend instead of worrying about the past he or she should focus more on trying to catch up with modern times and drop his outdated, medieval religion. The year is 2018, not 610.

[Frosty Mist]

Originally posted by preacher:

A human leader did something questionable? NO WAY

The point was that he attempted genocide against them. For some reason what Genghis Khan did to the Islamic world was unparalled in cruelty and the most brutal out of all compared to even other places he 'conquered'? Why did he not show an ounce of mercy at all vs other places where atleast a little was shown? The Muslims were butchered for 40 days, were forced to eat corpses to survive, and even though they cried hysterically while slumped on the ground begging for mercy they were still killed without mercy sometimes even forced to watch their relatives be killed infront of them by Genghis Khan.

[Beep!]

The Levant, Anatolia, North Africa, and places in the Middle-East were "cleansed" of Christianity by your friend's fellow Muslims. Remind him of this, and that he should not throw stones when he lives in a glass house.

[SamBC]

http://www.ihistory.co/did-the-mongols-really-hate-islam-or-just-the-muslims-arrogance/

There are different ways of looking at the same data, different interpretations that can be put on it.

[Pilgrim_Bear]

Regardless of religion, Genghis Khan was a bloody ruler who managed to subjugate a quarter of the known world back then. He was quite tolerant of religion as far as I know. Genghis Khan didn't commit genocide, he commited mass multiethnic slaughters, just beacuese that piece of land looks pretty good as his footstool.

[galadon3]

Originally posted by ClericMatthew1517:

Regardless of religion, Genghis Khan was a bloody ruler who managed to subjugate a quarter of the known world back then. He was quite tolerant of religion as far as I know. Genghis Khan didn't commit genocide, he commited mass multiethnic slaughters, just beacuese that piece of land looks pretty good as his footstool.

Actually part of the mongol strategy to conquer an area was to send envoys to all the princes in the area and demand their surrender, after that they usually made a pretty bloody example of one of those who loudly declared he was going to resist them and then they sent envoys again to the survivors.
Actually the Mongols had pretty early figured out that intact cities pay a lot more tribute then razed ones.

[Pilgrim_Bear]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by ClericMatthew1517:

Regardless of religion, Genghis Khan was a bloody ruler who managed to subjugate a quarter of the known world back then. He was quite tolerant of religion as far as I know. Genghis Khan didn't commit genocide, he commited mass multiethnic slaughters, just beacuese that piece of land looks pretty good as his footstool.

Actually part of the mongol strategy to conquer an area was to send envoys to all the princes in the area and demand their surrender, after that they usually made a pretty bloody example of one of those who loudly declared he was going to resist them and then they sent envoys again to the survivors.
Actually the Mongols had pretty early figured out that intact cities pay a lot more tribute then razed ones.

That's just it. Genghis Khan was not a leader of a bunch of hungry nomadic barbarians or anything like that. Sending envoys to demand tributes and/or terms of surrender was common practice long before his days, but the rate and the amount of those he "made an example of" earned him his bloody reputation.

That, and paying tribute sucks. Imagine paying taxes to a foreign country, but on a city or even national level. No one likes getting milked dry, but I suppose more people dislike getting decorated with keshik arrows. Understandably, Genghis Khan would not have the best track record.

[Preacher]

He probably killed a few Christians and other people of other religions as well. But, hey, oh well.

[Pilgrim_Bear]

Originally posted by Disciple Blackout of Christ:

He probably killed a few Christians and other people of other religions as well. But, hey, oh well.

What a name you have there, dear disciple. Need an electrician? (no seriously, how does Steam allow that long of a name?)

As for Mongolia's current praise for Genghis Khan, well he turned a bunch of squabbling chieftains into a unified force. It would fade quickly from his conquered lands, and Mongolia itself got ping-ponged a bit by some other folks, but he still managed to organize his "homeland?" (they're nomadic horsemen so I don't know if current Mongolia is exactly their origin)

[Preacher]

Originally posted by ClericMatthew1517:

Originally posted by Disciple Blackout of Christ:

He probably killed a few Christians and other people of other religions as well. But, hey, oh well.

What a name you have there, dear disciple. Need an electrician? (no seriously, how does Steam allow that long of a name?)

I do not understand the joke.