Just wondering, seeing as there was a pretty long period of Roman and Aksum contact, in some culture was exchanged (Christianity, most prominently), was there any linguistic exchange?

Let's say I'm located in england.

Not an islamophobic post or poster.

I've recently read a book called "Islam and the future of tolerance: A Dialoge". In this book one of the debaters makes an uncontested claim that Islam was spread primarily through conquest and that infidels (Christians and Jews) where forced to convert or die. Is this true? Also I would like to know if the Prophet Muhammad himself killed anybody?

And lastly - if the above is true - when did the statement that Islam is a religion of peace arise? And what is the basis for this statement?

Difficult to ask these questions without feeling politically incorrect, but I am genuinely intrigued by this.

Edit: Many Thanks for the great replies! They have really broadened my horizon.

Edit: I have just realized that I have misquoted the debater in my question since I have worded it so that Christians and Jews where regarded as infidels and therefore forced to either convert or die, when they where in fact regarded as "people of the book" and therefore were given the option of paying protection tax. None of the below comments seem to be affected by my mistake.

The correct wording in the book is this: “Islam was spread primarily by conquest, not conversation. Infidels were forced to convert or die. “People of the book”— Jews and Christians— were given the option of paying a protection tax (jizya) and living in an apartheid state (as dhimmi). In fact, Muslim historians recorded in assiduous detail the numbers of infidels they slaughtered or enslaved and deported.”

In addition to the main question, what was the legal age boys could join the army in nationally regulated armies such as during Roman times? Moving a bit forward in time, I'm aware that boys during the Medieval period were considered men at 12 and were required to go on manhunts when they were called for. Were they also allowed to join the English army at this age?

Pulling the top portion of the trigger fired a single shot, while pulling the bottom or full trigger enabled sustained fire. What purpose would a machine gun have for firing in a semi-automatic mode?

Has the majority of the Christian church always been anti-homosexuality?

Years ago I was watching one of the countless, countless things TV stations have produced about WWII. In there there was a pilot who said the Zero could only turn left which gave him an advantage. I have never been able to find anything that really answers why this was true. if it was true. it seems like a substantial liability for a fighter to have, the inability to turn a certain direction.

So, was this true? Was the Zero the only plane with this problem? If so why did it have this problem?

I understand that the Western Front could be incredibly diverse but I had a couple questions about the general layout of trenches along the Western front. How long were most stretches of trenches? What was the population density of these trenches? Thank you for the answers.

Also, why does every Muslim dynasty name ends with -id?

EDIT: I was initially speaking of US states, but I guess this could be expanded to any country where the central government was established after the settlement of towns.

[deleted]

I know the idea of a commute is fairly new but you get the idea. Maybe a guy 1500 years ago would walk for an hour a day for various activities while I drive around for an hour a day for work etc. albeit a lot further distances. Another way of asking this is: as travel methods change, do humans just end up changing the daily distance we travel? I'm aware that long distance travel has been dramatically improved so this only applies to daily regular travel.

So I've been reading about Italy during the renaissance and I'm starting to wonder if there were any fellas locking horns like say William Pitt and Charles Fox? So far it seems that there were great men without worthy opponents.

The title says it all. I have heard all about the mongols and their reign of terror, and how no nation seemed able to stand against them. However, I wonder. Were there any civilizations at the time that did battle with the mongols and were able to stand their ground?

I get that the dream of getting rich is a strong driver to people. You hear stories about people who strike gold and become insanely wealthy. Then you hear that there is an untapped region in California or Alaska, and you think that it could happen to you.

But taking part in a gold rush isn't the same thing as going out and buying a lottery ticket. Either you have to have more than a reasonable assumption that you are going to be rich, or your current living situation is poor enough that abandoning it to start a new difficult life on the off chance that you become rich is a worthwhile proposition.

Considering that many minors lost money or just barely made a profit, there must have been some misinformation out there about what the work would entail or what the chances of striking gold actually were. What was the misinformation?

What was life like for gold-rushers before they became gold-rushers? Was their life so bad where they were? Were they married? Kids? Was there a working shortage or a depressed economy? Did they have any experience mining?

Were there popular stories of people getting rich from gold? Were those stories accurate or more like tall-tales?

Why is it that the eagle features prominently in the heraldry of a lot of nations throughout history such as Rome, Byzantium, Russia, Holy Roman Empire and US? What's so special about it that it became a popular choice for heraldry and symbol use?