I don't know how anyone could call the Muslims "the most bloodthirsty murder machine" compared to Hitler's Third Reich, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mongolia under the Great Khans, or even Rome.

After as far as I'm aware the Arabic language doesn't have a word for killing one tenth of your own troops for punishment. Latin does. Nor were the Muslims famous for punishing land, Rome was (salting the earth). What was it Tacitus wrote about the Romans? "They rob, kill and plunder all under the deceiving name of Roman Rule. They make a desert and call it peace." Agricola chapter 30. I can't think of a war where the Muslims were as viciously brutal as Rome was in just the Third Punic war.

And the Mongols were infamous for laying waste to whole regions. The Muslim conquests (either the first round, or the later ones by later Muslim empires) don't appear to me to be any worse than the other great pre-modern empires. In fact given how enormously destructive some of the Mongol conquests were, the Muslim conquests seem relatively peaceful in comparison. Where are the great slaughters of the world's greatest cities to compare with the sacking of Bagdad, Nishapur, Samarkand, Zhongdu, and hundreds of others. Censuses in China show that the population there dropped from 120 million to 60 million during the Mongol conquests. That isn't entirely attributable to the Mongols. But the fact that the Mongols were creating vast swamps out of the blood and fat of hundreds of thousands of humans in places, they probably deserve some credit/blame for the famines and plagues of the era as well.

Now I'm not saying the Muslims conquests were nice. But I wouldn't say they were especially bad either.

The article is terrifyingly bad. Let me take a stab at illustrating some of the ways it takes quotes and draws horrific conclusions from them.

I'm not going to comment on the India case, because quite frankly I don't know enough about it, but I'd definitely take a quote of a quote with a grain of salt, to put it lightly.

I highly doubt the quote of the whole "slave raid" thing, but once more let's assume it's true. Over 1400 years some 110 million people were estimated killed. Compare that to the 11 million or more systematically killed by Germany (outside of war casualties) during the Third Reich, within what...6 years of war? 10 years tops? The Germans, at that rate, would've reached the Islamic number of Africans killed within 100 years, and they would've likely ramped up their killing. And that's not to mention how many soldiers died due to their aggressive wars. Comparing 1400 years of slave raids and placing some moral blame on the Muslims for it as a whole is a little iffy at best, considering the Arab empires didn't begin to exist until post-Muhammad in 632. Prior to then, Arab raids, if they happened at all, were conducted by the Bedouin. The Bedouin were organized in nomadic tribes around the Arabic Peninsula, and were not an empire at all. In fact, Ethiopia, Byzantium/Rome, and Persia were all using many of those tribes to attack each other, so this is a complete crock of crap, to put it lightly. I don't know where the 1400 years figure comes from, I don't know if they're trying to include the Ottoman Empire, but if they are then they're conflating once more and making a very unclear case. The Islamic Empire was different from the Ottoman Empire, which was more based around Turkey though it was Islamic (58% Muslim, in the 16th century, anyways, with the rest Christian and Jewish). Either way, it's just a pretty big conclusion to draw from very little information, no matter the source, and they're clearly trying to make a bigger conclusion out of it than the author actually does if you ask me.

Then they quote this as a source. I think we can easily discount the credibility of this, right off the bat. Christians were not horribly treated under the Muslims, nor was there any real strife during the Ottoman Empire which had 32% of its population in the 16th century as Christians. In fact, they prospered as European influence over the Ottoman Empire grew. Despite the Crusades, which go unmentioned, the Islamic Empires were very friendly to Christians. While treating them as an inferior class, they were also protected, and were not in any way subject to "bloodthirsty" situations or conquest. This is a correlation fallacy, assuming that Christians are no longer there because of the Muslims, rather than accept that there may be other causes (like shifting economic fortunes, political views, etc.) that led to Christians moving out of Northern Africa. Further, blaming Muslims and their empires for the actions of extremists post-Islamic Empires are pretty strange, like the mention of Sudan which (I believe) refers to more recent events in Sudan.

At that point I gave up.

Honestly, an article like this is absolute codswallop (I really like that word).

Any amount of research into the Islamic Empires, through the Abbasid, Umayyad, and other leadership of those empires shows that Islam was not a "bloodthirsty" religion by the standards of the day. Muhammad in particular was far less bloodthirsty than even his successors, only taking action against those who he believed had already attacked him (or planned to do so). Even so, his actions were often peaceful. Conquest was sometimes used to distract attention post-Muhammad from internal problems in the empire, as by Umar between 634-644 CE, but there's absolutely no way this article is doing anything but assigning present morals to something that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago. It ignores any type of actions by other religions, choosing only to compare Islam to one or two totalitarian regimes at a time, rather than give it its fair play against other religious movements. It ignores the Crusades, ignores the Mongols, ignores the movements into the New World, ignores the Christian and Jewish prosperity under the Ottomans, ignores the general aggression that was taking place by all actors at various points throughout the history, and squarely places the blame on "Muslims".

A more biased and Islamophobic article would be hard to find.

I can't condense the history of Islam (from 620-ish on) into any type of short post, but rest assured that the ignorance of this article is plainly obvious. Bloodthirsty actions by the Muslims are very, very exaggerated here, that's for sure, and painted as only one-sided. Comparing the Muslims to the Mongols alone, and comparing the amount of time they carried out atrocities in, should make that clear. Instead 1400 years of Muslim Empires (different ones, at that) is compared to some 100 years of Mongol movements, <10 years of Nazi power, some vague conquistador experiences, and so on...it's just angering to see ignorance like this.