I've recently witnessed this claim on Facebook. They also claimed the following:
"we wouldn't have any works from Ancient Greece if Muslim scholars hadn't saved them from Christian book burnings"
"Arabic philosophers kept the Greek tradition alive, whose efforts allowed for Renaissance philosophy to thrive"
"Muslim Moors are what saved European scholars while Europeans were killing any and every scientist/philosopher who said that the earth revolved around the sun, while Europeans were burning every secular book they could find, Moors protected European mathematics and science. Europeans wouldn't stop shitting upstream and killing their own kids with literal piss water"
"Western Europe would have had no Renaissance without the Moors translating ancient Greek treatises and expanding on them"
"Moors had a scientific culture not as limited by political intrigue and manipulation of religion to fight 'unpopular knowledge.' White Europeans burned everyone on the stake and used religion to limit the spread of ideas that could damage the various fragile power structures. The Moors were responsible for moving Europe forward, not white Europeans"
Is there any truth to this?
Edit: So they also said to me that the Renaissance "sucked", that the only European civilizations before the Moors were "shitty" (note that he claims that Greek and Roman civilizations were not European civilizations, but Mediterranean civilizations, as if the two are mutually exclusive), and that Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age European civilizations "weren't civilizations." Quite a perplexing individual.
Is there any validity to the above statements? I'm assuming no, but at this point I can't tell if this person is just ridiculous or if I'm uninformed.
I am going to address the claims you have raised in order, sometimes combining those which are very similar. The topics covered are quite vast, and I will only address the European parts of it. Thus consider this writing a good starting point, rather than a thorough analysis.
These statements are not true per se. While Muslims scholars definitely played an important role in preserving the works of the ancient Greek giants, they were not the sole source of them. A clear example is the Byzantine Empire, where we can see a direct, natural link to Ancient Greece through the Ancient Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was a direct successor of the Roman Empire; and even though they called themselves Roman, their language was Greek. [1]
Western Europeans scholars came into contact with the rich ancient Greek knowledge preserved there mostly through (as a result of) the fourth crusade. A good example would be Willem van Moerbeke (William of Moerbeke), a Flemish scholar who, among others, translated the complete works of Aristotle to Latin. [2]
Sources:
[1] Ostrogorsky, George (1969): History of the Byzantine State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1198-4.
[2] Steel, Carlos (2014): William of Moerbeke, translator of Proclus, in: Stephen Gersh (Ed.): Interpreting Proclus, From Antiquity to the Renaissance. Cambridge Universtiy Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19849-3.
This is false. The initial idea of Heliocentrism was widely discussed in Medieval Europe; in 1533 the contemporary pope was in fact so interested in the topic that he asked for lectures in it. [3]
While true that later in 1616 Heliocentrism was indeed banned [4], many cases, including perhaps the most famous "killing of ... scientist", Giordano Bruno, were not quite clear-cut.
While Bruno was a public advocate of Heliocentrism, he also advocated for pantheism, which might have been considered an even more serious crime, as it directly challenged the Catholic dogma. These two reasons were inseparable for his eventual condemnation and burning at stake. [5]
To summarize, in Medieval Europe while the Heliocentrism was viewed in a quite hostile way, "killing any and every scientist/philosopher" is not true.
Sources:
[3] Speller, Jules (2008): Galileo's Inquisition Trial Revisited. Peter Lang Publishing Group. ISBN 978-3-631-56229-1.
[4] Finocchiaro, Maurice (2007): Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25387-2.
[5] Birx, Jams (1997): Giordano Bruno. The Harbinger, Mobile, AL. http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/971111/birx.html
Another false statement. It is true that in the Middle Ages, especially in the Early Middle Ages, science was not quite separated from religion, in the sense that science was not pursued for its own worth, but for religious reasons. But it was still pursued nevertheless! Examples include studying astronomy and mathematics to determine praying time and dates of Christian festivals, architecture for building monumental cathedrals, and so on and so forth. [6]
Sources:
[6] McCluskey, Stephen (1990): Gregory of Tours, Monastic Timekeeping, and Early Christian Attitudes to Astronomy. Isis, 81 (March 1990)
Some additional remarks/sidenotes.
It seems the person who made these claims confuses "Moors", that is, Moor peoples, with the general inhabitants of the Islamic Caliphates of the Islamic Golden Age. Most of these people were not only not "Moors" but they did not even live in the same (African) continent.
Finally, the title: the so-called "Black Muslim Moors...". This expression/"idea" of "Black Moors", can be considered both true and false, depending on what you mean by "Black". If your definition of Black is simply "non-White", then the statement holds true. However, if your definition is the much more prevalent "Black Africans", then the statement is not quite true. The Moors were (are) an ethnic group of mostly Arabs and Berbers. Now of course with the proximity of Sub-Saharan Africa, racial intermixing was there, but the Moors, in the modern sense, were much more "Arabic" than "Black".