Not generally. I mean, forcible conversion happened in Islam, certainly, but while Muslim armies took over large amounts of land, they didn’t generally force conversion. Most conversions to Islam happened due to Muslim missionaries, or for economic reasons, as individuals in Muslim areas found that conversion exempted them from certain taxes that non-Muslims had to pay, or was necessary for high office.
I had an Azeri friend who described the growth of Islam in Azerbaijan as “conversion by the coin”…as Azerbaijan fell under Islamic Persian influence and the influence of Persian merchants, local rulers converted to Islam for beneficial trade deals.
Something similar happened in East Africa and Southeast Asia, with Arab merchants setting up trading colonies and dominating the economies of the region.
I can also be used as an informal greeting with the connotation of deep affection, “Fuck off, bro” … and it’s used as a profane interjection … such that “Fuck off” is one of the rare expressions that is its own antonym …
You specialize in the not intended irony.
I have made no statement about reading Gibbon or not, whatever you decide to presume to construct the straw men.
The comments made remain, the inability of you to understand them due to your poor thinking skills and the seeming profound tendency to the hero worship does not change that in over 200 years both the tools for the analysis and the data, the evidences has greatly expanded, making the work of Gibbon a artefact of the historiography and not a current source.
Your repeating of your Great Man assertions in hero worshipping do not change this.
And so? What is the point of the non sequitur?
It is necessary to add to have an accuracy “where also he had the language” - which he did not in the case for the eastern languages which is what I said and you now run around stomping your feet about although 100 per cent correct. So Gibbon was always considered strong for the Latin using empire and not strong and even shorting the later Eastern empire continuation…
No, there are no primary chronicles, but in the past two centuries other kinds of cross checking evidence has been developed.
This you bizarrely ignore…
Bizarre…
I have said not one thing about Gibbon not being important, indeed the contrary.
You seem unable to make the difference in your hero worship uncritical thinking between a statement that such works are now outdated and surpassed and their being important