Talk:Siege of Alexandria (641)

Definition of tolerance
Consider this sentence in the article: "The hallmark of Muslim conquest was its surprising tolerance." This take on history has always confused me. Muslims taxed non-believers at a much higher rate - thus why would they want someone to convert to their religion? Non believers had to publically acknowledge their religion's inferiority to Islam, even to go as far as wearing an article of clothing to indicate non-believer status, or to stop in front of a building they were about to enter in order to allow, with head bowed, a Muslim to enter first. What is "tolerant" about this? I would label Muslim leadership "smart" to rule in such a way as to avoid open rebellion.Cutugno (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, the burning of the library of Alexandria and persecution of pagans was not "tolerant" at all. Not tolerant relative to the Greek or roman (well..) rulers. Genghis Khan didn't even force his religion on denizens of his empire. I think I'll make a conservative (in the sense of conservation) edit 176.26.153.90 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "Permanently Seized"
I changed the description from "permanently seized" to "seized" since the Byzantines retook it in 645, as established in the "Byzantine counterattack" section. Also "permanently seized" is a rather ridiculous term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.182.195 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Number 4
Please, cite additional pages 81.0.166.183 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)