Well, dhimmi tax wasn’t a fixed rate, and from all the sources I’m seeing, it wasn’t even all that oppressive. If you have other sources saying different, I’d love to see them. As for “bowing to your Muslim overlords,” yeah, everyone bowed to some overlord back then. Go to the Middle East back then and you’re bowing to Muslim overlords, go to France at the time and you’re bowing to your Christian overlords.
There are muslims living in countries where they don’t have an authoritarian Islamic rule, and their practice is just fine. Their faith isn’t crumbling under the intense weight of their freedom. And sure, there are probably muslims trying to classify blasphemy as hate speech. There are christians trying to put their own beliefs into law all the time. I don’t hold it against the entirety of either religion, because if you truly believe something why not fight for it? I fight politically for the things I believe in, and I can in no wise expect any less from anyone else.
The fact so many people chose to convert in such a short period of time indicates it wasn’t nothing. And it was a tax on top of regular taxes. And there’s no immediately available sources for either side of the argument that don’t look biased to hell.
A special tax (the jizya);
A prohibition against carrying arms;
A prohibition against riding horses;
A prohibition against building new houses of worship or repairing old ones;
Prohibitions against public processions and worship;
A prohibition against proselytism;
A requirement to wear distinctive clothing;
A prohibition against building homes higher than Muslim ones.
The fact they exist in countries that are not authoritarian has nothing to do with what they advocate for in the realm of public policy, which traditionally is a dhimmi status for people of the book and the death of pagans, atheists, and apostates.
You can use this to justify fighting politically absolutely anything.
"you can’t say that nazis are bad, they’re just fighting for their political beliefs"
What an ideology advocates for politically reflects on the ideology as a whole. You choosing “not to hold it against them” is just arbitrarily self-imposed restriction.
Or perhaps they merely found they liked Islam more? What would the flip side be? For a man to be muslim in Christian countries at the time meant death or banishment (if you were lucky). Jews were still allowed in, but they were actively treated miserably by the people and the government. In Islamic countries they just had to pay a special tax, which like I said, wasn’t all that oppressive.
You listed a bunch of oppressions from the Ottomans. Fair enough. The official religion of the country was Islam, and it held special privileges over other faiths (although I must add that in the feudal societies of Europe at the time, peasants usually weren’t allowed to own weapons either, even if they were christian). However, as I stated before, in places that the roles were reversed, the punishment for disagreement with the overarching faith was much more severe.
You are correct that only the people of the book received the liberties I have stressed. However I would add that out of the two Abrahamic religions, Islam treated pagans outside their country with respect while the Christians made sure to scorn them when they couldn’t reach them. Ibn Fadlan detailed an extensive trading network with the pagan Norse while the common Christian practice was to refuse trade with all pagans, which is what eventually brought down the sovereignty of the Lithuanian Empire, the Scandinavians and Icelanders.
And I do use it to justify anything. People should be allowed to fight for their beliefs and voice their opinions, even if I find them reprehensible. That’s what’s called a “free society.” Keep in mind that it is not all muslims advocating for the defining of blasphemy as “hate speech.” I have known a few muslims in my life, and none of them have expressed anything close to these views. Why don’t you attach the political non affiliation with this agenda to Islam too?
lol uh huh, religions are just like candy at a candy store, you just pick and choose which one you like- especially back in the middle ages.
For good reason, since in the time after the death of Muhammad Islam expanded over all of Arabia, Persia, North Africa, and started pressing against the Byzantine Empire. Wherever they encountered resistance they would slaughter their opposition, and took vast amounts of previously Christian land. Until the Crusades to take back the Holy Lands or the Reconquista there was rarely instances of Muslim lands being ruled over by Christians.
Jews had effectively the same status in Christian and Muslim countries. There were Muslims that persecuted them just as there were Christians that persecuted them, but the heads of either religion generally tried to protect them.
The Ottomans continued practices that were standard for centuries within Islam.
lol who taught you this shit? Go ask any Hindu (Islam recognizes them as pagans) how great they were treated by Muslims during the Middle Ages. You can’t ask the Zoroastrians after all, since they’re all basically dead. Did you also miss the part where Ibn Fadlan calls the Vikings/Rus “the filthiest of Allah’s creatures?”
The reason Christians didn’t trade with the northern pagans was because the vikings were raiding up and down their coasts, pillaging monasteries and towns. The Orthodox Christian faith also traded fine with the Vikings/Rus, they sailed down the river to the Black Sea and traded with both the Byzantines and Abbasid. The Varangian guard, for example. Both Islam and Christianity reacted poorly to pagans that pressed up against their borders, Islam just much more explicitly demands their death.
Because there’s a difference between people who are nominally Muslim and people who follow the actual doctrine of Islam.
Well, yeah. Especially in a country that happens to allow all three of these religions legally.
Of course, at the time Islam was conquesting all over the Middle East, Africa and South East Europe, Christianity was moving north or merely fighting each other. Their relative “peacefulness” was out of lack of unity, not out of love of their neighbors.
Do you think the Catholics wouldn’t have done the same given the correct circumstances?
Another example of Islamic (relative) tolerance towards pagans would be the Kalash peoples, who survive even today with their polytheistic traditional religion intact, in Pakistan. I would love for you to find a similar circumstance anywhere in Christian Europe.
As for Ibn Fadlan calling the Rus “the filthiest of Allah’s creatures,” he wrote about them spitting loogies into a bowl of water, washing their face with it, then passing it down the line for others to do the same. I’d call them filthy as well haha.
In 772, Charlemagne destroyed Irminsul, which was the center of Western Germanic faith. In 782, Christian forces massacred 4,500 saxon villagers who refused to be baptized. Only eleven years later was the first recorded raid by vikings recorded at Lindisfarne. The largest part of the Norse economy was trade, but when trade was refused, more violent ends were turned to.
And that still doesn’t explain the willful destruction of the Lithuanian Empire, who’s only sin was refusing Christianity into it’s borders.
And I’m guessing that you believe that it’s “true believers” who are advocating for blasphemy to be labeled hate speech? Which part of the Quran is that in?
…two are specifically forbidden from spreading themselves (proselytizing), and have other legal burdens.
It’s also harder to justify holy war within the religious doctrine of Christianity.
No, not really, since they didn’t go on a bloody rampage through the Roman Empire and slaughter all of the polytheists after Jesus’ death. The two religions are distinctly different in their rhetoric and founding mythos.
A tiny people isolated at the edge of the Muslim world in the northern mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Not a big surprise they weren’t bothered. Doesn’t change the directions of Mohammad regarding the treatment of pagans.
Christian Europe altogether lacks the same geographical circumstances.
…yes, I’m sure the extremely disconnected illiterate tribes of Scandinavia all were just reacting to the desecration of the holy tree-thing (I can’t find a source saying that one in particular was “the center of Western Germanic faith”) in Saxony during Charlemagne’s conquest. There was no central Norse authority. They were opportunists, not holy warriors.
? I never claimed that Christians were nice to pagans, just that they weren’t as systematically brutal as Muslims.
So one candy is advertised more and cheaper to buy. They were still all legal and treated comparatively well for their age.
Depends on how much emphasis you place on the OT over the NT. There was and is gradation. Let’s also not forget that Jesus himself said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt 10:34) and “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division” (Luke 12:51). Sure, it may be harder, but not that much.
Because they were a minority at the time haha. They were too busy dodging lions in the colosseum to do too much rioting. After they became a major political force and especially when they became the state religion, that’s exactly what they did.
Of course. Never said they were friendly, but they did survive this apparent onslaught.
Hardly. There are plenty of relatively isolated groups that it would have been easy to ignore. For example, the Saami, the Icelanders, and the Övdalian speakers of Sweden who have been isolated enough to keep their language intact just to name a few.
Sure, they weren’t connected. But it reflects the attitude they held for all of germanic paganism. They refused to trade with them, destroying their economy (their dependence upon trade is written about in Jordanes’s “The Origin and Deeds of the Goths”). As Scandinavia isn’t particularly a fantastic place for agriculture, and they were cut off from their main source of income, violence increased.
I’d say they were about even according to their ability.
Islam and Blasphemy. The quotes it showed spoke of Allah cursing the blasphemer and retaliation only after extended aggravation/civil upheaval. But yeah, they were pretty harsh back then. Wanna know what Leviticus 24:16 says about blasphemy? “And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.” Yet today I don’t hear others viewing Jews or Christians who don’t stone others who blaspheme Yahweh to death as not “true believers.” Why is Islam the only religion that cannot have a reformation in how to deal with sin?
Treated Pagans with respect? Mohammads whole life was devoted to fighting pagans and Jews.
And the reason Christians disliked pagans was because they were attacked by them all the time and usually lost to them. Haven’t you ever studied English history? And there were tolerant Christian nations from early till most of all TODAY.
Islam butchered pagans and Christians, and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists from India to southern France. The whole crusades were a few battles in only two nations.
Islam attacked all of North Africa, Europe, and Asia. A few failed campaigns VS conquering 3 continents and enslaving 1 million captives from Europe is not morally equivalent.
And the ottomans you are praising commited genocide earlier this last century before they fell. Against 1.4 million Armenians and they DENY IT HAPPENED. It would be like the Germans denying the holocaust occurred.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. A Muslim and a Christian advocating to limit free speech only shows that both individuals are aggressors against the liberty of man.
The difference is every country where a majority of Muslims believe in sharia law has…guess what…sharia law.
Every country with a majority of Jews has…oh wait nope Isreal does enforce the law of Moses so nevermind.
one candy has it’s vendor’s killed for selling it, and isn’t allowed to build or repair and of their shops. Being treated comparatively well is a bit irrelevant.
Moses is recognized as a prophet by Islam also, so it doesn’t much matter. The defining difference between the two religions is NT and Quran.
The entire story of Jesus is letting himself be put up on a cross without a fight. The culmination of Muhammad’s story is literally war against non-believers until he conquers Mecca and gets rid of pagan idols in the holy cube. If you look at the Koran and the Hadiths, it’s incredibly easy to justify holy war as a continuation of Muhammad’s vision.
They oppressed other religions, sure, but they didn’t replicate the same rapid conquest.
Iceland is on record as having voting in favor of converting to Christianity. Sweden was pretty accessible by boat.
Okay, yes, I’m not sure what your point is.
a. it isn’t morally incumbent on anyone to trade with anyone
b. they also ran into overpopulation, also driving them to raid
[quote=“welldrinker, post:188, topic:106617”]
Wanna know what Leviticus 24:16 says about blasphemy? “And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.” Yet today I don’t hear others viewing Jews or Christians who don’t stone others who blaspheme Yahweh to death as not “true believers.” [/quote]
Leviticus is OT, and as I’ve said Moses/Abraham are recognized as prophets in Islam. NT and Jesus’ teaching can be clearly interpreted as counteracting OT practices, particularly the stoning. There is a different emphasis.
Why are you so convinced that two religions with entirely different primary prophets have to be fundamentally the same from a secular viewpoint?
Oh boy, I have a lot of catching up to do. Okay first things first.
@Joshua_Heckathorn, Yeah the Prophet’s dealings with pagans were a lot worse than Jesus’s, however in the years to come, Christianity hooked up with the imperialistic Roman Empire, and it turned into a monster that I would argue was quite similar to Islam in it’s bloodthirstiness and systematic brutality.
In english history, I can think of about three times when it was a out and out showdown between pagans and Christians, which would be the wars and eventual defeat of King Penda, the conquest of the Great Heathen Army, and then later the various victories by Alfred the Great in pushing them back. They fought each other, but I’m confused as to what your point is with that. In that specific instance it was a two way street.
Ah but the Crusades thing, what do you mean only two nations? What about the Aragonese Crusade, the Northern Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade, etc.? And even when it wasn’t crusade, the missionaries converted the kings of neighboring countries, who then used their influence to crush those of their own subjects who would not join them.
The Armenian Genocide is tragic. I’m praising the Empire for it’s comparative virtue during the medieval era, but as it didn’t ever change and reform itself like Europe did, it fell behind.
But if a country has a very big majority of muslim citizens and they change the government to confirm with Sharia law, that’s their right. Israel doesn’t follow Mosaic law because they’ve gone through similar changes that European Christianity has. I’m proposing we do the same with Islam.
@Ricky, this candy store thing is getting stale. And comparatively well isn’t irrelevant for the time. Standards change over time (thankfully they have gotten better). Back then, they were arguably the gold standard compared to everyone around them in religious liberty. Today it’s not even close to our standard, but back then it was the best you got.
Islam also has the New Testament in it’s religion, it’s not the defining difference as they both contain the same book.
You know what I’ll give this to you. Christianity at it’s core and original understanding was definitely a lot less religiously violent. The violent aspect became a reality after the Roman Empire merged with it, and then when Charlemagne influenced it as well. The Arians, the Ethiopians and the Gnostics were not violent Christians in general. Perhaps the beef I have with the European Christians would be better pointed at the Roman Empire in it’s later reincarnation.
Because of inability, not because of lack of trying.
Iceland is a little barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic. With no trade, they were literally forced into it, though they did work out an uneasy compromise with their Christian counterparts to continue practicing their faith on the down low, which was quickly abolished after Catholicism took it’s hold.
The whole reason that they kept their unique language is because they were so isolated. Their entire country changed around them while they remained relatively untouched. Except for the conversion, of course.
The point is that they refused trade as an aggressive measure, not just because they didn’t like what they had to offer. And they ran into overpopulation because the life capacity of the area suddenly took a drop when they suddenly didn’t have the flow of resources they usually got through trade anymore.
But in practice, the last time a Christian was hanged for blasphemy in a Christian nation was in 1697. Like I said before, I’ll give it to you that Christianity doesn’t necessarily advocate the same amount of violence as the Quran does in scripture alone, but the movements it hooked itself up with in Europe certainly did turn it violent.
They don’t have to be. They just have to abide by the same rules as each other. Christianity doesn’t get to slay unbelievers like is commanded in Luke 19:27, and neither does Islam.
@Greatest_I_am Vigilante mindset isn’t something most governments operate under.
And no, the dhimmi tax wasn’t great, but it was comparatively progressive for it’s time.
No, it shows I have a basic understanding of philosophy, specifically that an ad hominem reply is not an argument. ‘I’m ungrateful, therefore duties exist’ is an overt non-sequitur, designed to silence opposition rather than engage with it. People didn’t die for my freedom, they died for the idea of freedom, which they are more than welcome to do as long as they leave me out of it. I’m not asking them to do it. I’m not going to incite it. It has nothing to do with me. I claim only those rights for myself that I myself can defend.
An overt lie. If true, a man living alone in the wilderness would die instantaneously because he ‘depends’ on other people. Could a man live alone in the wilderness? Yes. Will he? Probably not, but the reason why has nothing to do with dependency or need. It is mere convenience.
But let’s assume your argument makes sense - if there are no free men, then surely the statement that free men have duties (let alone a first duty to ensure that other people can enjoy freedom) is wrong, because there are no free men to have duties, nor can a man become free because according to you, we are all dependent on one another. Is it seriously your assertion that a group that doesn’t exist has a duty to perform the impossible?
a. the fact it was comparatively better treatment doesn’t make it good treatment
b. the pagan Roman empire had better religious freedom
c. religious freedom doesn’t inherently incline someone to convert
They believe that the New Testament was mostly corrupted.
…they ran into overpopulation because their population was growing
I’d blame the Catholic doctrine for much of the violence.
Regardless, the scripture is what is mostly relevant today.
Then my only point is that it is much more justified and incumbent upon Muslims within Islam to follow such behavior.
Good is relative. Perhaps it wasn’t the best, but it was good relative to the time.
And? They weren’t around at the time. Therefore they are irrelevant to the Ottoman Empire being the “gold standard at the time.”****
No, but living in a country where there is a huge religious majority does.
There are many Christians who believe the whole Bible to be mistranslated quite a bit. My homeboys the Mormons for example. But they still use it as valid scripture.
So I was originally responding to you saying that [quote=“Ricky, post:184, topic:106617”]
The reason Christians didn’t trade with the northern pagans was because the vikings were raiding up and down their coasts, pillaging monasteries and towns.
I’m saying that the Christians made the first move, essentially placing the people under siege, which prompted raiding after it’s land lost a lot of carrying capacity due to a quick cut off in resources. That’s why it was overpopulated. They were relatively fine before.
And I don’t necessarily disagree with you on that. But I do believe that Islam could go through an Enlightenment similar to the one that tamed European Christianity and become a much less aggressive religion. We already have nonaggressive parts of the religion. The Sufis are an entire sect based on the idea of pacifism and restricts the Jihad to a strictly personal spiritual level. Many Muslims that I talk to in America believe that as well. I’m not arguing that Islam hasn’t had a violent past, I’m arguing that it can and does have a peaceful future.