Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KK wrote:Funnily enough we went into Iraq to spread the doctrine of democracy by the sword.

'We' didn't go anywhere. Our fighting men and women did, and it wasn't their decision to attack Iraq - it was our government's (well, sort of...) You are assuming that I supported the war in Iraq.

KK wrote:No, because they would still fight in self-defence. Some people appear to be asking muslim clerics to condemn all forms of armed conflict.

Is that so wrong? Am I taking fething crazy pills or something? When did we start just accepting that all problems should be resolved violently? Is it that inconceivable that islamic clerics should come out in support of non-violent resistance?

KK wrote:Pretend all muslims are militants if you like -- it isn't a problem.

I'm not pretending anything - Holy War (a type of Jihad) is permitted by Islamic law, and Jihad is a requirement. I shouldn't need to type that again. Am I saying that all Muslims are militants? No. But Islamic fundamentalism is by it's very nature militant and expansionist, or at least, it is in it's modern manifestation.

You are assuming that I supported the war in Iraq.

No more than you're assuming that certain Muslims approve of certain "activities."

BluntmanDC wrote:It would be nice if tv showed less crazy muslims and more of the nice normal muslims i talk to

Thats always a positive.

@reds8n - That is the vaguest statement I have ever seen on Dakka.

Have a biscuit.

..choc chip ?

There was suppsoed to be a there but it got swallowed.

Albatross wrote:

KK wrote:Funnily enough we went into Iraq to spread the doctrine of democracy by the sword.

'We' didn't go anywhere. Our fighting men and women did, and it wasn't their decision to attack Iraq - it was our government's (well, sort of...) You are assuming that I supported the war in Iraq.

It's nothing to do with that.

You made the point that unlike Islam democracy gives no duty to its members to spread itself by force.

I pointed out that that is exactly what democracy is doing in Iraq.

The UK's decision was taken collectively by Parliament on behalf of the whole nation, including any who disagreed.

Albatross wrote:@sebster - That article only really relates to Iraq.

I think there's been one British citizen found among the Taliban dead to date. There's doubtless others, but we aren't talking about a serious contribution compared to those supplied by the Saudis and Pakistanis.

I would like to say:

Whatever, pretend Islamic militancy isn't a problem if you like - thousands of dead people would disagree.

Umm, no it is a problem. But it is a problem with a specific and known extent, and it does no good to exagerate the issue to extend outside the fanatical few.

Albatross wrote:@LuciusAR

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/exclusive-army-is-fighting-british-jihadists-in-afghanistan-1631347.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2485750/British-Muslims-fighting-with-Taliban-in-Afghanistan.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23652231-uk-troops-fighting-british-muslims-in-afghanistan.do

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/british-muslims-fighting-taliban-afghanistan-14679/


Those took me literally seconds to find.

I did actually find those, but non of them contain anything conclusive other than the vague statement that

MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training.

So I didn’t use them. Estimates are not evidence of anything. And if the best MI5 can do is guess that doesn’t inspire me with much confidence that the threat is real.

Whatever, pretend Islamic militancy isn't a problem if you like - thousands of dead people would disagree.

What thousands of dead people? In the UK the death rate from terrorism for last 10 years isn’t even in triple figures. Even if we are talking about the death rate in the entire western world (even factoring in 9/11) the number is still vastly low compared to less sensationalist causes of death.

Holy propaganda Batman!!

Seriously, there has been some good points here. At least some people pointed out that replacing circumstances of "them" with "us" to point out many countries / religions would do the same thing and have historically in that situation.

I have no problems with religious people, I do feel organized religion on both sides of the fence has its share of crazies. And lets face it, who gets put on tv? The Crazies.

Just a point no one has put up yet. And yes, it is a opinion, so please understand others have them. The Muslim religion had as much to do with terrorism and 9/11 as Christianity had to do with the Holocaust. Well now I feel some one will take that out of context and get there panties in a bunch. But my point is stated above as well, the crazies get the tv time. Propaganda is rampant on both sides of the fence, I bet every time a Christian missteps, or does something crazy (Koresh? Idaho's Butler) it is all over the news elsewhere.

Heck, I can point out religious hate all over where I live now (and racial from both sides). I am considered UBER liberal up here, and middle ground in other places.

Maybe I missed the point of this thread. I dunno. I hardly talk politics or religion since one side usually turtles up and listens to nothing but says volumes.

Albatross wrote:
I'm being facetious there, but in any case, democracy does not require nations to spread their doctrine 'by the sword'. I live in a democracy (apparently), but I don't get down on my knees and pray to it five times a day, it doesn't provide instructions for my diet, dress, or behaviour.

Sure it does. You have public decency laws regarding dress, you are certainly banned from certain behaviors, and I imagine you have some sort of public health agency which oversees the food you consume.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
It seems that 'Jihad as-sayf' is allowed under their religious law - my point was that they didn't condemn 'holy war', only 'terrorism' and 'shedding blood' in the examples Dogma posted. Again, dancing around the subject. They should come out and denounced ANY armed struggle in the name of Islam.

Declaring an act as being tantamount to the crime of hirabah is essentially what you're asking for.

Anyway, I have no problem with the idea that some Muslims believe that they can engage in armed struggles in the name of their religion, so long as the jurisprudence surrounding the conduct within those struggles is acceptable. In any case, because Jihad can be considered a regulated act of violence, it is impossible for moderate Muslim clerics to completely denounce violence in the name of Islam. It goes against the extensive history of jurisprudence which guides the interpretation of the Koran.

Its also worth noting that the various sorts of Jihad are often lent different degrees of weight; generally varying between obligatory, and laudable. Jihad by the sword is almost always treated as laudable, but only when it aligns with the methodological system laid down in the Koran. A system which doesn't permit suicide attacks, the execution of prisoners, or conversion through violence.

mattyrm wrote:Its about time. Maybe after another few grotesque massacres against another few thousand innocent civilians (Including a few more purposely attacking children at school) in the UK, Spain, USA, Russia, China and India we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

This has literally happened hundreds of times already. How about you pay attention instead of being inflammatory and ignorant.

dogma wrote:

Sure it does. You have public decency laws regarding dress, you are certainly banned from certain behaviors, and I imagine you have some sort of public health agency which oversees the food you consume.

Well that depends, in England there are no specific laws on dress. However the law does state that a person cannot intentionally exposes their genitals, with the intention of causing alarm or distress. hence a flasher is a criminal but a person who walks about naked, but in a non sexual manner, is not technically breaking any law. Hence this fellow has never been convicted of a crime in England and, quite correctly IMHO, was generally regarded as simply a harmless eccentric. The Scots however took a different view however and banged him up. Stupid and authoritarian if you ask me but that's a matter for another thread.

As for public health agencies they exist to enforce standards for what can be legally sold as food but that's certainly not to say they control my, or anyone else's, diet.

LuciusAR wrote:
Well that depends, in England there are no specific laws on dress. However the law does state that a person cannot intentionally exposes their genitals, with the intention of causing alarm or distress. hence a flasher is a criminal but a person who walks about naked, but in a non sexual manner, is not technically breaking any law. Hence this fellow has never been convicted of a crime in England and, quite correctly IMHO, was generally regarded as simply a harmless eccentric. The Scots however took a different view however and banged him up. Stupid and authoritarian if you ask me but that's a matter for another thread.

Ah, yeah, that much is true. I always forget that much of Europe has a far more liberal attitude, relative to America, towards public appearance.

LuciusAR wrote:
As for public health agencies they exist to enforce standards for what can be legally sold as food but that's certainly not to say they control my, or anyone else's, diet.

And if you wanted to purchase food that was not legally eligible for sale? Granted, there is a difference in the sense that modern regulations are often based on contemporary scientific knowledge, whereas religious restrictions are based on archaic beliefs (though often said beliefs were founded in good sense). However, both are forms of control.

LuciusAR wrote:What thousands of dead people? In the UK the death rate from terrorism for last 10 years isn’t even in triple figures. Even if we are talking about the death rate in the entire western world (even factoring in 9/11) the number is still vastly low compared to less sensationalist causes of death.

Yeah, we're only counting dead westerners because.....? What about the thousands of muslim deaths in Africa or the Middle east? Believe it or not, I'm not actually in the 'kill all Muslims' camp. I don't want anyone to die.

sebster wrote:I think there's been one British citizen found among the Taliban dead to date. There's doubtless others, but we aren't talking about a serious contribution compared to those supplied by the Saudis and Pakistanis.

I think the overall numbers of confirmed recovered Taliban corpses would make for interesting reading in this case. I'm led to believe that they are low, due to the fact that The Taliban remove the bodies.

KK wrote:You made the point that unlike Islam democracy gives no duty to its members to spread itself by force.

Well... it doesn't! That western democratic nations are doing that in the middle east is irrelevant, as it's not required in order to be truly 'democratic'.

While I'm thoroughly supportive of what the Muslim leadership is trying to do with this, I sadly don't think it's going to be heard much in the Middle East. At least, not until an end to the occupations, and even then...

To be honest, I think a large part of the Extremist community will just disregard this as Western Propaganda or somesuch. I guess the good thing is though, this will hopefully make people feel a little less hostile towards Muslims and Islam as a whole.

Frazzled wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its about time. Maybe after another few grotesque massacres against another few thousand innocent civilians (Including a few more purposely attacking children at school) in the UK, Spain, USA, Russia, China and India we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

That’s a bit hyperbolic isn’t it?

In the UK we have had 1 successful Islamic terrorist attack since the 'war on terror' began and the casualties in that where roughly equivalent to the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the UK each week. Yet the amount of sheer paranoia over terrorism and Muslims in general in the last decade has been staggering.

On the matter of terrorism we really have lost all sense of proportion.

Successful is the key word. Thank your James Bondo types for that.
Don't forget the plan to blow up several airliners at once which could have killed thousands.

There's a difference between Jihad-the personal struggle and Jihad the crusade. Its easy to separate and condemn. If the latter is not, well there you are.

Frazled, Jihad doesn't mean holy war, it comes from the word, tujahud, which means to struggle. Life in itself is a jihad, you are trying to over come evil temptaions, college students work to better themselves through knowlegde, they are on a jihad, people just think it means holy war, and bin laden translated it into holy war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay okay, I am Head Muslim Cow of Dakka, so then therefore, I will render judgement on this issue, as is proper.

You guys don't really understand. Jihad. Doesn't. Mean. Holy. War.

I'm gonna say it again, for those who didn't get me.

Jihad. Doesn't. Mean. Holy. War.

It means, struggle. Retards like Bin Laden translate it into holy war, and then pull a 9/11, and I spend 9 years being hated, scrubbing eggs off of the car windshield, deleting hate mail in my spam inbox, and replacing the occaisionally slashed tire, because? I are muslims.

So, all in all, Islam is not a religion of violence. In fact the Quran states that We cannot wage war, but can only defend ourselves (Like Japan).

We are a peaceful people, this Cleric is doing us a favor, and I fuly support it.

So sayeth the Muslim Cow.

It blows my mind that people are acting like this is somehow a new thing to happen. I guess when an important cleric in a country with a massive 3% muslim population does it it's somehow more legitimate than the hundreds of instances of clerics and religious leaders more local to the struggles doing the exact same thing, much sooner, with much greater personal risk, and much larger followings.

We are a peaceful people, this Cleric is doing us a favor, and I fuly support it.

So sayeth the Muslim Cow.

We have a muslim? Daaaaaaaaaayyyuuuum.

Kilkrazy wrote:

It's nothing to do with that.

You made the point that unlike Islam democracy gives no duty to its members to spread itself by force.

I think a lot of you have a severely misguided view of Islam and some basic points keep coming up in this conversation that are completely untrue of true Islam. One of the tenets of Islam is that there can be no compulsion in religion, none what so ever. Islam gives no duty to it's followers to spread the faith by the sword, in fact it's quite the opposite. Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Koran 2:256)

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Koran 10:99)

“So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Koran 3:20)

“The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” (Koran 5:99)

According to the Muslim faith this is the direct word of God (well not exactly, since it's translated into English) and is not up for debate. A lot of times when you hear conflicting information regarding interpretation of the Koran it's usually in regards to the doctrine of abrogation. Basically what happened with the Koran was that in the later Surahs there was conflicting information, as the Meccan surahs tend to be more general and lenient, whereas the Medinan surahs are more harsh, and God told Muhammed that anything that was contradictory, the later verse was an improved version of the original.

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Koran 2: 106)

But the problem is that the Koran is not organized chronologically, but by the length of the Surah, and so it is unknown when some of them were written. This means that in some cases you can have seemingly contradictory information and clerics and demagogues can twist it to mean whatever they'd like it to mean.

Islam as a whole is a religion of peace and submission to the will of God, but some nutters take it too far and kill innocent people. Christianity has been guilty of that in the past, and since Islam is a newer religion I think we'll see improvements in Middle Eastern/Western relations in the future.

wiki wrote:Within Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, non-Islamic leaders or non-Muslim combatants, but there are other ways to perform jihad as well, including civil disobedience. The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.

Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion (although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book").

Esposito, J. Islam: The Straight Path 2005

In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible

Cook, D. Understanding Jihad University of California Press, 2005

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

In addition to the jizya the dhimma had to dress distinctly to be easily recognizable as non-Muslim. They are not permitted to be greeted with the traditional "Peace be with you" and above all may not practice their religious beliefs openly, proselytize or even erect a building taller than a Muslim building. They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

Realistically both Christianity and Islam were heavily proselytized. Often times violently, often times not. It depends largely on region and purpose. About the only major surviving modern religion that doesn't have a history of proselytizing is Judaism, and their extreme minority in the worlds religious sphere is testament to that fact.

The Green Git wrote:
Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

Jizya isn't described as a head tax in the Koran itself. That is how it was interpreted within the Sassanid Empire; becoming a sort of cultural meme thereafter. There is no direct English analogue for the word, and it has been variously interpreted to mean "tax" (generally this is reasoned from the Hadith, which is not considered the word of Allah), "compensation", or "substitute". There's a fairly clear line of argumentation which would permit the word to be re-contextualized by dearth of modern circumstances.

The Green Git wrote:
They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

That's true, but not absolutely. Some jurists believed what you have presented, but many others permitted the holy places of other faiths to be renovated or repaired. Some even allowed those that were destroyed to rebuilt. This is a prohibition which varies widely from sect to sect.

The Green Git wrote:
In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

Here are 3 other translations of that passage:

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

The general theme is similar, but the degree of severity varies widely.

The Green Git wrote:
What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

What made the spread of Islam easy is that the vast majority of territory taken during the conquests either lacked a commanding authority on religion, or possessed one which was no more oppressive. The Byzantine Empire was every bit as draconian when dealing with Jews, and non-Melkite Christians as the Umayyads were when dealing with non-Muslims. In fact, many historians have supposed that Byzantine law inspired the Umayyad attitude towards the Dhimma.

Its also worth noting that there is only one passage in the Koran which references the subjection of non-Muslims (9:29), while there are several (2:256, 109:6, 2:62, etc.) which reference tolerance.

There is also another Surah (chapter) in the Qu'ran that pledges tolerance:

Surat Al-Kafirun (the Non Believers)

Oh, non-believers!
You do not worship what I worship,
And I do not worship what you worship.
And you will never worship what I worship,
And I will never worship what you worship.
Go your way and I will go mine.

EDIT: You guys really have watched waaaaaaaaaay too much Fox, 24, and U.S. Media. You really think you know more about islam than me and IamtheWalrus? (his knowledge of the Quran and Islam leads me to believe he is possibly a Muslim.) We are telling you that Islam is not a Bigotry or war-like religion, just it was turned into one in medieval times, and again today. Hell, I think you guys are forgetting another religion that was similar to Islam in those senses: CHRISTIANITY.

From The Crusades, The Spanish Inquistion, Salem Witch trials, even slavery was done in the name of Christianity, and alot of White Supremecists are Religious (Council of Conservative Citizens, Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian Identity Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan me thinks). Am I saying that Christianity is a horrible religion? Of course not. Islam has been used the same way, from the Middle ages to now (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad Brigade, etc.). I have many christian friends who are genuinly good people, partly because of Christianity, as I know many a muslim who are just as good because of Islam. I'm just saying, Religion has been used as excuses to hate, kill, and conquer, and you all seem to see the Taliban, and many extremist, terrorist groups commit the crimes they do, and think, "Okay so... I guess that's Islam." Wow, I mean, you all seem to be intelligent human beings, and yet you couldn't think about this one. I'm really disappointed, in you all.

The Green Git wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

In addition to the jizya the dhimma had to dress distinctly to be easily recognizable as non-Muslim. They are not permitted to be greeted with the traditional "Peace be with you" and above all may not practice their religious beliefs openly, proselytize or even erect a building taller than a Muslim building. They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

It is interesting how some of this is echoed in recent developments concerning muslims in western societies.

The Swiss want to stop them building minarets.

The French want to stop them wearing Burkhas.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

In addition to the jizya the dhimma had to dress distinctly to be easily recognizable as non-Muslim. They are not permitted to be greeted with the traditional "Peace be with you" and above all may not practice their religious beliefs openly, proselytize or even erect a building taller than a Muslim building. They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

It is interesting how some of this is echoed in recent developments concerning muslims in western societies.

The Swiss want to stop them building minarets.

The French want to stop them wearing Burkhas.

Exactly, And in Athens, they won't allow a mosque be built, and some European countries won't even take muslim refugees, for fear of terrorist attacks, (though i'm not sure on that one..)

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

In addition to the jizya the dhimma had to dress distinctly to be easily recognizable as non-Muslim. They are not permitted to be greeted with the traditional "Peace be with you" and above all may not practice their religious beliefs openly, proselytize or even erect a building taller than a Muslim building. They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

It is interesting how some of this is echoed in recent developments concerning muslims in western societies.

The Swiss want to stop them building minarets.

The French want to stop them wearing Burkhas.

And Khaddafy is now calling for Jihad against Switzerland.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/04/gadhafi-switzerland.html

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Which interestingly enough made the spread of Islam that much easier because the formerly Byzantine territories they took over were sick of the persecution and would gladly accept the rule and minor penalties (i.e. had a to pay a tax, couldn't be elected/appointed to high office) that accompanied Muslim rule.

Wow. You really are glossing over dhimmatude here. The whole purpose of the tax and what you call "minor" penalties were to demean the non-Muslim. The jizya was collected in many instances while grabbing the beard or striking the head or neck of the dhimma just to remind them who the boss really was.

In addition to the jizya the dhimma had to dress distinctly to be easily recognizable as non-Muslim. They are not permitted to be greeted with the traditional "Peace be with you" and above all may not practice their religious beliefs openly, proselytize or even erect a building taller than a Muslim building. They couldn't renovate their churches or rebuild them if they were destroyed.

In short, they are purposefully made to feel subject to and inferior to Muslims. "... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION." Koran 9:29

What made the spread of Islam easy was that the conquered states were subject to debasement and death if they didn't convert. If that's not compulsion I don't know what is.

It is interesting how some of this is echoed in recent developments concerning muslims in western societies.

The Swiss want to stop them building minarets.

The French want to stop them wearing Burkhas.

And Khaddafy is now calling for Jihad against Switzerland.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/04/gadhafi-switzerland.html

The Libyan ambassador is clarifying remarks by leader Moammar Gadhafi, who appeared to call for an armed holy war against Switzerland last month.

Man, people really don't know what that word means. Ghadaffi is a kook. It was hilarious when they didn't let him set his tent up.

A kook who's sponsored terrorists. We bombed his ass for a reason.

Frazzled wrote:A kook who's sponsored terrorists. We bombed his ass for a reason.

Still a kook, and we bankroll the Saudis and Israel (and pakistan!) who have banked and performed more terrorist acts than ten Libya's. Ghadaffi is largely irrelevant these days.

Ghadaffi may be a kook who sponsored terrorists and we bombed him for it and now he just persecutes eastern European medical staff to deflect public attention from his crappy hospitals...

BUT...

He's OUR kook who sponsored terrorists and we bombed him for it and now he just persecutes eastern European medical staff to deflect public attention from his crappy hospitals.