Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

austin · October 27, 2005, 6:10pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

and what does that mean?

you obviously do not know the kooran

009.029YUSUFALI: 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.**

takkiya and kitman

you all lie

austin · October 27, 2005, 6:16pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

do you question the integrity of intellectual scholarship if it comes from Jews?

are you joking?

austin · October 27, 2005, 6:19pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

http://www.amcoptic.com/reproduced_from.htm

JIZYA

The jizya was a poll-tax that, in accordance with the Koran 9.29 (“until they pay the jizya from their hand, being brought low”), had to be paid individually at a humiliating public ceremony to remind the dhimmis that they were inferior to the believers, that is, the Muslims.

The commentator on the Koran, al-Zamakhshari (1075-1144), interpreted sura 9.29 to mean "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation [The dhimmi] shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits.

The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say: ‘Pay the jizya!’ and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck."

OTHER TAXES

Apart from paying higher commercial and travel taxes than Muslims, the dhimmis were subject to other forms of fiscal oppression. In periods of economic hardship, the Muslim rulers often had recourse to arbitrary taxes on dhimmis. Church leaders were imprisoned and tortured until ransoms were paid for them.

These taxes proved such a crushing burden that many villages were abandoned as the villagers fled to the hills or tried to lose themselves in the anonymity of large towns to escape the tax collector. In Lower Egypt, for example, the Copts, utterly ruined by the taxes, revolted in 832.

The Arab governor ruthlessly suppressed the insurrection - burning their villages, their vineyards, gardens, and churches. Those not massacred were deported.

Public Office

Various hadith forbid a dhimmi to exercise any authority over a Muslim.

Various Koranic verses such as 3.28 were used to bar dhimmis from public office. Despite this, we find that dhimmis held high office. However, in the Middle Ages, any appointment of a dhimmi to a high post often resulted in public outcries, fanaticism, and violence, as for example, in Granada in 1066, Fez, in 1275 and 1465, Iraq in 1291, and frequently in Egypt between 1250 and 1517.

Many dhimmis accepted conversion to Islam in order to keep their posts.

Inequality before the Law

In all litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmi, the validity of the oath or testimony of the dhimmi was not recognized. In other words, since a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim, his Muslim opponent always got off scot-free. The dhimmi was forced to bribe his way out of the accusations.

Muslims were convinced of their own superiority over all non-Muslims, and this was enshired in law. For example, any fine imposed on a Muslim for a crime was automatically halved if the victim was dhimmi.

Accusations of blasphemy against dhimmis were quite frequent and the penalty was capital punishment. Since his testimony was not accepted in court, the dhimmi was forced to convert to save his life.

Conversely, "in practice if not in law, a dhimmi would often be sentenced to death if he dared raise his hand against a Muslim, even in legitimate self-defence."471 Even the accidental killing of a Muslim could condemn the whole non-Muslim community to death or exile.

Though a Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman, a non-Muslim may not marry a Muslim woman. The penalty for such a marriage, or any such sexual relationship, was death.

THE PACT OF UMAR

Some of the disabilities of the dhimmis are summarized in the “Pact of Umar,” which was probably drawn up in the eighth century under Umar b. Abd al-Aziz (ruled 717-20):

We shall not build in our cities or in their vicinity any new monasteries, churches, hermitages, or monks’ cells. We shall not restore, by night or by day, any of them that have fallen into ruin or which are located in the Muslims’ quarters.

We shall keep our gates wide open for the passerby and travelers.
We shall provide three days’ food and lodging to any Muslims who pass our way.
We shall not shelter any spy in our churches or in our homes, nor shall we hide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach our children the Koran.
We shall not hold public religious ceremonies. We shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit down.
We shall not attempt to resemble the Muslims in any wayâ€¦.
We shall not ride on saddles.
We shall not wear swords or bear weapons of any kind, or ever carry them with us.
We shall not sell wines.
We shall clip the forelocks of our head.
We shall not display our crosses or our books anywhere in the Muslims’ thoroughfares or in their marketplaces.
We shall only beat our clappers in our churches very quietly.
We shall not raise our voices when reciting the service in our churches, nor when in the presence of Muslims. Neither shall we raise our voices in our funeral processions.
We shall not build our homes higher than theirs.

To which was added, “anyone who deliberately strikes a Muslim will forfeit the protection of this pact.”

Even in their religious affairs, dhimmis were not entirely free. Muslims often blocked the appointment of religious leaders.

Nothing could be further from the truth than to imagine that the dhimmis enjoyed a secure and stable status permanently and definitely acquired - that they were forever protected and lived happily ever after.
   Contrary to this picture perpetrated by Islamic apologists, the status of dhimmis was very fragile indeed and was constantly under threat.  The dhimmis were in constant danger of being enslaved. 

   For example, when Amur conquered Tripoli in 643, he forced the Jews and Christians to hand over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army, and they were told to deduct this "handover" from the poll-tax, the dreaded "jizya."  Between 652 and 1276, Nubia was forced to send an annual contingent of slaves to Cairo. 

   The treaties concluded under the Umayyads and the Abbasids with the towns of Transoxiana, Sijstan, Armenia, and Fezzan (modern northwest Africa) all stipulated an annual tribute of slaves of both sexes.  The principle source of the reservoir of slaves was the constant raids on the villages in the city "dar al-harb," and the more disciplined military expeditions that more thoroughly mopped up the cities of the unbelievers.  All the captives were deported en masse.  In 781, at the sack of Ephesus, 7,000 Greeks were deported in captivity. 

   After the capture of Amorium in 838, there were so many captives that the Caliph al-Mutasim ordered them to be auctioned in batches of five and ten.  At the sack of Thessalonica in 903, 22,000 Christians were divided among Arab chieftains or sold into slavery.  In 1064, the Seljuk Sultan, Alp Arslan, devastated Georgia and Armenia.  Those he did not take as prisoners, he executed.
The literary sources for Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and later Anatolia and Safavid Perdia reveal that those families who could not pay the crushing jizya or poll-tax were obliged to hand over their children and to “deduct” it from the jizya.

For at least three hundred years, Christians suffered one other humiliation not often discussed: a process known as “devshirme.” It was introduced by the Ottoman Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359) and consisted of the periodic taking of a fifth of all Christian children in the conquered territories.
   Converted to Islam, these children, between the ages of fourteen and twenty, were trained to be janissaries or infantry men.  These periodic abductions eventually became annual.  The Christian children were taken from among the Greek aristocracy and from the Sebs, Bulgarians, Armenians, and Albanians, and often from among the children of the priests.
On a fixed date, all the fathers were ordered to appear with their children in the public square. The recruiting agents chose the most sturdy and handsome children in the presence of a Muslim judge. Any father who shirked his duty to provide children was severely punished.

This system was open to all kinds of abuse. The recruiting agents often took more than the prescribed number of children and sold the “surplus” children back to their parents. Those unable to buy back their children had to accept their being sold into slavery. This institution was abolished in 1656; however, a parallel system, in which young children, between the ages of six and ten, were taken to be trained in the seraglio of the sultan, continued until the eighteenth century.

The number of children taken each year seems to have varied. Some scholars place it as high as 12,000 a year, others at 8,000, but there was probably an average of at least 1,000 a year. The devshrime is an obvious infringement of the rights of the dhimmis - a reminder that their rights were far from secure, once and for all.

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 6:26pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

austin,
What you are describing is how the non-muslims were treated under islamic imperialism
can you tell me how did the muslims fared under the mediveal christian kingdoms?

austin · October 27, 2005, 6:36pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

muslims conquered Christian and Zoroastrian (Persia) and Hindu lands.....NOT the other way

Egypt was Christian, so was Assyria and Jerusalem and Byzantium and Spain....not Africa was and is Berber lands.....many religions there

the jihad brought islam and slavery to these people

the Crusades were a response to muslims attacking and kidnapping and killing pilgrims to the Holy Lands

the muslims only tried to enter CHristian lands through war...it is dar ul Harb, remember?

...............why do you keep changing the issues here.? You never go back address any of my answers to you

austin · October 27, 2005, 6:38pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

das Reich you say,

[quote]
What you are describing is how the non-muslims were treated under islamic imperialism
[/quote]

is there any other? where? when?

what does your nic mean?

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 6:54pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

If the crusades were supposed for the protection of holy land why did the 4th one turn against constantinople?the grts christian city.It was all about the trade routes the venetians did good bussiness with muslims and thought this was a conveniant way to elimate the byzantines as opponents.
you cannot mix religious issues with political,one cannot doubt the devotion of the common christian soldiers who were moved by the words of pope to fight for christiandom and the religious orders of knights(templers and hospitallers) cuz in their minds there really was no difference in killing the infidels on one hand and caring for sick and poor on the other.But they were used by the kings and pope to further their own imperial ambitions
Slavery was just as common in christian lands as it was in islamic.
and it would be no exaggeration to say that the muslims slaves(esp of christian origin) fared much better than those in europe,they became soldiers administrators and even sultans.

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 7:01pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

What I meant was that these alleged atrocities committed by muslim rulers does not neccesarily mean they are a part of islamic faith
Why dont you take a look at those territories in which the christians waged war?
why did the christian king charlemagne slaughtered the germans who did not convert?what about the crusading teutonic knights against the pagan baltic people? you think they are a part of jesus Christs(PBUH) teachings?

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:08pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

Das Reich:

If the crusades were supposed for the protection of holy land why did the 4th one turn against constantinople?the grts christian city.It was all about the trade routes the venetians did good bussiness with muslims and thought this was a conveniant way to elimate the byzantines as opponents.
you cannot mix religious issues with political,one cannot doubt the devotion of the common christian soldiers who were moved by the words of pope to fight for christiandom and the religious orders of knights(templers and hospitallers) cuz in their minds there really was no difference in killing the infidels on one hand and caring for sick and poor on the other.But they were used by the kings and pope to further their own imperial ambitions
Slavery was just as common in christian lands as it was in islamic.
and it would be no exaggeration to say that the muslims slaves(esp of christian origin) fared much better than those in europe,they became soldiers administrators and even sultans.

it seems to be beyond you, that slavery is obscene

even if some slaves, ** forced to convert** fared better, they were still slaves and under threat of death of they wanted to leave islam

I am really unimpressed with the suppesed ‘glory of historical’ islam.

it really was, Byzantium, Persia, Jewish and Hindu scholarship

stolen by the muslims, who also stole all the prophets, churches, temples and wealth of various peoples they enslaved.

where islam began, Arabia and Yemen without outside influences, islam and muslims remain ignorant and primitive and tribal and violent to this day

nothing noble or moral about these people

whose idea of conflict resolution is the knife

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:12pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

please read the title to this thread

and try to limit this discussion to the last few centuries

anything you don;t like is outside the islamic faith?

Christians acknowlege the harm done in the name of Christ

do moslams acknowlege the harm done today in the name of islam?

I don’t think so

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:13pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

das Reich

what does your nic mean?

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 7:22pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

You are totally missing the point,I dont mean to glorify the “so-called golden age of islam”.the age when the arabs adopted the decadant ways of the persians and romans
For me the golden age ended with the assasination of Ali bin AbuTalib(A.S) the fourth caliph.The golden period of islam was when the caliphs themselves used to supervise the distribution of wealth to the poor lived in a simple abode and wore simple clothes(even at that time the islamic empire spanned parts of three continents so there was no shortage of wealth).this was before the churches were converted to mosques(church of st. sophia in constantinople) or any forcible conversions(?Janasaries,if that is what you mean)
Trouble with this discussion is that I am trying to be as objective as I can presenting historical facts from both sides but you are just trying to generalize the muslims as the “badguys”

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 7:23pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

What the hell do you think I am doing?

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:34pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

finding excuses

jumping from one subject to another

ignoring issue I bring up

what does your name mean?

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 7:36pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

Alright if that is what you think I really can’t change that.

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 7:38pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

Why are you so curious about my name? Believe me it has nothing to do with this discussion.

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:43pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

see, like this

any documentation of a 50 year old Roman or Persian consumating a ;marriage’ with a 9 year old?

mohammed did not need any Rpomans or Persians to teach him how to slaughter and plunder and enslave

The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked… as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.2
In the last half of the fifth century, many Persian Jews fled from persecution to Arabia, swelling the Jewish population there.3 But around the sixth century, Christian writers reported of the continuing importance of the Jewish community that remained in the Holy Land. For the dispersed Arabian Jewish settlers, Tiberias in Judea was central. In the Kingdom of Himyar on the Red Sea’s east coast in Arabia, “conversion to Judaism of influential circles” was popular, and the Kingdom’s rule stretched across “considerable portions of South Arabia.”
The commoners as well as the royal family adopted Judaism, and one writer ports that "Jewish priests (presumably rabbis) from Tiberias … formed part the suite of King Du Noas and served as his envoys in negotiations with Christian cities."4

According to Guillaume,

At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz [Arabia]. They held all the best land … ; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba… What is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes [or converts] among the Arab tribesmen.5
The first “Palestinian” or Judean refugees – the Jews – had resettled to become prosperous, influential Arabian settlers.
The prosperity of the Jews was due to their superior knowledge of agriculture and irrigation and their energy and industry. Homeless [Jewish] refugees in the course of a few generations became large landowners in the country, [the refugees who had come to the Hijaz when the Romans conquered Palestine] controllers of its finance and trade… Thus it can readily be seen that Jewish prosperity was a challenge to the Arabs, particularly the Quraysh at Mecca and … [other Arab tribes] at Medina.
The Prophet Muhammad himself was a member of the Quraysh tribe, which coveted the Jews’ bounty, and
when the Muslims took up arms they treated the Jews with much greater severity than the Christians, who, until the end of the purely Arab Caliphate, were not badly treated.6
One of the reasons for “this discrimination” against the Jews is what Guillaurne called “the Quran’s scornful words” regarding the Jews7 The Jews’ development of land and culture was a prime source of booty in the Arabian desert peninsula. Beginning at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam8 from the expulsions, depredations, extortion, forced conversions or murder of Jewish Arabians settled in Medina to the mass slaughter of Jews at Khaibar – the precedent was established among Arab-Muslims to expropriate that which belonged to the Jews. Relations between the Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were “never … easy”:
They had irritated him by their refusal to recognize him as a prophet, by ridicule and by argument; and of course their economic supremacy … was a standing irritant.9
It appears that the first “instigation” by the Prophet Muhammad himself against the Jews was an incident in which he had “one or two Jews … murdered and no blood money was paid to their next of kin.”
… Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by God, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome the inclusion of Jesus and Ishmael among his chosen messengers.10
… the existence of pockets of disaffected Jews in and around his base was a cause of uneasiness and they had to be eliminated if he [Muhammad] was to wage war without anxiety.11

Because the Jews preferred to retain their own beliefs,
a tribe of Jews in the neighborhood of Medina, fell under suspicion of treachery and were forced to lay down their arms and evacuate their settlements. Valuable land and much booty fell into the hands of the Muslims. The neighboring tribe of Qurayza, who were soon to suffer annihilation, made no move to help their co-religionists, and their allies, the Aus, were afraid to give them active support. 12
The Prophet Muhammad’s pronouncement: "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula."13 This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar 1, the Prophet Muhammad’s successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, "the extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by "an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar."14

austin · October 27, 2005, 7:45pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

I did not realize it was such a secret

das Reich sounds German, curious you would chose this nic

what does it mean?

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 8:00pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

Yes I know about the allegations regarding the banu quraiza,
A much detailed discussion can be found in this book
No god but God by reza aslan.
he quotes several sources almost all western to prove this point
The execution of banu quraiza was done based on a decision of a arbitrator choosen by the tribe themselves and according to the their own(jewish law).Their crime was conspiracy against the city of madina and collaboration with the pagan meccans when they had already concluded an agreement with the muslims to defend medina togather.
The khaiber was a heavily defended fortress which was taken by the muslims after repeated attacks it was another battle in the state of war already declared by the banu quraiza by their breech of contract.

Das_Reich · October 27, 2005, 8:03pm

Re: Is Islamism a bankrupt ideology?

Well if you must know Das Reich was the name of a german panzer(tank) division in WWII
I have a great interest in german and american military during the two world wars.
First I thought of guadalcanal,LeMay and Mainstein but eventally settled for Das Reich.