Koran Favors Christians Over Jews?

[inJESUS]

The post above yours states that its not even done any longer. So, I guess that solves that for the Muslims.
One less thing to worry about answering.

it’s not done as long as the country doesn’t live under Sharia i guess. It’s not an “abrogated” command

 

[Hellisreal]

it’s not done as long as the country doesn’t live under Sharia i guess. It’s not an “abrogated” command

I still wonder what the humilliation is supposed to be, do you know?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were all given dhimmi status and therefore could pay the jizya and continue to worship freely. This was an extension of a common practice begun by the Persian Empire in antiquity. It was much preferred by conquered peoples than enforced religion and enforced language.

They had to pay to “worship freely”? If someone’s paying, how is that free? The jizya was setup so that people who were less fortunate would have a monatery reason to convert to Islam if they couldn’t convince those poor peasants to convert otherwise. Does that even make any sense to you? And what would happen if they refused to pay?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

No Islamic nation uses the jizya any longer. It has not been used for a very long time. If you compare that system to the European tax systems of the 7th through 15th centuries, I think you might be surprised at who was “using the hardworking poor.”

That doesn’t matter if anybody uses it or not. It’s supposedly from the Revelation of God which is eternal.

 

[HailMary]

Surah 5:51

A muslim shall not have a Jew or a Christian as a friend

 

[Hellisreal]

Surah 5:51

Did you hear that Ham? I cant be your friend.

 

[murtad]

But dont they have all the oil anyway? Why do they need so much from us?

In those days (ie 19th century Ottoman Empire and before) there was no technology to discover and drill oil. As such, Muslim rulers cannot exploit the oil wealth found in today’s Gulf States. They had to rely on Jizyah and Kharaj taxes from Christian subjects (Dhimmis).

Today, there is no Muslim-majority country whose government imposes Jizyah and Kharaj on Christians or other non Muslim minorities because firstly it is illegal under international law, and secondly Christian (and even Hindu) population in most Muslim-majority countries is declining and so there will soon be no dhimmis to tax?

That’s why most Muslim countries impose Jizyah and Kharaj on Muslims as their governments need income.

 

[Montalban]

Asking Koran Favors Christians Over Jews? is a bit like asking the Nazis if they preferred killing Jews or slavs.

 

[Hellisreal]

Asking Koran Favors Christians Over Jews? is a bit like asking the Nazis if they preferred killing Jews or slavs.

So Muhhamed wants me dead and with no muslim friends.

 

[Vaclav]

They had to pay to “worship freely”? If someone’s paying, how is that free? The jizya was setup so that people who were less fortunate would have a monatery reason to convert to Islam if they couldn’t convince those poor peasants to convert otherwise. Does that even make any sense to you? And what would happen if they refused to pay?

You are talking about a time when conquering another people typically meant simply slaughtering them all. As I said, this was taken from the Persian Empire of antiquity, and was generally accepted as a good thing by the conquered peoples (who knew that the normal routine was enslavement and/or death).

You are using today’s norms on a society from long ago. That is an anachronism.

I’m a Catholic, but this is a ludicrous line of argument. Did the Muslims always follow this law to the extent they were supposed to? No, of course not.

Were Christians at this time any better when they conquered other peoples? No, some of them were in fact far more brutal.

You cannot change history to suit any vindictiveness towards other religions. That was done for years to the Jewish people. It is done to this day to Catholics. Why should it be done to Muslims as well?

 

[Verisimilitude]

That is simply not true. Muslims still pay taxes and also must tithe (Zakat). Non-Muslim men pay a tax called the jizya, which allows them to observe their own religious practices and also live in their own communities. The taxes weren’t humiliating, they were generally well-received.

You’re buying into the Islamic myth of fairness and tolerance.

No. The jizya is not paid by the poor, sick, elderly, women, children, slaves, or those otherwise unable to work. Again, this is simply untrue.

That is not compassion.

Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were all given dhimmi status and therefore could pay the jizya and continue to worship freely. This was an extension of a common practice begun by the Persian Empire in antiquity. It was much preferred by conquered peoples than enforced religion and enforced language.

They could not/can not worship freely. They could not build new churchs, rebuild damaged churches, must bury their dead quietly, can not talk about other religions with Muslims, had to wear distinctive clothing, had no legal right in court. Do not believe the new Islamic spin.
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003260.php

fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

And to run their Empire(s). You all talk as if this is odd. If anything it was very compassionate for its time. Or shall we discuss how other 8th to 15 th century Empires handled their conquered peoples??

Sure, let’s dicuss it.

You cannot simply revise history to suit your fantasies.

That is what Islam does. It claims Abraham. Moses, David, Jesus…were Muslim. Islam puts new and false words into their mouths and calls it true. That any land that is now Muslim is perpetually Muslim as all land is.

No Islamic nation uses the jizya any longer. It has not been used for a very long time. If you compare that system to the European tax systems of the 7th through 15th centuries, I think you might be surprised at who was “using the hardworking poor.”

The world changed in the late 1800’s with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Colonial powers introduced the rights and freedoms we think of today which gave respite to the dhimmi for a time. Those colonial powers changed the legal framework in spite of the Islamic model. There is no distinction between the religious and legal rights in Islam. These demeaning characteristics of Islamic law are still the cultural norm if not the legal one at the moment. To change the culture is to change the religion. We are watching some of that debate now in places like Egypt.

 

[Vaclav]

You’re buying into the Islamic myth of fairness and tolerance.

That was how the jizya was supposed to be applied.

That is not compassion.

That is subjective and relative to the time period.

They could not/can not worship freely. They could not build new churchs, rebuild damaged churches, must bury their dead quietly, can not talk about other religions with Muslims, had to wear distinctive clothing, had no legal right in court. Do not believe the new Islamic spin.

Note that I am specifically talking about Islam and the jizya of a certain time period. Freedom of worship has a different meaning in modern times where bodies such as the United Nations, European Union, and United States have defined it. It was quite different in the 7th through 15th centuries.

Sure, let’s dicuss it.

OK. Where do you wish to start?

The world changed in the late 1800’s with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Colonial powers introduced the rights and freedoms we think of today which gave respite to the dhimmi for a time. Those colonial powers changed the legal framework in spite of the Islamic model. There is no distinction between the religious and legal rights in Islam. These demeaning characteristics of Islamic law are still the cultural norm if not the legal one at the moment. To change the culture is to change the religion. We are watching some of that debate now in places like Egypt.

By my recollection of dates the Ottoman Empire did not fall until 1922, which is not the late 1800’s - but I’ll digress on a minor technicality.

You all speak of the Ottoman Empire as though it were some grand Empire of Islam. It was loathed by the Arabs. It fought other Islamic states and put an end to the Timurid Empire. By no means were the Ottomans some pinnacle of Islamic achievement nor the height of sharia law. Certainly all of Shi’a Islam was generally oppressed at this time.

The Ottoman Empire had different periods within its long history and different degrees of freedom for various minority groups including Jews and Christians. It is difficult to characterize it in one broad statement.

 

[Verisimilitude]

That was how the jizya was supposed to be applied.

I think this is more accurate of how it was supposed to apply, and largely did apply for centuries:
In the 7th century, the Caliph Umar imposed this Dhimmi status on conquered populations under his rule. Christians, Jews, and others were forced to accept Al-Shurut al-Umariya, or Umar’s conditions, a system of restrictions designed to shame and despoil non-Muslim subjects. Dhimmi peoples had to relinquish their land, were forced to pay a special “protection” tax (dhimma) or face death, wear distinctive clothing, and were banned from most government positions.
dhimmi.com/durban.htm

That is subjective and relative to the time period.

That isn’t a very good argument. Nero burned humans as torches in his gardens. Wrong is wrong no matter the age or circumstance.

Note that I am specifically talking about Islam and the jizya of a certain time period. Freedom of worship has a different meaning in modern times where bodies such as the United Nations, European Union, and United States have defined it. It was quite different in the 7th through 15th centuries.

It was established very soon after Muhammed died of a cold… and really while he was alive. I forget which specific battle at the moment where Umar got some of the rules from, but it was based upon Muhammed as most things are.

OK. Where do you wish to start?

Name another military/religious group between 650 AD and now that inforced a code of conduct on the defeated like the Pact of Umar, specifically:

• wearing of distinctive clothing
• could not serve in the victors military (without religious conversion)
• could not build new, or repair old places of worship

By my recollection of dates the Ottoman Empire did not fall until 1922, which is not the late 1800’s - but I’ll digress on a minor technicality.

True. I was referenceing the major wars that took place in the late 1800’s that brought in the Colonial powers in that began to chip away at the decaying empire leaving Turkey to formally capitualte as you said. First with Russia in the 1860’s, Balkans 1870s, France and Brittian early 1900’s. The fall began long before '22.

You all speak of the Ottoman Empire as though it were some grand Empire of Islam.

I just meant it was the end of an era dominated by Islam.

Certainly all of Shi’a Islam was generally oppressed at this time.

I’ll try and find the book that had letters from British and French soldiers/diplomats from that time period, in that area who wrote about how they observed extreme Muslim subjugation of non-Mulsims and how the new laws of greater equality with respect to religion, enforced by the western powers. Dhimmis could finally take Muslims to court, technically, but generation upon generation had lived under that subjugation and the social norms of being a 3rd classs citizen of the country does not disappear quickly or easily if at all. It still exists today on a smaller scale. Look at Saudi Arabia/Iran representing both Sunni and Shia.

The Ottoman Empire had different periods within its long history and different degrees of freedom for various minority groups including Jews and Christians. It is difficult to characterize it in one broad statement.

I don’t want to get hung up on the Ottomans, but rather concentrate on Islam as a whole to include it’s many phases. How and why it came out of Arabia for instance. Also it’s easy to paint with a broad brush because of Islam it self, Muslim vs non-Muslim. The non-Muslim “People of the Book” did not have it so good under Islamic rule, other non-Muslims had it worse, and it still only boils down to Muslim vs non-Muslim.

 

[Vaclav]

In the 7th century, the Caliph Umar imposed this Dhimmi status on conquered populations under his rule.

Umar reigned as Caliph for only ten years despite what you “think” was the set standard for the jizya. Islam, just as Catholicism, was highly influenced by local and regional customs as well. No doubt the jizya was among those rules to be influenced regionally.

It is also worth note that the Shi’a did not recognise Umar and considered him to be a usurper.

That isn’t a very good argument. Nero burned humans as torches in his gardens. Wrong is wrong no matter the age or circumstance.

And Leviticus 25 (specifically 44-46) discusses rules for the Israelites to own slaves and verse 46 even specifically discusses them as “property.”

Is that acceptable today? Clearly not.

Name another military/religious group between 650 AD and now that inforced a code of conduct on the defeated like the Pact of Umar, specifically:

• wearing of distinctive clothing
• could not serve in the victors military (without religious conversion)
• could not build new, or repair old places of worship

1. Christian and Jewish accounts of massacres of Jews during several of the Crusades. It is difficult to humiliate the offending religion when one is dead. These massacres were described (by Christians even) as “indiscriminatory.”
2. The expulsion of 200,000 Sephardic Jews from Spain. By the way, during the reconquista the Jews were allowed to fight with the Moors and often did. It was the Almoravides from Morrocco (a very fundamentalist and warrior sect of Islam) and the notions of a reconquista that brought an end to what was a time of rather inspiring tolerance in Spain.
3. What of the Blessed Bernardine of Feltre? Whose works led to the massacre of Jews in Trent and their expulsion?
4. The conquest of native peoples in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. Hard to even visit “old places of worship” when you are moved and confined to new territory, forced into specific schools, forced to learn new languages, customs, cultures, occasionally massacred, occasionally enslaved, etc.
5. The reconquest of Turkish held territories in Europe.

Shall we stick with these or list more?

I just meant it was the end of an era dominated by Islam.

Not really. A region dominated by the Ottoman Turks, perhaps, but not Islam. There were many conflicts within Islam itself at this time. Some Islamists may look back at the Ottoman Empire with a distorted view of history as well, but they would be guilty of the same revisionism.

I’ll try and find the book that had letters from British and French soldiers/diplomats from that time period, in that area who wrote about how they observed extreme Muslim subjugation of non-Mulsims and how the new laws of greater equality with respect to religion, enforced by the western powers.

Consider the source! 18th and 19th century colonial military powers weren’t exactly an enlightened group of individuals either. Though neither were 18th and 19th century Ottoman Turks (who ruthlessly put down Arab rebellions as well as committed genocide against the Armenians).

Dhimmis could finally take Muslims to court, technically, but generation upon generation had lived under that subjugation and the social norms of being a 3rd classs citizen of the country does not disappear quickly or easily if at all. It still exists today on a smaller scale. Look at Saudi Arabia/Iran representing both Sunni and Shia.

Or look at South Africa until the mid 1990’s and all the nations that defended them. Look at Israel which treats some of her own citizens as 3rd rate citizens with racist policies even today. Look at the former Yugoslavia which has Catholics and Orthodox commiting atrocities upon one another even at this very time!

No one here is claiming that modern Islam is a walk through the tulips. Far from it. What I’m saying is that no one (including us or them) gets to revise history either to make themselves look better or to villify the other side.

A great deal of human life is lost through villifying others. Why should we play that part with Muslims?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Umar reigned as Caliph for only ten years despite what you “think” was the set standard for the jizya. Islam, just as Catholicism, was highly influenced by local and regional customs as well. No doubt the jizya was among those rules to be influenced regionally.

It is also worth note that the Shi’a did not recognise Umar and considered him to be a usurper.

More noteworthy is Umar is recognized by the larger Sunni sect. More history shows it was not a benevolent system of control as you describe.

And Leviticus 25 (specifically 44-46) discusses rules for the Israelites to own slaves and verse 46 even specifically discusses them as “property.”

Is that acceptable today? Clearly not.

I’ll re-read it when I get a chance but if I remember correctly slavery under Jewish law did not demean or subjugate them as Islam does under the Pact of Umar. In modern society, where slavery has been abolished, it has been replaced with a 40 hr work week, and 30-yr mortgages.

1. Christian and Jewish accounts of massacres of Jews during several of the Crusades. It is difficult to humiliate the offending religion when one is dead. These massacres were described (by Christians even) as “indiscriminatory.”

1. The expulsion of 200,000 Sephardic Jews from Spain. By the way, during the reconquista the Jews were allowed to fight with the Moors and often did. It was the Almoravides from Morrocco (a very fundamentalist and warrior sect of Islam) and the notions of a reconquista that brought an end to what was a time of rather inspiring tolerance in Spain.

1. What of the Blessed Bernardine of Feltre? Whose works led to the massacre of Jews in Trent and their expulsion?

1. The conquest of native peoples in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. Hard to even visit “old places of worship” when you are moved and confined to new territory, forced into specific schools, forced to learn new languages, customs, cultures, occasionally massacred, occasionally enslaved, etc.

1. The reconquest of Turkish held territories in Europe.

Shall we stick with these or list more?

No, go back to the original question and apply it to each of your points. In point 1: did the Jews or Christians enforce rules like Umar? No. Point 2: No- and if it was so tolerant why did Spain keep fightig the Muslims? Point 3: No- expulsion and death is not the same as forcing a tax to support the Umma. (that is the point of the question- Muslims didn’t want to kill or convert everyone because they depended on the $ paid by the dhimmi). Point 4: No- Though it happened in some cases, it was not a law that remained to force the indigenous people to change. American Indians were given land, freedom to practice faith, and government subsidies to this day. Point 5: No- no rules to subjugate like that demanded in Islam.

Consider the source! 18th and 19th century colonial military powers weren’t exactly an enlightened group of individuals either. Though neither were 18th and 19th century Ottoman Turks (who ruthlessly put down Arab rebellions as well as committed genocide against the Armenians).

There is nothing wrong with the source. 19th century UK was very enlightened in that respect just over 100 years ago. Ask the Armenians that survived if dhimmitude was benevolent.

Or look at South Africa until the mid 1990’s and all the nations that defended them. Look at Israel which treats some of her own citizens as 3rd rate citizens with racist policies even today. Look at the former Yugoslavia which has Catholics and Orthodox commiting atrocities upon one another even at this very time!

Even Catholics can commit sin. Modern Israel does noting similar to Umar’s rules.

No one here is claiming that modern Islam is a walk through the tulips. Far from it. What I’m saying is that no one (including us or them) gets to revise history either to make themselves look better or to villify the other side.

But I think they are revising history by convincing people that dhimmitude was this super “before it’s time” that should be admired. It wasn’t and isn’t. Islam in itself is a revison of history. They re-write what Moses said and did, same with all other OT & NT figures. Palestine was not always Muslim land as tehy now claim. Neitehr was Egypt, or Lebanon, or Syria. I don’t point out these facts to villify, I point them out to correct the Islamic revisionist history.

A great deal of human life is lost through villifying others. Why should we play that part with Muslims?

Should we stay silent when Muslims say Jesus is not what we hold Him to be? Is it villification to say they are mistaken or that their prophet lied when they say Abraham was Muslim so you should be too?

 

[Vaclav]

More noteworthy is Umar is recognized by the larger Sunni sect. More history shows it was not a benevolent system of control as you describe.

“More history” is debatable. It certainly was a positive system in Spain before the Almoravides invaded. Enough so that Jews fought for the Moors in many cases (as did some Christians including El Cid on occasion).

No, go back to the original question and apply it to each of your points.

You imposed those rules on this discussion, not me. My only point was to contrast how conquered people were handled in the 8th through 15th centuries.

You are making the argument that massacring them is more compassionate than making them pay a tax.

1. Of course the Christians did not enforce the rules of Umar in the case I mentioned. They massacred the Jews in question.
2. I answered your question already. Because a much more fundamentalist sect of Islam from North Africa conquered the Moors that were already in Spain. Plus the Christian kingdoms of Northern Spain became much less tolerant with the remaining split states of Muslim Spain (who were no longer united under one central authority at Cordoba).
3. No, you are changing the point. My original point was to contrast the two. Ask the Jews who suffered from the Holocaust as to which was worse. I’m guessing the torture and expulsion the Sephardic Jews endured under Christian Spanish rule was no picnic. They very likely may have preferred to pay a tax. You certainly have not proven otherwise just by declaring it so.
4. You don’t think laws remained to force indigenous people to adopt the cultures of Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia? I think you may want to read up on their histories during the 19th and until the mid to late 20th centuries. You may well be surprised.
5. True, they tended to just slaughter them - Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia being a good example - though he also slaughtered non-Muslims as well.

There is nothing wrong with the source. 19th century UK was very enlightened in that respect just over 100 years ago. Ask the Armenians that survived if dhimmitude was benevolent.

Yes, the 19th Century UK - which included the Great Famine (shall I post some caricatures of Irish Catholics here?), the 1857 Rebellion (which included the use of pig and cow fat on gunpowder cartridges that were handled by mouth), the Boer Wars (which included the invention of the concentration camp) - not very enlightened really.

By the way, the Armenian Genocide was primarily the responsibility of the Young Turks, who were a secular (and vehemently anti-monarchical and anti-theocratic) political society and political party that sprouted from the military.

In fact, strict Islamists generally loathed the Young Turks who supported nationalism, positivism, and a liberalism of the institutions of the old Ottoman Empire.

Even Catholics can commit sin. Modern Israel does noting similar to Umar’s rules.

A discussion for another thread.

Islam in itself is a revison of history. They re-write what Moses said and did, same with all other OT & NT figures. Palestine was not always Muslim land as tehy now claim. Neitehr was Egypt, or Lebanon, or Syria. I don’t point out these facts to villify, I point them out to correct the Islamic revisionist history.

Those are matters of faith for Muslims and should be argued as such.

Palestine has changed hands so many times it would be nigh on impossible (and ridiculous) to give out the land based on historical claims of ownership.

As I said before, the dhimmi was not new or before its time, it was taken from the Persian Empire.

Should we stay silent when Muslims say Jesus is not what we hold Him to be? Is it villification to say they are mistaken or that their prophet lied when they say Abraham was Muslim so you should be too?

Of course not, but that is a matter of faith.

We are talking about history itself, where we can certainly find records and credible work. This is much more difficult when one goes back to the 1st century and especially to the times of Moses and Abraham.

Listen, I believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is the consecrated Holy Eucharist at every Mass. I also believe that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven, likely at Ephesus (but that point is debatable). Ask me to prove both with history and I cannot. Yet, I know they are both true.

Those are points of faith, but trying to claim that the Sephardic Jews were handled in some sort of kinder way by the conquering Christians is just not in tune with historical accuracy.

 

[Montalban]

So Muhhamed wants me dead and with no muslim friends.

He wants you to submit, or to be dead.

 

[Verisimilitude]

You imposed those rules on this discussion, not me. My only point was to contrast how conquered people were handled in the 8th through 15th centuries.

Of course. It was my question to ask any way I like. Though I enjoy history lessons I asked a specific question. I’ll try and answer your specific questions as you like.

You are making the argument that massacring them is more compassionate than making them pay a tax.

Not really. I was making the argument given the three choices Islam mandates upon the conqured was/is unusual to other expansionist groups since Islam came to be- none are compassionate choices.

Those are matters of faith for Muslims and should be argued as such…

As I said before, the dhimmi was not new or before its time, it was taken from the Persian Empire…

Of course not, but that is a matter of faith.

Faith can coincide with historical fact. Just because we know it as sacred scripture does not discount it’s factual human eyewitness evidence about the non-theological points about places and events previously thought suspect which have been verified recently.

We are talking about history itself, where we can certainly find records and credible work. This is much more difficult when one goes back to the 1st century and especially to the times of Moses and Abraham…

Those are points of faith, but trying to claim that the Sephardic Jews were handled in some sort of kinder way by the conquering Christians is just not in tune with historical accuracy.

I wasn’t making that point or claim. I am aware that all cultures and religions have/do treat outsiders/defeated peoples badly to include Christians/Jews et al. I was debating that Islamic law to non-Muslims is unique since the mid 650’s. It was pervassive until the mid 1800’s in Islamic conqured lands specifically. It still goes on today in many Islamic palces outside the fallen Ottoman Empire unabated. A thousand years; generation after generation of some form of dhimmitude to countless people. Compared to last 100 years of world wide web type knowledge and information, scrutiny- it does not just disappear. Black Americans feel the effects of 200+ years of slavery, 150 years after it was abolished by law.

Does anyone dispute what Pliny the Younger wrote about Mt Vesuvius to the Roman historian Tactitus shortly after the 79 A.D? It’s an apt analogy despite it not being religious as both texts are widely accepted as authentic manuscripts at least claiming to be valid with respect to historical events. The claims for historical validity have been largely satisfied for both.