S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Don’t you see that I already am?
- Status
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Perhaps you dont understand the implications of this. Can you see the problem that I am seeing? What is it? Why do you think I see it as a problem?
B
BeeSweet
Guest
“Flourish” is not an appropriate description considering the inordinate taxes levied on non-Muslims, the destruction of churches and synagogues, and the restrictions against building them, the prohibition of non-Muslims from military service, among other discrimination infflicted by the Muslim ruling class of the time.
Speaking of the Ottoman empire, I believe modern Turkey is an example of a Muslim controlled nation wherein for the most part church is separated from state, is it not? I’ve also heard however, that Turkey is not looked on well by the rest of the Muslim world because of their difference in governing.
That’s an interesting arrangement, however I wonder how conversions within a family can cause problems under this sort of law structure.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Well, Amy?
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Please provide a source where you got the idea that the Andalusian system prohibited those things. Thank you.
R
rpp
Guest
Quite true. Priests were routinely rounded up and many were martyred. Well said, BeeSweet!
One must never forget the Armenian genocide, still officially denied by the government of Turkey in which between 1 and 3 million Armenian Catholics were slaughtered and millions more were forced into exile.
Under Islamic law, anyone who converts to another religion, for example Christianity, is sentenced to death. This happens every year in Iran and Pakistan.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Is there a 10-minute limit to answering your questions?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the same problem you do. Would I live under such a rule, being a minority? The answer is yes–not only WOULD I, but I already do. If it’s not good enough I’ll move.
Let me quote for BeeSweet! the words of Charles Reginald Haines from his book "Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D 756-1031, published 1889.
“To the down-trodden slaves, who were very numerous all through Spain, the Moslems came in the character of deliverers. A slave had ony to pronounce the simple formula: “there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his Prophet”: and he was immediately free. To the Jews, the Moslems brought toleration, nay, even influence and power. In fact, since the fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC the Jews had never enjoyed such independence and influence as in Spain during the domination of the Arabs. Their genius being thus allowed free scope, they disputed the supremacy in literature and the arts with the Arabs themselves.” (pages 21-22)
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the same problem you do. Would I live under such a rule, being a minority? The answer is yes–not only WOULD I, but I already do. If it’s not good enough I’ll move.
Let me quote for BeeSweet! the words of Charles Reginald Haines from his book "Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D 756-1031, published 1889.
“To the down-trodden slaves, who were very numerous all through Spain, the Moslems came in the character of deliverers. A slave had ony to pronounce the simple formula: “there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his Prophet”: and he was immediately free. To the Jews, the Moslems brought toleration, nay, even influence and power. In fact, since the fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC the Jews had never enjoyed such independence and influence as in Spain during the domination of the Arabs. Their genius being thus allowed free scope, they disputed the supremacy in literature and the arts with the Arabs themselves.” (pages 21-22)
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
ah no wonder. here is the key phrase “any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law”.
It means that you can keep your own little laws so long as you dont brush shoulders with MY brethren. If you do, you become completely subject to MY laws.
**You are always in danger of becoming subject to my laws. **
Me on the otherhand can do anything and I will never ever become subject to your laws.
And its more unfortunate for you if my laws just so happen to be more brutal against disbelievers.
Do you understand? Do you see the injustice & humiliation inflicted on you there?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
If my father is murdered, what recourse do I have under American law? Islamically the penalty is either death for the offender OR I can forgive and accept a sum of money instead. Under American law I can’t be sure that the offender will really even be punished. Do you see the injustice and humiliation inflicted on me!?ah no wonder. here is the key phrase “any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law”.
It means that you can keep your own little laws so long as you dont brush shoulders with MY brethren. If you do, you become completely subject to MY laws.
You are always in danger of becoming subject to my laws.
Me on the otherhand can do anything and I will never ever become subject to your laws.
And its more unfortunate for you if my laws just so happen to be more brutal against disbelievers.
Do you understand? Do you see the injustice & humiliation inflicted on you there?
B
Booklover
Guest
Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a strong faction of royal Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.
Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains; many abandoned their land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions* would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing.
By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced Malikism, one of the most rigorous schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and subsequently repressed the other Muslim schools of law. Three quarters of a century ago, at a time when political correctness was not dominating historical publication and discourse, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, the pre-eminent scholar of Andalusia, wrote: “The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.”
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001665.php
Vickie
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Is it possible, Vickie, for you to ever post something without first consulting jihadwatch or faithfreedom? You refer to them almost like holy scripture.
B
Booklover
Guest
This is still a free country! Get over it! Jihadwatch and Faithfreedom are to a Muslim what Holy Water is to the devil!Is it possible, Vickie, for you to ever post something without first consulting jihadwatch or faithfreedom? You refer to them almost like holy scripture.
Vickie
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
First of all, what does American law have to do with anything?
Second, injustices happen everywhere, especially in sharia law. But the injustice that I am referring to is the injustice of social partiality, wherein some citizens are first class citizens and others are second class citizens. Do you understand???
As for your question, there is NO injustice for you there. If its a first degree murder the offender gets either life imprisonment or death. This law is the same for everybody regardless of race, gender or religion.
Now you answer my question. Do you see the injustice there? Justify your answer.
P.S. forgiving a murderer in exchange for money IS NOT JUSTICE. Murder is crime against the community, not just to you. Dangerous people like these deserve to be removed from the society else they are at great risk of re-offending and killing somebody else. Prostituting your loss for money also means that wealthier people are better able to buy their way out of murder. Agree?
B
Booklover
Guest
Great post!First of all, what does American law have to do with anything?
Second, injustices happen everywhere, especially in sharia law. But the injustice that I am referring to is the injustice of social partiality, wherein some citizens are first class citizens and others are second class citizens. Do you understand???
As for your question, there is NO injustice for you there. If its a first degree murder the offender gets either life imprisonment or death. This law is the same for everybody regardless of race, gender or religion.
ow you answer my question. Do you see the injustice there? Justify your answer.
P.S. forgiving a murderer in exchange for money IS NOT JUSTICE. Murder is crime against the community, not just to you. Dangerous people like these deserve to be removed from the society else they are at great risk of re-offending and killing somebody else. Prostituting your loss for money also means that wealthier people are better able to get away with murder. So much for sharia law, eh?
Vickie
B
BeeSweet
Guest
This doesn’t make complete sense considering the forced exile of one of the greatest Jewish philosophers in Spain during the Golden Age, Moses Maimonides. It just wasn’t all peaches and cream as so many Islamic sympathizers like to believe and promote. I’m not saying it was all totally horrible, it was the “Golden Age” after all, but I think honesty would require us to acknowledge a bit of guilding going on, or maybe a rose tinge to the glasses through which we’re viewing some of that history.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I live under it, and in some ways it violates Shari’ah. So the case applies which you were describing earlier.
No, I don’t understand this first class second class business. Who came up with that? It seems kind of illogical to me.
But ONLY if he is judged guilty. How many times has a murderer gotten away thanks to a jury of his peers and a good defense lawyer?
I see the injustice of life imprisonment. Do you?
**Hmmm… what did Jesus say about forgiving? Oh yes, if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. **P.S. forgiving a murderer in exchange for money IS NOT JUSTICE. Murder is crime against the community, not just to you. Dangerous people like these deserve to be removed from the society else they are at great risk of re-offending and killing somebody else. Prostituting your loss for money also means that wealthier people are better able to buy their way out of murder. Agree?
If these dangerous people deserve to be “removed from society” why aren’t they killed?
I gave an example–and it’s not “prostituting” anything. If a family loses a father whose income provided for them–who will take care of them?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
You’re right.
R
Rocky
Guest
I have been reading Richard Rubenstein’s book ARISTOTLE’S CHILDREN, which contains much history about religion, reason, philosophy and science in the middle ages. It’s main focus is on the Catholic Church and science. It spends time on the accomplishments of Arab and Jewish scholars who translated Aristotle’s many Greek texts into their own languages, and then helped Christian academics to translate them into Latin as Spain was being retaken from the Arab conquerors.
The Arab “movement culminated in the work of the great Cordoban thinker Averroes (Ibn Rushd), who wrote thirty-eight commentaries on Aristotle, as well as books of his own, in an attempt to grapple with the serious differences between the Aristotelian and traditional religious perspectives. Although a f’ aithful monotheist himself, Averroes insisted…on reaffirming his focus on individual substances…and defending his contention that the natural universe is governed by natural laws… Not surprisingly, many orthodox Muslims had long viewed his sort of speculation with great suspicion. Around the beginning of the twelfth century, their instinctive aversion to Aristotle’s worldview was given hard-edged expression by philosopher al-Ghazali, considered by some experts the most influential figure in Islamic intellectual history… His book attacking both Aristotle and Avicenna, THE INCOHERENCE OF THE PHILOSOHERS, broke the back of rationalistic philosophy and in fact brought the career of philosophy to an end in the Arabic part of the Islamic world. Both [Averroes and Maimonides] found themselves in exile…, the Muslim world turned definitely away from scientific inquiry.” (p.84-5)
Rubenstein continues “I thought I knew that the High Middle Ages in Europe was an era of passionate religious faith [and] that Aristotle was the Father of Science. I expected an explosion [that] would no doubt be a drama like Galileo versus the Inquisition… Wrong! … European Chrisitans did not split into ‘rationalist’ and fundamentalist’ camps, as I had expected. In a way that violated all of my modernist preconceptions, the leading force for transformative change in Western thinking turned out to be the leadership of the Catholic Church… Rather than choose between the new learning and the old religion, the popes and scholars of the High Middle Ages tried to modernize the Church by reconciling faith and reason. (p. x-xi)”
The Arab “movement culminated in the work of the great Cordoban thinker Averroes (Ibn Rushd), who wrote thirty-eight commentaries on Aristotle, as well as books of his own, in an attempt to grapple with the serious differences between the Aristotelian and traditional religious perspectives. Although a f’ aithful monotheist himself, Averroes insisted…on reaffirming his focus on individual substances…and defending his contention that the natural universe is governed by natural laws… Not surprisingly, many orthodox Muslims had long viewed his sort of speculation with great suspicion. Around the beginning of the twelfth century, their instinctive aversion to Aristotle’s worldview was given hard-edged expression by philosopher al-Ghazali, considered by some experts the most influential figure in Islamic intellectual history… His book attacking both Aristotle and Avicenna, THE INCOHERENCE OF THE PHILOSOHERS, broke the back of rationalistic philosophy and in fact brought the career of philosophy to an end in the Arabic part of the Islamic world. Both [Averroes and Maimonides] found themselves in exile…, the Muslim world turned definitely away from scientific inquiry.” (p.84-5)
Rubenstein continues “I thought I knew that the High Middle Ages in Europe was an era of passionate religious faith [and] that Aristotle was the Father of Science. I expected an explosion [that] would no doubt be a drama like Galileo versus the Inquisition… Wrong! … European Chrisitans did not split into ‘rationalist’ and fundamentalist’ camps, as I had expected. In a way that violated all of my modernist preconceptions, the leading force for transformative change in Western thinking turned out to be the leadership of the Catholic Church… Rather than choose between the new learning and the old religion, the popes and scholars of the High Middle Ages tried to modernize the Church by reconciling faith and reason. (p. x-xi)”
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
So they are holy water? You attribute the divine to websites? Can you baptise yourself with jihadwatch or faithfreedom? I’m merely pointing out how you keep referring to them, and how it’s likely that nobody is actually reading those long pastes.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, Vickie.
R
rpp
Guest
Well said. Way too much distortion on thread. And it is all, from what I can see, a single individual who appears to be rather anti-American, claims that justice in America is not possible were someone to murder her father, who distorts history and refuses to acknowledge the absolute evil that is still going on in the name of the religion that she converted to.This is still a free country! Get over it! Jihadwatch and Faithfreedom are to a Muslim what Holy Water is to the devil!
Vickie
What is more she has no trouble forcing people to convert to her religion. That jut makes no sense. It is intrinsically dishonest. So if her god, allah, says this is okay, what kind of god does that make him/it?
- Status