Impact of Crusades

Greetings Cok Gec, soz about late reply

No reason for them to compliment the Muslim era. They can remain silent about it. Coptic Churches in USA also follow the Pope Shnodah of the Egyption Coptic church in Egypt. That does not necessiate a relationship of censorship.

I have no problem either with them complimenting the Muslim era as long as their criticisms are accepted as equally valid as praise. Rule under either religion was never perfect so I think its safe to say conditions of oppression and benevolence were like �two brothers fighting in the same house�.

First, it is an urguable fact that taxes during early centuries of Muslim Egypt were rediciolously lower than those of Byzentine. Raising taxes will always result in miscomfort and rebillion. Although Muslims are encouraged to obey their rulers as long as not in contradiction of the Muslim faith, taxes were high enough in some periods that Muslims of Egypt themselves could not tolerate those taxes despite their so-claimed "privilages". Copts have more incentives to rebell especially that they feel less attached to the Muslim authority. That is simply the fair picture of Egypt flacuating history. If taxes was astronomically high and targetting only the Copts, No Muslim rebellions of taxes would have result. In fact, the Muslim rebillion against those taxes continued even during the Ottoman era when they were encouraged by Al Azhar to revolt in the 18th century.

I would agreed with initially low, but not consistently lower. Evidence has already been provided by both you and I on that point. The Byzantines too had fluctuating periods of taxation, sometimes low, sometimes high, but it mainly depended in the internal and external situation of the period. I imagined that taxes in Muslim states would be high under similar internal and external conditions??

As far as I recall and this thread show, you actually started the topic of Muslim rule in Egypt with posted accusations. So what earlier posts that allueded the good side of "muslim rule of egypt" that you needed to balance?

Not specifically Egypt, but the idea that Muslim rule was represented as some of �paradise�. Its no intention to demonise Muslim rule, as I believe there were circumstances of tolerable conditions for a non-Muslim.

Seljuks too took Jerusalem from the more tolerant Abbasid caliphate of the Fatimid and they harrassed Christian pilgrimages which was one of the propoganda used to start the first Crusade beside Byzantine losing the battle of Manzikert. Funny though, first Crusade was far more destructive to Byzantine than the threat of Seljuks.

Well, you could say that Orthodox and Muslims had more in common than Orthodox and Catholics then :P

If you cannot say this happened every single year, century and milienium, then you nullify your earlier statement that they were "frequently tortured". In fact, in Islamic literature and historical accounts, the famous story When the son of the Muslim governor of Egypt beat a Christian on his head after a quarrel, the latter went over to Omar in Madinah asking for justice. Omar summoned the governor and his son and gave the Christian a whip to beat his opponent in the presence of the great men of the state. After the Christian took revenge for himself and abstained from beating the governor himself when Omar asked him to, he said: I have received justice. Christians pray God to reward You!. Turning to his governor, Omar said: Why do you enslave the freely born people?
I wonder if any accounts of such conducts even by Byzantine accounts.

Bad wording, rather than self-contradicting points. I meant to imply that while persecution was a frequent feature between intervals, it wasn�t regular�.as in an everyday feature.

As for your story, I don�t think theres any doubt about it, as there were wise governors who performed their duty of care and justice well. I wouldn�t say it was a general representative idea of Muslim rule in Egypt either. You ask of the Byzantines? Muslims under Byzantine rule was generally confined to the period roughly from 930s to 1080). It can be described by the following:

1.      From 930s � 980s Muslims in newly conquered land were given the option to convert or be deported. There was no attempted forced conversions (that policy applies to heretics mainly). Those who chose to convert stayed and those who chose not to convert were given safe escort to Muslim territory. Nikephoros Phokas used this frequently.

2.      980s � 1080s. Ibn Hawqal laments on the willingness and contentment of Muslims to pay a head tax to reside in the empire. The Byzantine authorities took a pragmatic approach to Muslims, based on flourishing trade with Muslims rather than any religious compunction of toleration.

3.      There were conversions of mosques to churches, or conversion of mosques that once were churches back into churches but it depended on the region. There was no official policy per se but a �use per basis� convention.

While it sounds benevolent and nice, I think that the period where Muslims were under Byzantine rule is too short to comment on. Given more time, we would perhaps see a better picture of Muslims under Byzantine rule. Perhaps the fluctuation both you and I agree on?

True, there is always prosecution of "hertics" inside a religious institution. However, may claim is still valid. Because of the heretic prosecution of Copts under the Byzentine rule, the vast majority of historians will assure that Muslim rule of Egypt in general has been far tolerant than the Byzantine era in general.

These historians also assume that Byzantines was inherently bad all the time, which leads me to highlight the difference between a religious relationship and a sectarian relationship.

The Copts and Byzantines shows sectarian conflicts within a church, not Byzantine policy towards other religions.

As long as you acknowledge that there is a difference between sectarian and religious relationships and that what the ByZantines did to the Copts, the Muslims did as well against heretics within its own religion. The bottom line is that indeed while the Byzantines were harsh against the MOnophysites, it was in the 6^th and 7^th centuries that state oppression was at its peak. The problem is that people never acknowledge the relationship between Byzantines and the Monophysites in the later centuries and assume that the 6^th and 7^th centuries defines Byzantine relationships entirely.

It is always good to have other views available. Despite Bat Ye'or is a "prosecuted Egyption Jew" who fled to London with her family and Efraim Karsh is an Israeli professor who worked as an analyst of the IDF (infamous institution no doubt), I will look into their accounts.

I�m familiar with their Jewish background, but I let their scholarship speak for themselves. While people may find it offensive. All scholarship is a matter of subjectivity.  

Tell me Cok Gec, do u have a certain specialty in history??

According to the sources I have, It was as low as half of what Copts used to pay. Don't forget that Muslims had an empire too and contineous military operations. However, and most probably, Byzentine taxes were high due to corruption and unefficiency in government expenses. How much would they go up? Higher than Byzentine taxes? that I dont have the enough sources to evaluate taxes appreciation or depreciation. But most probably, if taxes were doubled (thus, back to Byzentine taxing rate), which is still a huge increase, then it is enough to upset the tax payers. That can explain then why both Christian Copts and Muslims and Muslim Copts revolted many times against increased taxes.

You really love misrepresenting Byzantines don�t you? Is it to make ur own religion look nicer??

It seems you love to engage in polemics don�t you?

Corruption and inefficiency is present in all regimes. Byzantine taxation in this instance was not just corruption and inefficiency as you so ideally wish to make the Arabs look better, but due to the fact that Byzantium had a large debt to pay to the church for financing the 20 year war with the Sassanians. Add to that, the fact that the lands in the provinces were ravaged, hence making taxation obligation seem bigger. And your sources�what sources?? WIkipedia??

Again, you try to link Byzantium�s �tax rates� to the riots of Muslims and Christians in Egypt, how many of these people would still be alive in the 8^th and 9the century to remember what Byzantine tax rates were in the first place? They didn�t experience Byzantine tax rates in the 7th century did they?

Nestorian, in your own words, you said and I quote "the earlier posts alluded to good sides of Muslim rule of Egypt so i decided to balance it."   Where are those posts that alluded to good sides of Muslim rule of Egypt?
You also realize that Muslim rule can differ from extreme toleration to extreme prosecution depending on time and location. If one forumer noted the good tolerant periods of Islamic rule, there is no need of a forumer to balance this view by citing another example of a different time and place. If I say French were tolerant in Guam and you decided to site to me French atrocities in Algeria, that is not a balancing point rather than an attempt to demonize and devalue the first statement. That is clearly what it looks like you did.

Again, you seem to misunderstand what I say and attempt to do. I referred to Egypt as a specific example but not to represent the Muslim world. I�m just using an example. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are still missing the point.

What�s your motive here? Demonising Byzantines to make Arabs look good or what? It seems that is what you want to do�

And this is an example of Byzentine tolerance to muslims?!? Either convert or you are expelled out? According to your logic then, Spanish violation of the treaty of Granada and forcing all Muslims to convert or be expelled out is a sign of tolerance.
You must have lack of examples of Byzentine tolerance to Muslims if you really had to use that example.

From your tone again, sounds like you an agenda once again. Demonise Byzantines, make Muslims look good. Your comparison to Spain is irrelevant and has no correlation. The Byzantines did not make any agreement in the first place. What they did was offer a choice of conversion or deportation which was much better than convert or die. You ignored that point alone and you also ignored the fact that as things settled down, there was indeed a return of Muslims to Byzantine territory to the point where Ibn Hawqal lamented this situation.

IN fact, this was not a matter of religious intolerance, but pragmatic administration. Byzantines have inexperience in ruling Muslim populations during their reconquests, as newly reconquered territories, it would be more safer to have Christians on the borderlands than Muslims would could turn into �fifth columnists�. This was a time of war, not peace. IN peacetime, if the Byzantines did offer the choice of convert or deport, then I would condemn it just as I expect you to.

Yes, this is expected when you give a population only two choices, either convert or leave. Then a mosque is useless without Muslims around it.

Again, you show your true colours as a pure demoniser of the Byzantines. Conversion of each other�s religious buildings was normal practice. The fact that were mosques during Byzantine rule in peacetime not wartime disproves your rabid polemic.

I have to disagree. Muslims contact with Byzentine lasted almost to 900 years. Many border cities fell to Byzentine rule and came back and fell again and so on. However, it seems you cannot find an account of good treatment of Muslims as these cities fall under Byzentine. In fact, more atrocities are recorded as the invasion of Ammoria, Zabatra, Meltia and the killings of the residents with body mutation and recorded tales of raping 1,000 females in those border towns.

There is a difference between war time activity and peacetime activity. Even Muslims themselves committed atrocities during war-time such as rape and mutilation, but you don�t find me holding that to your face and accusing Muslims of being evil do you? I showed Byzantine attitude to Muslims in peace time and you try to distort the picture with war time activities, which, I might add both Muslims and Christians commit the same atrocities in such a time. Muslims have contact with Byzantiines for 900 years, but that is not the same as Muslims under Byzantine rule. There were rarely any Muslims under Byzantine rule before AD 930. The Taurus mountains were considered the barrier between the Christian and Muslim world.  

I might just add that there was a mosque in Constantinople. This means a mosque was built in Constantinople, a famous Christian City. It was burnt down�.but not by the Byzantines, but by the Crusaders.

If Byzantine were harsh on their Monophysites and on their non-Christian subjects as the Muslim, I'm not sure what sign of tolerance do we have here?

Just because of there was a period of harshness in the 6-7^th centuries, is that suppose to mean the Byzantines were harsh all the time?

Or perhaps you like polemicise this to your advantage and bias towards Arabs and Islam? Painting a picture with a one colour?

I never tried to do that Muslims. In fact, I was the one who said each region and situation should be considered by its own merits, not as a general idea.

Do you mean if I was focusing on a specific era or segment of history?

I actually meant your interests actually, any particular kind of history that is of interest to you?