Islam regarding terrorism?

Ok, then. I was under the impression that some wanted to idealize Islamic expansion as a pattern of merely defensive struggles, which is not the case.

We have already commented on this in other topics. Clearly monophisitic Christianity (Coptic, Arianists, etc.) had some reasons to welcome Muslims. Yet, it is not clear why Muslims would want to invade those countries, apart of political opportunity. While in the case of Syria-Palestine, it seems clear that local Christians welcomed Muslims. In the Egyptian case, the situation is not so clear. In fact, Nubians (Coptic Christians as well) organized the first ever crusade in the 8th century "to liberate the Patriarch of Alexandria".

I admit that I dont have all the info regarding this episode. But I know that the Caliphate had already conquered the Byzantine posessions of Africa (Tunis) several decades before the rest of North Africa was conquered. I also know that Berbers posed strong resistence and that was the reason that Muslims had a large army in North Africa of 40,000 soldiers, that, partly, was diverted to the conquest of Spain.

Again you're surely right in Monophisism being ahelp to the expansion of Islam. Yet, I can hardly see how Byzantium could prosecute them in lands it didn't control.

Yes. Actually the defeated party of an internal Visigothic conflict, invited Muslims to invade Spain in the hope of regaining the crown. They eventually settled for much less. I this case though the religious dispute was irrelevant, because Goths had abandoned Arianism already and adopted Catholicism (Trinitarian), while Hispano-Romans were massively Catholic.

That's surely disputable. I think that many Christian minorities in Muslim countries, particularly those of Egypt, feel opressed right now and along their history under Muslim domination. The case in Sudan was much worse. And the fact that no significant Christian minority exists west of Egypt is also significative that Islam wasn't that tolerant, at least in all periods.

Also we have skipped the invasion of Sassanid Persia, where Christians were rather minoritary and the Zoroastrian majority obviously had no interest in any Islamic invasion.

If Infidel allows me, I would like to comment on the following points of Leonides:

I would say partially right, partially wrong. First, the "high taxes" you are talking about that non-Muslims had to pay were not high in theory neither in application. Let me explain. In Islamic law, the theory is as follows:

Muslims pay taxes called Zakah collected by the State (in most times) equals to 2.5% of their free money, and invested properties (not necessities). They are still expected to be drafted in state wars as Muslims.

On the otherhand, non-Muslims had to pay no more than 2.5% as Jizyah (most scholars said even 1.5%). Jizyah is not a descrimanting tax system rather a suplimented tax system customized to non-Muslims. They pay Jizyah in exchange of state protection of their properties, lives, and worship places, and religion, as any other citizen. Furthermore, they are not drafted to the Muslim army even in the course of their defense.

Sounds a good deal to me!

Now the application side of the story comes. If Ottoman violated it, it is obviously their fault and not the Islamic system. Did the Ottomans apply this Islamic system precisely in Balkans? Not really, but they also taxed their peasants and locals high taxes which are the causes of the Anatolian revolts. Even these "high taxes" on non-Muslims were lower than the average taxes they had to pay before they were conquered. Here if you are interested in some enlightement:

"In the Ottoman administration, talented men of all faiths could fulfill at least limited roles. For peasants, the finality of Ottoman victory also meant an end to centuries of wars between Serbs, Bulgars, Byzantines and Crusaders, and thus offered stability. Ottoman taxes were lower than the taxes of the conquered Balkan Christian kingdoms. "

http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture3.html

Regarding the Christian kids who were taken young and were raised as Janissaries, I think too it is a bad thing to do. Though in many cases, people give their kids to the state to be raised as janissaries because it promised better life for them, education, serving the Sultan and a class, as the case with Bosnians, I still think it is bad.

We explained above the typical tax system and it is obvious that it is not that bad as it is portraied here. Regarding that life was not easy for non-Muslims, I won't try to argue this (though I wonder why Sephardic Jews escaped Christian Spain to the Muslim Ottomans), assuming it is true, well life for Muslims in France and in most of Europe would have been easier too if they were white European Christians instead.

Originally posted by Leonidas As for the logic well we didnt kill you all, we must be tolerant kinda proves how twisted your concept of  tolerance is.

Well you have enough evidance that can rationalize the general tolerance of Islamic states in those days. Just think with me why did it take 1200 years for Egypt to have its 99% Christian population in 600's AD to flip to 90% Muslims in 1800's? While Spain could not stand its Muslim population, violating its treaty of 1492 by banning Arabic first, then Moorish customs, and finally expelled all of them by 1611??

Curiously enough, many Islamic nations even today, do not allow Christian or, let's say, Buddhist proselitism. Also in a period of religious states, that sort of ultimatum meant war almost always.

You know that I am strongly critic with Crusades but in the case of Nubians and Egypt in the 8th century I don't know what to think. Nubians were being pressed hardly by Islam and the conquest of Egypt was then very recent.

Yes. Still you see that most Berber lands  (then called Mauretania) are out of the exarcate. So my objection is still fully relevant. I wasn't thinking in Tunis but rather in Morocco.

I don't recall myself saying that Muslim armies invaded Spain for the religious internal conflict. In fact, I made it clear it was a political move after the invitaton of Cueta's Count.

What Christian minorities? Where are they?

The case of Al Andalus is a little diferent, maybe because it was most of the time ruled by the Ummayad dynasty. Yet, it intercalated periods of tolerance with periods of oscurantism, specially in the final phases under Almohads and Almoravids.

This is most interesting. I wasn't aware of the exact circumstances that brought the end of Christianity in North Africa, while in other Islamic lands it has existed, even if in clear decline.

Still it is a good example of how Islam can be intolerant to the extreme as any other religion.

There are many points here to cover, so I will highlight your points instead of using Quote Quote.

Curiously enough, many Islamic nations even today, do not allow Christian or, let's say, Buddhist proselitism. Also in a period of religious states, that sort of ultimatum meant war almost always.

It is not my job to defend nations and individuals. Im only concerned about the Islamic treatment and jurisdictions. The application is subjective. Regarding that most Islamic nations today do not allow Christian or Buddhist preaching, I disagree with this notion. You have to backup this. Iran and Saudi Arabia is not most of the Islamic nation!

You know that I am strongly critic with Crusades but in the case of Nubians and Egypt in the 8th century I don't know what to think. Nubians were being pressed hardly by Islam and the conquest of Egypt was then very recent.

Maju, I respect your assumptions, but I posted for you a clear link that explains the initial motives of that crusade. It is your task to backup your point with sources for us to critique. It took 300 years for Egyption Muslims to make up at leat half of the population. Your point does not make that much of sense where it is hard to find a forcefull conversion of Egyption coptics but insist on the claim of Nubians being "pressed hardly by Islam". We are not talking about two different eras, you yourself said, it is the same era with the conquest of Egypt being recent. Why do they need a double policy then?

Yes. Still you see that most Berber lands  (then called Mauretania) are out of the exarcate. So my objection is still fully relevant. I wasn't thinking in Tunis but rather in Morocco.

Berber land is huge. Despite that you failed to specify what Berber lands you mean, and failing to recognize a Roman authority over the berber lands Muslim conquered in the Islamic conquest of northern Africa, you also failed to recognize that the map I posted for you as the Byzentine sphere of northern Africa is over 75% of what Muslims took intially during the northern african campaign. Berbers who were under Byzentine were not only in Tunisia, but stretching from Egyption desert, Libyan region (especially Tripolilatina) and Algeria. Muslims took these exact trenches and only added the blank space of the map between half of Algeria to the Atlantic ocean. This is only less than quarter of the Berbers who were subjected to Islamic conquest intially.

What Christian minorities? Where are they?

Coptic Egyption church, Maronite church, Assyrian Church, Syrian Roman Catholic Church, Patriach of Jersualem for the the Orthodox church, Armenian church...etc 

This is most interesting. I wasn't aware of the exact circumstances that brought the end of Christianity in North Africa, while in other Islamic lands it has existed, even if in clear decline.Still it is a good example of how Islam can be intolerant to the extreme as any other religion.

Well, since now you know the circumstances that brought the christianity to end in the Berber lands (not north africa, egypt is a north african country), you should be able to realize that it is not a good example of how Islam can be intolerant, rather than individual extermist can be intolerant. It was neither a state policy or a subsequent even of the conquests. Remember that part of an intelligent discussion is to avoid generlization. I don't think Christians will be happy if I said Christianity can be intolerant because of the Crusaders, neither Athiest are happy if I said Athiesm can be intolerance because of Pot Pol. Would you say Islam is intolerant because of Bin Ladin acts? Not really. Why would you then say Islam is intolerant because of a man policy that clearly opposed a principle Islamic corner stone of equality?


Would you accept such sort of ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, a country where the only accepted religion is Islam? Would you accept Buddhist, Christian or Satanist missionaries into Saudi Arabia? Or would you chose war? Would you think such ultimatum as fair if applied to your country and your religion?

Other religious preaching are happing in other Islamic states as far as I remember. However,  as soon as the Vatican allows for a Mosque to be built there, allows for Satanist preaching and Buddis temple construciton, then your argument can be more effective.

By the way, part of human struggle of domination is to promote a specific group ideology on the expense of the other. From US constraining Communist groups activities to Saudi Arabia Christian missionary work. Does not mean necessary it is right or wrong. It simply exists and human being always will take a stand prefering a side to the other and promoting for their believes.

Sometimes i tend to think Islam is probably filling the empty seat, left over from the Cold War era. For some, always has to be an enemy somewhere. This way they can easily justify a list of actions like extreme expenses on military stuff, etc.

The tools for achieving it...always the same story...demonising the opponent through negative stereotyping and distribution of false information assisted mostly from the media.

We've already said, I don't know how many times, that Islam doesn't support terrorism. How many more times do you want us to say it? Many muslims all around the world have naturally condemned such acts. Many american muslims have done so. If you don't believe it, fine. There is really little I (at least) can do about it. I can suggest you to go and read more about Islam with an open mind, about the millions of its people all around the world, its History and traditions, if possible to read a good translation of the Qur'an and, who knows, to visit a Mosque someday. Perhaps, you'll be unexpectedly and happily pleased.

Extremism exists within Islam (as within Christianity and Judaism, for instance), but it's not part of its nature or fundamentals, as some people try to imply. It's a result of many things summed up together. The post-colonial era of many arab countries has been unsuccessful, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the unability of many governments to provide for development and social welfare in those countries, etc. Then it's when religious extremism crashes onto scene, sometimes masked in political Islam. There's an overemphatization and glorification of martyrdom that leads these people to commit suicide bombings against those who they consider to be �the enemies of their faith and their people�. It's not a simple subject to deal with and not a simple one to solve.

Btw, how many times has the US government condemned the Israeli policies against the Palestinians?

First greeting back all,

Ok, Im not sure what do you mean by avoiding. You made the claim that the berbers were not religiously pressured by the Byzentine because they were not under its rule. I proved to you the opposite. In fact, from Eastern Egypt all the way to middle of Algeria is or was a Berber land and ruled by the Byzentine Empire too. Why would I care about Berber of Mali or Berber of Chad?

Size is no difference. Saudi Arabia used to have 500,000 inhabitant only at one point of time, does not change its status that it has now 20 millions. Still called by most Muslims "holy land" (of course not all Saudi Arabia since it is a political border too)Does not matter if it is a country of 200,000 or 70 millions. Neither it matters if it is a country of three street blocks or a whole region. The concept is the same applied in both cases. Size is no difference. 

 .

I don't think I ignored your question. Go back to my previous post and you will see myself addressing the issue of freedom restriction in Iran and Saudi Arabia before you even mention it.

After all, I'm here to discuss and defend my view of my religion and not any government..

Well im not sure what exactly you mean by combining the idea of guild existance and using religious officers.

I will be interested to see where you pulled those information. I tried searching and Almotacin is a time period of Taifas or (small kingdoms) of late Andalucia rather than a religious police.

Either case, if you think Saudi Arabia has this authoritarian nature, sure why not. It is not the Kingdom of God to defend. Regarding that using alamin and so and so were examples of authoritarian nature of Islamic state, I think you overlook that while a police officer exists to roam the streets of Cordoba, Paris and London streets were busy burning heritics and cults. Also I forgot to mention that most of the Crusades were actually against other fellow Christians. In this an environment, I don't think your example point out to an authoritarian nature of that era.

Finally, many things that were not instructed in our religion are taken to be part of our religion. For example, Kings rules and successors based on blood are examples of an authoritarian nature. While most of the Islamic states adopted it (since that was the basic most common nature of government in the old world), interesting enough, the early times of Islam applied the concept of selection based on qualifications. Definietely was abolished by the rise of Ummayids.

You didn't hear any Islamic group addressing and condemning 9/11 and terrorist attacks because of your media and not the Muslim world.

Your media is the one that chose to show Palestinians kids in refugee camps in Lebabon celebrating 9/11 and destriputing candies, but at the same time ignored other Palestinian kids in Ramallah school standing one minute silence for the 9/11 tragedy.

Your Media is the one that chose to ignore a silent minute by Iranians in Tehran

Your media is the one that chose to ignore a peacful rally in support of 9/11 vitcims by Bangladishis:

Your media is the one that chose to ignore Muslim Americans in all states and especially Florida lighting candles for those victims:

Finally, you yourself chose to ignore the statements of three major American organizations that represent 90% of American Muslims. I said you yourself because these have been publicized on CNN

Statements from Leading American Muslim Organizations:

*Statement from Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the Tragedy of September 11th.

Press release from CAIR on September 11th

*Statement from Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) on September 11th.

*Statement from Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) on September 11th