Our doctor in Iran was Baha'i, he was murdered because of his faith soon after the Extremists took over after the revolution.

 

Another important Shrine is in Hafia,  Israel.   Evidently some of the founders of Bahaism fled there after being perescuted in Iran.   I believe that their founder is referred to by the title  "The Door " in much the same way that Jesus is given the title "The Christ".  

 

Originally posted by Leonidas an old iranian told me they were a british invention of sorts, dont know if that is true.

Bahaism is clearly a genuine religion indigenous to the area.  Some of the eary converts / translators were English women though.  Perhaps this led to the "English invention" rumor.

 

The material that they gave me emphasized that they are encouraged to marry other ethnic groups (unity of the human family).  It also gave the story of a 19 year old girl martyred in Iran during the 1990s after she refused to renounce her faith.

 

What the Brits did have a hand in was the funding and propagation of the Mullahs throughout the 30s up until the mid 50s to destabilise Iran's national democratic government of Mossadegh and Reza Shah before him.  An activity which was resuscitated again in the 70s to destabilise the Shah's regime.

OK, lets explore the possibility that it is a British colonial invention.   Why would the British need such an invention?    The British had colonies all over the world without resorting to creating new religons to facilitate colonization.

 

It would have been far easier to simply favor existing religous minorities in Iran.  (Christians, Sunni Moslems, Zorastarians etc).   Also, the Bahai Faith has survived well after British Colonial interest in the region ended.  Why would it not have collapsed once British support was withdrawn?

Yopur use of the word "native Persiaons" is interesting.  No chance that many believers are Native Persions is because Bahai Faith is a native religion of Iran?

Originally posted by Qutuz Christians were nowhere near big enough a minority for this to be feasible, and besides Muslims would never adopt Christianity (as we consider to be paganism).

The British colonial system was not in the business of coercing religous conversion to either Christianity or Bahai Faith. 

 

Instead, the British were in the business of economic gain and they conducted this business very well.   The British colonized Moslems in Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Palestine,  India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, Sub Sahara Africa, and Malaysia with out resorting to a religous agenda of coerced conversion.  Why would it be different for Iran?    

 

Of course, the British could and did favor different ethnic groups or religions to facilitate economic stability.  So long as the system profited, I doubt the British had a deep interest in the religons of the colonized.   The Brisith governmetn even restrained activites of missionary groups when the flet these groups threatned stability and economic gain.

 

Cryptic notion of "people of the book" is more precise than Paganism considering Christianity. Muslims, as far as I know, do not consider Jews, Christians (later Zoroastrians were added) to be pagans. Hinduism ,under Islam view, is a pagan religion...etc.

The criteria that differenciate people of the book from pagans is simply:

1- They adhere to one supreme God who alone created the universe and has all the power of that universe. This is in contrast to multiple gods or gods of various powers, such the god of wealth, god of war, god of fertility..etc

2- They follow a supreme book that is believed to be a revelation directly from God or through a messenger. (Torah, Bible, Quran, Avesta..etc)

 

There might be more aspects in defining a non-Pagan religion under Islamic point of view, but I cannot recall more than those main two points.

 

 

 

And since all Christians are Pagans by definition, what is to be done with pagans and their communities acocrding to Islam?     

 

Hmm... Good point.  But then the fact that the  Jehovah's Witnesses define themselves as Chrtistians does mean they accept Christian doctrine regarding Christ.  Anyways, lets classify them as Christians.

Originally posted by Qutuz If the whole point of your entry into the discussion was just to lead to this point: what is to be done with pagans and their communities acocrding to Islam? You've wasted your time.

No, this is not the reason why entered into the discussion.   Your  knowledge, however,  of your previous posts does not appear to be vast.  You initiated this train of thought here.   I entered into the discussion before these posts of yours.  Therefore... I could not have entered  the discussion as a means of leading to this question.   I was following your lead.  

Originally posted by Qutuz Christians were nowhere near big enough a minority for this to be feasible, and besides Muslims would never adopt Christianity (as we consider to be paganism).

 

And you continued it here

Originally posted by Qutuz But as far as the standard view of the Catholic, Orthodox & most Protestant denominations go, most of them would be classed as mushrikin.

So then I asked what is logical..... And was not given answer.  

Originally posted by Cryptic   And since all ( or almost all as you accurately pointed out )  Christians are Pagans by definition, what is to be done with pagans and their communities acocrding to Islam?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safavi empire was called Iran.

What you view as "bursting to ask", I view as following a train of thought (that I did not initiate)  to its logical conclusion.  Admittably, though, I do have a strong interest in how doctrinally Islam  views me and by extension, Moslems view me. 

 

Originally posted by Qutuz the Goths of al-Andalus, most of whom later converted to Islam when it arrived in their peninsula, the rest were probably obliterated during the reconquista and inquisitions of the post-Islamic period of Andalus or forced to convert to trinitarianism.

This shows subjective nature of history.  You use terms like "most converted" and "probably obliderated".   Yet other information (subjective as well?)  suggests that a minority converted to Islam, that others resisted the invasion,  that deaths due to the inquisition have been exaggerated and that Islamic ties to Andaluscia (though they clearly exist) are not all inclusive.       

 

I think the reason they are persecuted is because they innovated from an Islamic religion.

 

Consequently their originators would be regarded as apostates.

 

Islam doesn't react very well to that, check out the general response to Qadiani, Ismaili etc. 

 

 

 

Yes this is why they are seen as heretics!

 

Islam the religion? or the Muslim Empire? that spread through military invasions.

Then explains why did Egypt need over 400 years for Muslims to break the minority stand? or even more for Zoroastrians of Iran? or maybe you can tell us why Muslims would remain a non-majority of Moorish Spain for over 700 years?

I find it extremely naiive to attribute the spread of Islam to political and military actions whereas the conversion happened on an extremely slow basis. More logical, the conversion happened with cultural, linguistic, and jurisdictional domination of the ruling Muslims on local population aided by factors as improvement of conditions (security and financial improvement to Byzantine era in the conquered regions).

If military was the force of Islam spread, we have to answers all of the the above questions including the fact that Armenia was in the hand of Muslims for hundreds of years, and yet remained almost purely Christian. The largest Muslim country in population today ,Indonesia, has adopted Islam from non-military channels.

 

 

However, i dispute the assertion that there was some kind of improvement over Byzantine rule in Egypt, the violent riots over excessive tacation (seemingly more harsh than Byzantine taxation) led to agitation of the Copts, and sometimes both Copts and Muslims. Furthermore, Coptic insurgence against foreign rule was greater under the Abbasids than the Byzantines. There were urban riots under Byzantine rule, but not armed insurgences which occured under Abbasid rule. Furthermore, the desertion of Egyptian Christian sailors to the Byzantines during the Siege of Constantinople shows that despite strained relations, the Christians of Egypt and Byzantium still had some kind of bond. It was quite rare to hear of any Egyptian attack aganst the Byzantines since AD 717.

 

The statement "Islam spread mostly by military invasion" and "sewing the seed for conversion at later dates" contradict each other. Simply because Islam is the religion and not the state.

To be technically right, Islamic empires spread mosly by military invasion, sewing the seed for ocnversion at later dates.

Nestorian, we both argued this point earlier in a different thread. I'm little surprised that despite we reach some common ground on some points, your paragraph above shows that our lengthy four pages discussion had no impact on your perception. While you are entitled to keep your ideas unchanged regardless of any presented information, I must balance your view by re-stating what we discussed in that thread in which:

1- Byzantine rule ,despite it was shorter than the Islamic one, had flacuated from peaceful to oppressive, with high taxations, religious intolerance and presucation as the example of the Patriarchate of Alexandria prosecution.

2- There is no dispute even by Coptic sources that the years following the invasion of Egypt marked a positive change in Copts' lives. The dispute stems from the changing attitudes by later rulers and governers of Egypt.

3- We are comparing over 1,400 years of Islamic presence in Egypt with less than 250 years of Byzantine rule which is still charachterized by most Coptics as a period mainly distinguished by its high taxation and religious intolerance.

4- Taxation protests and riots were common in Egypt by Muslims and non-Muslims.

5- Insurgency in Egypt? That I have not read about before, including during our past discussion. Would you like to post more information regarding the type of insurgency and its scale?

6- Desertation of minorities is very common. When Byzantine lost Egypt and witnessed the attitude of its Christian subjects in aiding the invaders, it was a turning mark to its own attitude toward religious minorities. For propoganda purposes, a deserted copts to Byzantine would be marked as an evidance of Muslim prosecution, and deserted Slavs to the Arabs would be used by the Abbasyids as a propoganda of the Byzantine intolerance. 

 

So does that make it worse than under Islamic rule? I'm against the argument that Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule, but I am prepared to accept that both Byzantine and Islamic rule experienced the same fluxes in regards in changes of conditions. This is not necessarily pointed at you in anyway but rather against people who ignorantly use the Byzantines as some kind of archetype of oppression.

 

 

Positive in what sense? The Copts stayed neutral during the conflict, the swapping of one regime for another regime isn't necessarily positive. But I do agree that any "positive" experiences that may have existed dissipated rapidly. The early Muslim empire was a military machine on a war footing, its demands for resources is more taxing (pun not intended) than a state balancing defense and peace (Byzantium) as it was trying to recover from a 20 year conflict with the Sassanians.

 

3- We are comparing over 1,400 years of Islamic presence in Egypt with less than 250 years of Byzantine rule which is still charachterized by most Coptics as a period mainly distinguished by its high taxation and religious intolerance.

 

Byzantium is not some empire that just appeared from nowhere, it is the Roman Empire, but in this context perhaps we should start talking about the Byzantine period in Egypt as the Roman Christian period of Egyptian history starting from the official declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire (Byzantium) by Theodosios I and ending with the conquest of Egypt. The idea that Copts were a helpless religious group under the Byzantines is a false assumption, the Monophysitic Copts were very influential in the heated theological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries. They even had adherents amongst Emperors and in the capital. The council of Ephesus demonstrated the power of the Coptic Christians when they managed to have Patriarch Nestorius excommunicated and banished and had the verdict of the council in favour of the Monophysites - until that council was superseded by the Council of Chalcedon which the Monophysites lost and became enemies of the state thereafter. There was a strong political undertone in what may seem to be a religious affair.

 

And the issue here is what? Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule? I think 1400 years of Islamic presence was more detrimental to the Copts than the Byzantines. Under Islamic rule, the Coptic population became a minority, under Byzantine rule, they were consderably strong, strong enough to survive persecution and high taxation, but not under the same conditions under Islamic rule.

 

4- Taxation protests and riots were common in Egypt by Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

Proves my point, so common that it one can say it was not an improvement on Byzantine rule. If taxation was harsh for Muslims, how much harsher was it for the Copts?

 

 

It seems everyone but the Copts have forgotten about the Coptic insurgencies!

 

http://www.copts.net/history.asp - http://www.copts.net/history.asp

 

You have a right to question this source as it is coming from a Coptic perspective. But I say one thing, history is often written by the victors. Now that the victims have a chance to write, will they be disregarded?

 

The scale of the insurgency rebellion has never occured under Byzantine rule. Considering the adage of preferring infidels over heretics, the Copts would by this adage have risen in rebellion against the Byzantine heretics. Obviously, there is an exaggeration of just how harsh persecution was under Byzantine rule.

 

6- Desertation of minorities is very common. When Byzantine lost Egypt and witnessed the attitude of its Christian subjects in aiding the invaders, it was a turning mark to its own attitude toward religious minorities. For propoganda purposes, a deserted copts to Byzantine would be marked as an evidance of Muslim prosecution, and deserted Slavs to the Arabs would be used by the Abbasyids as a propoganda of the Byzantine intolerance. 

 

Not necessarily, the Byzantine unleashed a fearsome persecution of the Paulicians in Armenia. It was the last serious and large state-sponsored persecution of a religious sect afterwards. Even ordinary Byzantines were appalled. Byzantine policy under Emperors was generally a cynical and pragmatic one, after the early Church councils, religion was kept at a leash by the Emperors. The shameful Paulician persecution was an anomaly.

 

How did these Christian subjects aid the invaders? More like neutrality as opposed to deliberate and active assistance to the invaders.

 

The desertion of Copts and Slavs are apples and oranges. The Slavs that deserted were recent and new miliary recruits forced to settle in new lands. The Copts deserted on the basis of experiencing Muslim rule in Egypt for 70 or so years already with its attendant high taxation, discrimination and less than benevolent rule. Is it a wonder that Egypt after 717 and still with a Coptic majority hesitated to attack Byzantium snce then? Perhaps there was a fear of desertion again. After all, the Copts who deserted actually manned a large fleet. I doubt, they would want to lose another large fleet again.

 

To put it succintly, Im opposed to the idea that Byzantine rule was harsher than Muslim rule thats all. I'm happy to accept the view that Byzantine rule and it malpractices was the same as under Muslim rule and vice-versa. My perspective on religious minority conditions is influenced by pragmatic and cynical analysis rather than on the basis of religious dogma.

 

If you ask what my view of Muslim rule in Egypt was like I'll tell you this:

 

1. Treatment of Copts was motivated MORE by human GREED than by the Islamic religion.

 

2. Treatment of Copts had a political character more often than a religious one.

 

3. Forced conversions did occur, invariably, but not as a consistent state-sponsored policy. If and when they occured, they was a propaganda value to it than an as act of religious merit.

 

 

 

 

Byzantines rule and especially later governments over Egypt was mainly characterized by oppression. Most sources point out that Copts refused aiding the Patriarch Cyrus in defending Egypt, and showed no resistance to Muslims invasion. In my debate with you, I will try to use neutral sources (non-Coptic, non-Muslim, non-Egyption sites). However, you draw a lot of your refrences from this site http://www.copts.net/history.asp - http://www.copts.net/history.asp , and so I will use the Christian Coptic Orthodox of Egypt website where it states:

"Copts take pride in the persecution they have sustained as early as May 8, 68 A.D., when their Patron http://www.coptic.net/pictures/Icon.StMark-2.gif - Saint Mark was slain on Easter Monday after being dragged from his feet by Roman soldiers all over Alexandria's streets and alleys. The Copts have been persecuted by almost every ruler of Egypt. Their Clergymen have been tortured and exiled even by their Christian brothers after the schism of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and until the Arab's conquest of Egypt in 641 A.D. "

Source:http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Notice the word choice of "until"!

 

Originally posted by Nestorian  than a state balancing defense and peace (Byzantium) as it was trying to recover from a 20 year conflict with the Sassanians.

Do you realize that during the Persian occupation of Egypt, tolerance was excercised to Copts after years of Byzantine prosecution? In fact, Egyptions had no love of the Emperor in Constantinople and put up little resistance to the Persian invasion. If Byzantine taxes Egyptions heavily to defend them from more tolerant invaders, I'm not surprised by the cooperation Copts showed in defending Egypt everytime.

 

 

Originally posted by Nestorian  And the issue here is what? Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule? I think 1400 years of Islamic presence was more detrimental to the Copts than the Byzantines. Under Islamic rule, the Coptic population became a minority, under Byzantine rule, they were consderably strong, strong enough to survive persecution and high taxation, but not under the same conditions under Islamic rule.

Let us not forget that Christianity was harshly prosecuted by the Romans in fear of dividng the country. Also, switching from a majority to a minority was never per se a proof of prosecution or worst treatment. Your argument is not different that saying that the Byzantine era was extremely harsh that they held on their seperate dogma and belief and refused to accept any changes. Which is actually easier to proof.

From the library of congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+eg0022 - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+eg0022 )

 

Originally posted by Nestorian Proves my point, so common that it one can say it was not an improvement on Byzantine rule. If taxation was harsh for Muslims, how much harsher was it for the Copts?

First, please pay more attention to my careful wording. In fact, you quoted me earlier with "There is no dispute even by Coptic sources that the years following the invasion of Egypt marked a positive change in Copts' lives. The dispute stems from the changing attitudes by later rulers and governers of Egypt."

So, obviously I'm not making the period of Islamic Egypt a rosy one. Later rulers of Egypt placed higher taxes on all of the population. My line does not excuse Muslims from this. Finally, Byzantine rule is not harsh because of only taxations, it is the combination of high taxations, prosecution, and religious intolerance.

 

 

Originally posted by Nestorian  It seems everyone but the Copts have forgotten about the Coptic insurgencies! http://www.copts.net/history.asp - http://www.copts.net/history.asp You have a right to question this source as it is coming from a Coptic perspective. But I say one thing, history is often written by the victors. Now that the victims have a chance to write, will they be disregarded?

-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.

 

Do you really think thousands of baha'is would sacrifice their lives for a british agenda...what do they have to gain from this?