Islam

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Satan said:
Also, with the birth rates of countries such as Germany being as low as they are, Muslims are the only thing preventing their country from turning into a barren wasteland with no one to eat their giant schnitzels.
Click to expand...
This, too, is a problem. Germans could potentially become a minority in their own country due to declining birth rate and increasing migrant population. The giant schnitzels would be replaced with giant kebabs.
 
Islams confirmed weeaboos.
sgiR5J0.jpg
 
autisticdragonkin said:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_pre-Islamic_Arabia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_social_changes_under_Islam
Muhammad did not kill everyone who didn't convert, he just required them to pay higher taxes.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about this, but I thought that the jizya tax only applies to the "People of the Book," meaning Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and one or two other monotheistic faiths that ended up dying out (or only have a handful of adherents today). Pagans/polytheists had only two options, convert or die.
 
Cosmos said:
I could be wrong about this, but I thought that the jizya tax only applies to the "People of the Book," meaning Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and one or two other monotheistic faiths that ended up dying out (or only have a handful of adherents today). Pagans/polytheists had only two options, convert or die.
Click to expand...

Initially yeah, but when Islam expanded into the Indian subcontinent, many rulers extended that to include Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, as well as a few other minor religions. iirc Zoroastrians weren't originally People of the Book either.

I wonder if any of the African Islamic kingdoms extended dhimmi status to African pagans? Cursory googling doesn't reveal anything.
 
DuskEngine said:
Initially yeah, but when Islam expanded into the Indian subcontinent, many rulers extended that to include Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, as well as a few other minor religions. iirc Zoroastrians weren't originally People of the Book either.

I wonder if any of the African Islamic kingdoms extended dhimmi status to African pagans? Cursory googling doesn't reveal anything.
Click to expand...

No, the pagans were not dhimmi they were supposed to be slaves I think.
 
dhimmi is not a pleasant or benign status- you will never find a muslim who would want to be considered that. There is a huge stigma attached to it that one will not find written down directly but can find evidence of fairly easily. The disgust many muslim appelates have expressed in various courts throughout history that the dhimmi have any rights at all is the easiest but suggest to any muslim immigrant that they should be dhimmi in a Christian country and you will find another.
 
Vitriol said:
dhimmi is not a pleasant or benign status- you will never find a muslim who would want to be considered that. There is a huge stigma attached to it that one will not find written down directly but can find evidence of fairly easily. The disgust many muslim appelates have expressed in various courts throughout history that the dhimmi have any rights at all is the easiest but suggest to any muslim immigrant that they should be dhimmi in a Christian country and you will find another.
Click to expand...

Yeah, dhimmis did not (and do not, in areas controlled by Islamic militants who enforce archaic conditions on the populace) have a pleasant time. Don't get me wrong, the freedom of religion that dhimmis had is actually super progressive when looking at them from a historical perspective (where people usually only had the "convert or die" options), but if we look at them with a modern perspective the terms and conditions regarding them are rather... disturbing.

The Pact of Umar, which was created sometime in the 700s, is a prime example. It listed the rights that dhimmis (specifically Christians) had under Muslim rule. For the 700s, it was rather liberal. For today, it looks like it laid the foundation for the Nazis' subjugation of Jews. Don't believe me? According to the pact, Christians
  • Could not build any new churches, monasteries, or other religious buildings. They could also not repair any damages to preexisting buildings. In other words, they were forced to stick with decaying buildings.
  • Were forbidden to practice or show their faith in public, or be seen with Christian books or symbols in public.
  • Could not display the Cross, the symbol of their faith, on their churches.
  • Were obligated to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wished to sit, non-Muslims should rise from their seats and let the Muslim sit.
  • Were prohibited from speaking to Muslims about their faith. They also could not prevent any conversions to Islam (so if a family member wanted to convert, tough shit trying to convince them to stay with you).
  • Their houses had to be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses, they would have to bend. This would remind them of their low status in the world.
  • Could not possess any weapons.
  • Were obligated to house any Muslim passerby. This went for churches as well as private residences.
  • Had to be able to be physically differentiated from Muslims. The Wiki page gives specific examples but basically they could not dress, speak, or act like Muslims because otherwise, how would Muslims know that they needed to be treated as inferiors?
These laws had the intended effect of making non-Muslims want to convert to Islam so they could be treated like equals. Converting to Islam was seen as a much more appealing alternative to living as a lowly dhimmi.
 
IIRC during the original Islamic conquests, the Muslims actually didn't want the dhimmi to convert as it would erode their tax base. Also it was a pretty big boon to the Jews since second-class citizenship, restricted freedoms, and a sizable tax was pretty nice compared to how they were treated in Byzantine territories, and the Muslims had the support of certain Christian minorities that were considered heretical by the Byzantines since at first, at least, the Muslims didn't give a shit what flavor of Christianity you were as long as you paid your taxes and didn't insult the Prophet.

But yeah that didn't last long and eventually conversion was very much encouraged, by hook or by crook.
 
Cosmos said:
The Pact of Umar, which was created sometime in the 700s, is a prime example. It listed the rights that dhimmis (specifically Christians) had under Muslim rule. For the 700s, it was rather liberal.
Click to expand...

The model for religious tolerance in that general time frame would be the rule of Genghis Khan, who despite being generally correctly viewed as an excessively bloodthirsty warlord, was known for near total religious tolerance of those in his realm.
 
AnOminous said:
The model for religious tolerance in that general time frame would be the rule of Genghis Khan, who despite being generally correctly viewed as an excessively bloodthirsty warlord, was known for near total religious tolerance of those in his realm.
Click to expand...

Right, especially because they weren't interested in ruling per se, just conquering people and getting paid. So as long as you paid your taxes and kow-towed to the Mongol governor, you could believe whatever you wanted. I think the Mongols even let them keep their local political systems as long as they recognized Mongol supremacy and didn't cause trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom