David Boaz

Christians and Jews have a belief in a 'son' of Allah. Christians yes, but Jews, surely not.

Fellow_Human

I like your style, you give me hope that peace can appear again in the Middle East as long as problems of jobs and poverty can be overcome. Also I understand that a lot of Islamic groups reject the Western style of democracy and the Westernization of their lands.

Why not should they not be permitted this? But can they exist with a Western Nation in their midst and just believe in mutual tolerance. I do believe that most Israelis actually can, and David's comments aside, expect that most Muslims can too.

I would love to hear your comments.

FH (part 1)

Fellow-human I also like your style .
You discuss issues in a open & rank manner.
If you are an example of most Muslims- there is great hope for reconciliation between faiths …

To point to similar injustices by Christianity is no defence of Islam- what you are saying is we have less blood on our hands than them. But how would you justify your position to a non-Christian ?

Take the issue of Dhimmitude.
This cannot be excused as a SHORT-TERM, WAR-TIME measure
since it is an on-going policy -& much of it can be found in Sharia law - even today.

The full obligations of dhimmis include:
-The payment of the jizya . This was not JUST A TAX -if you failed to pay -it was considered as a rupture of the dhimma, which left you open to death or deportation .
-Religious restrictions - ranging from prohibitions in building, repair and enlargement of synagogues and churches to regulations imposing humility, silence and secrecy in prayer and during burial. - proselyting Moslems was not allowed.
-In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humiliation for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.

FH (Part2)
-In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians especially in Arab populated regions was not unusual likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter.

Is there any wonder why many ‘voluntarily’ opted to convert!
( & once they crossed-over it was illegal-under pain of death- to cross back)

Horus,

Great chating with you too.
My comparison of ‘likes to likes’ was to answer Boaz intellectual dishonesty and inflammatory comments. While Coach is merely brain-washed, Boaz is intentional. My comment was not in support of the historical events but to merely explain that every history and culture had its own fallouts and bloodshed and we can only try from our mistakes as humans.
Let me address the two points you raised:

1. Historically: the Jizyah: is a per head tax imposed on able bodied non-Muslim men of military age. The tax is not levied on slaves (People of the book kept slaves), women, children, monks, the old, the sick, hermits and the poor, and is subject to certain conditions. The tax allows the non-Muslim citizens to practice their faith and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy as well as being entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service amongst numerous other exemptions levied upon Muslim citizens. If you keep in mind the time the legislation, you have to agree with that was a revolutionary social justice system of that time, in comparison to social rights under Byzantine, Roman or other civilizations of the time.

2. Re dhimmi (rights of non-muslims living under Islamic rules) keep that all references quoted is for scholars who died 10-12 centuries ago. Again you may agree that these guidelines these legislations were generous in comparison to the rights of Muslims and Jews living in Christian empires of the time.

From my perspective, I think modern day scholars should use these references as a ‘baseline’ given the time and non-Muslims rights should evolve to cater for the 21st century and also given the rights Muslims enjoy in non-Muslims countries. In fact, for centuries many Muslim countries in North Africa runs hundreds of Greek Orthodox churches, even though that Greece is the only European country that does not allow Greek Muslims a single Mosque license (yes, there is no mosques in Greece).

Fellow Human, please keep on writing on all threads that have anything to do with people of the Islamic faith. I like your calm way with words. I've been reduced to almost ranting myself!

Though not Muslim myself, have had the fortune to grow up in countries where Islam was practiced in equal numbers to Christianity, or was the majority religion.

Subsequently, I know that people practicing Islam are no better or worse than Christians, though less likely to be obnoxious drunks. What is really disappointing is the willful refusal to admit that over 2000 years dreadful things have been done by Christians in the name of Christianity with the bible as reference and justification.

When I made the comment that, after reading and rereading the bible and the Koran, though only in an English translation, which I understand is limiting in itself, I find the Koran to make more sense, poor Boaz was at a loss for words.

I've become despairing at the dreadful carry on on some of these threads.

yvonne

You must admit though that the threads are getting better and the more malicious are calming down, perhaps they have been banned.

Most of us have mellowed, and hopefully David will too. With Fellow_Human we are having a good discussion. It is in my mind that for the times the Muslims treated others well while the Christian Church was evil. But the Church has changed and now leap-frogged Islam in that respect. There is hope that Muslims will move to the forefront, again and positive signs in many quarters. Remember that Islamic fanatics are also a problem in Muslim countries. I think should learn to distinguish between fanatics and ordinary Muslims and all moderates work together, which is what the article is all about.