I find it very difficult to match Abu's Islamic fairytale view of history where the Caliphate spread peacefully and only ever acted in self defence, with the notion that the Caliphate would be obligued to side with Muslim terrorists. There will always be lunatics on the fringe stirring up trouble. Blindly siding with them makes war inevitable. It's like the Caliph turns his back while Muslims harass their neighbours, then when the neighbours retaliate the Caliph can suddenly see again and uses it as an excuse to invade. If it somehow makes it to court, the non-Muslims are not even allowed to testify against Muslims, which pretty much guarantees that the official records always show the Muslims as victims. In fact non-Muslims are only allowed to testify that they support Muslims. It is extremly naive to accept the resulting fairytale version of the peaceful society that out of self defence turns into a masively expanding empire. The claims that people welcomed the Muslims with open arms wherever they went are not a reflection of reality, but merely reflect the fact that Islam only allows that story to be recorded. According to Islam, Muslims tell the truth and Dhimmis lie, unless of course the Dhimmis support the Muslims.

Quote:


Nope, it's no secret Muslims were successful in most of their campaigns. I can gladly boast in English in front of you if you like.

We just dispute the claims that Islam spread violently and in an aggressive imperialistic way, like for instance the way the Spanish or English empires spread (and Christianity with them). Just consider the difference in the way Islam dealt with new 'citizens'. They became full citizens, under the Spanish/British systems, they were just like slaves. They were subjects, butt certainly had none of the rights of citizenship. The only way they could travel to other parts of the empire was as free/cheap labour to populate and build new colonies. Whilst any citizen of the Islamic Caliphate could travel anywhere within the borders of Dar as-Salaam.

Even many Western historians are now beginning to accept the facts and wipe off the years of hostility and inaccurate portrayals of the history between the West and the 'Saracens'. There's quite a lot of good documentaries for instance on the Islamic empire and especially about it's 700 year history in the Iberian peninsula. I know they're all just braindead dhimmis to you, but did you ever consider maybe you're just an extremist nut driven by hatred and a warped view of another culture? You are in fact the one clinging onto ancient ideas. The outdated orientalist slanders and tainted accounts of a history which was actually much brighter from the 'other side'.

You seem to know already freediver, so you tell me?

What I can tell you is, millions of non-Muslims came under the Caliphate and became full citizens of it, able to migrate to any part of it they liked, as free citizens. To enjoy its hospitals, universities etc.

How many Aborigines migrated to London again.. as free citizens of the British empire?  

Didn't they take one there once as a bit of a spectacle? Something like a circus attraction...

Of course a dhimmi has full citizenship. This has been comprehensively covered in the common misconceptions thread.

Firstly, it's certainly a universe closer than what any 'conquered' subject of the British empire ever got.

Secondly, what exactly constitutes citizenship?

A dhimmi is a citizen of the state. They pay taxes. they are entitled to a passport, they may travel freely within any part of the state, they are entitled to protection from the defence forces, they are entitled to any state benefits, Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab (ra) establlished pensions for dhimmis. They are citizens, plain and simple.

Dhimmis are, subject to different treatment under the law, in an  apartheid like way.
So citizens they may be, but  second class citizens, definitely.

Access to justice is one of the most fundamental rights of all, because if you cannot defend your rights in court, you have no legal rights. You have no protection. Everything you do is at the whim of the Muslims. It is ludicrous to suggest that non-Muslims welcomed this second class status with open arms.

Abu's most common example - that of Christian ships taking Muslims into Spain, is just an example of divide and conquer. It does not mean the spread was peaceful. Abu even concedes that they went in there to wage war, while at the same time arguing it was peaceful. It does not make sense. Every empire that has ever existed did that trick to the fullest extent possible. None of them spread peacefully.

freediver,

Quote:


It's covered in the article, please read it before posing questions that've already been addressed.

Quote:


How are they discriminated against exactly? Instead of just mindless sloganism, how about detailing why you think they're discriminated against, after reading the article of course.

Quote:


Australia, NZ and USA are not the British Empire, so that was pretty pointless. Just out of curiousity, how many years did it take the Aboriginals to be recognised as human beings rather than just part of the fauna?

Quote:


They waged war at the request of one of the Christian kings. After defeating the enemy, the Muslims were obviously the most powerful entity, and therefore the power fell into their hands. The Spaniards did enjoy living under Islam, and they prospered greatly, whilst their northern neighbours did not. Many converted to Islam, and many stayed Christians and fought in the defence of their Caliphate, this is all well documented fact.

helian,

Quote:


That's a good question you've raised there. It's true that in previous times, Christian/European states were much more backwards and oppressive than the Caliphate, so it provided incentive for people to prefer Islam. But Islam, contrary to the opinions expressed here, is capable of keeping up with the times. One of the major incentives would have to be the financial one. Islam has much lower taxes than non-Muslim states (even though people here would have you believe otherwise).

Although the opponents of Islam regularly try to cast the Caliphate as some backwards totalitarian dictatorship, it's just simply not the case. Such a situation may have arisen at times in the past, but is certainly not the way the Caliphate is supposed to be. Obviously when re-establishing it, it would be done according to the original vision. Which includes Majlis ash-Shura (consultative assembly) and various other mechanisms detailed in the Islamic texts  that prevent corruption or usurping of the rights of the citizens of the state.

Quote:


Do you mean the modern day Vatican? The modern day Vatican is just a token state, it doesn't even have real citizens. The Christian texts don't really guarantee any rights for non-Christian citizens in a Christian state, and the last papacy we saw was extremely anti-Islamic, slaughting Muslims left, right and centre. So perhaps not.

Calanen,

Quote:


As stated already those who carried out the reconquista were not native to the Iberian peninsula. They were Catholics from France and Italy.

It was a case of a neighbouring state attacking and eventually destroying the Caliphate there.

Btw, they also killed the Jews and even Christians en masse when they took over.

Quote:


Richard the lionheart? The one who Salah'ud-deen al-Ayyubi decisively whipped and expelled from the Muslim lands? He's your hero?