freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:


You're really not getting the whole "I'm talking about post-Muhammad/Jizya system not =  spreading Islam by the sword" thing are you?
Shall we get back to your thesis on how the caliphate jizya system that grants religious rights to non-muslims really equates to spreading Islam by the sword? Or are you literally incapable of prosecuting that case without constantly referring back to irrelevant pre-caliphate history?

Do you actually think that its somehow worse than how Christianity was spread in Europe - with actual forced conversions?

Well we've pretty much covered your fairy tales about massacres and forced evictions of pagans in Mecca - which amounts to 1. execution of 10 people upon conquering Mecca 2. a "prediction" that Arabia would be cleansed of pagans and 3. your trusty 'all purpose' debating point about the execution of the non-pagan Banu Qurayza.

But this is boring - always has been for the 3 years you've hammered on about it.

Now the debate has moved on to a particular thesis you started to come up with about the Caliphate dhimmi system somehow equating to spreading Islam by the sword:

Quote:


- but your thesis ends abruptly just as it was starting to get interesting. Were you seriously going to say something like "Nothing lives up to the... brutality of the dhimmi system" - along those lines? Did it sound as stupid even to you as it really is, and thats why you couldn't bring yourself to finish writing it?

Your thesis is in dire need of elaboration and explanation, thats what I've been trying to get from you. So you might appreciate my frustration when you have little argument other than to constantly revert back to the pre-caliphate history to explain a thesis on caliphate history. So how about we start fresh? Lets start with the key phrase "Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did." You need to explain how an empire that had a particular financial incentive to keep their subject population non-muslim, and enacted policies that incentivised that population to remain non-muslim (with a more generous tax system than they had before, and protecting their religious rights) - can in any way be equated to spreading Islam by the sword. And preferably an explanation that references the relevant period, and not the period before the system in question even existed.

Sorry, I thought you were going to elaborate on how the actual jizya/dhimmi system works as a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword - you know like you started to before cutting yourself off...

Quote:


You said yourself - the 'spread by the sword' meme refers to "what the Caliphate did"  and the caliphate wasn't conquering and slaughtering pagans. They were conquering christian, jewish and zoroastrian areas, and enacting policies that specifically gave them incentives to remain non-muslim. This is "what the Caliphate did" - policies that for anyone with an ounce of common sense would be the very opposite of spreading Islam by the sword.

But never mind, clearly you are determined to stick to any and every debating point but those related to the dhimmi tax system, so carry on.

Quote:


How about you stick to what I actually posted Gandalf.

Quote:


Sounds to me like you are trying to invent something I said by cutting and pasting a few words at a time.

When Muhammed slaughtered pagans and destroyed their temple, does that count? If not, why not?

Are you seriously suggesting that the first Islamic Caliphate never encountered pagans?

Quote:


So we must ignore Muhammed slughtering pagans and destroying their temple because it is all somehow undone by the Caliphate taxing non-Muslims at a higher rate than Muslims?

Quote:


How does it answer it Gandalf? Are you trying to restrict the time frame somehow so that Muhammed's rape and pillage doesn't count?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:


ok FD - would you like to go on the record now as saying the jizya/dhimmi system was *NOT* a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword then?

speaking of 'what you actually posted' - I are you going to explain what you were going to say before you cut yourself off mid sentence: "Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did.Nothing lives up to the" ??

I'm really dying to know.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:


Yep - you summed it up pretty well. Like I said, after making a specific comment about "what the caliphate did" in relation to spreading Islam by the sword, you then spend your whole time ranting on about anything and everything except what the caliphate did.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:


I suppose thats the closest I'll get to an FD acknowledgement of the absurdity of thinking that a policy specifically aimed at retaining and protecting non-muslim's religion is somehow 'spreading Islam by the sword'.

Okay, so Islam wasn’t spread by the sword.

But G, can you say that it was?

Ask him.again, FD. Was Islam.spread by the sword?

Please don’t say no this time, G.