polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:26am:


This is good Gandalf, well done. More than one example at a time. However, you left out the bit where they actually fulfilled Muhammed's prediction. You left out the status of pagans as even lower than Jews and Christians.

Now that you have gotten your head around that, here is a list of some of Muhammed's efforts to spread Islam by the sword:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

The last one on the list:

May 632 [336]      Invade Palestine and attack Moab and Darum[337]      
Local population "slaughtered" by Muslims, "destroying, burning and taking as many captives as they could"

The second last one:

April 632 [322]      Demolish the Temple of Dhul Khalasa worshipped by the Bajila and Khatham tribes[333]      
300 killed by Muslims

Is the destruction of this temple an example of the "protection" offered to houses of worship you were going on about earlier? Do you think this lends proper Islamic support for the modern destruction of great monuments we see being carried out by Muslims?

Quote:


Were they removed for their own protection Gandalf?

Quote:


Good point Phem. Take Muhammed for example. His religion is all peace and freedom, as Gandalf so keenly points out. But Muhammed was more into the rape and pillage side of things. Yet for some reason his actions in particular always reflect badly on Islam.

Quote:


Are you suggesting that Islam is a "brand" of bloody minded violence, and it is immature to ask whether it is better or worse than others?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:26am:


You're forgetting that scheming Jew who was tortured for his gold, G.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:40am:


Take note of the highlighted bit that was from my post....

Now, what do you think the answer might be?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:19am:


When the muslims invaded the middle and near east occupied by jews, christians and zoroastrians, the inhabitants passed from one foreign ruler to another. Under their new rulers they were afforded the status of dhimmis - which as I have demonstrated, gave them far more rights and freedoms than they had under their previous foreign rulers (which goes a lot towards explaining their rapid advance). The muslim rulers had an economic incentive to retain and protect the religious freedom of their subjects - as these dhimmis paid the jizya tax instead of the zakat tax. And since the jizya was simply a "rolling over" of the previous regime's taxation, there was no extra burden on the subjects. And in fact there were exemptions for people who couldn't afford it or for any dhimmis who chose to join the military.

This was the reality of the caliphate during its expansion: a small ruling elite of muslims ruling over a large population of non-muslims, who far from being forced to convert, were given every rights and protection to retain their religion. And in fact the early caliphate relied on this arrangement in terms of their tax revenues. The inhabitants were happy not merely because the change in regime "rolled over" existing worship and taxation arrangements, but made them considerably better. That the non-muslim populations prospered under Islamic rule is demonstrated in the cultural and intellectual flowering of these communities during the Golden Age.

Gradually over the centuries, the populations became more and more muslim - an inevitable consequence of continued and stable rule by muslims. It would be the same anywhere - South and central American paganism was gradually replaced by christianity through the same osmosis effect (though with considerably more bloodshed than happened under the caliphate), much of central Africa becomes christian after decades of French and British rule etc. While the non-muslims are not widely persecuted under the caliphate (nothing compared to the treatment of non-christians in Europe), there are obviously incentives to become muslim, the same as any subject population whose religion/culture is different to their rulers.

And yet, even after centuries of Islamic rule the non-muslim populations remained as very significant minorities. Compare this to Christianity when it imposed itself on pagan Europe - none were spared, they were either killed or force-converted. Same for the conquest of muslim Spain - the muslims, as well as the jews (who of course thrived under muslim rule), were ethnically cleansed. Its only been in the last few decades that non-muslims have left the middle east in significant numbers - the Palestinian population was close to 50% christian in the early 20th century if I'm not mistaken. You obviously don't see anything like that in terms of the non-christian population of Europe - until they started to be imported in during the last few decades.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:59am:


You are waffling Phem. Don't assume people know what you are trying to say. We can only see what you actually post.

Quote:


So when you say osmosis, you mean using tax policy to discriminate against non-Muslims and give the Muslims a long term upper hand?

What about the sex slavery bit? Do you think that contributed?

Quote:


Do you think sending an army to slaughter pagans and destroy their temple counts as protection?

Quote:


What about being wiped out from a large area around Mecca? Is that a flowering?

Quote:


Do you think the tax policy helped? What about the rules on wives and sex slaves? What about the death penalty for leaving Islam?

Also, for some reason I cannot get you to comment on the status of pagans being even lower than that of Jews and Christians. Did that help with the 'voluntary' conversion of pagans? Are you having trouble understanding the question?

Quote:


So setting up a religious state to conquer large areas, then using the law to pressure people into conversion from within it's borders, is not "spreading Islam by the sword"?

Quote:


What percentage of Meccans are non-Muslim?

Quote:


I didn't realise the middle east was already carved up into pagan and non-pagan areas.

Quote:


Does a massacre of pagans count?

Quote:


Can you give any examples where Christians were more effective in creating Christian only areas than the region around Mecca?

Quote:


So it is not spreading Islam by the sword unless the new rulers use novel techniques to encourage conversion after the invasion?

Here is a list of the issues you are too embarrassed to touch:

The use of sex to spread Islam - Muslim men taking up to four wives including non-Muslims, plus additional sex slaves. These sex slaves could only be obtained by the sword. The marriage imbalance and sex slavery would have created a strong and perverse incentive for Muslim men to seek out conquest and help spread Islam by the sword.

Female slaves being able to gain their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son.

Muhammed's predecessors following through on his 'prediction' that the area around Mecca would be rid of all non-Muslims.

The fact that all non-Muslims are still banned from mecca.

Actual slaughter of pagans and destruction of their temple by Muhammed, because their temple was competing with the one in Mecca in attracting pagans.

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?

Muhammad was constantly rejected by people around him

Went to bed constantly bitter

One day he wakes up claiming god's spoken to him telling everyone should unite

He went preaching and managed to get 10,000 followers/lunatics across several tribes

Led the 10,000 on a conquest and conversion by the sword to Islam for the next 20 years

During this time - he married a 45 years old then a 6 years old who he banged as soon as she turned 9

This girl's father then claimed he's the heir when Muhammad passed and founded Sunni Muslim

Have I missed anything here