Quote:a particular group of pagans? I think you are confused. All groups under Muhammad's rule - pagans, jews, muslims, christians if there were any - were included in the Constitution of Medina. None were excluded:
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
Gandalf, can you explain how this is consistent with Muhammad threatening to slaughter Jews if they did not convert to Islam? He did this as soon as he was in a position to threaten people. And then followed this up by slaughtering some and expelling the others.
Quote:Do you think it is misleading to argue that dhimmitude is inherently oppressive
No. It is inherently oppressive. It is religious apartheid. One set of rules for Muslims, one set for Jews and Christians. One set for pagans. You would not tolerate the reverse situation, yet somehow you expect non-Muslims to be naive enough to see Muslims as some kind of benign overlord. You are polishing a turd Gandalf.
Quote:when supporting this argument requires you to ignore the fact that under the system, freedom of religion and protection of religious minorities was specifically written into law - and that for most of Islam's history, these laws were abided by?
Gandalf, when I asked you what rights Muhamamd extended to pagans, I was not asking you what rights Muslims lie about, or what rights were written down by Muhammad but ignored in practice. I was asking you what rights he actually extended. In reality.
Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans?
Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body?
When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die?