Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Ibrahim »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:In 17th century England Catholics and Reformed church members were required to not only pay tithes to the Church of England, but also to attend Anglican services every Sunday - a type of Christian dhimmitude.
Not to be tiresome, but "dhimmitude" isn't a word, and moreover this isn't similar since non-Muslims weren't compelled to attend Islamic prayers (though I can think of examples where they were brutally punished for disrupting Islamic prayers). There were also residency requirements (e.g. the famous Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem) and limits on what could be done when and by whom on which days (e.g. all Christian prayer within Christian quarters and only on Sundays).

But your general point, which I take to be that by historical standards all of this was either typical or better-than-average, is correct.
User avatar
Sparky
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Sparky »

Not to be even more tiresome, and without entering into the fray to establish a moral ascendancy to decide what people mean when they use the term, it sort of is a word now, isn't it? A bit like Islamist, etc. A bit more use, the passage of time and presto - coming soon to a dictionary near you.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Ok ibs so there is no such thing as dimmitude unless it's Christian?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Paying taxes for religious support, military protection and civil order is not such a strange thing, especially in the relatively wild Arabia of Muhammad.

In 17th century England Catholics and Reformed church members were required to not only pay tithes to the Church of England, but also to attend Anglican services every Sunday - a type of Christian dhimmitude.

I really don't understand why this historical jizya business causes such rancor when ancient tax schemes were rarely fair or honest. At least they weren’t entrapping camel caravans with red light cameras.
Maybe the rancor had more to do with how those non-Muslims were brought under Islamic rule, sometimes brutally?
Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

[...]
Timur

Tīmūr bin Taraghay Barlas, known in the West as Tamerlane or "Timur the lame", was a 14th century warlord of Turco-Mongol descent,[21][22][23][24] conqueror of much of western and central Asia, and founder of the Timurid Empire and Timurid dynasty (1370–1405) in Central Asia, which survived until 1857 as the Mughal dynasty of India.
[...]
Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21][21][25][27][28] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [New Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[29]
Hindus don't seem particularly positive about their encounters with Islamic expansion and rule.
History of Islam in India
by Dr. Neria H. Hebbar

Introduction

‘Islamization’ of India did not occur as a result of mass conversions. The process took several centuries. Though the province of Sindh was conquered in early 8th century it was not until the incursions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor that serious settlement of the subcontinent with Muslims took place. Even then contrary to belief it was not the forced conversions that increased the number of Muslims in India. Of course, the unfair taxes called jizya of all non-Muslims had an effect. Many Hindus were forced to convert to Islam to escape from the punishing taxes. The invading sultans like Qutb ud-din Aibak and Ala-ud-din Khilji often offered clemency to the enemy after their defeat if they converted to Islam. Many of these local rulers switched back to Hinduism as soon as the sultans turned their backs and returned to Delhi. The major reason for mass settlement of India by Muslims was the invasion of Mongols into central Asia. Genghis Khan, his grandsons and later Timurlane wreaked havoc in the Central Asian countries causing migration of countless number of people seeking refuge in the relative safety of India.

Just how disastrous Muslim conquest was for India and how much resistance had been offered to preserve its heritage by Hindu rulers are controversial subjects. Much of the history was written by Muslim historians and could be biased. The little history documented by Indians was also written with an eye towards glorifying their kings. These as well could be simply exaggerations. Hindu writers write about countless accounts of heroism by their warrior, some of them mere boys in their teens. Some of the fiercest resistance probably came from lesser tribes and simply went undocumented. However, it is clear that the Muslim conquest of India took several centuries. Idolatry was condemned but many sultans simply ignored the practice by the Hindus and did not impose Islam on them forcibly. Better results were obtained by imposing taxes on non-Muslims, although the Brahmins and some Buddhists were exempt form it until the rule of Feroz Shah Tughlaq in the latter half of 14th century. When the Mughals established their empire, the whole of India was almost completely under the Muslim rule, especially during the rule of Aurangazeb. Religious fanaticism of Aurangazeb, unlike his ancestor Mughals finally led to the cessation of Muslim control of India. As a consequence of his intolerance, the Mughal Empire weakened precipitously after his death and steadily shrank in size over the next century and a half, to finally be taken over by another foreign force in the nineteenth century, the British. What Akbar had achieved with tolerance and reconciliation was reversed by Aurangzeb’s zeal to force Islam on Hindus.

The religion of Islam stormed into India in a similar manner as it did in the Arabian countries. Powerful regimes succumbed to the religion at a remarkably fast pace as evidenced by the fact that within a century after its inception, it had spread to the entire Middle East and Northern Africa. But in India, Islam had a more difficult time to insinuate into the Hindu and Buddhist societies. Even then, ‘Islamization’ of India took several centuries and was never complete. The barbaric nature of the sultanates rule and the invasion of Mongols may have had a negative effect on the Hindu practitioners. The earlier Mughals had breeched the division somewhat, but Aurangzeb in his zeal to turn India into an Islamic nation alienated all other religions. From then onward ‘moderate Muslim rule’ was an oxymoron. It is also apparent that the Hindus revered their idols much more than the Muslim conquerors estimated. A sweep of India never occurred and India remained predominantly Hindu, with only about twenty percent of its population as Muslims, at any given time in its history.

[...]
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Ibrahim »

Sparky wrote:Not to be even more tiresome, and without entering into the fray to establish a moral ascendancy to decide what people mean when they use the term, it sort of is a word now, isn't it? A bit like Islamist, etc. A bit more use, the passage of time and presto - coming soon to a dictionary near you.
Fair enough, even if it was coined and inaccurately defined by a bunch of professional hucksters and racists. Everyone can add it to their manifestos before their shooting sprees.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Takes one to know one.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Zack Morris »

You do realize he has you on 'ignore', don't you?
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Marcus »

Zack Morris wrote:You do realize he has you on 'ignore', don't you?
But how would you know?

I've got a couple folks on "Ignore," and, from all appearances, it doesn't seem to hinder them from replying to my posts.

Rumor has it that a bunch of people are reading this stuff . . . :o
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Mr. Perfect »

That's just what he says. He responds to my content and posts in my threads all the time.
Censorship isn't necessary
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Milo »

Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Ibrahim »

Milo wrote:Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Actually most of this thread is about maintaining historical accuracy, and correction of the propaganda that credulous and uneducated rubes think passes for legitimate history.

No doubt you are misrepresenting the conversation because you yourself have advocated, and in fact reproduced verbatim, many of the false claims from risible sources that are being corrected. Indeed, I have bragging rights over you, given how frequently I correct the false claims you repeat (e.g. when you repeated the false claim that Mecca wasn't mentioned in the Quran, and I immediately corrected you with a citation).
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Doesn't change anything he said.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Muslim Tax Collection for Infidels with Attitude...........

Post by monster_gardener »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Paying taxes for religious support, military protection and civil order is not such a strange thing, especially in the relatively wild Arabia of Muhammad.

In 17th century England Catholics and Reformed church members were required to not only pay tithes to the Church of England, but also to attend Anglican services every Sunday - a type of Christian dhimmitude.

I really don't understand why this historical jizya business causes such rancor when ancient tax schemes were rarely fair or honest. At least they weren’t entrapping camel caravans with red light cameras.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Nonc.
I really don't understand why this historical jizya business causes such rancor when ancient tax schemes were rarely fair or honest.
One reason is the Jizya tax collection method ....... Even if you paid on time you still got punched in the jaw and beaten about the head and shoulders...... AIUI even the Mafia does not do that........
[T]he collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing…, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel must place money on the scales, while the collector holds him by his beard and strikes him on both cheeks.(Al-Nawawi)[109]

Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya… on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… (Al-Ghazali)[110]

Following this [the handing over of the jizya payment] the emir will strike the dhimmi on the neck with his fist; a man will stand near the emir to chase away the dhimmi in haste; then a second and a third will come forward to suffer the same treatment as well as all those to follow. All [Muslims] will be admitted to enjoy this spectacle. (Ahmad al-Dardi al-Adawi)[111]

On the day of payment they [the dhimmis] shall be assembled in a public place … They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to the others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. They then shall be dragged one by one for the exacting of payment. When paying, the dhimmi will receive a blow and will be thrown aside so that he will think that he has escaped the sword through this. This is the way that the friends of the Lord, of the first and last generations, will act toward their infidel enemies, for might belongs to Allah, to His Prophet, and to the believers. (Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Maghili)[112]

The dhimmis posture during the collection of the jizya – [lowering themselves] by walking on their hands, reluctantly; on the authority of Ibn ’Abbas (al Tabari).[113]

Some scholars explicitly link this ritual to the interpretation of Sura [Qur'an 9:29], that jizya was not merely to be a tax, but also a symbol of humiliation:[108]

[Saaghiruuna means] submissively… by coercion… [’an yadin means] directly, not trusting the trickery of an intermediary… by force… without resistance… in an unpraiseworthy manner… while you stand [and the dhimmi] sits with the whip in front of you [you take] the money while he has dirt on his head. (Al-Suyuti's tafsir on Sura 9:29)[114]

Echoing a saying attributed to Muhammad (Sahih Muslim 26:5389), Hasan al-Kafrawi, an 18th century scholar, advises that "if you [Muslims] encounter one of them [dhimmis] on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot".*[115] Both Muslim sources and European travelers to the Middle East describe humiliations and insults of dhimmis, and especially of the Jews.[108][116] Throwing of stones at dhimmis was a favorite amusement of Muslim children in many places from early times until nowadays.[98][117]
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthr ... rage/page4

Note that this is from a MUSLIM site........ though I have found it elsewhere.......

And to be completely fair to Ibrahim and the Ottoman Turks, further on the source says that this was not done in parts of the Ottoman Empire...... Though "parts" implies that it was done in other regions of Ottoman Turkey..... :shock:
The annual payment ritual was not followed in parts of the Ottoman Empire, where jizya was collected from individuals by representatives of the dhimmi communities themselves.[85] Dhimmis were frequently referred to by derogatory names, both in the official and in the everyday speech. In the Ottoman Empire, the official appellation for dhimmis was "raya", meaning "a herd of cattle". In the Muslim parlance, "apes" was the standard epithet for the Jews, while Christians were frequently denoted as "pigs". These animalistic parallels were rooted in the Qur'anic verses describing some People of the Book being transformed into apes and pigs (Qur'an [Qur'an 5:60]).[118]
* This is not just ancient history as shown by one of the Muslim poster on the site, a senior member in fact, who goes on to justify & brag about doing it....
why should i not feel good when i am able to get a chance to display the true right of a believer of Allah and His Rasool (saw). when i pushed him off the path i did not push him as myself but as a muslim. when i felt good i did not feel good for myself but felt good for the ummah. i yearn for the time where a muslim can walk proud in this world not because of him as an individual but because he is part of the ummah of the Prophet (saw). just for a moment i tasted the true glory of islam and it made me feel very very VERY GOOD. and i pray to Allah that he gives me a chance to do this and more , many many MANY times over.

..........................

islam is not a passive religion. we are not meek mild mannered christians. we dont show the other cheek when being slapped. we are soft with the believers and hard on the kuffar. we love for the sake of Allah and we hate for the sake of Allah. when the need arises, true muslims are militant. we are warriors. we do not stand down in the face of the kuffar.

we make them stand down in the face of Islam.
/Sarcasm On............ Yep......... Best of Peoples.......... Yep we should invite them in......... Yep....Move along........ No need to worry about what will happen once they have enough power to start enforcing their laws here either de jure or de facto....... /Sarcasm off
Last edited by monster_gardener on Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Paying taxes for religious support, military protection and civil order is not such a strange thing, especially in the relatively wild Arabia of Muhammad.

In 17th century England Catholics and Reformed church members were required to not only pay tithes to the Church of England, but also to attend Anglican services every Sunday - a type of Christian dhimmitude.

I really don't understand why this historical jizya business causes such rancor when ancient tax schemes were rarely fair or honest. At least they weren’t entrapping camel caravans with red light cameras.
Maybe the rancor had more to do with how those non-Muslims were brought under Islamic rule, sometimes brutally?
Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

[...]
Timur

Tīmūr bin Taraghay Barlas, known in the West as Tamerlane or "Timur the lame", was a 14th century warlord of Turco-Mongol descent,[21][22][23][24] conqueror of much of western and central Asia, and founder of the Timurid Empire and Timurid dynasty (1370–1405) in Central Asia, which survived until 1857 as the Mughal dynasty of India.
[...]
Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21][21][25][27][28] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [New Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[29]
Hindus don't seem particularly positive about their encounters with Islamic expansion and rule.
History of Islam in India
by Dr. Neria H. Hebbar

Introduction

‘Islamization’ of India did not occur as a result of mass conversions. The process took several centuries. Though the province of Sindh was conquered in early 8th century it was not until the incursions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor that serious settlement of the subcontinent with Muslims took place. Even then contrary to belief it was not the forced conversions that increased the number of Muslims in India. Of course, the unfair taxes called jizya of all non-Muslims had an effect. Many Hindus were forced to convert to Islam to escape from the punishing taxes. The invading sultans like Qutb ud-din Aibak and Ala-ud-din Khilji often offered clemency to the enemy after their defeat if they converted to Islam. Many of these local rulers switched back to Hinduism as soon as the sultans turned their backs and returned to Delhi. The major reason for mass settlement of India by Muslims was the invasion of Mongols into central Asia. Genghis Khan, his grandsons and later Timurlane wreaked havoc in the Central Asian countries causing migration of countless number of people seeking refuge in the relative safety of India.

Just how disastrous Muslim conquest was for India and how much resistance had been offered to preserve its heritage by Hindu rulers are controversial subjects. Much of the history was written by Muslim historians and could be biased. The little history documented by Indians was also written with an eye towards glorifying their kings. These as well could be simply exaggerations. Hindu writers write about countless accounts of heroism by their warrior, some of them mere boys in their teens. Some of the fiercest resistance probably came from lesser tribes and simply went undocumented. However, it is clear that the Muslim conquest of India took several centuries. Idolatry was condemned but many sultans simply ignored the practice by the Hindus and did not impose Islam on them forcibly. Better results were obtained by imposing taxes on non-Muslims, although the Brahmins and some Buddhists were exempt form it until the rule of Feroz Shah Tughlaq in the latter half of 14th century. When the Mughals established their empire, the whole of India was almost completely under the Muslim rule, especially during the rule of Aurangazeb. Religious fanaticism of Aurangazeb, unlike his ancestor Mughals finally led to the cessation of Muslim control of India. As a consequence of his intolerance, the Mughal Empire weakened precipitously after his death and steadily shrank in size over the next century and a half, to finally be taken over by another foreign force in the nineteenth century, the British. What Akbar had achieved with tolerance and reconciliation was reversed by Aurangzeb’s zeal to force Islam on Hindus.

The religion of Islam stormed into India in a similar manner as it did in the Arabian countries. Powerful regimes succumbed to the religion at a remarkably fast pace as evidenced by the fact that within a century after its inception, it had spread to the entire Middle East and Northern Africa. But in India, Islam had a more difficult time to insinuate into the Hindu and Buddhist societies. Even then, ‘Islamization’ of India took several centuries and was never complete. The barbaric nature of the sultanates rule and the invasion of Mongols may have had a negative effect on the Hindu practitioners. The earlier Mughals had breeched the division somewhat, but Aurangzeb in his zeal to turn India into an Islamic nation alienated all other religions. From then onward ‘moderate Muslim rule’ was an oxymoron. It is also apparent that the Hindus revered their idols much more than the Muslim conquerors estimated. A sweep of India never occurred and India remained predominantly Hindu, with only about twenty percent of its population as Muslims, at any given time in its history.

[...]


.
.


Those Persian Monguls who conquired India and forced Islam on India ,

neither represented Pomegranates

nor Islam

they were sons of Tchingiz Khan .. vicious Mongols that had killed millions of Pomegranates and now
were taking over India

People, either with evil intention, or, due to sheer illiteracy, when talking about historical fact, Islam or Christianity or Judaism, forget that key in all this event are the people doing it and not the "ism"

Not Islam did those things to Persia .. but the Bedouins from Arabia
Not Islam did those things to India .. but the Mongol sons of Tchingiz khan
Not the Nazi did those things to European/Russian Jews , but Europeans
Not the Catholics/Christians did those things to Jews in Spain, but the Spanish people
Not Judaism is doing those things to Palestinians in Palestine, but the European/western converts

Did Christianity wipe out the indigini of north and south America ? ?

NO

Europeans did it


and and and

people do things and not "ism"

in that sense .. all of you badmouthing any "ism" or "religion" etc, you trying to fool Joe

Notion, some species came from Mars, called NAZI, and did all those things, just to fool and fabricate history .. no such thing as NAZI (NAZI was European mindset) .. British, Germans, French, Russians and and and were the culprit

Debating Islam (or any other "ism", communism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism, etc etc, whether good or bad, whether worst or better than the others .. must be done on
social, theological, philosophical level and not personal

Saying communism did not work must explain the shortcoming of communism ideology and not debating Russian imperialism, USSR


.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Marcus »

Jnalum Persicum wrote:. . People, either with evil intention, or, due to sheer illiteracy, when talking about historical fact, Islam or Christianity or Judaism, forget that key in all this event are the people doing it and not the "ism."
One of the truest things ever posted on these fora. That said, it is the "ism" that, at particular times and places, supplies the rationale for people to "do it."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Typhoon »

Milo wrote:Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Ever been to Turkey or Malaysia?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Jnalum Persicum wrote:. . People, either with evil intention, or, due to sheer illiteracy, when talking about historical fact, Islam or Christianity or Judaism, forget that key in all this event are the people doing it and not the "ism."
One of the truest things ever posted on these fora. That said, it is the "ism" that, at particular times and places, supplies the rationale for people to "do it."
Same argument used by apologists for Stalinist and Maoist communism.

With regards to religious, political, and social -isms it is not the theory, but the application that matters.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Ever been to Turkey or Malaysia?
If you venture to Turkey, don't talk to the Orthodox Patriarch . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by YMix »

Typhoon wrote:With regards to religious, political, and social -isms it is not the theory, but the application that matters.
"There are no ends, only means." - Gore Vidal

:)
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Ever been to Turkey or Malaysia?
If you venture to Turkey, don't talk to the Orthodox Patriarch . . ;)
Is he that lousy a tour guide?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Ungrateful BanglaDeshi Muslims persecuting Hindus........

Post by monster_gardener »

RPM wrote:Parodite,

In quiet few cases , the literal interpretations didnt take place by muslims. The muslim rulers of India used hindu soldiers extensively and effectively. Mongol armies that frightened europe & middle east were repelled thrice by Allauddin Kilji using hindu generals & soldiers.

On the otherside, in the recent past egypt & bangladesh have seen violence against dhiimi places of worships (coptics & buddhists) led by islaimic clerics/mobs.
Thank you VERY Much for your post, RPM

In BanglaDesh, Hindus are also being persecuted by the ungrateful Bengali Muslims who were saved from genocide (Operation Genghis Khan) at the hands of their Persecuting Pakistani/Punjabi so called "Muslim Brothers" by the Hindus of India..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... Bangladesh

In Hindu Hindsight ;) it might have been better to let the Punjabis have their evil way with the Bengalis and then intervene once the Bengalis were too few to be in a Position to persecute anyone....... :twisted: :| :roll:
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Hey Rube!.............. Reuben James

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Milo wrote:Arguments as to who held the high ground in history remind me of some unemployed loser who brags about their aristocratic ancestry.
What counts is now and now there is not one Islamic society on earth that has civilizational bragging rights.
Actually most of this thread is about maintaining historical accuracy, and correction of the propaganda that credulous and uneducated rubes think passes for legitimate history.

No doubt you are misrepresenting the conversation because you yourself have advocated, and in fact reproduced verbatim, many of the false claims from risible sources that are being corrected. Indeed, I have bragging rights over you, given how frequently I correct the false claims you repeat (e.g. when you repeated the false claim that Mecca wasn't mentioned in the Quran, and I immediately corrected you with a citation).
Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.
credulous and uneducated rubes
When modern Muslims brag about how much they ENJOY mistreating non-muslims like their evil ancestors did, it may be past time for those of us Down in the Black Gang to ignore the false platitudes of our oil corrupted useful durian elites like George W. Bush who LIE that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" * rather than a Religion of Submission and Subjugation.......

Probably Past time to cry "Hey, Rube! :twisted: when dealing with Killer Klown Muslims & their Enablers in the Corrupt Circus we live in........ Like this Bullying Bozo Below.........
why should i not feel good when i am able to get a chance to display the true right of a believer of Allah and His Rasool (saw). when i pushed him off the path i did not push him as myself but as a muslim. when i felt good i did not feel good for myself but felt good for the ummah. i yearn for the time where a muslim can walk proud in this world not because of him as an individual but because he is part of the ummah of the Prophet (saw). just for a moment i tasted the true glory of islam and it made me feel very very VERY GOOD. and i pray to Allah that he gives me a chance to do this and more , many many MANY times over.

..........................

islam is not a passive religion. we are not meek mild mannered christians. we dont show the other cheek when being slapped. we are soft with the believers and hard on the kuffar. we love for the sake of Allah and we hate for the sake of Allah. w

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthr ... rage/page4


Hey, Rube!" is a slang phrase most commonly used in the United States by circus and travelling carnival workers ("carnies"), with origins in the middle 19th century. It is a rallying call, or a cry for help, used by carnies in a fight with outsiders. It is also sometimes used to refer to such a fight: "The clown got a black eye in a hey Rube."[1]

In the early days of circuses in America (c. 1800–1860), it was very common for carnies to get into fights with the locals as they travelled from town to town.[1] Circuses were rowdy, loud, and often lewd affairs, where country people could gather, blow off steam, and voice political views. Mark Twain's classic description of a circus and other shows in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn provides illustration. It was a rare show that did not include at least some violence, and this often involved the members of the circus.

When a carnie was attacked or in trouble, he would yell "Hey, Rube!" and all carnies in earshot would rush to his aid. Circus pioneer and legendary clown Dan Rice called it "a terrible cry, [meaning] as no other expression in the language does, that a fierce deadly fight is on, that men who are far away from home [travelling circus workers] must band together in a struggle that means life or death to them



Here's another "Hey Rube"........... Reuben James.......

Born in Delaware around 1776, James joined the United States Navy and served on several ships, including the frigate USS Constellation. During the Barbary Wars, the American frigate Philadelphia was captured by the Barbary pirates when it ran aground in the city of Tripoli, on the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, along with a group of volunteers that included Reuben James, entered the harbor of Tripoli under the cover of darkness in an attempt to burn the Philadelphia so that the pirates could not use her.

The volunteers boarded the Philadelphia on 16 February 1804 and were met by Barbary pirates who were guarding their prize. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, Reuben James, with both of his hands already wounded, positioned himself between Lieutenant Decatur and a sword-wielding pirate. Willing to give his life for his captain, James took a blow from the sword but survived.

James continued his Naval career, serving many years with Decatur. He was forced to retire in January 1836 because of ill health. He died in 1838 at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Washington, DC.


Image


* ROP ROFLMAO
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Hey Rube!.............. Reuben James

Post by Marcus »

monster_gardener wrote:. . The volunteers boarded the Philadelphia on 16 February 1804 and were met by Barbary pirates who were guarding their prize. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, Reuben James, with both of his hands already wounded, positioned himself between Lieutenant Decatur and a sword-wielding pirate. Willing to give his life for his captain, James took a blow from the sword but survived. . .


Reuben James had a ship named in his honor.

I7jBbCQwJ0g
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: Hey Rube!.............. Reuben James

Post by monster_gardener »

Marcus wrote:
monster_gardener wrote:. . The volunteers boarded the Philadelphia on 16 February 1804 and were met by Barbary pirates who were guarding their prize. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, Reuben James, with both of his hands already wounded, positioned himself between Lieutenant Decatur and a sword-wielding pirate. Willing to give his life for his captain, James took a blow from the sword but survived. . .


Reuben James had a ship named in his honor.

I7jBbCQwJ0g
Thank You VERY MUCH for your reply, Marcus.

Quite right....

AIUI 3 ships were named for Reuben James......

And sometimes the evil prosper........ the U-Captain who sunk the Reuben James went on to greater atrocities.......
The SS David H. Atwater was a small unarmed coastal steamer which was sunk on 2 April 1942 by gunfire from German submarine U-552 in one of the more controversial actions of the Kriegsmarine during World War II, primarily due to the manner of the sinking.[1]

.............

On the night of 2 April 1942, at the height of the U-boat offensive against US shipping known as the Second Happy Time, the David H. Atwater was en route from Norfolk, Virginia to Fall River, Massachusetts[4], with a full load of 4,000 tons of coal. Her master, William K. Webster, had disregarded instructions and sailed from the Chesapeake in the afternoon, therefore could not make the run to the Delaware Capes before nightfall.[5]

Around 21:00, between Cape Charles and Cape Henlopen[6], the ship was ambushed by U-552, commanded by Erich Topp, which had followed her underwater. U-552 surfaced about 600 yd (550 m) from the freighter and opened fire with her 88mm deck gun and automatic weapons (possibly including the submarine's 20mm cannon) without warning, one of her first shells destroying the bridge and killing all of the officers. In all, 93 shots were fired from the deck gun, with 50 hits being recorded on the small freighter[3], which rapidly began to sink.

As the Atwater sank, Erich Topp directed his crewmen to continue firing, striking the Atwater's crewmen as they tried to man the lifeboats.[7] When Captain Webster was shot, the crew abandoned attempts to launch the lifeboats and leapt into the sea.[8]



The first ship to arrive on the scene was the small Coast Guard Patrol Boat USS CG-218, which found a lifeboat holding three survivors and three bodies; the survivors reported that they had dived overboard and swam to the boat. Next on the scene was Coast Guard cutter USCGC Legare (WPC-144), which had heard the gunfire and arrived just fifteen minutes later. The Legare found a second lifeboat with a body aboard; the boat was discovered to have been riddled by gunfire, and lent strength to the widespread belief at the time that U-boats were deliberately murdering the survivors of ships they had sunk.[8] The Legare landed the three survivors and four bodies at Chincoteague Island Coastguard Station, then returned to sea to carry out further searching.[9]. The destroyers USS Noa and USS Herbert were directed to the scene at 21:22 and arrived at 24:00[9], but the U-552 had by then escaped the scene, going on to sink other vessels.[10]

Bodies, and lifeboats and liferafts from the Atwater recovered by the Coast Guard were landed at Ocean City, Maryland. It was commonly believed at the time that U-552 had deliberately machine-gunned the Atwater's crewmen in the boats and rafts
After the war, he worked as a fisherman and then as architect, until he eventually rejoined the Bundesmarine (Federal German Navy), reaching the rank of Konteradmiral (Two star Rear Admiral) before retiring in 1969. His service as a NATO advisor was loosely portrayed (as "Commodore Wolfgang Schrepke") in the 1965 movie The Bedford Incident.

After his retirement he worked as an industrial consultant for various naval yards. His memoirs "The Odyssey of a U-Boat Commander: The Recollections of Erich Topp" was published in 1992. Topp was the technical advisor for the 2001 submarine simulation computer game Silent Hunter II. He was also interviewed for the game.[1]

He died on 26 December 2005, in Süßen at the age of 91.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Topp

Not that all Germans were like that..... Remember a German U-Boat commander who tried to help survivors of a sinking ship and got bombed by Allied aircraft for his troubles....... Wasn't killed that time but did not survive the war....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Hartenstein
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Hey Rube!.............. Reuben James

Post by Marcus »

monster_gardener wrote:Thank You VERY MUCH for your reply, Marcus.

Quite right....

AIUI 3 ships were named for Reuben James......
Thank YOU, mg . . knew the ship, did not know the man.

Now I do . . thanks . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Post Reply