Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by firahs
Actually, if you look up the code of dhimma in Sharia, you'd see how you're wrong. Unless you want to show some proof how you are right. Dont bring up anything in the postcolonial era since Sharia has not been enacted since before WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Feel free to Google "dhimma" and read up on it yourself. If you want to claim bias, you'll have to provide evidence that Islamic countries do not discriminate against non-Muslims.

Quote:To save you the trouble, just look up the history of al-andulus...

Again, we can start with Wikipedia which offers a good summary of the controversy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus

Feel free to branch out from there. There is certainly no consensus that non-Muslims were afforded any sort of meaningful tolerance under Muslim rule. Don't forget that Islam was brought to people at the tip of a sword. You've claimed before that early Muslim armies were welcomed by the peoples they conquered, but this is clearly not the case. The Islamic world was expanded through military conquest and violence. Some places, such as Egypt, fell quicker than others because of the ineptitude and corruption of the Byzantine empire which the Arab conquerors brilliantly used to their advantaged, but in most cases, it was anything but peaceful or welcome.

It wouldnt be possible to spread like the empire did at the tip of the sword. But to prevent this thread from falling into this particular discussion. The dhimma under sharia are afforded certain rights if they pay a poll tax (which is equal to in amount what muslims would pay under sharia). Thats pretty much the bottom line. Sure, there were times when these laws weren't followed, but thats a problem with the people, not one that is intrinsic to shariah.

Take a class on Jewish Muslim relations thru the middle ages, you'll be suprised.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by ChurchSkiz
I haven't even defended Israel today, just pointing out the extreme double standards and flaws of logic that have been thrown out.

Quote:Original post by ChurchSkiz
The bottom line is that when an organized country has their 3rd largest city attacked repeatedly, they are going to retaliate.

It looks like you've defended Israel today.

That's not defending them, I was stating an impartial fact. I would expect any organized country to retaliate if one of their largest cities is being bombarded with explosives. Regardless of the situation, motive, past experiences, etc. I'm not going to justify the attack here (I think everyone knows my personal opinion), I am simply stating the fact that Hezbollah knew Israel would retaliate, just like any other country would.

Quote:LessBread
rest of post.....

The conspiracy theories hurt my brain...no mas.......no mas....

Quote:Original post by vNistelrooy
3 kidnapped soldiers a shitty excuse? Have you ever served in an army? Do you want your government to abondone you once you are kidnapped?
If Israel were on a rampage and tried to kill civilians the numbers would have been WAY WAY higher. Israel is barely flexing its muscles, the fact that rockets are still flying proves that. It is hard enough to chose targets without hurting civilians.

Ah yes, I forgot, that the best way to get your soliders back and to stop rocket attacks isn't to attack the area they are coming from and then send in troops for search and rescue based on intel., no of course the best way is to bomb the country further north, destroying the infrastructure, such as roads, power and the like and killing 100s of civilians who have nuffin todo with whats going on...

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by QzarBaron
Anyway, I do admit I did make it sound like they were TOO friendly towards them, but in comparison to how they were being treated in Europe at the time (and even right up to the creation of the Jewish state), the Dhimmi allowed for the Jews to live normal lives in their countries. I have a Jewish friend who can trace back his family to when they were in Spain during the Moorish rule, and he will tell you that his family was living in a very comfortable situation until the Moors left, then they were exiled to Russia where they suffered right up until they immigrated to the US.

Again, there is evidence that the supposed tolerance of the Moores is greatly exaggerated. Also, when the Jews were exiled from much of Western Europe in the middle ages, they settled in Eastern Europe -- Poland, Russia, etc. There, they were offered comparatively greater protection than in Western Europe and became a major component of society. Serious tensions always existed but it's interesting to note that Jewish religious scholarship flourished during this period.

I wonder why the Jews went east instead of south to the supposedly more tolerant Muslim lands closer to their religious homeland?

Because the concept of their religious homeland was not even a concept at that time. It wasnt until the writings of Yehuda Halevi that the concept of homeland was even started. Diaspora was pretty much the norm. At the time of the fall of Al-Andulus, there was some souring going on between different parts of the Muslim world. The Umayyids were fighting against the Abassids who had lost their base in southern spain. The jews were allied with the abassids so they took some of the what the abassids did. Really, it was much more political than racial/religious...

About jewish scholorship. Look up scholars like Maimonodes (Rambam), Judah Halevi...few others...all have something in common.

If you want to get educated on this time, i'll reccomend some sources. Otherwise, I'd reccomend such phrases as "greatly exaggerated" etc. Otherwise, stick to Bernard Lewis...orientalists are known for their objectivity in their study of history...

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by firahs
It wouldnt be possible to spread like the empire did at the tip of the sword.

Tell that to the Romans. Or the Mongols. Or the Europeans in the Age of Exploration. War was a way of life in Antiquity and the Dark Ages. Military might was one important aspect of how empires of the time were forged.

Quote:Sure, there were times when these laws weren't followed, but thats a problem with the people, not one that is intrinsic to shariah.

It's a problem that dates back to the very beginning of Islam. What of the allegations that dhimmis cannot testify against Muslims, build new places of worship, or repair old ones without permissions? And what about non-monotheists such as Hindus? It is my understanding that the policy of conversion-or-death is applied in those cases.

Quote:
Take a class on Jewish Muslim relations thru the middle ages, you'll be suprised.

Under scrutiny, most of the claims of extraordinary Muslim tolerance towards Jews during the middle ages and earlier fall apart. In fact, one of Wikipedia's sources asserts that the current revisionist view was propagated by both pro-Zionists Jews trying to build a case against anti-Semitic Europe and, ironically, Muslims after the Zionist movement trying to portray Islamic nations as actually being tolerant towards Jews.

Persecution and humiliation of Jews under Islam has a long history. As early as the 700's there is evidence that Jews had to wear distinctive badges and clothing marking them as such.

It was impossible for this particular empire to be spread at the tip of the sword. Look at the timescale. If you were to take travel and the time it took to battle...there must have been little or no fighting. A force of 30,000 strong could not have been expected to overrun the prior empires in the region in such a short time.

About dhimmi not being able to testify, there are accounts during the first 3 or 4 generations of Caliphate of appointed governors loosing their position because of not being just towards those who paid the poll tax. The dhimmi can approach and bring complaints to leadership. They cannot be used as witnesses during a trial, but to understand this, you'd need to study the qualifications of a witness and their importance during a trial.

I dont think that there is evidence of Jews having to wear a badge that far back. I do remember something about non-muslims having to wear something under the Taliban but that was to signify that they did not have to follow laws that only applied to Musliims. Sources. But, even further, I'd rather not continue this conversation especially if all you contribute is "there is evidence" and other generalizations. Bring up specificities that can be verified through historical sources...even if you want to use orientalist works.

Hezbollah launched dozens of missiles into Israel and killed civilians in the process. The Lebanese government has done nothing to put a stop to the organization or even the attacks. That is an act of war. If Lebanon would handle the problem themselves, then Israel would not be justified in hitting Lebanon (and they wouldn't need to anyway). Israel's situation is something most of us Westerners can't really understand, because we live in secure nations that have no chance of being attacked. If a Mexican guerilla group started launching missiles at the US, Americans would expect Mexico to handle it.

For the most part Egypt and Jordan figured out how to handle their extremists, and they now enjoy peaceful relations with Israel. Now Lebanon just needs to grow some balls and take out Hezbollah. They know it won't be easy, which is why they are avoiding it. But it is their responsibility to do it. So it isn't fair to claim Israel cannot go into Lebanon and fix the problem themselves considering Lebanon isn't doing it.

And all things considered, Israel has been relatively restrained. Compare it to virtually any other nation in the world that has been in even a slightly compareable situation, and it is an undeniable fact that Israel has acted moderately.