And the gallop continues.
I’m not interested in answering your twisted, leading questions as long as you keep inserting your unsupported conclusions in them and continue to do things like assert that attacking soldiers killed in open battle are “murder victims”.
You’re certainly free to insult and disparage the Prophet all you like, for whatever reasons you like (no matter how false and fallacious those reasons are), but if you want to know what I think of your bullshit descriptions, well, I’ve made my position plenty clear in this thread, and you can either take it or leave it.
What else do you call it when you want someone’s land and you kill them to get it? That is murder, isn’t it?
i consider murder, genocide, slavery, and misogyny to be horribly evil and inherently the essence of horrid
i guess you don’t
ok, you don’t. why not? them seem pretty bad to me.
But what accounts for the amazing power of the Koran to impel people to violence after centuries, when other sacred texts hardly seem to compel any sort of behavior at all? Is there some magic to it? Some hidden power in Arabic writing? Could it be…Satan?
You’re both incorrect (again) and still begging the question.
Actually, I quoted you asking for evidence of an assertion that no one has made. That is a straw man argument and you are the one who posted it.
You can be as blunt as you wish, but your posts are there for anyone to review.
Of course, the accusations of genocide and misogyny are completely false; the accusations of slavery and rape are based on out of context extrapolations. So your attempt to demonstrate your superior moral character is mostly a creation of your own, based on misreading texts with no understanding of history and shaped by reading explicitly Islamophobic sources. We can also read where you both posted that Islam is evil and claimed that you did not say that Islam is evil, all in the context of your earlier admission that you are simply attempting to rationalize your hatred and fear following the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
Any further attempts to portray yourself as virtuous while implying that other posters are not will not go well for you.
[ /Moderating ]
No it IS an assertion that was made.
The assertion was that in the entire set of Islamic empires and caliphates, there was a subset of them which were created by peaceful means rather than violent conquest. That subset I referred to as* these, *as opposed to *those *which would be the civilizations which were uncontestably conquest based.
It’s OK, I’ll just assume all Islamic civilizations were based on violence until someone gives an example of some that weren’t.
You have a 100 apples, and you lay them out on the table, and you say some of them are OK and some are rotten. I ask you to prove that these apples are rotten.
Am I talking about the whole lot, or am I referring simply to the same dodgy apples you selected ?
It’s a matter for plain English, not formal logic or fallacy labels.
Provide the citation for this absurd claim.
Assume what you wish. But if you continue to post straw man arguments, they will be pointed out for their errors.
Would that include threatened violence or its presumption? It was not uncommon for a conqueror to assert power by saying something like “We’re coming for you, you can either surrender and get off lightly, or we can go to the trouble of conquering you and we will kick your ass most severely.”
Since direct conquest can have a bad effect on the tax base, in that dead people are unproductive, this was a preferred method (see Kahn, Genghis). But it might not require much in the way of actual, direct violence.
Many East Asian places and people converted more or less spontaneously simply to become part of the giant Sino-Muslim trade network set up around the Indian Ocean from the 10th century onwards with the privilege of being part of the In Group.
What empire, period, has been established peacefully? Even America was established through violent revolution and expanded through wars of conquest.
So, what are your criteria for “creation by peaceful means”? How it was first established? Its entire existence as a Muslim state? What?
Good questions, wish someone would tell me.
Ah. What about over North Africa ? What’s the straight dope on that ? Should I ask the Cecil guy ?
Nice little country you have here, would be a shame if anything happened to it…
Why do you want other people to tell you? You’re the one demanding to be shown which Muslim civilizations “were created by peaceful means rather than violent conquest”, and that you’ll “just assume all Islamic civilizations were based on violence until someone gives an example of some that weren’t”.
So, I’m asking you what would count for you as “an example of some that weren’t”. Perhaps you could suggest a non-Muslim “civilization” that was “created by peaceful means rather than violent conquest” to provide a basis for comparison?
Haven’t studied all of it, but the people of Egypt at least were by all accounts pretty happy to open the gates of their cities to their Arab “conquerors”.
This because unlike the Byzantine Empire under the thumb of which they’d been living the Muslims didn’t persecute and/or murder them for being “Christians but not the RIGHT KIND of Christians !”, instead letting them practice whatever weird Christian offshoot they wished unimpeded ; and furthermore the taxes imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims were still inferior to those levied by Constantinople. Also, because at that point the Arab Empire was pretty damn ad hoc and there was no imperial infrastructure to speak of, those levied taxes were typically spent in Egypt as opposed to in Constantinople itself and its close geographic neighbours.
So it was pretty much all win for them and the Arabs barely had to lift a sword. They merely had to show up like they meant enough business for the locals to save face.
The situation was kind of similar in Persian lands - the local people were tired of the crumbling structure of the Sassanids and quickly surrendered after the broken remains of the dynasty proved they just weren’t up to any kind of further military engagement (they’d been bleeding themselves dry against the Byzantines over the previous centuries), then almost immediately converted en masse because that’s what was traditionally done in this region. The fact that Arabs still treated them as sort of second-rate Muslims would be the ferment for trouble down the line.
The only real resistance to Arab in-roads in the Levant happened in Byzantine lands, in Syria and southeastern Turkey ; relations remained tense with mutual guerilla border raids every so often, etc…
As for further west of Egypt (ie Lybia to Morocco to Spain) I have no earthly clue, so I won’t even *try *to edumacate :o.
It is worth noting that the conversion of the Egypte occured many centuries later, in the later crusades period, until which time the country was majority christian. But as Kobal has written, the Islamic empires did not care very much about the specific religious practices (not even of the muslims) so long as the taxes were paid.
In the north africa west of the Egypte, the records are not as clear, but certainly in the case of the Iberian peninsula the initial entry of the muslims followed a similar story where the majority of the ruling christian elite was of different rites than much of the population and there was tension - and when the muslims entered it collapses with huge defections on the promise of better terms. It is again the case for the majority of the period that there was a limited conversion. the pragmatism of the tax paying and trade oriented rule…
still even in the maghreb it appears conversion of the population happen in drips over many centuries.
in contrast the roman christians conquering the eastern and the central europe burned people at the stake and other muderous atrocities of choices as the matter of policy for being the wrong kind of religion. If only they had been more oriented to the tax incentives… :^)
(since I am not very religious, I do not see any great fundamental differences in the roots, but as an economist I think the real incentives led to different human behaviours)