Ultimately, I agree with E+ and Bejeweled in that expanding on this point would take us a little off track. There’s no point in starting a Sunni-Shia battle on this blog. Matt would love it for a start.

Firstly the Jews that were attacked initiated the violence by going back on the constitution they drew up with the prophet in the first place (which granted them freedom of religion) – Matt look up the constitution of madinah.

This particular group of Jews betrayed their alliance with the coalition of madinah and the prophet naturally responded to their attacks.

It is mentioned that some 400 jews were taken prisoner and killed as the result of this war. but whether this is true is not certain anyway. It is not in the texts of Islam but in one of the seeras apparently which is not a central aspect of our religion anyway. Again Matt attempts to distort history.

I think in a nutshell, what you’re trying to say is that criticism of Islam is okay and being Islamophobic is valid? – while criticism is welcome, it should be initiated with respect and reason, be it Islam or otherwise. You’ll find most Islamophobic attacks are initiated by ignorant people who fear and hate Islam and don’t know the first thing about it. Their spite is no different to racism.

Then there’s people like yourself, who are heavily influenced by western and Christian accounts of Islam. Your words echo exactly those in ‘The History of the Turks’ written around 1617- can be found in British Library. A hilarious book with wonderfully spiteful and fantasized ideas and exaggerations, with no evidence of historical accounts. People like you do not only criticise your own version of Islam, but in your apparent justifications are normalising the spite, as part of being a ‘free’ society. That is where we need to be careful here.

My argument is that it is not totalitarian at all. I really do not intend to go into a comparison with Christianity, we’ve already seen what Christian empires have done to the world, and I’ve read enough about how medieval Christianity entered the UK. Such comparisons are redundant.

You then go on to a list a whole load of arguments based on your own historical understanding and NOT on the accounts of the historians from the same century as Mohammed.

– “subjugation and persecution of unbelievers.” ‘Unbelievers’ or kuffar represent quite a specific group of people at the time of the Prophet, and the verses are clearly directed at the prophet (it is for us to extract values of the stories and implement them in our lives). In Arabia, these ‘disbelievers’ were oppressors, killers of baby girls, promiscuous and indulgent by culture. This is what Mohammed came to revolutionise. It is these disbelievers whom God instructed the prophet to stand up to. ‘Persecution and subjucation’ are again sweeping statements.
-”An example of this from the life of Mohammed would be his ethnic cleansing” What a joke. You really need to read up what Mohammed did to unite the racial differences of his time. ***Recommendation: Karen Armstrong ‘Prophet of Our Time’.
- “—by expulsion, slaughter, or enslavement—of the Jews of Medina.” Where did you get this from? I haven’t studied the Jews of Medina and cannot comment on this, maybe E+ can enlighten us on the de-fantasized historical perspective.
- “regular raids carried out against non-Muslim caravans”. – This statement is so distorted that I don’t even know what you are referring to. *** Recommendation: ‘The Message’, 1976 (Film).
- “However, none of them are held up as perfect and timeless examples by a major religion.” Well that says something about the figures you are referring to and the lesser influence they have had on modern society.
-” the infallibility and timelessness of the example of a man who was a brutal—and in large part because of that, highly successful—warlord.” You are regurgitating an opinion here, and it means nothing. Mohammed lived for 40 years in Mecca before he became Prophet- he was nicknamed the “sadiq al ameen”, i.e. “most trustworthy, most reliable”. People absolutely adored him wherever he went.
…But when he was appointed Prophet the oppressors of Mecca didn’t appreciate his astounding influence. Even the Quran recognises his initial status amongst the people, i.e. “O people, we have sent to you a Prophet from AMONGST YOURSELVES”.
As for Quran 9.29: Again refers to the disbelievers, a specific group of people – and says that these people do not forbid what God has forbidden, i.e. they allow those atrocities and acts, some of which I have listed above, including murder, oppression, indulgence. “feel themselves subdued.” -doesn’t say that on my translations. Says that one should stand up to them.

I personally don’t agree with all Caliph Umar’s ways of ruling the Islamic state, nor have I studied this period in a huge amount of detail, so cannot say that all that took place then was right. This applies to all so-called Islamic states after Mohammed’s death.

-”in the 17th century, Christians were being forced to convert to Islam because they could not pay the jizya.” Which countries were these? How can you tell if they converted via force? As for Christians from the UK, their stories started a whole plethora of English literature about pirates and conversion, because so many of them were traveling, converting, and choosing to live in Turkey. King James didn’t fancy that much in the early part of the century. And some of the “Turk plays” (that’s the genre) were created to counteract this conversion. They’re a real fun read. *** Recommendation: Mary Wortley Montagu, The Turkish embassy letters: short book, she was the first woman, wife of an English ambassador, to report back about Ottomon Turkey in print. There is a fascinating and enlightening page about the treatment of the Jews in Turkey.
-” Much of this oppression is enshrined in the laws of the respective countries, but it all is found in orthodox Islamic teaching right back to the Koran.” Ignorant justifications for some negative actions can be found in the Quran- it can be twisted, just how every text can be twisted. But I’ve said this before, oppression is what Islam fought against, and this value is contained in every nuance of the Arabic Quran, so it is contradictory to press on with this assertion.
-”and we don’t even need to go into the ideas of women being property which it contains—that equality is very much equality between Muslims.” You’ve evidently also bought into the whole ludicrous ‘women’ argument, which is really getting pathetic now. People who have studied women in Islam will understand the beauty of gender equality implemented by God. Not really the place for this debate now.

The equality is on the level of gender, race, religion etc. Being a believer has its superiority, but no one can judge what a believer is, except that they do good deeds in this life. Besides which, the origin of all world religions are from God and this is acknowledged. Therefore they are not depicted as inferior religions by origin, it is the actions of people which defines them.

State obligations such as lesser jihad, capital punishments, can only be carried out within a perfect-like Islamic state (none of which exist today). Jihad against ‘disbelievers’, again a very specific term, cannot be waged whenever one fancies. It is actually very unlikely to happen officially, until the return of Jesus on earth, where it will be done for ultimate justice, not for the fun of war.
And by the way- punishments are for preventative purposes, not for punishment and there are a huge number of conditions for them to be carried out. E.g. over 40 conditions for cutting a hand for stealing, allowing way for motives, and eventually repentance. In Mohammed’s time, punishments were hardly used.

Hate to break it to you again, but we’re following Islam and its values as they are laid out. Just going to paste what I already said before, and you ignored: But even to the simplest mind, times do differ (something that the Quranic and hadeeth texts recognise and draw upon) and the beginnings of Islam differ from the requirements of the modern context. … an implementation of the universal values of God, Islam and Mohammed, in the context of the contemporary age.

-back to your words, “we will need to confront the fact that the terrorists are not some radical nutcases that are completely out of tune with Islamic thought, but rather that they grow out of the very heart of Islamic orthodoxy.”
Those radical nutcases are just the same as you. They have taken things out of context, show no understanding of historical accounts, and no undertaking of contemporary requirements.

Muslims’ uphill struggle today is conveying the true and beautiful message of Mohammed to the mainstream world. Their uphill struggle is working against the afore-mentioned nutcases, and working against people like yourself. Both who have their own undoubtedly negative motives.

I am not implying that it was justified because even under Islamic law you cannot kill a non-Muslim who does not pay the Jizya.

Also it is widely agreed that these measures outlined by umar were never really in place and doubts have been expressed about when they originated.

You quoted Ibn Khaldun and the Jizya. This does not amount to evidence of consistent discrimination against Christians throughout the Muslim world. In addition it doesn’t prove that this was a result of religious fervor it is more likely to be a political cause justified by religion.

Also the Jizya was not defined as a payment of money in the prophet’s time, this is a later development. It could even be a symbolic gesture of trading goods such as fabrics in the prophet’s time.

This is just to show you that I will put forward answers and not neglect the “evidence” which doesnt actually prove your argument at all

In reference to janissary recruitment. A large portion had joined willingly because it was very successful and lucrative (they were highly paid). There was a slave trade however between Constantinople/Turkish areas and the caliphate but this is generally seen as a departure from Islamic teachings since slaves cannot be acquired by trade, and it was not permissible to have Muslim slaves. Jews and Christians were exempted from the army as I have already stated. They also were not to be enslaved.

Christian empires had slaves as well, like in
Constantinople. In any case we can’t think of medieval slavery as we do of modern slavery. Slavery in those times was not based on race and was not an oppressive business. Mainly it was quite a sought after occupation as many slaves actually ascended to the throne in both Muslim and Christian empires. Also it was only the elite who could afford it in both Christian and Muslim empires so slaves were not put in a destitute environment they were more like servants and played important roles in aristocratic family life which is illustrated in numerous historical accounts.

Again read up before you make such remarks

You havent listen to a word I’ve said. You did not specifiy cultural genocide when you first mentioned it. Don’t try to hide your attempts at distorting history.

As for cultural genocide all the evidence I have supplied shows that Jews and Christians under Islam underwent cultural renaissances. Instead you keep claiming genocide with absolutely no evidence to back it up. You can keep screaming genocide but isnt worth a thing as you obviously cannot provide counter evidence to mine. All you do is claim one view of history which cannot be supported and I will leave everyone to decide which version is more convincing mine or yours.

The racialising point was in reference to the way you write. You can claim you did not attempt to do so yet you keep grappling with a notion of east and west as if the west cannot accept islam as you see it. I am simply destroying this illusion by showing you that in theology and practice we are exactly the same everywhere. This is just one of the ways you try to distinguish between different types of “Islams” and create the illusion that you are not Islamophobic by disagreeing with one type of Islam. But you contradict yourself by making this islam “true” and others false. But you seem to have backtracked on that now and attacked Islam directly, showing the true nature of Islamophobia. You can try to rationalise it but as we have seen it does not work.

Now you’ve moved on to history and theology, a battle you are obviously losing, completely ignoring the evidence of cultural interaction and flourishing between Jews Christians and Muslims. This was a time of religious fervor and creativity manifesting in art and science. many philosophers, poets and scientists came from conquered lands and contributed creatively to the cultural movement of Islam and it is impossible for people who were forced into an ideology to contribute creatively to it. They did not face crippling measures against them and it was not “unlivable”. Stop changing your argument first it was genocide then forced conversion and now crippling measures. Please be consistent.

Also your idea of a revival is ridiculous. Every muslim knows people likeBin Laden depart from tradition by not going through proper Islamic training and being generally unable to interpret texts properly. The tradition and extremists are completely different and the latter are denounced constantly as an eligible school of thought.

And with that point you again show a further inconsistency. You claimed that orthodox Islam was not extremist at first but now it is??

Yes please read some social theories. Religion is hardly ever pin pointed as the cause of violence by any respectable sociologist. And no what you asked me to look up is history not sociology. And in that respect I have offered you a very broad range of evidence from history which I dont expect you to acknowledge.

I do not want to continue debating with you if you are simply going to change your argument or if you keep claiming something which cannot be proven. If I am to just keep going on and on about true Islamic history and you simply dont’ listen to me I will leave it here and let everyone else decide which argument is more convincing.