Rozalia vs Ibrahim, on Islamic Misdeeds

[Rozalia]

Splitting this off from the "Saudi Arabia Named Head of Human Rights Council" thread though it originated originally from the thread simply called "Religion". Below are one statement each from me and him to give people a good feel, sources are also listed. I originally brought the subject matter up to counter a very PC statement defending Islam, but also to demonstrate that targeting just Christianity is unfair when significant religions are all guilty of such things. Ibrahim however denies Islam as being guilty of any such things. I'll not say anything further in this OP to not be unfair.

 

They were taxed. Had their places of worship, books, libraries, and other works destroyed. Discriminated against and many converted simply to escape such thuggery from the Muslims. Beyond that there were repeated massacres.

 

Sources/references: 

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Sasanian/zoroastrians_after_arab_invasion.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians

 

The Muslims were in fact highly tolerant (especially when you consider things like the Spanish Inquisition/Crusader conquest of Jerusalem (not taking a dig at Christians but that's just what came to mind) etc), they did not convert the population by force, nor did they massacre them. All they asked of them was that they pay a tax called the Jizya (Muslims had to pay a tax called Zakah) and they were allowed to freely practise their religion. The onus (burden of proof) is on your shoulders to present evidence of mass forced conversations with regards to Zoroastrians. It simply did not happen. 

 

Sources/references: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jq0damMgUU

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Lmao. You are hilarious, I'll give you that, but undoubtedly mistaken. 

[Rozalia]

Lmao. You are hilarious, I'll give you that, but undoubtedly mistaken.

 

You got anything else to add beyond "you're wrong"?

[Ayayay]

tbh, I fail to see the point of arguing about persecution in ancient times. Everyone was persecuted by everyone else, who gives a shit?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The historian Al-Masudi, a Baghdad-born Arab, who wrote a comprehensive treatise on history and geography in about 956, records that after the Muslim conquest:

 

Zorastrianism, for the time being, continued to exist in many parts of Iran. Not only in countries which came relatively late under Muslim sway (e.g Tabaristan) but also in those regions which early had become provinces of the Muslim empire. In almost all the Iranian provinces, according to Al Masudi, fire temples were to be found – the Madjus he says, venerate many fire temples in Iraq, Fars, Kirman, Sistan, Khurasan, Tabaristan, al Djibal, Azerbaijan and Arran.

 

This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medieval geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns.^{[source: E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913–1936 By M. Th. Houtsma Page 100]}

 

Also, Islam was readily accepted by Zoroastrians who were employed in industrial and artisan positions because, according to Zoroastrian dogma, such occupations that involved defiling fire made them impure. Moreover, Muslim missionaries did not encounter difficulty in explaining Islamic tenets to Zoroastrian, as there were many similarities between the faiths. According to Thomas Walker Arnold, for the Persian, he would meet Ahura Mazda and Ahriman under the names of Allah and Iblis.At times, Muslim leaders in their effort to win converts encouraged attendance at Muslim prayer with promises of money and allowed the Quran to be recited in Persian instead of Arabic so that it would be intelligible to all.Later, the Samanids, whose roots stemmed from Zoroastrian theocratic nobility, propagated Sunni Islam and Islamo-Persian culture deep into the heart of Central Asia. The first complete translation of the Qur'an into Persian occurred during the reign of Samanids in the 9th century. ^{[source: The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg.170–180]}

[Rozalia]

tbh, I fail to see the point of arguing about persecution in ancient times. Everyone was persecuted by everyone else, who gives a shit?

 

He denies any such persecution was done by Muslims however.

 

The historian Al-Masudi, a Baghdad-born Arab, who wrote a comprehensive treatise on history and geography in about 956, records that after the Muslim conquest:

 

Zorastrianism, for the time being, continued to exist in many parts of Iran. Not only in countries which came relatively late under Muslim sway (e.g Tabaristan) but also in those regions which early had become provinces of the Muslim empire. In almost all the Iranian provinces, according to Al Masudi, fire temples were to be found – the Madjus he says, venerate many fire temples in Iraq, Fars, Kirman, Sistan, Khurasan, Tabaristan, al Djibal, Azerbaijan and Arran.

 

This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medieval geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns.^{[source: E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913–1936 By M. Th. Houtsma Page 100]}

 

Also, Islam was readily accepted by Zoroastrians who were employed in industrial and artisan positions because, according to Zoroastrian dogma, such occupations that involved defiling fire made them impure. Moreover, Muslim missionaries did not encounter difficulty in explaining Islamic tenets to Zoroastrian, as there were many similarities between the faiths. According to Thomas Walker Arnold, for the Persian, he would meet Ahura Mazda and Ahriman under the names of Allah and Iblis.At times, Muslim leaders in their effort to win converts encouraged attendance at Muslim prayer with promises of money and allowed the Quran to be recited in Persian instead of Arabic so that it would be intelligible to all.Later, the Samanids, whose roots stemmed from Zoroastrian theocratic nobility, propagated Sunni Islam and Islamo-Persian culture deep into the heart of Central Asia. The first complete translation of the Qur'an into Persian occurred during the reign of Samanids in the 9th century. ^{[source: The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg.170–180]}

 

 

There being some fire temples left doesn't mean they didn't wreck most of them, and your claim was to lets not forget that no such thing ever happened, when clearly it did.

 

Zoroastrianism continued to exist yes, my source says as such too. Not because of the Muslims being full of mercy like you try to spin it, but in spite of the Muslims constantly carrying out massacres and other foul deeds.

 

You readily ignore my sources and refuse to actually address them. Beyond that, that source is just a retread of that video you posted (or more accurately the video is using that passage as evidence of such things). 

 

 

[Peter Quill]

grabs popcorn

 

Oh, boy, I bet this will be fun!

[London J Collins]

Arguing with muslims is a waste of time, the only language they understand is intolerance towards anything not in line with their psychotic belief system.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Arguing with muslims is a waste of time, the only language they understand is intolerance towards anything not in line with their psychotic belief system.

In my experience this is an unfair statement. The Muslims I have spoken to irl have been great people who listen to other people opinions and thoughts. I have found them rational for the most part. Unlike Ibrahim here they weren't of radical persuasion.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Rob Ap Ioan

[Isolatar]

Despite being a Muslim myself, I'm going to have to side with Rozalia. Khilafah, most of your sources are from Muslims so they're obviously going to say things that support Islamic views, making them unreliable. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

"So far as we know, Zoroastrianism had very much been on the decline by the time of the Islamic conquests in the seventh century. While the Shahenshah and a number of important landed elites remained tied to the faith to various degrees, the average number of adherents of the religion had been steadily on the decline for more than a century, and this is born out by the archaeological record, too: plenty of Zoroastrian fire temples had fallen into disrepair well before the Islamic conquests began. Other aspects of Persian culture were far more important and long lasting, and not bound to the Zoroastrian faith at all - Persian attachment and identity with their land, their myths, their language, and traditions more generally (food, clothing, naming practices, etc) made Persia and the Persian people of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries CE extremely resilient. It is important to remember that Islamic law books (dating from the 9th century CE and beyond) classified the Zoroastrians as "People of the Book" and thus were granted protection in exchange for the jizyah tax. Also, the Umayyad empire had to deal with the Zoroastrians on a pragmatic level since they were a very large demographic previously under Sassanian control. 

 

After accepting the new Islamic political order, it seems the Zoroastrians were relatively secure. Richard Bulliet claims (in Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period) that the pressure to convert was gradual and due to the socioeconomic benefit the Zoroastrians would receive as Muslims.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Nadir Aminu]

This is why I don't state my opinions (anymore) and my beliefs (anymore).

Edited September 22, 2015 by Vladimir Zhogin

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

This is why I don't state my opinions (anymore) and my beliefs (anymore).

 

No, please, do tell.

 

[Nadir Aminu]

I wasn't offering. I only tell people I trust.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Vladimir Zhogin

[Bilal the Great]

[Moreau]

This

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Seriously though watch this video ( )

 

[Dimitri Valko]

[Caecus]

Splitting this off from the "Saudi Arabia Named Head of Human Rights Council" thread though it originated originally from the thread simply called "Religion". Below are one statement each from me and him to give people a good feel, sources are also listed. I originally brought the subject matter up to counter a very PC statement defending Islam, but also to demonstrate that targeting just Christianity is unfair when significant religions are all guilty of such things. Ibrahim however denies Islam as being guilty of any such things. I'll not say anything further in this OP to not be unfair.

 

Well, from what I know of Islamic history (Ottoman/A little Ummayad), Muslims were generally tolerant, but it was more for a political purpose rather than religious reasons. If you compare the Ottoman Empire and their religious subjects to any other zealots that uses military force to dominate and subsequently rule a population, sure, Ottomans are "tolerant." But to say that Muslims have done no religiously-charged violence in the past is hard for me to believe. 

 

I have very little knowledge in this area. I am looking forward to learning things from the both of you.

 

If I were to side with someone on this argument, I would probably go with Ibrahim. Purely from just looking at sources. Rozalia, your source is written by Dr. Darius Jahanian (his Americanized name). I would not consider him to be a good source, since he is an Ob-Gyn in Kansas city who is himself a Zoroastrian, and has no historical training whatsoever. His sources are all secondary, he has a conflict of interest and (from what I have read so far) has no official scholarly publishing (or peer review). I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Jahanian did a little keyhole history as a side job to being an Ob-Gyn. 

 

In contrast, Ibrahim's source (not the youtube video, lol) is from a professional and recognized historian (Richard Bulliet) who has conducted primary source research and review, and is a specialist of his field. I would be careful with Ibrahim's use of older historians (Thomas Walker Arnold), since the standards of historical research may have been different then. 

[Rozalia]

Well, from what I know of Islamic history (Ottoman/A little Ummayad), Muslims were generally tolerant, but it was more for a political purpose rather than religious reasons. If you compare the Ottoman Empire and their religious subjects to any other zealots that uses military force to dominate and subsequently rule a population, sure, Ottomans are "tolerant." But to say that Muslims have done no religiously-charged violence in the past is hard for me to believe. 

 

I have very little knowledge in this area. I am looking forward to learning things from the both of you.

 

If I were to side with someone on this argument, I would probably go with Ibrahim. Purely from just looking at sources. Rozalia, your source is written by Dr. Darius Jahanian (his Americanized name). I would not consider him to be a good source, since he is an Ob-Gyn in Kansas city who is himself a Zoroastrian, and has no historical training whatsoever. His sources are all secondary, he has a conflict of interest and (from what I have read so far) has no official scholarly publishing (or peer review). I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Jahanian did a little keyhole history as a side job to being an Ob-Gyn. 

 

In contrast, Ibrahim's source (not the youtube video, lol) is from a professional and recognized historian (Richard Bulliet) who has conducted primary source research and review, and is a specialist of his field. I would be careful with Ibrahim's use of older historians (Thomas Walker Arnold), since the standards of historical research may have been different then. 

 

Sources are given so it isn't like it is unsourced. Additionally while his background may colour his writing those things happened and did go on as everything else I look at says. 

 

The protection and tolerence Ibrahim is championing isn't some old thing, it can be very much found today. Just go to any Islamic country where a non-Muslims and even Muslim women can be arrested and later killed over unfounded nonsense. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have little regard for inconvenient things like the truth (as evident in this poll), so I really do appreciate your objectivity, but I would like to respond to a particular point you raised.

 

Well, from what I know of Islamic history (Ottoman/A little Ummayad), Muslims were generally tolerant, but it was more for a political purpose rather than religious reasons.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong." (Quran 42:43)

 

Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship.Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (Quran 109)

 

"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian." (Quran 4:80)

 

"Not upon the Messenger is [responsibility] except [for] notification." (Quran 5:99)

 

“Whoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.†(Saheeh Muslim)

 

“Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.†(Abu Dawud)

 

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which was translated below by Anton F. Haddad in its entirety:

 

 

This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is the Mighty, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

 

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disobeyer and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam.

 

Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

 

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

 

No one is allowed to plunder the pilgrims, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

 

Poll-taxes should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

 

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them this is too much, or ask them to pay any tax.

 

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

 

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Koran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

 

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim man, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.

 

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively none of my nation contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.

 

[Haddad, Anton F., trans. The Oath of the Prophet Mohammed to the Followers of the Nazarene. New York: Board of Counsel, 1902; H-Vahabi: Lansing, MI: 2004]

 

 

"St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for more than 1,400 years under Muslim protection."

[Rozalia]

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have little regard for inconvenient things like the truth (as evident in this poll), so I really do appreciate your objectivity, but I would like to respond to a particular point you raised.

 

 

Quite the opposite.

 

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong." (Quran 42:43)

 

Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship.Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (Quran 109)

 

"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian." (Quran 4:80)

 

"Not upon the Messenger is [responsibility] except [for] notification." (Quran 5:99)

 

“Whoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.†(Saheeh Muslim)

 

“Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.†(Abu Dawud)

 

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which was translated below by Anton F. Haddad in its entirety:

 

 

This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is the Mighty, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

 

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disobeyer and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam.

 

Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

 

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

 

No one is allowed to plunder the pilgrims, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

 

Poll-taxes should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

 

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them this is too much, or ask them to pay any tax.

 

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

 

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Koran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

 

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim man, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.

 

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively none of my nation contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.

 

[Haddad, Anton F., trans. The Oath of the Prophet Mohammed to the Followers of the Nazarene. New York: Board of Counsel, 1902; H-Vahabi: Lansing, MI: 2004]

 

 

"St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for more than 1,400 years under Muslim protection."

 

Supposed protection is rendered meaningless in practice. You don't need to read a history book to know that about Islam, it's around today and something you have little problem with considering you don't dare even condemn it. Your ISIS buddies for example brutally kill people based on religion alone and instead of condemning them, you actually support them. So are you a hypocrite? Or a heretic? Which one?

[Moreau]

Also this

[Caecus]

Sources are given so it isn't like it is unsourced. Additionally while his background may colour his writing those things happened and did go on as everything else I look at says. 

 

Yeah, but the guy uses secondary sources and isn't published. Peer-review is really important for validity, since it means that it was looked at by scholars and deemed not biased. Do you have another source? In the same way that I don't want a professional historian with no medical training (but has a hobby interest in the matter) sticking his hand up my wife's vaginal canal, I wouldn't want an Ob-Gyn without any historical training to do history and take it as fact. A good rule of thumb is, if it isn't in Jstor, it's not history. 

 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have little regard for inconvenient things like the truth (as evident in this poll), so I really do appreciate your objectivity, but I would like to respond to a particular point you raised.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

"..."

 

Ah, well, my impression of the Ottoman empire was that after conquering European Christians, they simply left those in power before Ottoman rule to continue ruling the area for them, since it was politically difficult to integrate Slavic Christians. That gave me the impression that the Millet courts later established were also for that purpose. 

 

 

Supposed protection is rendered meaningless in practice. You don't need to read a history book to know that about Islam, it's around today and something you have little problem with considering you don't dare even condemn it. Your ISIS buddies for example brutally kill people based on religion alone and instead of condemning them, you actually support them. So are you a hypocrite? Or a heretic? Which one?

 

I don't think a lot of people would call ISIS "tolerant" by any stretch of the imagination. But I was under the impression that the framework of this argument is centered around Zoroastrianism, or at least the period between the Rashidun Caliph up to the Modern Ottoman Empire (~1800). If not, then I would probably have to side with Rozalia on this one. I think it was around two weeks ago that they hit a Zoroastrian temple, killed the lead archaeologist, and burned it down. A lot of ancient middle east historians shed tears that day...

[Rozalia]

Yeah, but the guy uses secondary sources and isn't published. Peer-review is really important for validity, since it means that it was looked at by scholars and deemed not biased. Do you have another source? In the same way that I don't want a professional historian with no medical training (but has a hobby interest in the matter) sticking his hand up my wife's vaginal canal, I wouldn't want an Ob-Gyn without any historical training to do history and take it as fact. A good rule of thumb is, if it isn't in Jstor, it's not history. 

 

Ah, well, my impression of the Ottoman empire was that after conquering European Christians, they simply left those in power before Ottoman rule to continue ruling the area for them, since it was politically difficult to integrate Slavic Christians. That gave me the impression that the Millet courts later established were also for that purpose. 

 

Ibrahim has in his past writings used the term "people of the book" to refer to protection and state that is an example of Islamic piety. I of course am in full agreement with you that it was merely political not any actual kindness. Christians and Jews being "people of the book" is one thing. Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, and such is quite another. 

The problem with political moves like that is they only work as long as it is deemed necessary and when it no longer is, the supposed protection simply doesn't happen in practice. You only need to look at today where Zoroastrianism already on it's death bed is being continuously discriminated against and oppressed in an effort to finally kill it by Iran. 

 

Ibrahim talks of tolerance, but as ever he can't condemn the Muslims who are intolerant. He has the "bravery" to speak out against America (like all of us do) however when it comes to Islam he is a proven coward, maybe he fears for his head due to knowing in his heart of hearts what those thugs really are. 

Can he condemn Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and his buddies ISIS? I've given him enough chances to do so and I'll give him another one here. 

 

I don't think a lot of people would call ISIS "tolerant" by any stretch of the imagination. But I was under the impression that the framework of this argument is centered around Zoroastrianism, or at least the period between the Rashidun Caliph up to the Modern Ottoman Empire (~1800). If not, then I would probably have to side with Rozalia on this one. I think it was around two weeks ago that they hit a Zoroastrian temple, killed the lead archaeologist, and burned it down. A lot of ancient middle east historians shed tears that day...

 

Oh no it doesn't just stop at Zoroastrianism no. Anyone who has seen Ibrahim utter his nonsense on IRC knows that he so tribal in his worship of Islam that he can't even condemn ISIS instead cheering them on. I honestly thought at first he was pretending to be a Muslim or something, you know in one of those manners to fan anti-Islamic sentiment and such. However as time goes on it becomes pretty clear he is pretty legitimate.