@Frederique
There’s a very big difference between countries like Sweden and countries like Israel.
Do you want to know what you sound like?
Is the issue demonizing one group, or the principle of evil? Americans kill people too. Americans mass murder people around the world, and then some Americans have the stones to come on here and argue that Islam is a philosophy of evil, and when called on their BS, they claim that others are neutralizing the topic.
If the topic is bigotry and ignorance, you are correct, people will try to neutralize it. If you want to discuss whether killing is right or wrong, whether occupation and subjugation is right or wrong, then maybe we can have an honest debate here.
People can’t even agree on which parts of Islam are authoritative, and you’re trying to tell us that objective truths of Islam exist.
When people get shrill and accusatory, that’s usually a sign they are losing an argument and getting desperate.
Most terrorism in the world is sponsored by states, and specifically by the United States. Terrorism is political violence, not religious violence.
Most of the Muslims who are anti-American radicals are radicalized by the CIA to create boogeymen to keep people like you scared of external enemies so you are paranoid and compliant with the state. Go travel outside your country, and you’ll see that almost no where else in the world are people so paranoid of Muslims, or do not live side by side peacefully with Muslims.
There’s pro-Israel propaganda and there’s anti-Israel propaganda. Do you really think that all these left newspaper really care about Palestinians being killed? They don’t give a f…, the only reason they pretend to care is because the right is generally pro-Israel so it’s a chance they have to take a shot at the right, it’s all politics. If they cared about innocent people being killed they would be all over other countries that have been doing way worse stuff than Israel.
I just expect libertarians to be better than statists, to notice this and don’t get caught in this “let’s hate Israel campaign” perpetrated by the left.
Really? Why is that?
Do you think that if Israel were geographically located where Sweden is they’d be bombing Norway? Do you think that if the state of Sweden were established where Israel is today the Swedish government wouldn’t bombing Gaza?
I mean, a UN sponsored mob has just killed more than one thousand people in Yvory Cost some days ago, where are the display of righteousness of the Swedish government by threatening to pull out of the UN should they continue this massacre in Ivory Coast?
The state of Israel is doing what states do: they kill the dissidence until they vanish or put up with the existence of the state.
If I were to oppose the existence of the state of Israel due to their terrible human rights records I’d put a couple more states ahead of them, if I didn’t I’d consider myself either a hypocrite or left media brainwashed drone.
There is no such thing in America. You’re paranoid.
No, they’d be bombing Sweden.
I expect libertarians to be better than statists, and not fall for the false left-right paradigm.
I welcome this question…
Am I your God?
Are you posing that question to the proper entity?
How do your prayers answer you?
Who can testify for God?
go ahead, throw me a follow up question 
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
Except for all the countries where Muslim mobs carry out Jihad against the Infidel and other Muslims that they don’t consider Muslim enough.
Such as, (but by no means limited to) the Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey, and the famous Palestinian Territories.
Examples just recently include
| 2011.04.16 (Hawija, Iraq) - An al-Qaeda opponent is kidnapped, tortured and murdered. |
|---|
| 2011.04.16 (Galkayo, Somalia) - A government official is among three people dismantled by a bomb planted by Mujahideen. |
| 2011.04.16 (Azazga, Algeria) - Islamic fundamentalists assault a local security post, leaving at least 14 members dead. |
| 2011.04.16 (Laghman, Afghanistan) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills nine soldiers and a civilian. |
| 2011.04.15 (Budgam, India) - Islamists drag a female political candidate out of her home and shoot her to death. |
2011.04.15 (Maiduguri, Nigeria) - Boko Haram Islamists gun down two innocents. That’s just recently, this has been going on since the time of the Muhammed (pig shit be upon him) because he himself was a warlord and a Jihadist. Though most people are ignorant of Muhammad’s life so here’s a quick lesson on the origin of Jihad. “Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad’s message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam’s holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Qur’an adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad. It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad’s life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency. To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina (see MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims were Persecuted by the Meccans at Medina). Revelations “from Allah” were conveniently provided to Muhammad which allowed his people to murder innocent drivers and steal in his service (Ibn Ishaq 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property). Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459). (See alsoMYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives) The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad’s time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others. (See also MYTH: The Battle of Badr was Defensive).” |
Isn’t this thread supposed to be about Isreal? Why does any thread about Isreal have to turn into a thread about radical Islam?
It’s good to see a bunch of “libertarians” basically saying we should ban religous practice and crusade against the false-believers.
You can be against both Isreal and Hamas, you know?
And.. what “left” media in america.
LOL at use of abrogated verses.
INTRODUCTION
"The doctrine of abrogation, that one Quranic passage is canceled by another, has always been controversial. From the time that Muhammad introduced it, to this day, Muslims have been discussing and arguing its contexts, applications, and ramifications. This doctrine is significant because it affects how violence in Islam is applied. Thus this crucial aspect of Islamic theology must be understood in order to understand the reasoning behind violence in Islam.
A simple look at current world events shows that Islamic violence is the premier problem in the world. How many nations can you name that have not had a recent problem with Muslim fundamentalist violence? The important doctrine of abrogation undergirds the theological justification for much of that violence.
This doctrine also warrants scrutiny because it casts a “human” shadow upon God’s nature. Hence many Western Muslims are uncomfortable and reject the doctrine. And while most Muslims coming from traditional Islamic lands, ostensibly have no problems with it, their writings emit an aroma of doubt and embarrassment.
Muhammad (Ahmad) claimed that the angel Gabriel heard God’s word and repeated it to Muhammad. In turn Muhammad repeated it as the Quran. But during his 23 year career as a religious leader he forgot part of the Quran, and some Quranic verses contradicted others. Instructions, teachings, and doctrines were occasionally at odds. The lack of consistency, the contradictions, and the capricious light that it cast “Allah” in were obvious. Various people criticized Muhammad and to address these critics Muhammad said that some Quranic verses were replaced by others (2:106).
The contextual Islamic words for this topic are “Nasukh” meaning “that which abrogates”, and “Mansukh”, meaning “that which is abrogated”. Below are a few excerpts from various scholars’ statements on abrogation.
The great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote:
The Quran is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Quranic science known as “Nasikh wa Mansukh”, i.e.: “the Abrogators and the Abrogated”.[1]
The “Dictionary of Qur’anic Terms and Concepts”[2], pages 5, 6, says:
Quranic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Quran shows first, that only a limited number of Quranic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief.
The Hughes Dictionary of Islam[3] says:
Jalalu’d-Din in his ‘Itqan’ gives the following list of 20 verses, which are acknowledged by all commentators to be abrogated.
The reader is referred to the Hughes’ work for Jalalu’d Din’s concrete list of 20. I will provide a few later. A different Muslim scholar states that up to 500 verses are affected by abrogation.
Another Muslim writer, Mahmoud Ayoub, sums up the uncertainty by saying,
“Yet among Muslim scholars there is no general agreement as to what verses are abrogated and by what verses.”[4]
Now don’t be surprised if the early Muslims were confused. They should be. In fact, even Muhammad admitted that the Quran was confusing…
Bukhari 6. 70:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle recited the Verse:–
"It is He who has sent down to you the Book. In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundation of the Book, others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the Truth) follow thereof that is not entirely clear seeking affliction and searching for its hidden meanings; but no one knows its hidden meanings but Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it (i.e. in the Qur’an) the whole of it (i.e. its clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord. And none receive admonition except men of understanding.” (3.7)
Then Allah’s Apostle said, “If you see those who follow thereof that is not entirely clear, then they are those whom Allah has named [as having deviation (from the Truth)] 'So beware of them.”
Jay Smith sums up this monumental problem inherent in the Quran[5]:
We know that the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given Sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then can one know which were the more authoritative?
“Nasikh wa Mansukh” is not a black magic science and there is a lot of contextual material to use for reference. But it is impossible to be precise in many cases. Thus the disagreement and confusion even amongst devout Muslim scholars.
For those of you interested in this particular subject I suggest Richard Bell’s “Introduction to the Quran”[6]. Bell discusses the topic and provides a number of abrogations throughout his book. He went so far as to even re-splice the Quran and come up with a new arrangement of Suras and verses.
Some Muslims claim that there are no Quranic verses that abrogate other Quranic verses, but that the Quran only abrogates other Scriptures. This position is untenable. We will see that Muhammad believed that some Quranic verses were cancelled or removed and that the early Muslims understood abrogation explicitly as one Quranic verse replacing or canceling another.
QURANIC VERSES SUPPORTING THE DOCTRINE OF ABROGATION
Here are the actual Quranic verses that reference abrogation. All quotes are from Dawood’s English Translation of the Quran.[7]
2:106: “If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar…”
13:39: “God abrogates and confirms what He pleases. His is the Decree Eternal.”
17:86: “If We pleased We could take away that which We have revealed to you:..”
16:101 "When We change one verse for another (God knows best what He reveals), they say: “You are an impostor…”
22:52: “Never have we sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations.”
This last verse is connected to what are known as the “Satanic Verses”. At one time Muhammad compromised with paganism and spoke a quranic “revelation” allowing idol worship. Later he said that God showed him he had been tricked by Satan and spoke Satan’s words. His revelation allowing idol worship was then removed from the recital of the Quran, and another put in its place. You can read more about the Satanic verses here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm
LIST OF ABROGATING / ABROGATED QURANIC VERSES
There are many cases of abrogation but for lack of space I limit my selection.
“Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. God has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by God’s will, defeat two thousand. God is with those that are steadfast.” Sura 8:65, 66.
- In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the “Qibla”, the direction of prayer, from Jerusalem to Mecca.
- The change of punishment for adulteresses: life imprisonment (according to sura 4:15) was then changed to 100 strokes by flogging (according to sura 24:2). Yet, Islamic law prescribes stoning, based on the practice of Muhammad who commanded to stone those guilty of adultery. The punishment of stoning for adultery is seen as either an example of abrogation of the Quran by the Sunna, or as an example of a verse of which the reading has been abrogated (removed from the text of the Quran) but the meaning remains in force.[8] On the other hand, verses 4:15 and 24:2 are abrogated in meaning while the text remains in the Quran for recitation.
- The fighting ability of victory for Muslims is also abrogated by one verse following the next…
- The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). All of these contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256). Note here that sura 9 was one of the last suras to be “revealed to Muhammad”. Logically, it should abrogate “there is no compulsion in Islam”.
- The night prayer performed by reciting the Quran ought to be more or less half the time of the night (Sura 73:2). This was changed to as much as may be easy for you (verse 20).
EXAMPLES OF ABROGATION FROM ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS
EXAMPLES FROM BUKHARI’S AND MUSLIM’S COLLECTIONS
Bukhari’s[9] and Muslim’s[10] Hadith collections contain a number of examples of abrogation. These also illustrate the confusion, from the earliest days of Islam, concerning abrogation. For example, conflicting hadith discussing abrogation are related to Sura 2:184 and 2:185. The verses are concerned with fasting, two Hadith say verse 185 abrogated verse 184, (Volume 6, # 33, 34), while one Hadith says it was not abrogated (volume 6, #32), see below.
Bukhari 6. 32:
Narrated 'Ata:
That he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting the Divine Verse:–
“And for those who can fast they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day…” (2.184) Ibn 'Abbas said, “This Verse is not abrogated, but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting).”
Bukhari 6. 34:
Narrated Salama:
When the Divine Revelation:
“For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day,” (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it.
Bukhari 6. 53:
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:
I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse:-- “Those of you who die and leave wives …” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur’an)?” 'Uthman said. “O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.”
Bukhari 6. 69:
Narrated Marwan Al-Asghar:
A man from the companions of Allah’s Apostle who I think, was Ibn 'Umar said, “The Verse:-- “Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it…” was abrogated by the Verse following it.”
Bukhari 6.285:
Narrated Al-Qasim bin Abi Bazza:
That he asked Said bin Jubair, “Is there any repentance of the one who has murdered a believer intentionally?” Then I recited to him:–
“Nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden except for a just cause.” Said said, “I recited this very Verse before Ibn 'Abbas as you have recited it before me. Ibn 'Abbas said, 'This Verse was revealed in Mecca and it has been abrogated by a Verse in Surat-An-Nisa which was later revealed in Medina.”
Muslim, Number 0675:
Abu al. ‘Ala’ b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur’an abrogates some part with the other.
Muslim, Number 3421:
'A’isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).
Muslim, Number 7173:
Sa’id b. Jubair reported: I said to Ibn Abbas: Will the repentance of that person be accepted who kills a believer intentionally? He said: No. I recited to him this verse of Sura al-Furqan (xix.): “And those who call not upon another god with Allah and slay not the soul which Allah has forbidden except in the cause of justice” to the end of the verse. He said: This is a Meccan verse which has been abrogated by a verse revealed at Medina: “He who slays a believer intentionally, for him is the requital of Hell-Fire where he would abide for ever,” and in the narration of Ibn Hisham (the words are): I recited to him this verse of Sura al-Furqan: “Except one who made repentance.”
EXAMPLE OF ABROGATION FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH[11]
From Guillaume, “The Life of Muhammad”, page 326:
Then He said: “O prophet, God is sufficient for thee and the believers who follow thee. O prophet, exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast ones among you they will overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they will overcome a thousand unbelievers for they are a senseless people,” i.e. they do not fight with a good intention nor for truth nor have they knowledge of what is good and what is evil.
‘Abdullah b. Abu Najih from ‘Ata’ b. Abu Ribah from ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas told me that when this verse came down it came as a shock to the Muslims who took it hard that twenty should have to fight two hundred and a hundred fight a thousand. So God relieved them and cancelled the verse with another saying: “Now has God relieved you and He knows that there is weakness amongst you, so if there are a hundred steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you they shall overcome two thousand by God’s permission, for God is with the steadfast.”
ABROGATION FROM IBN SA’D[12], VOLUME 2, PAGE 441
Ibn Sa’d collected hadith related to various companions. Concerning Ibn Mas’ud he said:
Verily the Quran was recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah once in every Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or altered.
COMMENT
It’s clear that the Companions of Muhammad were taught the concept of abrogation from Muhammad for they uniformly applied it in the same manner: one verse canceling out another. In these examples there are no references to other Scriptures or other religions, but rather it is an internal-to-Islam discussion. Note that during Muhammad’s final year he had the Quran recited to him twice by Gabriel and then reviewed the changes with Ibn Mas’ud. There were enough crucial changes made that last year that Muhammad needed to teach them to his top Quranic disciple - Ibn Mas’ud."
Because you can’t discuss the Israeli-Palistinian conflict with total intellectual honesty without discussing the motivations of the parties involved. This means a discussion of Islam is bound to come up.
There is no such thing as total intellectual honesty. Everyone has a bias. The reason why Islam comes up, because without demonizing Islam, no one could make any argument for Israel.
@Zinn, these aren’t libertarians.
Of course everyone has a bias. I don’t think this precludes intellectual honesty. Ludwig Von Mises, was biased against socialism but he gave it a fair critique.
Because you can’t discuss the Israeli-Palistinian conflict with total intellectual honesty without discussing the motivations of the parties involved. This means a discussion of Islam is bound to come up
A state made up by fairly recent colonists and legitimized by far off cultures establishes itself in your region kills your people and relegates them to small camps. We can discuss the ideologies of the conquered, sure. But the thread is about the conquerors and their legitimacy. So by bringing up the conquered, what are you trying to say? Isreal has a right to exist because someone has to keep those muslims in line? I don’t get the point.
I said earlier in the thread that I didn’t support the rebuilding of Israel. I’m just pointing out that two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel is there now and has been the victim of Muslim aggression for decades. Raining rockets down on Israeli is no more justified than the creation of said state to begin with.
Is it aggression or defense? Israel is the one who conquered Palestine.
Don’t compare yourself to Mises. He was able to make value free arguments against Socialism.
Libertarians don’t make excuses for the state, aggression or occupation. The sad thing is, the Israelis treat the Palestinians not unlike how they were treated in Germany. Learned oppression. It makes it hard to feel sympathy for the holocaust, when Israelis are committing genocide against Palestinians.
FYI, Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived side by side in the middle east for centuries before Israel was formed. It was Europe where intolerance of Jews was at a high level.
LOL at historical ignorance.
At the beginning of WWI, most of the Middle East belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Muslim control of the region had been nearly constant since Mohammad’s armies subjugated the Jews and Christians in the seventh century – punctuated only by 150 years of Crusader opposition.
BTW Jews were treated like shit in the Ottoman empire. They, (like all non-muslims) were subject to a number of degradations. They had to step off the sidewalk to let Muslims pass. They had to wear yellow stars on their clothing to designate them as Jews, (Hitler didn’t come up with that. Umar the second caliph of Islam did) They couldn’t hold positions of authority over Muslims. They weren’t allowed to build new synagogs or repair the old ones. They had to pay the non-muslim tax known as the Jizya. They lived in subjugation and inequality as the Koran commands.
Qur’an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad handed down. Thus being superior to all peaceful verses.
“Muhammad very clearly established that people of other religions have to pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya, as a reminder of their inferior status. This abrogates an earlier verse stating that there is “no compulsion in religion” and destroys any pretense that Islam is merely a religion and not a political system.”
Muslims weren’t taught oppression by Israel, they were taught it by Muhammed.
The following is the Pact of Umar which lists some of the shit non-belivers had/have to deal with in Islamic polities.
Pact of Umar Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
- We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
- We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
- We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
- We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
- We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
- We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
- We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
- We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
- We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
- We shall not sell fermented drinks.
- We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
- We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
- We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
- We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
- We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
- We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
- If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”
So yeah, the idea that Jews were treated like equals and there was low anti-semitism in Islamic polities is bullshit.
Also use of the term Genocide to describe the Israelis treatment of the Palestinians demeans those who were victims of actual Genocide. Like the Armenians in Turkey which was perpetrated by Muslims.
Yes, to reiterate, how on earth did all those Eastern Jewish people get along just fine under Sultans, Caliphs, mullahs, and Emirs for more than one thousand years?
And how on earth did a small bunch of Russian, Hungarian, Polish, and German migrants make it all so irreversibly bad, even for their eastern brethren?
Maybe the question itself is wrong, but tell me so.