Tolerence?
Sorry, I forgot to address the beginning of your post in which you said...
nkgupta80 said:
Montalban:
Like wim00 said, Islam transformed these peoples' once pitiful rivalling "states" into a bustling cohesive empire. And if what you and your say about Muhammad's evil intolerant ways is what the Koran's really about, then why were these great Islam-based empires considered to be the most tolerant and progressive of the time? Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, and Cordoba were common places where you could find Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together peacefully. Muslim scholars, for hundreds of years, preserved and learned from the pagan literature of the Greeks and Romans.
"The religious oppression of the state in the period under the Umayyads and Abbasids - regarded as the "Golden Age" - began under Abd al-Malik"
Ye'or, B (1996), "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude", p84
Islam burst out of the Arabian peninsula right at the time when the two 'super-powers' of the region; the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire had just exhausted themselves after a 30 year war. The Persian Empire succumbed straight away, and the Roman Empire lost the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt to Christians and Jews who actually welcomed the invaders - because of several reasons
a) they had been placed under a huge tax burden in order to pay for that war
b) their own areas had been the battleground for that war
c) there was a sizeable Christian group who had little love for "Orthodox" Christianity since their break from it in the 400s.
The Muslims found themselves in control of areas long since civilised. They were a minority rule over a majority and had no recourse but to 'tolerate' the majority; they created a 'special' legal status to the peoples they had conquered; calling them 'dhimmi'. This meant that the 'shimmy's had to pay a special tax, wear special clothing, and be subject to different rules of law; such as the fact that no Muslim could be condemned on the testimony of a non-Muslim - because the 'oath' of a non-Muslim was deemed invalid. They created further laws that forbid non-Muslims from seeking converts. Anyone was 'free' to convert to Islam. But the conversion
from Islam was punishable by death. Many churches were closed or converted to Mosques. The law was used to forbid the building of new churches, and repairs on existing churches was severely curtailed. Thus the 'tolerance's you speak of is relative. Conversion to Islam meant that one would gain equality before the law, and not have to pay the special tax.
"The concept of toleration is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields, imposed by the shari'a on the dhimmis. The transgression by the dhimmis of some of these obligations, abolished their protection, and threaten them with death or slavery. Dhimmis suffered many legal disabilities intended to reduce them to a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination. These rules, established from the eight to nine centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim's community's social behavior toward dhimmis."
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.php
Muhammad personally lead armies into battle. He ordered the execution of PoWs. He ordered political enemies to be killed.
He had letters sent to all the major cities warning them that he was on his way to defeat them, unless they submitted, that is, became Mohammedans.
http://www.san.beck.org/AB13-MuhammadandIslam.html
) I happen to believe that they are all from God but didnt mention it at the time. No one better than another, but some more appropriate for the time and place.
