Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49039
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1140 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:02am

The Romans were richer and had a bigger economy. Atmospheric records (and other evidence) show significant mining and smelting happening. The levels did not return to these until after the industrial revolution started. It's the same with ship wrecks, which are an indicator of sea trade, urbanisation, etc. Human development indices show a significant rise and fall for the Roman Empire. The Caliphate does not even register. For all the potential, it produced almost nothing. It froze societies in time.

Muslims like to pretend the Caliphate was politically inclusive by pointing out a few isolated examples, but the fact is that it was a top-down religious dictatorship. To have any say at all you had to be a Muslim, and even then you could only get away with pushing a very narrow Islamist agenda. Jews and Christians were offered 'protected' status, not equality.

The strength of the Roman (and also Venetian) empires was their political and economic inclusiveness.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Lord Herbert Gold Member Offline Posts: 34441 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #1141 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:06am An oppressive and taxing dhimmitude was a stock feature of Islamic imperialism.
Back to top	IP Logged

\|dev\|null Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4434 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #1142 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 12:09pm Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:06am: An oppressive and taxing dhimmitude was a stock feature of Islamic imperialism. Was it? Sensei, please provide some evidence!
Back to top	"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013. "we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions." Freediver, 2007. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49039 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #1143 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 12:36pm One group that surrendered to Muhammed lost all their rights, land and possessions. In his great Mercy, Muhammed allowed them to work the newly acquired Muslim land, and only taxed them at 50%. In return, Muhammed allowed them to live.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95783
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1144 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 1:11pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:23am:

elaborate on what you mean by "vastly outdid the Caliphate economically" please.

And no, the islamic caliphate was one of the most politically inclusive civilization the world has ever seen - far more so than the Romans. Just one example, when Jerusalem was conquered from the Romans in the 7th century, the islamic rulers immediately allowed the jews and christians back in after centuries of exclusion, and given autonomy over their jurisdictions.

How is it that these beginnings ended up with 32 Muslim countries now having the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam?

Which 32 Muslim countries now have the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam, Herbie?

Is it even worth me asking this question, or should I just expect no reply?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95783
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1145 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 1:24pm

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:02am:

The Romans were richer and had a bigger economy. Atmospheric records (and other evidence) show significant mining and smelting happening. The levels did not return to these until after the industrial revolution started. It's the same with ship wrecks, which are an indicator of sea trade, urbanisation, etc. Human development indices show a significant rise and fall for the Roman Empire. The Caliphate does not even register. For all the potential, it produced almost nothing. It froze societies in time.

Muslims like to pretend the Caliphate was politically inclusive by pointing out a few isolated examples, but the fact is that it was a top-down religious dictatorship. To have any say at all you had to be a Muslim, and even then you could only get away with pushing a very narrow Islamist agenda. Jews and Christians were offered 'protected' status, not equality.

The strength of the Roman (and also Venetian) empires was their political and economic inclusiveness.

That's strange, FD. For someone so interested in Freeeedom, how do you account for the fact that the economy of the Roman Empire was based on slavery?

Like our reliance on fossil fuels to power our economy, Rome was based on human energy. Even its ships were powered by slaves.

I'm not sure Venice would qualify as an empire. It was a city state with a trade hegemony - based on its ports and its nexus between Europe and the Middle East.

An empire, I think, requires a political-economic system in itself. By this measure, I'd be reluctant to include the respective Dutch and British global trade hegemonies as empires.

Rome, however, fits the bill perfectly. The economic system of Rome was based on military power and slavery.

I'm not sure we can say the same for the Ottomans.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1146 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:50pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:23am:

elaborate on what you mean by "vastly outdid the Caliphate economically" please.

And no, the islamic caliphate was one of the most politically inclusive civilization the world has ever seen - far more so than the Romans. Just one example, when Jerusalem was conquered from the Romans in the 7th century, the islamic rulers immediately allowed the jews and christians back in after centuries of exclusion, and given autonomy over their jurisdictions.

How is it that these beginnings ended up with 32 Muslim countries now having the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam?

Which 32 Muslim countries now have the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam, Herbie?

Is it even worth me asking this question, or should I just expect no reply?

Afghanistan and Iran leap to mind. Look it up for yourself, PB.

Under traditional Islamic law an apostate may be given a waiting period while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations.[3] This traditional view of Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqhs, or schools of jurisprudence each with their own interpretation of Sharia, varies as follows:[15][16][59]
Hanafi - recommends three days of imprisonment before execution, although the delay before killing the Muslim apostate is not mandatory. Apostates who are men must be killed, states the Hanafi Sunni fiqh, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam.[3]
Maliki - allows up to ten days for recantation, after which the apostate must be killed. Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh.[59]
Shafi'i - waiting period of three days is required to allow the Muslim apostate to repent and return to Islam. After the wait, execution is the traditional recommended punishment for both men and women apostates.[59]
Hanbali - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted. Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates.[59]
Ja'fari - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted according to this Shia fiqh. Male apostate must be executed, states the Jafari fiqh, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every day at the hours of the ṣalāh, till she repents and returns to Islam.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

How many criminalise apostasy and of those how many punish it by death is the question you should ask, PB.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1147 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 5:09pm

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:02am:

The Romans were richer and had a bigger economy. Atmospheric records (and other evidence) show significant mining and smelting happening. The levels did not return to these until after the industrial revolution started. It's the same with ship wrecks, which are an indicator of sea trade, urbanisation, etc. Human development indices show a significant rise and fall for the Roman Empire. The Caliphate does not even register. For all the potential, it produced almost nothing. It froze societies in time.

Can you cite any sort of quantitative evidence for the Romans being "richer" and having a "bigger economy"? The claim about ship-wrecks and declining trade I daresay you pulled out of your arse - but then again the muslims never controlled all or even most of the Mediterranean as the Romans did.

With the exception of Spain, all the Roman mining areas were never part of the Islamic caliphate. I daresay the arabs controlled less resource-rich areas than the Romans.

What the muslims did do however was develop a rich trading and commercial system which was heavily based on innovation, education and (religiously inspired) free thinking (ijtihad). Life expectancy for the entire population rose from 25-30 in Roman and Christian European society to over 35 - and thats everyone, muslim and non-muslim. Literacy rates were at levels not seen since the time of ancient Athens. The modern banking and credit systems were largely developed during the Islamic golden age - greatly aided by the introduction of paper into the west from China.

All pre-industrial economies were primarily agrarian economies, and it is generally agreed that muslim innovation led to vastly superior agricultural techniques than the European Christians during the islamic golden age.

Quote:

Muslims like to pretend the Caliphate was politically inclusive by pointing out a few isolated examples, but the fact is that it was a top-down religious dictatorship. To have any say at all you had to be a Muslim, and even then you could only get away with pushing a very narrow Islamist agenda. Jews and Christians were offered 'protected' status, not equality.

The dhimitude system was not an "isolated example", it was universal. And it was the most inclusive system the world had seen to date. Even slaves could enjoy a status level not seen by any other slave-society, and in addition the opportunity for emancipation systemetised and hereditary slaves not being allowed.

The Jerusalem example (both times) was generally the rule not the exception: while christian armies routinely slaughtered or force-converted their conquered subjects, the muslim conquerors gave their subjects a status and level of autonomy that was almost certainly never seen in the history of civilization.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95783
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1148 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 5:21pm

Soren wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:23am:

elaborate on what you mean by "vastly outdid the Caliphate economically" please.

And no, the islamic caliphate was one of the most politically inclusive civilization the world has ever seen - far more so than the Romans. Just one example, when Jerusalem was conquered from the Romans in the 7th century, the islamic rulers immediately allowed the jews and christians back in after centuries of exclusion, and given autonomy over their jurisdictions.

How is it that these beginnings ended up with 32 Muslim countries now having the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam?

Which 32 Muslim countries now have the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam, Herbie?

Is it even worth me asking this question, or should I just expect no reply?

Afghanistan and Iran leap to mind. Look it up for yourself, PB.

Under traditional Islamic law an apostate may be given a waiting period while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations.[3] This traditional view of Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqhs, or schools of jurisprudence each with their own interpretation of Sharia, varies as follows:[15][16][59]
Hanafi - recommends three days of imprisonment before execution, although the delay before killing the Muslim apostate is not mandatory. Apostates who are men must be killed, states the Hanafi Sunni fiqh, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam.[3]
Maliki - allows up to ten days for recantation, after which the apostate must be killed. Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh.[59]
Shafi'i - waiting period of three days is required to allow the Muslim apostate to repent and return to Islam. After the wait, execution is the traditional recommended punishment for both men and women apostates.[59]
Hanbali - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted. Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates.[59]
Ja'fari - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted according to this Shia fiqh. Male apostate must be executed, states the Jafari fiqh, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every day at the hours of the ṣalāh, till she repents and returns to Islam.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

How many criminalise apostasy and of those how many punish it by death is the question you should ask, PB.

I looked it up, old boy. Afghanistan and Iran do not proscribe the death penalty for apostasy.

32 countries to go, dear chap.

Carry on.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49039
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1149 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm

Quote:

Can you cite any sort of quantitative evidence for the Romans being "richer" and having a "bigger economy"?

The book 'Why the West Rules - For Now' goes over a lot of it. The author comes up with 4 separate indices of human development that show consistent trends.

I put a summary here, including a plot of the combined indices for 'east' and 'west'. It also goes over a lot of the earlier empires that we have discussed.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1404336014

The theory that economic and political inclusiveness is the driver of success is covered in 'Why Nations Fail,' which goes into more detail about the politics of the Roman Empire. The term 'inclusiveness' is used a broader catch-all for freedom and democracy, to account for earlier examples (eg, the Roman Empire) that cannot be classed as free or democratic, but which nevertheless achieved remarkable success by being more inclusive.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1394832229

I suggest you continue this discussion in one of those two threads.

Quote:

The claim about ship-wrecks and declining trade I daresay you pulled out of your arse

See the first link.

Quote:

With the exception of Spain, all the Roman mining areas were never part of the Islamic caliphate. I daresay the arabs controlled less resource-rich areas than the Romans.

LOL.

Quote:

What the muslims did do however was develop a rich trading and commercial system which was heavily based on innovation, education and (religiously inspired) free thinking (ijtihad)

ie, killing pagans and getting rid of Jewish bankers. It was about as innovative as communism, and the dire straights of traditional Muslim economies today reflects this. Putting it all in one massive empire to facilitate internal trade (and tax the east-west trade route) was the main driver of the little success they had, and was hardly novel. It was the goal of just about every king and dictator in history.

Quote:

Literacy rates were at levels not seen since the time of ancient Athens.

Wow, they almost surpassed a previous ancient empire on this one. Keep digging Gandalf, you'll find something eventually.

Quote:

The modern banking and credit systems were largely developed during the Islamic golden age - greatly aided by the introduction of paper into the west from China.

Islam forbids usury. There is nothing modern about it.

Quote:

The dhimitude system was not an "isolated example", it was universal. And it was the most inclusive system the world had seen to date.

Crap. None of the people involved, not even the Muslims who were supposedly on top of the heap, had any say in government. Muhammed came up with the model, and that was it for eternity. Even today we see ISIS trying to return to that model. Political inclusiveness means actually having a say in how the place was run. The Roman Empire expanded this far beyond what was typical for the time, and benefited greatly while that system lasted. The Caliphate does not even come close. Only Muslims could aspire to be Caliph, only other Muslims could have a say in who won (by killing people) and the only platform you could run on was Sharia Law. The protests and killings in the name of Islamic backwardness that we see around the world today show what was inevitable for anyone who tried any genuine political reform.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1150 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:47pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:23am:

elaborate on what you mean by "vastly outdid the Caliphate economically" please.

And no, the islamic caliphate was one of the most politically inclusive civilization the world has ever seen - far more so than the Romans. Just one example, when Jerusalem was conquered from the Romans in the 7th century, the islamic rulers immediately allowed the jews and christians back in after centuries of exclusion, and given autonomy over their jurisdictions.

How is it that these beginnings ended up with 32 Muslim countries now having the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam?

Which 32 Muslim countries now have the death penalty for anyone renouncing Islam, Herbie?

Is it even worth me asking this question, or should I just expect no reply?

Afghanistan and Iran leap to mind. Look it up for yourself, PB.

Under traditional Islamic law an apostate may be given a waiting period while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations.[3] This traditional view of Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqhs, or schools of jurisprudence each with their own interpretation of Sharia, varies as follows:[15][16][59]
Hanafi - recommends three days of imprisonment before execution, although the delay before killing the Muslim apostate is not mandatory. Apostates who are men must be killed, states the Hanafi Sunni fiqh, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam.[3]
Maliki - allows up to ten days for recantation, after which the apostate must be killed. Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh.[59]
Shafi'i - waiting period of three days is required to allow the Muslim apostate to repent and return to Islam. After the wait, execution is the traditional recommended punishment for both men and women apostates.[59]
Hanbali - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted. Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates.[59]
Ja'fari - waiting period not necessary, but may be granted according to this Shia fiqh. Male apostate must be executed, states the Jafari fiqh, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every day at the hours of the ṣalāh, till she repents and returns to Islam.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

How many criminalise apostasy and of those how many punish it by death is the question you should ask, PB.

I looked it up, old boy. Afghanistan and Iran do not proscribe the death penalty for apostasy.

32 countries to go, dear chap.

Carry on.

Exactly. They do not proscribe the death penalty.

Proscribe means forbid, PB.

Prescribe, on the other hand means ordering something:
Afghanistan
Article 130 of the Afghan Constitution requires its courts to apply provisions of Hanafi Sunni fiqh for crimes of apostasy in Islam. Article 1 of the Afghan Penal Code requires hudud crimes be punished per Hanafi religious jurisprudence. Prevailing Hanafi jurisprudence, per consensus of its school of Islamic scholars, prescribes death penalty for the crime of apostasy.

Iran
According to US think tank Freedom House, since the 1990s the Islamic Republic of Iran has sometimes used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the regime has engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam.
15 ex-Muslim Christians[140] were incarcerated on 15 May 2008 under charges of apostasy. They may face the death penalty if convicted. A new penal code is being proposed in Iran that would require the death penalty in cases of apostasy on the Internet.

Next time you look up something do what Michael Strogoff would have advised you, PB: Look with all your eyes, look!

And don't be an a***'ole all your life who looks but will not see.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49039
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1151 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:00pm

Back to the original topic, apparently we need to be more respectful of the terrorists' feelings:

cods wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 6:46am:

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 10:10am:

are they ridiculing him soren?...

Well, they are picking their noses behind his back in the second pic....

Did the Danish cartoons ridicule him?

http://pamelageller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/danish_muslim_cartoons.jpg

How many were killed over these images?

the Danes didnt keep printing when they were asked to stop... as far as I know...

CHarlie was warned....

you see someone people take offence its the way they are...and as far as I know its their right to be offended..

if someone called you and Fn Idiot...you could be offended..

the next guy could fall about laughing....

we are not all the same.. but you have a right to be offended and if you landed one on the guy you could say you were provoked into doing it.. because he called you an Fn Idiot..AND YOU DIDNT LIKE IT...

we are not all the same I think thats great to be honest..

and its time we respected others.. we dont have to like them or love them.. but we should respect their feelings...

and I dont think that should be so hard to do..

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1152 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:07pm

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

I suggest you continue this discussion in one of those two threads.

You brought up the comparison of islam and Rome here, it is not mentioned anywhere in the thread you linked. The thread in questions has nothing to do with that. You'll have to explain to me where all this quantitative evidence that the islamic caliphate's economy paled in comparison to the Roman empire economy, and your ship-wreck data and so forth that supposedly proves all this.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

ie, killing pagans and getting rid of Jewish bankers.

Try expanding your mind for once and consider that the Islamic caliphate didn't consist of Muhammad or his rule, and in fact it consisted of about 5 centuries of Muhammad *NOT* ruling.

Pagans and jews were, for the most part, allowed to participate in the economy of the Islamic empire, and proved to be an integral part of it. You clowns stumble between accusing muslims of wholesale slaughter and persecution of jews on the one hand, and capitalising on their wealth and ingenuity on the other. Just ask Soren - according to him none of the great "Islamic" scholars were muslim. I think even you tried to pull that one on me. Well, if the real drivers of the Islamic empire really were non-muslims, then you can't really stand there and claim it was non-inclusive of non-muslims can you?

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Wow, they almost surpassed a previous ancient empire on this one. Keep digging Gandalf, you'll find something eventually.

Literacy rates were about the best the world had ever seen. So was life expectancy. They also had the greatest cities and learning centres the world had ever seen - including the world's largest and most prosperous city, at one point, built literally from scratch - by the muslims. Apparently such achievements were possible in an empire that was economically inconsequential Tongue

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Crap. None of the people involved, not even the Muslims who were supposedly on top of the heap, had any say in government. Muhammed came up with the model, and that was it for eternity.

Did he FD? Would you mind quoting me this "model" he set out?

Actually, if you knew anything about Islam you'd know that one of the defining characteristics of the "islamic" system of government, is that there was no "model" handed down by Muhammad to his successors. In fact he didn't even name a successor. And yet, the funny thing is, the caliph's quickly moved from a centrally run near-autocracy to a model of far more distributed power, where local administrators had far more autonomy in the day-to-day running of their local jurisdictions. And yes, these local administrations were highly inclusive of the local population - including non-muslims. The empire also had a political atmosphere that was highly conducive to rigorous debates and criticism of leadership.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

The Roman Empire expanded this far beyond what was typical for the time, and benefited greatly while that system lasted. The Caliphate does not even come close.

I'm afraid you'll have to justify this claim by explaining your understanding of the Roman system. Yes, citizenship was (eventually) fairly liberally handed out (though I hasten to add, by the time it had become the most liberal, the empire was already in advanced decline), and as such they enjoyed rights and protection under the law. Yet, you are not going to come up with many ways this was practically more beneficial for the individuals involved than the islamic system of dhimitude. Dhimis also had full protection under the law, and had a large degree of autonomy to administer themselves.

You'll have to do a lot better than simply parroting the same line "The Caliphate does not even come close" with nothing to quantify it by.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49039
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1153 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:38pm

Quote:

Try expanding your mind for once and consider that the Islamic caliphate didn't consist of Muhammad or his rule, and in fact it consisted of about 5 centuries of Muhammad *NOT* ruling.

With all the political inclusiveness going on, how much fundamental political reform went on while this was happening? As far as I can tell, they spent the whole 500 years trying to emulate Muhammed's example as closely as possible and killing anyone who suggested otherwise.

Quote:

Pagans and jews were, for the most part, allowed to participate in the economy of the Islamic empire

Wow, so generous. They were also (for the most part) allowed to live.

Quote:

You clowns stumble between accusing muslims of wholesale slaughter and persecution of jews on the one hand, and capitalising on their wealth and ingenuity on the other.

There is no contradiction here Gandalf. They did all three. It's why even at the height of it's greatness, the Caliphate does not register on the human devlopment index. Abu explained it quite clearly. They had a choice of slaughtering them, kicking them out, or allowing them to stay and taxing them.

Quote:

Well, if the real drivers of the Islamic empire really were non-muslims, then you can't really stand there and claim it was non-inclusive of non-muslims can you?

Sure I can. It merely means it happened despite their treatment of non-Muslims, not because of it. The oppressed all the innovation out of the converts, and most of it out of the non-Muslims, and were left with a great empire that froze society in time, politically and economically.

Quote:

And yes, these local administrations were highly inclusive of the local population - including non-muslims. The empire also had a political atmosphere that was highly conducive to rigorous debates and criticism of leadership.

Crap. This is no different to your efforts at reinterpreting the anti-freedom protestors in the other thread, with the added advantage of centuries of time passed. Even when Muslims are alive today and telling you straight how backward they are you cannot see it.

Having the ear of your local oppressor is not the same thing as going to Mecca and participating in setting the direction of the entire empire.

Quote:

I'm afraid you'll have to justify this claim by explaining your understanding of the Roman system. Yes, citizenship was (eventually) fairly liberally handed out (though I hasten to add, by the time it had become the most liberal, the empire was already in advanced decline)

The decline started after it turned into a tyranny.

Quote:

Yet, you are not going to come up with many ways this was practically more beneficial for the individuals involved than the islamic system of dhimitude. Dhimis also had full protection under the law, and had a large degree of autonomy to administer themselves.

It's called political inclusiveness Gandalf - a concept your are yet to get your head around. It means having a genuine say in how the place was run. Not just having the ear of your local oppressor.

Quote:

You'll have to do a lot better than simply parroting the same line "The Caliphate does not even come close" with nothing to quantify it by.

The link I gave previously has a graph of the combined development index. If that is not quantifying it, I don't know what is. That is what happens when you actually take a look at history objectively, rather than declaring the Caliphate the greatest empire ever, on the grounds that Muslims have been saying it is the greatest empire ever, since Muhammed slaughtered his first tribe of Jews.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1154 - Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:52pm

Aaand in texbook FD fashion, operation obfuscate the main issue, is in full swing.

Can you please address the relevant points FD:

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

The Roman empire vastly outdid the Caliphate economically and on political inclusiveness.

This is entirely meaningless unless you can provide some sort of quantitative data for the claim. You responded by giving some BS reference to evidence on historic mining and smelting activity and mentioning some book, and a thread about the book in which none of: a) comparative Roman and Caliphate economy b) caliphate c) muslims and d) islam - is even mentioned. I am particularly interested in your vague reference to ship wreck data as somehow "proving" Roman sea trading activity was larger than sea trading under the Roman empire.

I'm guessing the book you referred to didn't even remotely hint that Rome "vastly outdid" the caliphate economically and on political inclusiveness amright?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged