The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> part 3

part 3
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Monday, August 27 2007, 21:45:11 (CEST)
from 71.116.101.196 - pool-71-116-101-196.snfcca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

“The ‘non-believers’ shared neither the rights nor the responsibilities of the Umma (Islamic nation, mine). Moreover, because the state was built on Islamic foundations, Islamic law could not apply equally to both Muslims and non-Muslims; indeed, that might infringe on the latter’s right to practice their own religion, since the laws of the Islamic state were religious laws. It was the duty of the state, however, to protect non-Muslim subjects…their life, property, the freedom to worship their own religion and to govern themselves in accordance with their own laws.”

The Nestorians and Monophysites were considered heretical sects by orthodox Christianity and as such had no rights whatsoever in Christian lands…not only that but they were subject to imprisonment, torture, confiscation and death. By contrast, under Muslim rule they were not forced to adopt the dominant religion of their rulers but were allowed to practice their Christian beliefs in peace and security…something only the Muslims allowed them.


“As a conquering people, the Muslims automatically enjoyed the upper social status, their only merit being their demonstrated military prowess. By most counts, the Muslims were comparatively more humane and more tolerant than most conquerors. The Christians were sometimes oppressed by some fanatical local governor, or had their homes sacked by a jealous Muslim rabble in moments of popular commotion when even their churches and monasteries were plundered.”

As lamentable as this is it was nothing unusual in any land at any time. Christians behaved this same way even towards other Christians so it should not be fretted over as something peculiar or rampant in Islam and Islam alone.



“In time the Christians accepted their lot, for they were not forced to give up what they held holy”

It has to be said time and again that had they remained under Christian rule they would not only have been forced to forfeit what “they held holy” but their property and lives as well. Under the Muslims, even with the disabilities they suffered at times, they were at least able to cling to and pass on their cherished beliefs.

Whatever condemnation we may wish to apply to the Muslims for their, at times, maltreatment of their Christian subjects, we have to keep reminding ourselves that they would have fared far worse under Christian rule. This is the dirty secret our religio/nationalists wish to keep hidden, claiming that Islam has dedicated itself to stamping them out, when it was Christian orthodoxy that set its heart on their extermination while Islam, quite literally, saved them.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 2984
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Christians_Muslim_realtions_chapter_2_part_one-1Xav.2UXi.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9