If Islam is such an intolerant religion, why are there multiple

Zoroastrians faced heavy persecutions when Umar conquered Persia.
Also, remember Jizya, which in early Islamic history was a very large source of income.

>>1662939

Christians were mostly converting Pagans and Pagan religions generally don't fare well when confronted with organized religion. Besides, converting to Christianity gave lots of practical advantage to Pagan kings. Namely gave them access to far more civilized and stable government forms.

When Christians conquered some land already inhabited by adherents of organized religions, they more often than not failed to convert them. And mostly they didn't even try too hard. Look at Southern Philippines, India, all those Muslim states in Asia and Africa etc. There was never an organized state effort to convert those areas and numbers of Christians there are minimal.

Islam on the other hand, occupied huge areas already inhabited by adherents of organized religions, then slowly annihilated them.

>>1662939
>Zoroastrians, Coptic Christians, Yazidis, Kalash and Druze, traditional African beliefs as well as Jews

Look at demographics. Those religions are moribound in Muslim countries, save maybe for Copts in Egypt and Meronites in Lebanon. Some, like Kalasha, number just hundreds. We are simply witnessing the final phase of their existence.

>>1663012
Jizyah is similar to Zakaat, in the sense everyone pays a portion of their income. Jizyah was zakaat for non-Muslims.

And clearly persecution wasn't incredibly prevalent considering it took centuries for Iran to become majority Muslim. Often, we find Shi'a clergy exaggerating the violence of Umar et al against our forefathers (as Iranians) to create hatred for the opposition. And often, we find it mistaken for events during the Mongol invasions. People in my own family still believe the river running black with ink is was Umar and not Subutai Khan or whoever it was during Baghdad.

And I don't like Umar and pals either.

>>1662939
>If Islam is such an intolerant religion

Are you saying it is not?

>>1663045
Thing about Jizya is that it has varied alot, unlike Zakat which is 2.5 percent of your annual income.
Saying it was Zakat for non-Muslims is dumb, since Zakat is more like a "charity-tax" while Jizya is meant to humble non-Muslims

Umar is the best one of the four if you ask me, despite all the bad shit he did. Why people even consider Uthman as one of the four is dumb, man was corrupt as hell.

Regarding the persecutions, Zoroastrian temples were destroyed or made into mosques, and about 40 000 Zoroastrian nobles (or I think it was nobles) were enslaved. One of these slaves even killed one of the Caliphs as revenge

>>1663102
>Jizya is meant to humble non-Muslims

Jizya is basically a way to make a quick buck. It's a poll tax which was forced upon whole community of unbelievers and initially Muslim rulers didn't care too much about who actually puts up the money on the table.

The origin of Jizya is obvious. It's protection racket, very in fact similar to schemes run by mobs in Eastern Europe back in 1990s. Back then, mobster would call all vendors from one streets and tell them that their street has from now on to pay them some fixed amount for protection.

The construction of Jizya gives very strong incentive to convert to Islam. Since it's a poll tax, it's virtually unchanged no matter whether there's prosperity or depression. If you convert, it means you fuck off it forever and the cunts who remain now have to pay everything themselves.

>>1662939
I'm not going to say Christians haven't enacted persecution, they have. But persecution to some extent or another is codified in the Quran, if they aren't being violently attacked they're being taxed simply for the act of not being a Muslim in accordance with the rules of the faith.

People always make this mistake when comparing Christianity and Islam. Obviously people will do bad shit no matter what they believe, but the exact methods and reasoning for doing these bad things are a well-laid out part of Islam, the same simply cannot be said for Christianity. When Christians are violent, it is in spite of their faith, and is condemnable by other Christians on a strict scriptural basis. When Muslims are violent, it is in accordance with their faith, and they can back it up on a strict scriptural basis.

>>1663191
>they're being taxed simply for the act of not being a Muslim
Except priests and rabbis were exempt from jyzia

>>1663206
That doesn't mean that the reason people paid the jizya wasn't because they were infidels. Can you read?

Intolerant Islam is a modern phenomenon, a reaction against the failure of Arab socialism.

Historically, Muslims societies have been more liberal and more tolerant of religious minorities than Christians.

>>1663226
>Intolerant Islam is a modern phenomenon, a reaction against the failure of Arab socialism.

The idea that Islam was more tolerant in the past is a meme created by people who have no idea about actual history.

>>1663234
It wasn't tolerant according to our modern, secular conception of tolerance, but it was certainly more tolerant than Christianity before the Enlightenment, which is why minorities the OP mentioned survived in the Muslim world.

>>1663102
>>1663141
Ultimately neither are what Jizya actually was in either origin or practice. The term originates from tribal custom where a subjugated client tribe pays tribute to its ruling tribe, and in the Quran this is the understanding that survived into the early 7th century when it was written down. The actual tax laws of the Caliphate, however, emerged without any respect to the concept of Jizya as a religious tax. Many who fought and lost but converted to Islam continued to pay Jizya in its traditional meaning. Some who were Arab yet not Muslim never paid Jizya at all. The definition of Jizya as a tax paid by non-Muslims within a Muslim state came about later in the same way Zakat became some form of Muslim tax, and both were mostly theoretical concepts that only sometimes intersected with actual tax and tariff policies in place throughout the early Arab empire, and were developed that way in order to compromise with secular (including the caliph who by that point had shed the guise of being an imamate) rulers who in actual practice taxed anything and everything into the dirt regardless of religious considerations.

>>1662939

>exist alongside islam
>as second class citizens at best, slaves and disposable people at worst
>this is proof of how tolerant islam is

>>1663264
>The term originates from tribal custom where a subjugated client tribe pays tribute to its ruling tribe


Jizya has Persian etymology. The name is a corruption of Persians term on tribute that was levied on tribes of Arabian peninsula.

>>1663285
In which case the word and institution takes on circular meaning anyway, with the Persian term becoming widespread in Arabia over the course of centuries to the point where those in the Hedjaz/Northern Arabia knew the word and used it among themselves, and that when it returned to Persia in the form of Iranian converts to Islam it's imperial function adopted a religious shade.

My point is that a lot of posters here confuse cause and effect when it comes to Islamic practice and theology, when in practice with Islamic history it's mostly been the effect already in place searching for a suitable cause in sources of history, religion, and other literature.

File: I_4.jpg (34KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x338px

>there are people in this thread who cite the jizyah, a tax that exempts women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the insane, monks, hermits, temporary residents, and soldiers, as the worst thing to happen to a religious minority ever
>meanwhile religious minorities in Christian Europe underwent expulsion, forced conversion, and massacres

The only European kingdom that was as tolerant as the early caliphates was the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, which coincidentally was one of the most cultured and prosperous kingdoms of the European Middle Ages

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman-Arab-Byzantine_culture

>>1663042

>Hinduism
>Organized religion

lel

>>1662939

something you didnt mention, is that with Christianity, nations keep their national identities.
Aramaic only survived among Syrian Christians.
Coptic, the ancient language of Egypt, only survived among Christians.

Islam not only turned Syrians and Egyptians and North Africans into muslims, it turned them into arabs.
Christianity didnt turn anybody into another ethnicity, because Christianity doesnt have an athnicity like Judaism-Jews - Islam-Arabs.

File: shitposting ted.png (117KB, 300x285px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 300x285px

>OT
>I am God, I am one
>NT
>JK there's actually three of me

>>1665051
Tell that to the Incas or the Mayas

Anyhow, reading the Quran what struck me is that the unbeliever will meet his doom but the muslim is told not to bother with this fact. The Christian on the other hand is urged to 'save' as many people as possible. This difference might be a partial answer to OPs question.

>>1662939
>intolerant
because this word is used comparatively you fucktard. i need not offer further explanation

>>1666689
Islam is simply arab imperialism.

>>1666689
>1666689
you submit to their civilization and order.

>>1663226
>Historically, Muslims societies have been more liberal and more tolerant
Historically Muslim societies were too busy waging war to bother with much religious persecution. That's why they relied on the Jizya to keep the infidels in their place. Also helped pay for all their conquests and civil wars. You had a few instances of Muslim conquerers massacring all non-Muslims in a city they took but it wasn't that common. In the first place most of the cities they "conquered" surrendered to them peacefully, so there was little to be gained by massacring the populace. Often the Christian leadership would strike a deal with the Muslim conquerors to preserve their places of worship and so on, which they found amenable because it let them turn their attention to enemies who actually were putting up a fight. Which was mostly other Muslims.

History was different than now. In my country there's now a tendency to Islamize basically everything; from soap operas to natural science school textbooks. Everything has to relate, or dependent towards Islamic interpretation and jurisprudence.

If you're curious how they Islamize the science textbook, it's really farcical. At the same time they also don't want to lose credibility as a scientific subject, and as a result the most they do is, randomly in every chapter of the book, they write in something like 'oh how great God has made the universe in His glory' (e.g. after astronomy subject), i.e. obvious bullshit sugar-coating. It's like they don't want to be accused as secular atheists ala Dawkins.

Dunno why they do that. Heh.

>>1664982
It has holy scripture, clergy, developed theology. By all definitions Hinduism is an organised religion. It's much more than just another polytheism.

>>1667022

Interesting. What country is that?

>>1668258
Probably Turkey.

>>1667088
Not really. Imagine if you took all of the pagan faiths in europe, made them slightly more developed, labelled them collectively as "Uropism", and then codified it. That's basically Hinduism.

>>1668538
I actually wonder why proselytyzing hindus like harekrishna bother to import their own gods to europe while they could just take the ancient european ones, use some kind of interpretio romana on them to equate them with hindu ones and then steamroll and assimilate all the LARPy Neo"pagans" with their superiour theology.

>>1663253
If it was so tolerant where did all the pagans who worshipped at Mecca go?

>>1668574
hinduism only really exists because they used something like interpretio romana on the myriad local gods that are offshoots of and admixtures between various Dravidian and Aryan gods. Like 70% of hinduism varies by local custom.

>>1662939
It has always been a matter of empires. When there is a "clash of civilizations", the ones who are defeated become part of the empire. Even if they conserve their traditional languages, costumes and religions, they try to adapt to their new rulers. The only option for them to survive is to follow the laws. Then you have few options like syncretism (e.g. some local European and South American traditions were adapted to Catholicism) or paying taxes for protection and free worship. But generally locals tend to fully assimilate to their new cultures and for this reason there are so many Muslim Arab-speaking areas in North Africa and Christian Spanish/Portuguese-speaking areas in Central and South America, for instance.

There are alot of variables for this to happen, like degree of development, the number of inhabitants, or even landform (islands, mountains, desert...); but as I have said before, it is all a matter of empires. Sadly this is how human history has worked for millenia...

File: krishna-christ.jpg (36KB, 400x380px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x380px

>>1668574
>>1668657
kek harekrishna is a New Age religion. They use things like pic related to convert people to their faith. They wouldn't support something like a WE WUZ PAGANS because they know it doesn't help for new conversions. Sorry m8, Christianism is bro tier for them.

>>1662939
How many Jews live comfy in Islamic theocracies? How many Christians?

>>1668624
Most likely died out a century before Muhammad was born.

>>1668751
There are a few thousand Jews in Iran, they even maintain a tomb to Esther and Malachai in Hamadan. Most moved to Israel because da jooz offers them a few thousand dollars USD to start up their life--quite a bit of money to an Iranian--but many stayed and they're left to their own devices. They (and Christians) are also the only ones allowed to make alcohol in Iran, iirc

Many Armenians live in Iran and keep their Christianity as well. Christmas and other holidays are celebrated openly with parades and whatnot

The catch is that proselytization is illegal. So they 'live comfortably,' there are many churches and synagogues, but it is an Islamic theocracy at the end of the day.

it also differs between theocracies, as Sharia is an interpretive legal system, not something codified like the constitution. I.e. In Saudi Arabia, another Islamic theocracy, they don't allow churches and synagogues to be built, considering the Hijaz to be holy ground and thus only allow mosques.

>>1669014
>Saudi Arabia
>theocracy
k

File: image.jpg (51KB, 552x553px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 552x553px

Not only intolerant, also now extremely dangerous thanks to Saudi spreading its form of Islam.

>>1663042
>Le organized religion maymay

The "pagan" religions were organized, else they wouldn't have been religions. They certainly weren't as hierarchical on account of not having an ideological element like Christianity, but they were also woven into the secular institutions as well.

So called "pagan" religions weren't, at all, somehow "more vulnerable" to proselytism than "organized" religions. It just seems that way because, historically, Christianity had a tremendous amount of institutional and political strength which it used to enforce itself upon the populations of far more humble social and political structures.

There was nothing inherent about either Christian or traditional religion or theology that led to the christianization of Europe or anywhere else. Christianization occurred via imposition through outside forces, NOT within some make-believe "free marketplace of religious ideas".

>>1663042
But Latin and Hellenic religion were very organized pagan religions.

One might argue that Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic religions might have been unorganized, but Romans and Greeks had very institutionalized religions.

>>1663102
Nope

this is a way of humiliate them

Fuck islam and his false pedo-prophet

>>1663042
>christian can't convert organized religion

The real life isn't like crusader kings

>>1669428
Celtic religions were pretty damn organized (See: Druids). So were Germanic religions. They weren't AS organized as, say, Christianity or Hellenism, but then both of those had large scale economic and political structures with vast literary traditions.

Compare this with the scattered tribes of Germany that, while having an organized religion, may not have used Runic for anything but scrawling on material goods.

>>1663102
>Jizya is meant to humble non-Muslims
>unlike Zakat which is 2.5 percent of your annual income

Yes, I can confirm this that Zakat is a fixed rate tax whereas Jizya is tax at discretion. The Jizya is meant to humble the non-believer but it's also a form of tribute. Essentially as long as you pay you're not required/eligible to participate in the state army or government but at the same time Sharia law does not apply to you and you can independently govern your own community as long as it doesn't conflict with the Muslim community (such as you can sell alcohol to eachother but you can't sell it to a Muslim)

>>1669277
>Honor Killing
Not sanctioned by Islam
>Hostage Taking
So what every country does?
>Female Genital Mutilation
prohibited in Islam but practiced by African tribes, it's against the rules but they do it anyway
>Burning People Alive
I've never seen this as a prescribed punishment in Sharia, could be wrong
>Beheadings
Perfectly valid way to execute capital punishment unless you're against capital punishment
>Rape
is actually punishable by death under Sharia
>Pedophilia
The Quran says a women has to have hit puberty. So technically pedarasty is legal but not pedophilia.
>Jihad
Well, yeah do you even know what that word means?
>Oppression of Women
Sure, but having all your women in porno films is liberating.
>Slavery
Islam doesn't fail to admit that slavery is human nature but instead places responsibility on the master to treat the slave with dignity.

>>1671039
>do you even know what that word means?
It can refer either to struggle within a Muslim to act righteously, or outward (often military) struggle against the infidel. I could imagine it used to refer to preaching to non-Muslims, but I've never seen it used in this way.

Don't try and be cute and pretend the Quran is fairly specific when describing things related to armed conflict for the purposes of spreading Islam, because it does.

>>1662939
Christians to this day still persecute Mesoamerican religions or they try the more passive aggressive route of missionary conversions.

>>1671343
> I could imagine it used to refer to preaching to non-Muslims, but I've never seen it used in this way.
That's Dawah, you literally don't understand the basic terms of Islam.

>>1666641
>Tell that to the Incas or the Mayas

The Imperialist Spaniards weren't Christianity. They WERE Christians, but not Christianity.

>>1669349
>pretentious "parentheses"
>hur dur Christianity didn't build Europe
>hur dur Christians are mean because Mud people in Germany stopped worshiping sticks and rocks

Go pray to a an Oak tree. And then I'll chop it down and build a Church out of it.

>>1662939
Go around calling yourself Jewish in a Muslim country. You won't be alive long enough to learn why the rest of us call it intolerant.

>>1663042
>Namely gave them access to far more civilized and stable government forms.

Do people honestly base thier knowledge of Paradox video games?

That's a good point actually.

For all the stick Islam gets the Islamic world is full of religious minorities while Christendom was just Christians

>>1671039
>Sure, but having all your women in porno films is liberating.


>Narrated Usama: The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."

>Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high.

>>1672705
it's not a good point because it is comparing the state and behaviour of two religions hundreds of years ago and implying that that the same is true today.

>>1671646
DELETE THIS
t. saxon

>>1671502
>don't know every single Islamic term
>therefore what I said before about jihad is invalid
We're playing on this field, please don't move the goalposts.

>>1672685
Yes, unfortunately. I see people all the time talking about a Casus Belli as just "a reason for going to war" and that you have to have one, despite the fact that the term only means that IN PARADOX GAMES.

I can't wait until people start showing up who think Karelian is a Russian dialect.

>>1669349
>The "pagan" religions were organized, else they wouldn't have been religions
what

>Christianization occurred via imposition through outside forces
Yeah, like when early Christians used their institutional power to spread throughout the Roman Empire before Constantine's baptism. Wait...

>>1671343
>I could imagine it used to refer to preaching to non-Muslims, but I've never seen it used in this way.
This is actually the classical Islamic definition, and both general warfare against non-Muslim states and internal moral struggles are later re-imaginings. Jihad was a doctrine that was originally formed in the 9th century to describe what can be termed 'missionary warfare,' that is the idea that the call to faith among the godless folk beyond Islamic rule should be backed by righteous force, something akin to the modern idea of bombing a dictatorship into freedom. This is how the term came to be split later into the idea that it's holy war against the infidel and also that it's a moral cause to better yourself and society.

>Don't try and be cute and pretend the Quran is fairly specific when describing things related to armed conflict for the purposes of spreading Islam, because it does.
The Quran is actually fairly specific about this subject, and the rules it proposes are more pacifist than the ideas above developed by later imperial era jurists which later became part of Sharia. Some elaborate literary and theological gymnastics had to take place for the development of the Jihad doctrine, including the concept of chronology of revelation, abrogation, and the rule of jurists.