remember to go to London to explain to the English people that they are invaders and occupiers. Just for coherence.

Submitted by Sus (Germany), Aug 20, 2014 at 09:14

Your reply provides simplistic claims. And the fact that you are constantly using offensive expressions - something that I never did - further confirms that you are aware to provide shaky arguments. I am not Muslim (but if you like you can continue to put me in a "ideologic box").

Women, children, old and sick peoples were not required to pay any tax. Jizya, in Thomas Walker Arnold's words was required to any person "whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims". It was certainly not an ideal system, but the fact that when Rambam was expelled from Spain decided to go in Saladin's Cairo, and not to any other country in Europe, should suggest you that your simplistic way of analyzing history cannot but produce simplistic and unilaterel analyses. Your site should instead leave space to different approaches and views.

La ikrah fi'din (2: 256) — there must be no compulsion in religion: this does not mean that in 1400 years there were not cases in the opposite direction (almost all under Shia Islam). Anyway, I could discuss this for hours, providing hundreds of documents. But I am used to discuss these issues in a civilized way, with open-minded intellectuals. So I stop here and I leave you alone with your weak attacks. By the way, remember to go to London to explain to the English people that they are invaders and occupiers. Just for coherence.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".