Incorrect and retarded:

Submitted by Erich von Hürge (United States), Jul 18, 2006 at 12:36

Skald - You, whether through ignorance or malice, have deliberately mixed together random facts and ideas that you have gathered through some dubious method and then presented them to make them seem as if Moslems in general are terrible, war-like people. Now, if you will, allow me to respond to some of your varied claims: - The fact that Muhammad allowed captured prisoner's a choice in the matter is actually quite better than anything that would have been allowed them at the time: They could convert, but only willingly (as conversion at sword point never leads to very good faith: i.e. Christianity). They could pay the Jizya tax, which was very fair, and was no more than any other tax levied upon them by their own governments or foreign invaders (and Moslems did not slaughter entire cities and towns unlike other people than might have imposed taxes on the subject peoples). And if they refused either, then obviously, they were to be fought. I believe the wording of this may have tricked you into thinking it means something else: If the warrior does not accept Islam, and does not concede defeat and accept the obligatory tribute-tax, then he is not accepting the Moslem rule, and will continue to fight - This is not so much Moslem aggression at this point as defense. If the opponent chooses to continue fighting, then so will the Moslem. - The idea that Moslems made Jews wear special clothes (Like HITLER DID!) just flat out made me laugh. When you resort to comparing Islam to Nazism, you pretty much lose your argument. - And quite the opposite: Non-Moslems have served as Warriors and Advisors to Moslem rulers since the Ummayyad caliphate. In fact, technically (although it is rarely observed) Moslems are not allowed to fight other Moslems.

This is where the idea of Foreign or slave soldiers came from (Mameluks, Janissaries, etc.) In the Moslem Ottoman Turkish empire, many of the Early Sipahi noble families that helped in the military expansion of the empire into the Balkans and Byzantine territory were Christian Greeks. These Christians, or "Dhimmi", were readily allowed to bear arms, hold political positions, retain their land, and, in serving in the Ottoman forces, were exempt from the normal Jizya tax. In fact, that is the real basis for the Jizya: taxes payed by non-military families. In the early days of Islam, nearly all the warriors were ethnic Arabs, who held heredity military positions - Non-Moslems were rarely excepted into the early army, and therefore payed the civilians tax instead. - Also, the spread of Islam from the Atlas mounains to the Ganges was, for the most part, a peaceful process. In fact, it has been estimated that under Muhammad's control, the spread of Islam throughout the entire Arabian penninsula, with its many great battles, claimed less than 1,000 lives. __________ My basic point? That Islam is not an evil or bloodthirsty religion. If violence is prevalent in Moslem countries, it is because of the culture, not so much the religion. Before Islam, the Pashtun in Afghanistan were just as violent as afterwards. Before Islam, the Persians fought many great wars - more than afterwards, in all reality. And it is not as if Christians are innocent either. Remember the great Northern Crusades against my own people, in which Christian templars massacred the Prussians and demolished their temples.

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".