Islam peaceful or belligerent?

[passionate]

I am extremely confused regarding the methods of Islamic spread at its beginning, as every Muslim I know tells me that Islam spread through peace, wisdom and love yet all the history books I have read both western and eastern say other wise so I am merely seeking the truth on this matter as I will educate you on how Christianity spread from Judea to fill the entire world as it is today through love and tranquility for those are the hands of god our lord, never steel and war for those are hated by the lord.

Christianity existed several centuries prior to the birth of Islam, and by the time Islam had begun Christianity was well established at its center in Europe. Christianity originally sprouted in the Middle East after Christ’s resurrection in A.D. 30. The church began in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, and it initially preached the Gospel only to the Jews. It grew quite rapidly for a time—in fact; the book of Acts records the conversion of 3000 Jews in a single, extraordinary day. During this early period, however, Christianity did not expand far beyond Jerusalem and its vicinity. That would soon change, after the first few years of relative peace for the church; a terrible persecution broke out following the stoning of Stephen. Jewish leaders hunted down the followers of Jesus and threw them into prison. At this time many in the church scattered to the surrounding countryside of Judea and Samaria. Christianity’s worldwide expansion was beginning. The followers of Jesus Christ continued to teach those things that he had taught them. They taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. Many people throughout the Mediterranean accepted these teachings, and became known as Christians. Mean while in Rome: Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ who was entrusted with the administration of his church after he died. Traveled to Rome where he is believed to have established a Christian community before he was martyred. All popes are, then, successors of Peter not only as leading the Christian community in Rome, but also as leading the Christian community in general, and they maintain a direct connection to the original apostles. For the next 300 years, Christianity was practiced by many city dwellers in private. Roman officials viewed Christians as a threat, and often had them killed. Christians continued to establish churches, and to spread their religion, but they did so discreetly.
In A.D. 312 an important Roman general by the name of Constantine was converted to Christianity through a spiritual experience he had on the battlefield. That same year, Constantine was made emperor of Rome. Under his leadership, Constantine offered protection to Christians, allowing Christian churches to be built throughout the empire, and allowing Christianity to spread more quickly. By A.D. 392 Christianity had become a powerful force in Rome. It was practiced from border to border. In this same year, the emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the state religion, and outlawed all other religious practices. Christians began to organize their church into parishes, which were overseen by priests. Several parishes formed what was called a diocese.

This was a brief scroll in the early Christian history and as you people can see there was no such thing as wars, blood or violence on the behalf of the holy apostles or the Christians instead they sacrificed every thing they had to spread the word of Jesus Christ our lord who did for their sins and mine, they were being crucified, tortured and abused but that didn’t stop them from spreading the word of the lord. And for over 300 years Christianity was spreading without using blood shed! Truth, love and faith were the weapons of those holy men whom died to spread the words of our lord Jesus Christ.
Now here are my questions regarding the spread of Islam during the early phases of Muhammad and his followers:
-You people say that Muhammad didn’t like the spilling of blood then why do I read in history books that he led 27 battles in which 9 of them he fought him self or so say some of the Arabic history books I have read? Is it possible to fight in 9 battles and not kill one man and hate violence?
-I don’t understand how you people say that Islam is such a peaceful religion and your prophet who is every Muslim's idol fought 27 battles in less then 12 years. Please explain this to me I find my self in a dark room surrounded by voices that I can't understand!
-Did he or did he not order the complete annihilation of an entire Jewish tribe in Medina that had a population of 700 men who were slaughtered like sheep in one day?
- Did he or did he not send over 60 raids after appointing one of his followers to raid and pillage from other none Muslim tribes?
-Why did Muhammad fight only the Christian orthodox Roman Byzantines and not fight against the heretic Persians who were Zoroastrians?

That’s all I have to ask regarding Mohammad now I would like to ask about those who came after him the 4 caliphates (some books say that there were 5 caliphates others say 4 as I am not certain about this I hope you excuse my deficit in historical knowledge) :

-Wasn’t it the caliphates top priority to recruit armies and send them to rage wars on Persia and the Byzantines?
-isn't General Khalid ibn al-Walid considered one of the brightest Islamic idols? Considering that he engaged over 50 battles and never lost making him one of the most ruthless killers of all time.
-didn’t the Muslims fight in numerous battles after Mohammed's death such as the yarmouk and al-Qādisiyyah epic battles resulting in over 200 thousand casualties of troops only not to mansion countless enslavements? In which they conquered all the lands from Morocco west to Pakistan east and Georgia north to Sudan south?

-Why do you Muslims consider what the holy crusaders did to the Muslims in Jerusalem when they first entered city at 1099 A.D an evil massacre, When the Muslims had killed far more Christians in their self raised battles?

Another frontier I would like to discuses;
Why do you Muslims claim that you are the origin of all modern science, when the short Islamic scientific revolution had begun after translation of Greek, roman and ancient Asian scrolls into Arabic for your brightest to study and develop? It was pretty much you feeding on the knowledge of the nations you had conquered and built over it which was mostly Greek philosophy and roman science.

[MikeH]

yes , you are true that the prophet had himself taken part in many battles , among which three were main, but i would like to quote that if you read carefully, then you will find ,that he was always in the position of defending, ie:he never attacked.

How convenient. Most sources, however, would disagree.

569 Death of Muhammad's father, `Abdallah

570 Birth of Muhammad in April

576 Death of Muhammad's mother

578 Death of Muhammad's grandfather

595 Muhammad's marries Khadijah

610 First reports of Qur'anic revelation

613 Begins spreading message of Islam publicly

614 Begins to gather following in Mecca

615 Emigration of Muslims to Ethiopia

616 Start of Banu Hashim clan boycott

618 Civil war in Medina

619 End of Banu Hashim clan boycott

619 Death of Khadijah, Muhamad's wife.

620 Isra and Miraj journeys

622 The Hijra: Muhammad and his followers emigrate to Medina

624 The battle of Badr: Muslims defeat Meccans; expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa Jews

625 Battle of Uhud: Meccans defeat Muslims; expulsion of Banu Nadir Jews

626 Attack on Dumat al-Jandal (Syria)

627 Battle of the Trench; destruction of Banu Qurayza Hews

627 Subjugation of Dumat al-Jandal

628 Treaty of Hudaybiyya; Muhammad and the Muslims are permitted to visit Mecca and the Kaaba shrine

628 Capture of the Jewish town of Khaybar

629 First hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

629 Attack on Byzantine empire fails: Battle of Mu'tah

630 Muslims attack and capture Mecca

630 Battle of Hunayn

630 Siege of Taif

632 Muslims attack the Ghassanids: Tabuk

632 Muhammad dies about June 8 in Medina

[MikeH]

now moving to the historical side, if you consider that islam was spread through sword, then please inspect that it is the fastest growing religion of america, and the whole of the world

You're right, not spread by the sword, but by bombs, propaganda, and passenger airplanes.

[umair]

now moving to the historical side, if you consider that islam was spread through sword, then please inspect that it is the fastest growing religion of america, and the whole of the world

You're right, not spread by the sword, but by bombs, propaganda, and passenger airplanes.

my dear friend , the summary you gave is absolutely correct , but tell me one thing , that how many countries has america attacked on in the last 100 yrs (about 10lac muslims have been killed in iraq and afghanistan alone) but this does not allow me to conclude that as america is a christian state ,so christianity teaches killing,

you can go on counting,but the fact is that , as a leader a person is bound to take actions against any of those things which are or could become a problem for the state.

and in history you wont find a single state that would have had perished without giving a struggle.

in the case of jesus , the matter was different and he could never become a leader of any christian state but muhammed had a whole city depending on him for his protection, so he took all the feasible steps for its protection.

but i would like to mention certain points , that whenever muslims entered any new state , they had been considered as the best rulers and for in india ,the hindu brahmans were weeping when a muslim ruler was departing to his native land, because they new that no body could rule them better.
similarly even at the time of the prophet , whenever the muslims had to go on amy battle, they were clearly instructed that they are not harm any woman,sick/old men,children,any-body who is not in arms against them ,and to the least they were asked not to harm even any tree or farms or any religious buildings.

and yes i would request you to leave away the anger and the hatred which your words reflect, and deeply study the reasons as to why and how did the prophet went to war , how did the muslims conquered and ruled with the best legal and social system of justice.

and after all ,he was a succesor to jesus, and a prophet from the same god to which jesus belonged, quran is the best proof of which.

and in the last i would deeply request you to visit the site which i had mentioned in my last reference to the topic.

[MikeH]

my dear friend , the summary you gave is absolutely correct , but tell me one thing , that how many countries has america attacked on in the last 100 yrs (about 10lac muslims have been killed in iraq and afghanistan alone) but this does not allow me to conclude that as america is a christian state ,so christianity teaches killing,

So now you're backtracking from your original position that Mohammed never attacked anybody and defaulting to "look at what America does!!"

But the difference is clear:

1) Mohammed was the originator of Islam, setting up a state run by religion and leading attacks against neighboring nations. Jesus never did these things.
2) You are incorrect in saying that America is a Christian state. America is a republic, with laws protecting the separation of church and state.

in the case of jesus , the matter was different and he could never become a leader of any christian state but muhammed had a whole city depending on him for his protection, so he took all the feasible steps for its protection.

Jesus never attempted to create a Christian state, no matter how many people wanted him to. This was a huge factor that lead to his crucifixion. By example of the leader, Christians can exist peacefully within any system of government. Islam cannot because it is tied to the state, also by example of the leader.

but i would like to mention certain points , that whenever muslims entered any new state , they had been considered as the best rulers and for in india ,the hindu brahmans were weeping when a muslim ruler was departing to his native land, because they new that no body could rule them better.
similarly even at the time of the prophet , whenever the muslims had to go on amy battle, they were clearly instructed that they are not harm any woman,sick/old men,children,any-body who is not in arms against them ,and to the least they were asked not to harm even any tree or farms or any religious buildings.

So now you're arguing not that Islam doesn't wish to rule others, but that it's rule is peaceful and happy for the subjugates. Why don't you explain more - perhaps Dhimmi Law, which places all non-muslims as second class citizens? What would happen to women under Islamic rule? Homosexuals?

and yes i would request you to leave away the anger and the hatred which your words reflect, and deeply study the reasons as to why and how did the prophet went to war , how did the muslims conquered and ruled with the best legal and social system of justice.

Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make me angry or hateful, nor does it help your argument to call me angry or hateful. I've very calmly responded to your posts with historical and factual evidence showing the differences between Islam and Christianity, and have no anger or hate towards you or any Muslim.

and after all ,he was a succesor to jesus, and a prophet from the same god to which jesus belonged, quran is the best proof of which.

and in the last i would deeply request you to visit the site which i had mentioned in my last reference to the topic.

Sure, I'll visit the site.

[umair]

my dear friend , the summary you gave is absolutely correct , but tell me one thing , that how many countries has america attacked on in the last 100 yrs (about 10lac muslims have been killed in iraq and afghanistan alone) but this does not allow me to conclude that as america is a christian state ,so christianity teaches killing,

So now you're backtracking from your original position that Mohammed never attacked anybody and defaulting to "look at what America does!!"

But the difference is clear:

1) Mohammed was the originator of Islam, setting up a state run by religion and leading attacks against neighboring nations. Jesus never did these things.
2) You are incorrect in saying that America is a Christian state. America is a republic, with laws protecting the separation of church and state.

in the case of jesus , the matter was different and he could never become a leader of any christian state but muhammed had a whole city depending on him for his protection, so he took all the feasible steps for its protection.

Jesus never attempted to create a Christian state, no matter how many people wanted him to. This was a huge factor that lead to his crucifixion. By example of the leader, Christians can exist peacefully within any system of government. Islam cannot because it is tied to the state, also by example of the leader.

but i would like to mention certain points , that whenever muslims entered any new state , they had been considered as the best rulers and for in india ,the hindu brahmans were weeping when a muslim ruler was departing to his native land, because they new that no body could rule them better.
similarly even at the time of the prophet , whenever the muslims had to go on amy battle, they were clearly instructed that they are not harm any woman,sick/old men,children,any-body who is not in arms against them ,and to the least they were asked not to harm even any tree or farms or any religious buildings.

So now you're arguing not that Islam doesn't wish to rule others, but that it's rule is peaceful and happy for the subjugates. Why don't you explain more - perhaps Dhimmi Law, which places all non-muslims as second class citizens? What would happen to women under Islamic rule? Homosexuals?

and yes i would request you to leave away the anger and the hatred which your words reflect, and deeply study the reasons as to why and how did the prophet went to war , how did the muslims conquered and ruled with the best legal and social system of justice.

Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make me angry or hateful, nor does it help your argument to call me angry or hateful. I've very calmly responded to your posts with historical and factual evidence showing the differences between Islam and Christianity, and have no anger or hate towards you or any Muslim.

and after all ,he was a succesor to jesus, and a prophet from the same god to which jesus belonged, quran is the best proof of which.

and in the last i would deeply request you to visit the site which i had mentioned in my last reference to the topic.

Sure, I'll visit the site.

well i suspect that niether you would have gone into deep study of the references which you gave ,and niether would you have visited the website, so i would myself try to elaborate the points which you have put from the summary of the life of the prophet from which you could locate only the headlines without getting into much depth.

well , as you might have known that until he was in mecca, he and his followers were under continous torture from the meccans , because of their rejecting the 316gods of the meccan's ,which were kept in the kaaba at that time, and because of his asking the people to stop beliving in false gods but to believe in true god(allah), who had even sent abraham,moses,jesus and many other messengers to them and other countries , but they all either rejected them or started worshipping the messengers instead.

now it was in the 621 and 622 A.D that pilgrims from medina to the kaaba , listened to the prophet and accepted him as a messenger of allah and the successor about which jesus had told his men, who was to come to further to enlighten his message.

it was in the 622A.D that the meccans had started to take the prophet as a threat to their gods and planned to assasin him , as had been done with many other messengers of allah, who were killed at the hands of the unbelievers.

but he got informed about it , and before the meccans could fulfill their plans, he managed to move to medina along with many of his followers .

at medina plenty of men had already accepted him as a messenger of allah , so they willed him to organise their city , which was under continous internal conflicts between the jews ,muslims and the christians.
so the prophet drafted a constitution under which all the tribes were united as one city yathrib (now known as medina), and protection was promised to all the tribes provided they keep united.

now the meccans were feeling helpless that the muslims had got protection in medina and were fastly growing in numbers,
then in 624 AD in an unusual incident a meccan trader who was coming from syria and had to pass through medina felt unsecure from the muslims and seeked help from mecca, this gave the people of mecca a chance to take out their frustration against the growing number of muslims and they with an army of about 1000men started marching towards mecca, when the prophet got informed about it , then he hurriedly gathered 313 men with only a few swords and decided to tackle the meccans outside the city, so that no harm is caused to the men and women living there .
the two armies met at a place near to medina, known as badr(upon which the battle is named), but by the grace of allah the muslims even though 1 to 3 managed to win the battle, which caused the meccans more frustration than ever as they had to flee.

then it was in 625AD that the meccans got ready to take the revenge for badr, and marched against the medina , and this time the battle was neutral with , both sides losing many of their important men. after the battle it was discovered that the jews of banu nadir clan in medina were involved in the battle and had helped the meccans , so the prophet for their disobeying the constitution ordered them to leave medina, after which they went to settle with another jewish tribe banu quraiza, who lived outside medina and opposed the prophet.


now the meccans who were still frustrated at their over all defeat had starded planning for another attack, but this time they decided not to attack lonely but take along with them all the opposing tribes of the prophet,including banu quraiza from near medina with whom men from banu nadir were already allied, and another jewish tribe of medina was involved.
the battle took place in 627AD in medina in which the meccan army comprised a total of about 10,000 men , so the muslims at medina tried a new technique of defence and dug trenches all along the city of medina , to save the city by limiting the attackers to its outskirts.the battle continued for many days before which the meccan army had to retreat because of its falling supplies, and then the culprits from within medina were given capital punishments for their violating the constitution.

later in 628AD the prophet decided to go for a pilgrimage to the kaaba,because although it was filled with the 313 false gods of the kaaba, it still was rooted to abraham, and was related to many of the prophets of allah, so he left with some of his followers , but on reaching there found that the meccans were not ready to let him in, and only after much talks agreed to come upon a treaty which they kept in their favour.
the treaty was reached at a place near mecca known as hudaibiyah(upon which the treaty is named) and had the following points:1)the prophet along with his followers will have to come next year for the pilgrimage.
2)if any meccan man moves to medina then he will handed over to them if they demand,but it will be not the same in their context ie:they will not handover any medinan to them if he entered mecca.
3)free trade will be allowed to the people of both the cities. and,
4)their will be no battle between these two cities or any of their immediate associates for the next 10 yrs.
(if any of the terms is dissolved by any side then the treaty will be considered dissolved).

it was later in an incident that a meccan associated tribe attacked a medina associated tribe which was against the treaty and it was dissolved,so now the prophet for the first time ordered march against mecca and it was later in 630Ad that the muslims move outside mecca and ordered a siege,and the muslims entered mecca without any blood shed or any single person being harmed , and it was for the first time in history that such a calm over power had occurred.

in between the prophet ,wrote letters to three major kingdoms of that time one of which was the byzantine empire,the emporer of which got the prophets men killed and called the prophet for a battle against his new faith. the battle known as the battle of mutah.

this was an excerpt from the political life of the prophet , but the other and the more important part were his teachings, about which i will tell you later.

[Catharsis]

Fr. Josiah Trenham

A Survey and Critique of Islam according to the Church Fathers

Islamic Dhimmitude: Peaceful Co-Existence? Introduction. Tonight is the sixth class of the winter quarter of the St. John Chrysostom Catechetical School of St. Andrew Orthodox Church. This quarter is dedicated to the topic, Christianity and Islam: A Survey and Critique of Islam according to the Church Fathers. Our previous five lectures were An Introduction to Islam, The Life of Mohammed, The Koran: The Word of God?, The Muslim Jesus: Just a Prophet? And Islamic Jihad and Terrorism: A Peaceful Religion? Part I.

Last week, in our lecture, we explored the essential role of jihad is Muslim religion. We began the lecture by surveying the contemporary Islamic propaganda aimed at the West attempting to present Islam itself as a peaceful and non-violent religion and the spread of Islam as a peaceful and non-violent process. Supposedly Islam did not spread by the sword but by its own "appeal" to the masses. In examining this "official line" of contemporary Islamic public relations we noted several things. First, that it is admitted that the initial spread of Islam in Arabia was indeed violent. We noted that this was the spread of the religion under its great prophet Mohammed, whose life is esteemed by all Muslims as a model to be carefully imitated. Second, we noted that the "peaceful conversions" of numerous people groups took place after they had been military conquered and had been given numerous economic, social, and political incentives to convert to Islam. This is what is described in Moslem literature as the "peaceful embrace" of Islam made "without coercion."

Additionally we explored in last week’s lecture the teachings of the Koran on jihad, or holy war. In many places in the Koran Moslems are called upon to fight the infidel. Such war in Islam is obligatory for believers and is itself an institution. It is the institution for the expansion of Islam in the world, and it is the means for funding the growth of the Islamic empires. The initial plunder of the Islamic conquests was institutionalized through the practice of dhimmitude, which is the practice of taxing non-Muslim conquered peoples.

We concluded our lecture last week by comparing Islamic jihad to Old Testament Holy War and to New Testament Holy War. We pointed out that, contrary to Moslem assertions, Islamic jihad does not share the principles of Old Testament Holy War and cannot find its justification in the examples of military battle in the Old Testament. We also emphasized that even Old Testament Holy War was but a foreshadowing of true Holy War which is the war of the Church of Jesus Christ against the unseen powers of evil. True holy war is spiritual war with the demons, not military battles with human beings.

In this evening’s lecture we will examine the Islamic practice of dhimmitude in history, particularly in its practice with our own Orthodox peoples. How have non-Moslem fared under Islamic domination? Is it true, as contemporary Islam asserts, that Christians and Jews have lived under Islam in "peaceful co-existence" and unmolested?

We began this topic last week by examining the early expansion of Islam under its first four caliphs from AD. 632-750. This important time period established the paradigm for Moslem treatment of conquered peoples. What history bears record to during this first century of Islamic expansion is a consistent pattern of pillage, destruction, enslavement and mass murder from Lebanon, to North Africa, to Greece, Italy, and Spain. Bat Ye’or in her groundbreaking study of this subject writes, "This general picture of destruction, ruin, massacre, and deportation of urban and rural captive populations was common to all the conquered territories in Asia, Africa, and Europe."[1] These facts are well documented by historians of all types contemporaneous with the Moslem expansion.

Dhimmitude. As Islam expanded to the West the majority of their conquered subjects were Orthodox Christians. They were also the majority of taxpayers in the early Islamic empire. Society was established on two pillars: the army and the subjection of the conquered masses. Initially, by necessity, the dhimmi/conquered peoples help many positions of social and economic importance in the conquered territories. Over history the leadership and possessions of the dhimmi peoples were systematically transferred to Moslems. Conquered peoples had no right to private ownership of their lands. By paying the kharaj conquered peoples were able to, in theory and by Islamic law, buy back their rights to possession of their lands and use of their goods. Bat Ye’or comments, "Even if Islamic law recognized the principle of the dhimmis’ right to possess land, history reveals a process whereby the lands, houses, livestock, and property of the indigenous population were usurped, a situation which does not appear in the law itself."[2]

Tax. Where did the practice of exacting the tax, the jizya, from conquered non-Moslems come from? It came from the Koran itself.

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."[3]

This teaching of the Koran is abundantly clear that Moslems are to make war on Christians and Jews. Here Christians are described as those "to whom the Scriptures were given" and as those who "do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden." This could be any number of things from confessing that God has a Co-Eternal Son, to adoring holy icons of the Lord, His All-Immaculate Mother, and the Saints. Moslems were very critical of the Christian veneration of Holy Icons. One of our hierarchs from the 8th century, Bishop Theodore Abu Qurrah, wrote a defense of the veneration of the holy icons in Arabic directed at least partially at the Moslem and Jewish populations.[4] What are Moslems to do with Christians? They are to "fight" and make them "pay tribute" until they are "utterly subdued."

This jizya, or tax, was graded in three rates according to the person’s degree of wealth. The Caliph Umar in AD 640 conducted a major census for the purpose of exacting carefully and fully this tax. Often it was extorted by torture. When Libya was conquered in A. D. 643 Christians were forced to gives their wives and children as salves to the Arab army as part of their jizra.[5] Here is a description of how it was sometimes collected,

"According to some jurists, the poll tax had to be paid by each person individually at a humiliating public ceremony; while paying it, the dhimmi was struck either on his head or on the nape of his neck. This blow to the neck , a symbol of the non-Muslim’s humiliation, was repeated over the centuries and survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century, being ritually performed in Arab-Muslim countries, such as Yemen and Morocco, where the Koranic tax continued to be extorted from the Jews."[6]

On top of this standard poll tax there were additional taxes placed upon the conquered peoples, as well as regular kidnapping and demands for ransoms of the communities’ notable personages. It became standard Moslem practice to establish the religious leaders of the community as the temporal/ political leaders also responsible for tax collection. Due to the Koranic prohibitions for Moslems to "become friends"[7] with Christians and Jews and to certain hadith which forbade non-Moslems from having authority over Moslems Dhimmi peoples were consistently excluded from public office.

Law Courts. Besides these inequalities Christians faced great liability in courts of law. Islamic legislation did not recognize the oath of a Christian against a Moslem, and this was particularly grievous when, as was often the case, a Christian would be accused of blasphemy by a Moslem. The exceptions to this legal rule were in cases where a Moslem government, such as the Ottoman, was influenced by European law codes. Michael the Syrian records the following when a 9th century Byzantine Emperor asked a Moslem leader for an exchange of prisoners , "Al-Mu’tasim replied, "We, Arabs, can not admit the possibility of comparing Muslims with Byzantines [Christians], because God values the former more highly than the latter."[8] There is no commitment to the principle of the equality of all persons before the law in Islam, nor the equality of value of all persons by creation. If a Moslem committed a crime against a dhimmi the usual punishment was halved.

Places of Worship. In theory dhimmi peoples could keep their own places of worship based on the terms of the treaty of conquest. New construction was forbidden, but the upkeep and restoration of existing places of worship was in theory permitted as long as the structures were not enlarged or altered. Usually upon conquest a large number of churches were confiscated by the Moslem conquerors. The most famous of these is Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. This Queen of all Christian Churches was converted to a Mosque when the City of Constantinople fell to the Moslems in A.D. 1453. At the beginning of the Moslem conquests in Syria and in Spain one-half of the Christian Churches were relinquished to the Moslems to be converted to Mosques. Upon assuming a Church the Moslems would first destroy the sacred iconography, which was considered by Moslems to be idolatry.

I was deeply affected by a tour of the holy Churches of Thessaloniki, Greece. Thessaloniki arguably has the most beautiful Christian Churches in the world. Many date from the first millennium, and some from the 3rd and 4th centuries. There is a beautiful church downtown, for instance, that was built upon the conclusion of the Third Ecumenical Council in A. D. 431. For some four centuries Greece was under Turkish-Moslem domination. The Moslems were thrown out of Greece in the War of Independence in 1821, but northern Greece, where Thessaloniki is located, remained under Turkish control until 1921. Since that time the sacred Churches of Thessaloniki have been carefully restored. This includes first of all the removing of the plaster that was caked on the interior walls of the churches in order to cover up the holy icons. When the plaster is removed one sees numerous chisel marks where the Moslem craftsmen made chinks in the wall into the icons themselves to hold the plaster. There is a beautiful Church in a residential portion of the city that was concealed from the Moslems and was never discovered. One is able today to worship there seeing the mosaics and frescoes untouched and unmolested from the period prior to the Turkish conquest. Such cannot be said for most of our Churches throughout the previously Christian lands. Besides placing great restrictions upon Christian Churches, the Moslems also forbade Christians from entering their mosques. Some of these typical and historical Moslem restrictions on Christians have been relaxed in the last two centuries.

Islam also restricts Christians from the ringing of bells, the public display of the Precious Cross, and Christian banners. These rules are claimed by Moslems to have originated from the beginning of Islam. Christian cemeteries were required to be separated from Moslem ones and were often desecrated.

Various Injustices. Although the Koran itself forbids forced conversions, this has often been the case throughout history. Writes Bat Ye’or, "The whole history of the Islamic conquests is punctuated with forced conversions."[9] The abduction of Christian children for harems and to be raised as Moslem warriors, was a particularly perverse form of forced conversions which has taken place throughout Moslem history. A practice known as devshirme was introduced in the mid-fourteenth century. Christians of the Balkans were required to offer as tribute one-fifth of their children between the ages of fourteen and twenty, who were then converted to Islam and entered the janissary corps. They were most often taken from the Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Armenian aristocracy and from the children of priests.[10] Christians were assigned special living quarters, and their homes were expected to be less elegant than Moslem homes. Consulting Christian physicians and pharmacists was discouraged, and marriage and sexual relations between Moslem women and Christian men was punishable by death. On the contrary, Moslem men could marry Christian women. Christians were not to use Arab honorific titles, and it was a serious offense for a Christian to ride upon a camel or a horse. Christians were to ride donkeys, and often were expected to dismount while passing a Moslem. Christians were to speak in the presence of a Moslem only when spoken too, and always in a low voice. In some Moslem countries like Yemen and Persia dhimmis were expected to construct their doors short enough that they would have to bend down to enter their homes. In 14th century Damascus Christians were expected to keep the threshold of their shops below street level so that they would always be in an inferior position before Moslems.[11] Christians living in the Phanar region of Constantinople were expected to paint their homes in dark colors until the middle of the 19th century. Arabs invented the idea of discriminating by way of clothing, requiring Christians to wear certain clothes, cut their hair a certain way, wear particular turbans and shoes. In some regions like Persia Christians were barred from public baths, and in other regions like Egypt and Palestine they were required to wear small bells to mark them when their clothes were off. This type of exclusion was more typical in Arabized countries and not in the Moslem countries more intimately affected by Europe.

Slavery. Often tribute of conquered lands included the giving of a fixed number of individuals as slaves. The regular raids on villages and the expansion of Islam into ever new territory provided a large slave market. When Ephesus was sacked in A. D. 781 seven thousand Greek men were taken as slaves. When Thessaloniki was attacked in A. D. 903 the number was twenty-two thousand. When Constantinople was captured in A.D. 1453 fifty to sixty thousand Orthodox Christians were deported and enslaved, and the city was repopulated with thousands of Moslems, and Jews and Christians from other parts of Moslem lands.[12] This practice of enslaving Christians and Jews of the dhimmitude went on for centuries right up to the sale of thousands of Ottoman Armenian women and children in 1915-1917. It is sadly ironic that so many African-Americans, fleeing Protestantism as "the white man’s religion" and as "slave religion" and embracing Islam as "authentically African", have fled in reality into the arms of a religion that mastered and propagated the slave trade itself.

Inter-Muslim Warfare. On top of the difficulties directed against them directly, the dhimmi peoples often suffered from the constant inter-Muslim wars that have raged throughout history.

Sale of a Christian Family in Constantinople , Ellendigh (1663)

Conclusion. Summarizing the life of the dhimmi peoples Bat Ye’Or writes, "Nothing could be more illusory than to imagine the dhimmi populations enjoying a definitive guaranteed and stable status."[13] And again she writes, "Scribes, secretaries, treasurers, accountants, architects, craftsmen, peasants, doctors, scholars, diplomats, translators, and politicians, the Christians formed the base, the texture, the elite, and the sinews of the Muslim empire. It is probable that without their collaboration the creation and expansion of this empire would not have been possible. The conquered Christian masses placed all the resources- all the proficiency, the accumulation of technical skills, and sciences built up by earlier civilizations- at the service of nomad chiefs or seminomad Arabs and, later, of Turks. Islamic literature, science, art, philosophy, and jurisprudence were born and developed not in Arabia, within an exclusively Arab and Muslim population, but in the midst of conquered peoples, feeding off their vigor and on the dying, bloodless body of dhimmitude."[14]

[1] The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 52.

[2] Ibid., p. 71.

[3] Koran, p. 136 (9:29).

[4] A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons, Theodore Abu Qurrah, translated by Sidney Griffith, Peeters, Louvain, 1997.

[5] The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 108.

[6] The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 78.

[7] Koran, pp. 45, 86.

[8] The Decline of Eastern Christianity, p. 82.

[9] The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 90.

[10] Ibid., p. 115. This practice was supposedly abolished in 1656, but continued for another hundred years.

[11] Ibid., p. 93.

[12] Runciman, Sir Steven The Fall of Constantinople, Cambridge University Press.

[13] The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 112.

[14] Ibid., p. 128.

[Openmind]

As far as religions go, Islam has the propensity to be remarkably violent. It just requires you ignore some laws, and place emphasis on others.

Christianity went through a similar period (eg. the Crusades), but I think it is because Christianity is strongest in democratic, educated nations, that are no longer as violent as there past indicates, that Chrisitanity is now painted as peacefu

If you had Christianity in the same situation as Iran, and America as a Muslim state, you would have plenty of matyrdom taking place. It's geo-political clime as much as the teachings of a religion that dictate how the worshippers will act. Give certain religious people any hint it's OK to pursue their prejudices, and they certainly will - "in the name of God"

[MikeH]

As far as religions go, Islam has the propensity to be remarkably violent. It just requires you ignore some laws, and place emphasis on others.

Christianity went through a similar period (eg. the Crusades), but I think it is because Christianity is strongest in democratic, educated nations, that are no longer as violent as there past indicates, that Chrisitanity is now painted as peacefu

If you had Christianity in the same situation as Iran, and America as a Muslim state, you would have plenty of matyrdom taking place. It's geo-political clime as much as the teachings of a religion that dictate how the worshippers will act. Give certain religious people any hint it's OK to pursue their prejudices, and they certainly will - "in the name of God"

I agree, but you must recognize that the violent periods of Christianity go against the actions of the founder of the religion, while the founder of Islam himself set up a church state and led military attacks under the banner of religion.

[BeHereNow]

MikeH: Jesus never attempted to create a Christian state, no matter how many people wanted him to. This was a huge factor that lead to his crucifixion. By example of the leader, Christians can exist peacefully within any system of government. Islam cannot because it is tied to the state, also by example of the leader.

The expected messiah would set up a theocracy. That was the expectation leading up to the birth of Jesus. This points to one of the arguments that Jesus was not the Christ. In his three year ministry he hardly had time, but I would agree that was never his mission. Even he knew he did not fulfill the scriptures the way everyone expected he would. Not a single living soul got it right, strange. All of the clear predictions gave expectation of a sword, not a philosophy of peace.

We might want to count Paul as one who understood the Christian meaning of the OT, unfortunately I have a hard time thinking Paul got much of anything right.

This idea that “Christians can exist peacefully within any government. Islam cannot because it is tied to the state”, I found to be mistaken in part, a large part.
This means Christians can exist peacefully within an Islamic government. So what is the problem? The Islamic government makes certain demands of its citizens, and the Christians comply.
Isn’t that what you tell us?
Have I missed something?

In Iraq, the Christians only have to comply with the wishes of the Islamic government, and all is well. That does not sound so difficult. The Christians will follow all Islamic Law, and all will be happy. But I have to wonder, perhaps you can help me, why hasn’t this happened? My understanding is the problem the Islamic extremists have is that the unfaithful do not want to follow Islamic law. If Christians so easily assimilate into any government/culture, why is there a clash with the natives?

I am also having a problem understanding the flip side. You say Islam cannot exist peacefully within any government (other than its own state run government), and yet, I know of Muslims within my community, and they seem to be thriving. No conflict. No burden on society. And my community is not some wild exception, it is the norm. If you know of communities within the United states that are besieged by their local Islamic population, I would appreciate a link. My understanding is that the Islamic population of the United States had adapted very well, without conflict, blending as well as any Christian immigrants. Can you provide evidence I am mistaken?

Certainly there are minor disagreements, and the Christians are no exception there. If we were to consider the social upheaval of the Christian Right to that of the Islamic population, my argument will be that the Christians are more disruptive of social continuity.

I agree, but you must recognize that the violent periods of Christianity go against the actions of the founder of the religion, while the founder of Islam himself set up a church state and led military attacks under the banner of religion.

Why must I recognize that Jesus had a message of peace, when his teachings consistently breed periods of terror and torture for the unbelievers?
There are not one or two brief occurrences that are anomalies. The history of Christianity shows that his teachings, as used by his followers, allow all manner of terror to be upon put the unbelievers.

Within recent history we can point to how the Natives and enslaved were treated by their Christian benefactors here in the United States.

The teachings of the bible sanctioned the slaughtering of Native heathens. They could be slaughtered because they were heathens, that is to say “unbelievers” .

The teachings of the bible and the Word of Jesus did nothing to stop the treatment of the Black men and women as if they were cattle. To be bought, sold, and skinned alive it if taught a good lesson to those forced to watch.

And under the teaching of Jesus good Christians have treated women as chattel.

I would be interested in hearing a suggestion why the next thousand years with Christianity will be any less terror streaked than the last 1000 years.

So you think the Christian populace has never Lorded over the unbelievers, forcing conversion rather than rejection to the point of death. We here in the colonies got away easy during the Salem Witch trials. The real massacres were occurring in Europe.

Yes, if the history of Christianity were a story of all believers living the life of Christ, it would be a wonderful fairytale. I am not amused that you ask me to believe fairytales.

[carolineislands]

. I would find it hard to believe that a religion that wasn't based on love, peace, and the welfare of all, could have stood the test of time as well as it has for so many centuries. "

You're kidding, right? Uh... the Inquisition, Holy wars, the rampages of Islam... Christians slaughtered infidels, Muslims slaughtered infidels, on and on and on... about the only religion I can think of right off the top of my head that DIDN'T go a-warring to spread their religion is Buddism. I'm sure there are more, but probably not many.

Few religions have a peaceful history and Islam is one of the violent ones, like Judaism and Christianity. Muhammed did endorse war, and he endorsed capital punishment for apostates, and he endorced cutting off body parts as punishment for stealing, and he endorsed female genital mutilation. Muahmmed was nothing like Jesus -- he was NOT a pacifist.

I know Muslims will tell you Islam is the religion of peace. That's true as long as you are Muslim and don't go against the grain. Then you can have peace. Just don't convert to another religion because then you are dead meat. At least thats the law.