Should Sharia Law be forbidden in Non-Muslim (Western) countries?

[Limo]

Did he?

Don't you know that ?
Hitler started by burning the books campaign and asked different ideologies to comply with Nazism
Some people started with Islam and Muslims the same journey as Nazis did

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you say a little more about what you consider a viable religion to be?

(Later - ) There you go again, talking about a 'proper' religion - what is your definition of such a religion?

A viable religion strives not to be too centered on any specific authority. It encourages independent thinking and expression. It is ready and willing to learn and benefit from the insight and good will of its adherents, which is always among its most precious resources, if not the single most important one.

Of particular interest for our discussion is that it does not rely on a concept of deity in order to justify itself. Because doing so means masking the disagreements and flaws of understanding and of actualization under the cloak of belief for belief's sake.

I'm not sure there are many religions which would like to admit the important role heresy has played in their evolution.

I suppose they aren't very many indeed. Still, the benefit is there and much needed, even if it is not acknowledged.

I'm not sure what Islaam you are talking about here, because for every Muslim I know (and I know a fair few, right across the spectrum, from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal), Islaam is a whole lot more than declaring the Oneness of God. It is a living faith, with many different manifestations and forms.

I must say that I hope you are correct and I am wrong. But I am just not seeing it. Islamic discourse has consistently been disappointing and showed no significant hints of religious wisdom as such. I have come to actually wonder if Islamic thought is capable of realizing the difference between wisdom and belief.

Hopefully that is simply because most Muslims are too scared of speaking openly of their disagreements and doubts... but even such a best-case scenario is quite depressing, obviously.

Sure, there are some Muslims who are happy to go around declaring other Muslims not 'true' Muslims, or worse still disbelievers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri for some background on this subject) - some of the Salafi and Wahhabi groups have this tendency. They are disproportionately represented on the Internet. But the position is a very controversial one in the Muslim community. A far more typical view amongst Muslims is that since God is the Ultimate Judge, and God Alone knows what is in the hearts of people, it is to God that we should leave decisions about who is truly a Muslim and who not (or to extend the reasoning, who is a true believer and who not, whatever their proclaimed views on religion, God, etc.). And I think you will find many Christians defending 'proper' Christianity too.

All of that is true enough, except that when unfairness runs rampant there is a moral duty to oppose it instead of hoping that God will do that eventually.

When Muslims fail to properly challenge the poisonous views among them, it must then fall for non-Muslims to accept that duty, and for Muslims to accept the blame of their failure.

That should not be necessary, but apparently it is. There is too much of a reluctance among Muslims to admit that maybe belief in God will not heal all illnesses, and maybe some of those dangerous extremists that claim to be Muslims truly mean it.

Non-Muslims can't fairly be expected to repeatedly sacrifice their safety and confort to protect that reluctance and the flaws of Islam's own making.

Again, I think this is true of a number of Abrahamic and Abrahamic-derived religions at least, and indeed of any religion which places a great emphasis on notions of purity (and therefore, insiders and outsiders).

I will take issue with that.

Such a flaw is a direct consequence of unchecked reliance on monotheism and therefore only of significance in a relatively small number of faiths. Nor is it to be passively accepted just like that in any case. People can and should be reminded that they should carry the burden of their own beliefs instead of expecting others to feel duty-bound to do it on their stead just because they are certain that God is on their side.

But there is a rich diversity of viewpoints within Islaam (beyond the basic criteria of faith, which all religions have). Don't be misled by the ideologues all over the Internet and the media proclaiming only one or a narrow range of viewpoints. Look to what the people on the street say about the religion, and how they live their lives, and around the world. The Muslim world is a pretty diverse place.

May you point out to some evidence of that diversity? I have looked for it and it has so far evaded me. What variety there is is quite underwhelming, all things considered.

One would expect a lot more of doctrinary wisdom and acceptance of diversity in even a random group of over a billion people.

Not at all. Islaam will become the dominant religion! [JOKE]

It has certainly made the attempt, and can't be blamed for lack of trying.

Give it a couple of centuries or so.

I see no reason to, sorry. It would be serious negligence to simply wait when there is so much damage to fix and prevent already.

Then you are in quite a small minority. For just about every Muslim in the world, whilst the Qur'aan in principle occupies a most esteemed position, in practice, the finer detail of its doctrines aren't much in evidence in their everyday practice, and many Muslims will incorporate beliefs and practices not sanctioned by the Qur'aan (or even the Hadeeth) into their lives. Sometimes termed 'Folk Islam' (the Wikipedia page is an okay starting-point), this practice also involves the incorporation of ideas from other established religions and 'the West' too. And the majority of Muslims are cool with the apparent contradictions (which one could say are only contradictions if one holds to a cold, clinical, rigid interpretation of what it means to follow the Qur'aan - the kind that some scholarly or Salafi or Wahhabi types might adhere to, or non-Muslims who read the Qur'aan but don't know what it means to live as a Muslim within a particular cultural and social context.

I think you are underestimating my awareness of the variety of Muslims, as well as the degree to which "deviating" from Qur'an and Ahadith is actually unavoidable.

Agreed - do you want to start a separate thread on this?

That is really a very good idea. Give me a bit of time. Feel free to start it yourself if you feel like it.

I'm trying!

Quite obviously, and remarkably as well.

Hang out with some Sufis..

That would certainly be an interesting experience. It is too bad that there are so few around here.

That depends on one's notion of God and what that One God desires. I am strictly monotheistic, insofar as I believe in and submit to One God Alone, but as I have said my God is One that demands the free and open pursuit of knowledge (set aside the traditional notion of the Abrahamic God).

Fair enough.

See above on Islaam from the ground up (everyday Islaam). And sure, there are Muslims who go around of the need for sackcloth and ashes. But we don't all do. And there are plenty Christians who do too.

Again, that is true, but sidesteps the matter of why it should even be an issue at all.

Check out some of the Sufis (there are many groups - some more literalist than the most literalist of Salafis - and others you would think belong to a Dharmic religion, or are just super liberal and progressive - and some who won't even call themselves Muslims - they're a diverse bunch). And as I've said already, talk to some more Muslims away from the Internet if you can.

Quite frankly, I would attempt to avoid it if it can be reasonably achieved. I had enough of a bad experience with Christians. I would rather not actively pursue the need to hide my religious views in person.

At this point I am actually not sure there would be less harm in following your advice than in just being openly and vocally anti-Islamic.

Well, there's politically-motivated and there's politically-motivated. Throughout history, I would argue many of the politically-motivated types haven't necessarily been particularly religious - or have made use of Islaam for their own political ends (much the same as has happened elsewhere). Only a few, relatively speaking, have been, how do you say, 'true believers' (in an Islaam that is necessarily political). Almost by definition, the non-politically-motivated types aren't going to leave much of a lasting impression on the fabric of history...

While true, that is IMO unreasonably slanted a view. Islamic thought encourages political action and giving wide berth to other Muslims over "kuffar". It is right there in the Qur'an and can't really be challenged without bringing a lot of disconfort among Muslims.

It could be a lot easier were not Islam so adamantly based on the belief in the God of Abraham. But it is.

The notion of Islaamic brotherhood/sisterhood certainly doesn't stop there, though. You've no doubt come across the notion of Zakaat, one of the Pillars of Islaam. Brotherhood/sisterhood goes to the heart of Zakaat. And the Qur'aan and Hadeeth are filled with exhortations to treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters (in the positive sense!).

Indeed, that is a beautiful part of Islaam.

And most importantly, many Muslims take these exhortations pretty seriously and go way beyond the minimum requirements of Zakaat. Refugees from the Syrian conflict are a case in point. Muslims in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have opened their doors to hundreds of thousands in the name of brotherhood/sisterhood (sure, there have been a few tensions, but that's inevitable given the strain on existing facilities, infrastructure and of course the mix of different groups with different beliefs and practices).

Again, I have no issue with what you say.

I don't think I would give the merit to Islaam the religious doctrine quite to the extent that you would, though.

Most people are reasonable and generous when their environment encourages and enables them sufficiently. I don't know or expect that Islamic thought would be a particularly good source of such encouragement and support, though. It is just way too centered on belief in God and in an afterlife to quite fulfill that bill.

I don't quite follow you here - please elaborate.

We keep hearing emphatic claims that ISIS are not Muslims, that Islaam would have kept the world a better place "if only it had been given a chance", that the "Crusaders", "hate speakers" and "obviously fake Muslims" are spoiling the efforts of true Islaam. We can't even get people to keep a reasonably clear and consistent understanding of whether there are any Islamic countries in the world.

That is a very surreal situation, which seems to have been designed backwards, working from the premise that Islaam MUST be valid and constructive down to the decision of what should not be acknowledged as Islamic despite all actual evidence.

I don't think we should lend prestige to such views. I don't think anyone can.

Okay, so perhaps I'm talking from personal experience from my travels around the world.

Quite possibly. I find myself wondering how representative they are, how you met those groups. And most of all, I find myself wondering how much of an exposure to comparable Muslim groups you had, and how colored by presumable identification of yourself as a Muslim they may have been.

 

[Limo]

@Limo, shall we talk about the Armenians?

Ohhh
You've taken so long time to find something.
Let me tell you a secret.
The people who did this were more hostile to Islam and Muslims than they did with Armenians
They were atheist

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you know that ?
Hitler started by burning the books campaign and asked different ideologies to comply with Nazism
Some people started with Islam and Muslims the same journey as Nazis did

Thanks for illustrating our point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ohhh
You've taken so long time to find something.
Let me tell you a secret.
The people who did this were more hostile to Islam and Muslims than they did with Armenians
They were atheist

Isn't lying a bad thing according to Islaam?

 

[Shad]

Allah said in Quran 2:256 " There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower."

You are obvious to how this verse was interpreted. In Cordoba the view was that you can not force true belief but you can force people to live under Islams rules as if they were Muslim as it maybe spark true belief over time and/or next generation. There is also the view that this verse has been abrogated.

You are also obvious to the fact that there were forced conversions. The Ottomans are a fine example with their Janissary slave soldiers which were born to Christian families, take as a "boy tax" then indoctrinated into Islam for the purpose of being the Sultan's body guard. Ironically this system was developed as normal Muslims were not be trusted.

Sources

Tasfir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an (Volume 1) Tafsir of Surah Al- Fatiha and Al Baqarah
The Qur’an and it Interpreters Mahmoud M. Ayoub
https://www.opendemocracy.net/patricia-crone/no-compulsion-in-religion

 

[Tumah]

Don't you know that ?
Hitler started by burning the books campaign and asked different ideologies to comply with Nazism
Some people started with Islam and Muslims the same journey as Nazis did

No, I didn't know that. While I'm aware that there was indeed a burning of books, I have never heard, nor does it make sense with the ideology of Judenrein for Hitler to have asked the Jews to change. It also contradicts the fact that most of the Jews he killed in his own country, were secular, assimilated Jews. He killed Jews because of ethnicity, not ideology. You can't change your ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Nuremberg_laws

 

[The_Fisher_King]

A viable religion strives not to be too centered on any specific authority. It encourages independent thinking and expression. It is ready and willing to learn and benefit from the insight and good will of its adherents, which is always among its most precious resources, if not the single most important one.

Of particular interest for our discussion is that it does not rely on a concept of deity in order to justify itself.

On that reading of a religion's viability, I think quite a few religions would fail!

Still, the benefit is there and much needed, even if it is not acknowledged.

Oh, (as a heretic) I quite agree!

But I am just not seeing it. Islamic discourse has consistently been disappointing and showed no significant hints of religious wisdom as such. I have come to actually wonder if Islamic thought is capable of realizing the difference between wisdom and belief.

I was referring to the common Muslim woman or man on the street, rather than the more rarefied Islaamic discourse of the scholars (and self-proclaimed scholars). I prefer the thinking of the former over the latter. One can always find wisdom amongst ordinary people and their Imaams in their local mosques going about their lives, and a more practical wisdom at that.

Hopefully that is simply because most Muslims are too scared of speaking openly of their disagreements and doubts... but even such a best-case scenario is quite depressing, obviously.

This is unfortunately a real problem in many Muslim countries, and even Muslim communities living in non-Muslim countries. But it is changing, if very slowly.

All of that is true enough, except that when unfairness runs rampant there is a moral duty to oppose it instead of hoping that God will do that eventually.

Oh, I don't disagree with you there. Indeed, the Qur'aan itself exhorts the people with the words 'Allaah will not change the condition of a people until they (strive to) change (what is in) themselves.'

There is too much of a reluctance among Muslims to admit that maybe belief in God will not heal all illnesses

Well, that's a matter of faith, and I for one certainly believe that God will heal all illnesses. But such faith can and should go hand in hand with a striving in the world to change the world for the better (this being Jihaad).

Non-Muslims can't fairly be expected to repeatedly sacrifice their safety and confort to protect that reluctance and the flaws of Islam's own making.

I would certainly never argue that.

Such a flaw is a direct consequence of unchecked reliance on monotheism and therefore only of significance in a relatively small number of faiths.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. Nothing inherently wrong with strong monotheism (I should, btw, clarify my earlier comment wrt my strict monotheism - I stand by that, but for the sake of completeness, should add that my strict monotheism is a pantheistic one). Moreover, with all due respect for practitioners of Shinto, Shinto is one example of a religion which isn't typically considered a monotheistic one, does have a strong emphasis on purity, and does generally maintain a clear distinction between insiders and outsiders. To take another example, the more strongly 'ethnic/ethnonationalistic' forms of Neopaganism (and perhaps also historical paganisms/polytheisms) also often place a pretty strong emphasis on insiders and outsiders. The caste system in some forms of Hindu religions would be another example of classifying people according to their perceived purity/impurity. So I don't think this is solely the preserve of the monotheistic religions.

Nor is it to be passively accepted just like that in any case. People can and should be reminded that they should carry the burden of their own beliefs instead of expecting others to feel duty-bound to do it on their stead just because they are certain that God is on their side.

Again, I quite agree, and would not argue otherwise.

May you point out to some evidence of that diversity? I have looked for it and it has so far evaded me. What variety there is is quite underwhelming, all things considered.

As I said earlier, one can only discover this diversity by talking to ordinary Muslims from across the world. I agree that real diversity is not much in evidence amongst most of the scholars.

I see no reason to, sorry. It would be serious negligence to simply wait when there is so much damage to fix and prevent already.

I'm not suggesting anyone should wait to challenge views they find deeply problematic - in fact, I would encourage the exact opposite. I was just saying that the ongoing evolution of Islaam is following a path not unlike that of Christianity, and as others have observed, Islaam (or the Islaamic world) is kinda where Christianity (or the Christian world) was a couple centuries or more back.

That would certainly be an interesting experience. It is too bad that there are so few around here.

You live in Brazil, right? I appreciate the Muslim community in Brazil is not a huge one (relative to the size of the population as a whole), but I believe that Sufi orders/schools of different varieties do have a following in Brazil. I imagine these are largely concentrated in the bigger cities, and of course I don't know where you live/how easy it is for you to get to a bigger city, but it is possible you may be able to find a few local-ish to you (don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you!).

Again, that is true, but sidesteps the matter of why it should even be an issue at all.

I don't see a fundamental problem with the notion of calling people to repentance (even if it's not something I am in the habit of doing myself - it tends to be the other way around - people telling me to repent of this, that and the other!). Repentance kinda goes hand in hand with notions of sinning/doing something not in keeping with a particular religious rule or whatever. Not at all uncommon in religions around the world! And if someone fervently believes that the person who doesn't follow their faith has erred (in a pretty major way), and that they must do everything they can to save that person's soul, I can't really blame them for calling the non-believers to repentance (again, not something I would do, but just saying). Again, this isn't exactly something Islaam has a complete monopoly on.

Quite frankly, I would attempt to avoid it if it can be reasonably achieved. I had enough of a bad experience with Christians. I would rather not actively pursue the need to hide my religious views in person.

At this point I am actually not sure there would be less harm in following your advice than in just being openly and vocally anti-Islamic.

I'm sorry to hear of your negative experiences trying to learn about the diversity of views held by Christians 'on the street'. It's been my experience that there are good and bad apples in the Christian community, just as in the Muslim community, when it comes to an openness to just talking about different views (without being critical or judgmental, or trying to convert the atheistic sinner!).

The problem with certain kinds of open and vocal anti-any religion or viewpoint is that they tend to just polarise communities and exacerbate tensions in my experience, which doesn't ultimately help anyone except the extremists.

While true, that is IMO unreasonably slanted a view. Islamic thought encourages political action and giving wide berth to other Muslims over "kuffar". It is right there in the Qur'an and can't really be challenged without bringing a lot of disconfort among Muslims.

I don't deny that there is this strand within Islaamic doctrine. But in practice, many Muslims aren't massively political (just like many others), don't show this inherent bias towards other Muslims and are perfectly happy forming friendships and doing business with non-Muslims.

It could be a lot easier were not Islam so adamantly based on the belief in the God of Abraham. But it is.

That's not something that is likely to change anytime soon! An Abrahamic religion without the Abrahamic God isn't much of an Abrahamic religion, arguably!

I don't think I would give the merit to Islaam the religious doctrine quite to the extent that you would, though.

But I'm not giving merit to some rarefied Islaamic religious doctrine specifically here. I am just pointing to the fact that ordinary Muslims, with their understandings and ways of practicing their forms of Islaam, can be just as brotherly/sisterly as, say, Jews.

Most people are reasonable and generous when their environment encourages and enables them sufficiently. I don't know or expect that Islamic thought would be a particularly good source of such encouragement and support, though. It is just way too centered on belief in God and in an afterlife to quite fulfill that bill.

I understand that deity-centred and afterlife-centred beliefs are not for you. But many religions around the world place a great emphasis on them, and they can just as easily inspire charity and brotherhood and community and the like as they can isolationism and hatred.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

We keep hearing emphatic claims that ISIS are not Muslims, that Islaam would have kept the world a better place "if only it had been given a chance", that the "Crusaders", "hate speakers" and "obviously fake Muslims" are spoiling the efforts of true Islaam. We can't even get people to keep a reasonably clear and consistent understanding of whether there are any Islamic countries in the world.

That is a very surreal situation, which seems to have been designed backwards, working from the premise that Islaam MUST be valid and constructive down to the decision of what should not be acknowledged as Islamic despite all actual evidence.


I don't think we should lend prestige to such views. I don't think anyone can.

Okay, I get that some other Muslims do this. Let me just say, as one Muslim, that unless I hear anything to the contrary (and I haven't yet), I count ISIS among my fellow Muslims. I have a major problem with a number of their views (as they no doubt have a major problem with a number of my views), but they are still in my opinion Muslims. There are plenty of Islaamic countries, in the sense that the majority of their populations are Muslims of various flavours and persuasions, practicing various kinds of legal system, more or less based on the Sharee'ah. Some Muslims will say that because there is no country that has completely adopted Sharee'ah today, there is no truly Islaamic country anywhere in the world, nor has there been for a long time. They will often hark back to the perceived Golden Age of early Islaam. If one believes that a country is only truly Islaamic if it incorporates every element of Sharee'ah, then you can see why some people hold this view. But this is just one view (or rather set of views). I certainly don't want to see Sharee'ah in its entirety adopted anywhere (and many of my fellow Muslims agree). Wrt the subject of this poll, I'm a libertarian, right, so I'm generally going to be nervous about the idea of banning most things. I don't see a fundamental problem with people/communities in particular (non-Muslims) countries saying that they would like certain disputes or whatever resolved in accordance with the rulings of Sharee'ah, Halakhah, etc. (as long as those Muslims, Jews, etc. who don't recognise the validity of Sharee'ah, Halakhah, etc. or don't wish to be judged/resolve disputes by its statutes can freely opt out). Bottom line, no compulsion. That's right there in the Qur'aan too.

Quite possibly. I find myself wondering how representative they are, how you met those groups. And most of all, I find myself wondering how much of an exposure to comparable Muslim groups you had, and how colored by presumable identification of yourself as a Muslim they may have been.

I often pass off as a non-Muslim. A combo of my fairer complexion, 'Western' dress, etc. And I have spent time with a pretty wide range of different people (of different religions and none, right across the political spectrum) around the world (quite deliberately, in my ongoing search for knowledge). I'm less familiar with Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, but have spent a good bit of time travelling in other parts of the world and hanging out with all sorts of people, including the good, the bad and the ugly, and it's been my experience that there are good, bad and ugly people the world over (regardless of their ethnic, religious or indeed political affiliation). All part of the rich tapestry of human life!

But I do appreciate, of course, that I'm just one person, and could just have been unlucky/lucky. Not a great sample size, lol! And I'm still learning, so I could be wrong.

 

[Limo]

No, I didn't know that. While I'm aware that there was indeed a burning of books, I have never heard, nor does it make sense with the ideology of Judenrein for Hitler to have asked the Jews to change. It also contradicts the fact that most of the Jews he killed in his own country, were secular, assimilated Jews. He killed Jews because of ethnicity, not ideology. You can't change your ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Nuremberg_laws

There was a campaign to burn books that are considered Ami-Nazism in year 1930, then campaign to ask people to change their thoughts and conscience to comply with Nazism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

It has started in Germany like What some people are starting it now in west to finish Islamic thoughts and they're saying not to finish Muslims

 

[Tumah]

There was a campaign to burn books that are considered Ami-Nazism in year 1930, then campaign to ask people to change their thoughts and conscience to comply with Nazism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

I has started like this to finish Islamic thoughts

Yes, I am familiar with the book burnings. But no where does it say that the Jews were asked to change. For most of the ones that were killed in Germany, there wouldn't be very much to change as most of them were secular and assimilated into German culture.

 

[Limo]

You are obvious to how this verse was interpreted. In Cordoba the view was that you can not force true belief but you can force people to live under Islams rules as if they were Muslim as it maybe spark true belief over time and/or next generation. There is also the view that this verse has been abrogated.

You are also obvious to the fact that there were forced conversions. The Ottomans are a fine example with their Janissary slave soldiers which were born to Christian families, take as a "boy tax" then indoctrinated into Islam for the purpose of being the Sultan's body guard. Ironically this system was developed as normal Muslims were not be trusted.

Sources

Tasfir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an (Volume 1) Tafsir of Surah Al- Fatiha and Al Baqarah
The Qur’an and it Interpreters Mahmoud M. Ayoub
https://www.opendemocracy.net/patricia-crone/no-compulsion-in-religion

The article is too long
In general if Quran says no compulsion in religion then no compulsion in religion

If some people deviated at a certain time, it doesn't change the fact.
what you dislike in Islam is that it's not changing, It's good that nobody can change Quran which is the main source of values

It's Haram/ forbidden/ not allowed for Muslims to do compulsion in religion.

 

[Limo]

Isn't lying a bad thing according to Islaam?

Yes, lying is Haram/forbidden/one of the worst sins in Islam.

Did I lie on you ?

Sorry, What shall I do if you're ignorant about history of the area and Islam.

Read about the worst atheist party in Turkish history. You'll know their acts against Islam and Muslims and they're responsible about Armenian issue. They're not Muslims and they didn't claim to be Muslims

Nevertheless, Turkish people has explanation that there were some exchanged killing and force people from both sides.... It's a long story.
Even there is a book by an Armenian archeologist who is denying that a genocide has happened and saying that it's an exchange of killing and forcing people to immigrate. He proofed also several hundred thousands of Turkish Muslims were killed as well

 

[Limo]

Putting people in camps for extermination is "asking Jews to change" Hilarious.

Just have some reading and you'll understand what I mean

See my responses to others

 

[Limo]

The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until after Egypt fell to the Muslim empire. You are confusing the Roman Catholic Church with the Orthodox Catholic Church. There is a difference...



Hardly. Regardless of a state's acceptance or rejection a person can still hold a title. If you look at the people that held the position many were attacked by the state church and maintain the position within their own church. This does not mean their position is void. You also seem to forgot that the Coptics paid high taxes for this right. Source is The Coptic Encyclopedia, maybe read it.

Thank for correcting the info about the Byzantine church
The word "High Tax" is relative depending What high means for you.

The fact is that Coptic Christians lived safe and free under Islamic state after they were being killed and chased by another Christian church

 

[Limo]

Yes, I am familiar with the book burnings. But no where does it say that the Jews were asked to change. For most of the ones that were killed in Germany, there wouldn't be very much to change as most of them were secular and assimilated into German culture.

The burning of books was a part of campaign that directs people to depend on German books and language, abandon any other ideologies but Nazism.
In summary, be pure German

These way of thinking, it doesn't matter if you're religious or secular. The main issue is that you've different label

 

[Tumah]

The burning of books was a part of campaign that directs people to depend on German books and language, abandon any other ideologies but Nazism.
In summary, be pure German

These way of thinking, it doesn't matter if you're religious or secular. The main issue is that you've different label

That's what assimilation means. I don't think Jews were given such a choice.

 

[Shad]

The article is too long

Irreverent and a lazy excuse

In general if Quran says no compulsion in religion then no compulsion in religion

Ive showed otherwise.

If some people deviated at a certain time, it doesn't change the fact.

Perhaps you deviated....

what you dislike in Islam is that it's not changing, It's good that nobody can change Quran which is the main source of values

Irrelevant

It's Haram/ forbidden/ not allowed for Muslims to do compulsion in religion.

Yet I have showed otherwise.

 

[Shad]

Just have some reading and you'll understand what I mean

See my responses to others

Made up claims are still made up claims.

 

[Shad]

Thank for correcting the info about the Byzantine church
The word "High Tax" is relative depending What high means for you.

They paid a higher tax rate than Muslims do.

The fact is that Coptic Christians lived safe and free under Islamic state after they were being killed and chased by another Christian church

Yet there weren't safe nor free, they had to pay a protection tax.

Yes Christians can be very very toxic to other Christians. This has be a common trend for centuries.