A Question of Tolerance in Islam
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 12:52 pm
I found this in some of my old files. I wrote it way back in 2006/2007, and I don't believe I've ever shared it with the online community:
==========================================================
Dan Peterson once stated, on the forum formerly known as the FAIR Boards:
So the Arabs were spread by the sword. Well that's certainly important to know. Nevermind the fact that those Arabs, who were virtually all Muslim, regularly offered conversion to Islam as a means to avoid destruction. To say it was only the Arabs who spread, and not their religion, is really a distinction without much of a difference.
I assume he is speaking of a story in reference to the Persian invasion, and it is easy to offer a romantic view of oppression when you’re ignoring the testimony of the oppressed. Daring to ruin the moment, here is an account of what happened as recorded by the Coptic Christians (emphasis mine):
According to this account, the opening of the gates was similar to waving a white flag and it was in reference to the Persian not the Arab invasion. In this case the citizens of Alexandria (Cairo) were perfectly aware of the fact that the invading armies had taken over nearby areas and that the city's gates were not about to stop them. Lucky for them, the Persian King decided to use this to his advantage by claiming to have seen a vision in a dream. In any event, to say the Egyptians let in the Muslim invaders because they preferred Islamic rule over Byzantine, is pure speculation based on what appears to be a superficial and anti-critical reading of history. To say a person opened the gates because, "they wanted to get out from under the Byzantines" is another illicit leap in logic that is not supported by the historical record.
When the Arabs invaded Alexandria, I am unaware of any story about a man running down to open the gates. This would make little sense in light of the fact that the Patriarch Cyrus had already gone to the Muslim leader to negotiate the surrender. According to a chronicle written between 693 and 700 by the Coptic Bishop John,
When Cyrus returned he had to persuade the Egyptians to accept the terms to which he had agreed. Upon the arrival of the Muslim forces, the Egyptians who knew nothing about the treaty were enraged to find out about it.
The response by the Egyptians flies in the face of Peterson's claim that the Egyptians were anxious to live under Islamic rule. It is also worth noting that the desecration of Christian Churches and the persecution of Jews ceased because these were conditions of the negotiation set by Cyrus. That he made these requests at all seems to indicate that Muslim invasions usually involved persecution towards both. So where does a story about a guy running down to open the gates fit in with this scenario? It seems Dr. Peterson was conflating two different invasions and getting his stories mixed up.
It is also revealing that Dr. Peterson says Islamic conquests were bloodless in "many" cases, yet the example from the Egyptian raids which he uses to make his point, was clearly the exception not the rule. According to John the Copt, after the death of Cyrus Amr did not hold to his agreement and began to unleash fury upon the Egyptians:
Centuries later, the calamity caused by the Muslim conquest was stuck firmly in the minds of the surviving Copts. According to one Monk from the 12th century, “The Muslims took [Egypt] from us, they appropriated it by force and violence, and it is from our hands that they seized power.” He then refers to the, “massacre that they wrought on our kings and our ruling families during their conquest.” (Documented in Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, 206)
Incidentally, the caliph Umar once asked the question, “Do you think that these vast countries, Syria, Mesopotamia, Kufa, Basra, Misr [Egypt] do not have to be covered with troops who must be well paid?” Why does Dr. Peterson suppose occupying troops would be needed, if, as he implies, the residents were grateful for their presence?
Ultimately we have first hand accounts from eye-witnesses, and then we have the politically correct academia assuring us the Muslims of times past were “amazingly gentle and merciful” in their conquests. This is a myth that lives on because of the protection is receives from the academy.
This is interesting because at this point Peterson concedes that in at least some cases, Islam was spread by force. Yet, he feels no need for balance when making the sweeping generalization that “Muslims did not force conversions.” This is political correctness gone amuk, and one needs to think more dimensionally in order to understand that there are various forms of coercion. In the case of most dhimmi conversions, the coercion was sociological and economical. However, in the case of the pagans/polytheists, conversions were often forced at sword-point.
In order to avoid the usual bigot-baiting tactic which asserts this understanding is one chosen from a premise of prejudice, and not information, I will demonstrate that my understanding is on par with various Islamic educators. For example, the website http://www.islam-qa.com is a pro-Islam website that is run by an imam who responds to questions offered by Muslims online. One inquirer asks, “Was Islam spread by the sword?” to which the imam responded in the affirmative, noting that this notion that Islam wasn’t spread by the sword is a “trap” set by Western academics. His rationale was that, “This goes against what the Muslim scholars have stated, let alone the fact that it goes against the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” The full explanation he offered is as fascinating as it is intricate.
On a similar website we find the following teaching:
A Pakistani based Muslim web forum concurs: "Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah."
The point here is that this understanding is not a product of prejudice. It is a product of reasonable and popular interpretation of sacred Islamic texts, untainted by moral relativism and political correctness.
And yet, according to one Muslim historian, Habib Malik of the Lebanese American University:
It is sad when we find that products of academia are more than willing to dwell on sporadic anecdotes of tolerance, pretend they were the norm, and falsely characterize centuries of oppression and gradual liquidation, as being “treated just fine.”
Moreover, what the good doctor isn’t telling us is that these options were initially available only to Jews and Christians, while the majority theists – mostly of a polytheistic variety - were initially given only two choices, conversion or death; though dhimmi status was optional to polytheists by later caliphs for the sake of pragmatism.
The detailed analyses of the treatment of Islam’s subjugated peoples has become taboo. Those who have dared threaten the established consensus with newer findings have been attacked relentlessly and their research has for the most part gone ignored. Peterson asserts that the tax was only “slightly higher.” What is he thinking? What is his source for this generalization which covers centuries of dhimmitude? One hadith speaks of the dhimmi tax burden being twice that which was imposed on Muslims.(Malik ibn Anas, Muwatta’ Imam Malik, translated by Muhammad Rahimuddin, 2000 ch. 177, no. 661) According to Bishop John, "And the Moslem took possession of all the land of Egypt, southern and northern, and tripled their taxes." An increase of 100%-200% is what Peterson calls "slightly higher"?
And this makes perfect sense given the fact that the purpose of the tax increase was so that the subjugated peoples would “feel themselves subdued.” A "slightly higher" tax is unlikely to cause anyone to feel subdued; so it is pointless to rationalize a romantic view of the tax (i.e. suggesting the tax was lower than what they were used to, they were grateful for being exempt from military service, that the victims were just happy to be out from underneath the Byzantine yoke, et cetera). The whole point behind the tax was to humiliate, and this comes directly from the Quran, (Surah 9:29). Payment of the tax was usually in the form of public ritual, where the dhimmi would sometimes have to kneel before the collector and make payment as he is slapped across the face. This is how the famous Al-Ghazali described it:
The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 A.D.:
The famous Jew Moses Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordova with his entire family in 1148. Contrary to the myth of a tolerant society in Muslim Spain, he testified that,“..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” Never? Not even the Christian nations? Apparently not, but don't tell that to any modern-day MES scholar, as it would shatter one of their favored myths.
As mentioned before, dhimmitude worked so well that future caliphs preferred to extend this status to polytheists as opposed to killing them. After all, the taxes received boosted the Islamic economy. Subjugated people were always cows that needed to be milked first. And the exemption from military service was qualified by the fact that everyone was obligated to take up arms if the community was under attack. If one refused to fight, after the battle he would be put to death for treason. This was the justification for the beheading of 600-900 Jewish males which Muhammad based on no evidence other than "an angel told me."
Naturally it is a gradual process, but if Peterson is suggesting that people were not generally coerced to convert to Islam then he is being intellectually dishonest. There are many ways to force people to do something, aside from putting a blade to their throat. For the dhimmi, it was illegal to make them choose between death and conversion. This much is true. However, the restrictions placed upon the dhimmi meant social inequality to a spectacular degree. Conversion to Islam would relieve converts of many social inflictions that became unbearable. The restrictions placed on Jews and Christians, such as the lost privilege of rebuilding new places of worship and renovating existing ones, the lost privilege of practicing one’s religion publicly and being able to leave Islam without being put to death, were intended to eventually kill off these religions. The logic was that God’s true religion will reveal itself in numbers and prominence, and symbolism played an important role. This is why Muslims have traditionally built Mosques on top of cites where synagogues or cathedrals once stood. It is symbolic of the “age of ignorance,” (Judaism and Christianity) being replaced by Islam.
Of course I am a bigot for judging the level of tolerance in Islam, but Dan gladly makes that judgment for Christianity! This is of course the Islamic apologist’s bread and butter argument that counts on a naïve and uncritical audience. The problem here should be obvious to those who understand that Islam and Christianity are not equal, but today there is this trendy philosophy of moral and cultural relativism that blinds most critical thinkers of the important differences. First and foremost is the fact that Islam and politics are inseparable. Islam is a political force by design. Thus, there is hardly any distinction that can be made between the actions of Islamic rulers, including Muhammad, and Islam itself.
By contrast, Christianity is a religion while its political counterpart, the Byzantine Empire (commonly called Christendom) was altogether a different entity. So for Dr. Peterson to immediately conflate the two without accounting for these crucial differences is carelessness. Bernard Lewis articulates this point well enough,
Thus, we must recognize and take into account these differences before we begin drawing parallels between what Islam allowed compared to Christianity. In Christianity there was the pope, a leader who declared what Christianity was supposed to be and he could act on its behalf. Byzantine kings acted on their own behalf, using Christianity as a symbol and political tool. Some were more influenced by the pope’s advice than others, but none were legally bound to it. When these emperors were intolerant towards minority faiths, it is erroneous to assume these were examples of “Christianity's” intolerance. Oftentimes these acts were in direct contradiction to what the pope had suggested. According to a lecture by Cecil Roth,
In another example, when the pope tried to stop the notorious inquisition, the king of Spain refused the counsel and continued to use it to suppress those who would threaten his kingdom. When Muslims were denying Jews the right to practice their religion publicly, the popes were urging Christians everywhere to grant them this privilege. Further, the Islamic prohibition against Christians and Jews testifying in court against Muslims was in stark contrast to the popes who said it would be wrong to allow Christians to testify against Jews. This is a clear example on specifics, where Christianity was tolerant and Islam was not.
==========================================================
Dan Peterson once stated, on the forum formerly known as the FAIR Boards:
One point I want to make here that is really important is that Islam did not spread by the sword, the Arabs did
So the Arabs were spread by the sword. Well that's certainly important to know. Nevermind the fact that those Arabs, who were virtually all Muslim, regularly offered conversion to Islam as a means to avoid destruction. To say it was only the Arabs who spread, and not their religion, is really a distinction without much of a difference.
…it was amazingly bloodless in many cases, when they invaded Egypt, for example, the Egyptians were so mad at the Byzantines that an Egyptian went down and opened the gates at Cairo…and let the Muslims come in, and let the Arab armies come in because they wanted to get out from under the Byzantines.
I assume he is speaking of a story in reference to the Persian invasion, and it is easy to offer a romantic view of oppression when you’re ignoring the testimony of the oppressed. Daring to ruin the moment, here is an account of what happened as recorded by the Coptic Christians (emphasis mine):
Shortly after the ordination of Abba Andronicus, the Persians invaded the East and crossed the river Euphrates. They seized Halab, Antioch in Syria, Jerusalem, and many other cities. They killed and imprisoned many Christians. They captured Egypt and went to the City of Alexandria (now Cairo), around which there were six hundred inhabited monasteries. They killed all the inhabitants, plundered their possessions, and destroyed the monasteries. When the people of Alexandria heard what they had done, because of their fear, they opened the gates of the city for them. The Persian King saw in a night dream someone saying to him, 'I have delivered to you the city. Do not destroy it. But kill its heroes for they are hypocrites.' He arrested the Governor of the city, and tied him up in chains. He ordered the elders of the city to bring forth the men, from 18 to 50 years old to come forward to give everyone twenty denari, and to enlist them as soldiers for the city. Eighty thousand men came forward and he killed them all by the sword. Afterward, the Persian King went with his army to Upper Egypt. He passed by the city of Nikios. He heard that there were some seven hundred monks living in cells and caves around it. He sent men to kill them. He continued to kill and destroy until Emperor Heraclius conquered him and drove him out of Egypt. (Coptic Diary, Tubah 8:2)
According to this account, the opening of the gates was similar to waving a white flag and it was in reference to the Persian not the Arab invasion. In this case the citizens of Alexandria (Cairo) were perfectly aware of the fact that the invading armies had taken over nearby areas and that the city's gates were not about to stop them. Lucky for them, the Persian King decided to use this to his advantage by claiming to have seen a vision in a dream. In any event, to say the Egyptians let in the Muslim invaders because they preferred Islamic rule over Byzantine, is pure speculation based on what appears to be a superficial and anti-critical reading of history. To say a person opened the gates because, "they wanted to get out from under the Byzantines" is another illicit leap in logic that is not supported by the historical record.
When the Arabs invaded Alexandria, I am unaware of any story about a man running down to open the gates. This would make little sense in light of the fact that the Patriarch Cyrus had already gone to the Muslim leader to negotiate the surrender. According to a chronicle written between 693 and 700 by the Coptic Bishop John,
...the patriarch Cyrus set out and went to Babylon to the Moslem, seeking by the offer of tribute to procure peace from them and put a stop to war in the land of Egypt. And 'Amr welcomed his arrival, and said unto him: 'Thou hast done well to come to us.' And Cyrus answered and said unto him : 'God has delivered this land into your hands : let there be no enmity from henceforth between you and Rome : heretofore there has been no persistent strife with you.' And they fixed the amount of tribute to be paid. And as for the Ishmaelites, they were not to intervene in any matter, but were to keep to themselves for eleven months. The Roman troops in Alexandria were to carry off their possessions and their treasures and proceed (home) by sea, and no other Roman army was to return. But those who wished to journey by land were to pay a monthly (?) tribute. And the Moslem were to take as hostages one hundred and fifty soldiers and fifty civilians and make peace. And the Romans were to cease warring against the Moslem, and the Moslem were to desist from seizing Christian Churches, and the latter were not to intermeddle with any concerns of the Christians. And the Jews were to be permitted to remain in the city of Alexandria.
When Cyrus returned he had to persuade the Egyptians to accept the terms to which he had agreed. Upon the arrival of the Muslim forces, the Egyptians who knew nothing about the treaty were enraged to find out about it.
[Cyrus] persuaded them all to accept them. And while things were in this condition, the Moslem came to receive the tribute, though the inhabitants of Alexandria had not yet been informed (of the treaty). And the Alexandrians, on seeing them, made ready for battle. But the troops and the generals held fast to the resolution they had adopted, and said: 'We cannot engage in battle with the Moslem: rather let the counsel of the patriarch Cyrus be observed.' Then the population rose up against the patriarch and sought to stone him. But he said unto them: 'I have made this treaty in order to save you and your children.' And plunged in much weeping and grief he besought them. And thereupon the Alexandrians felt ashamed before him, and offered him a large sum of gold to hand over to the Ishmaelites together with the tribute which had been imposed on them. And the Egyptians, who, through fear of the Moslem, had fled and taken refuge in the city of Alexandria, made the following request to the patriarch : 'Get the Moslem.to promise that we may return to our cities and become their subjects. And he negotiated for them according to their request. And the Moslem took possession of all the land of Egypt, southern and northern, and trebled (tripled) their taxes.
The response by the Egyptians flies in the face of Peterson's claim that the Egyptians were anxious to live under Islamic rule. It is also worth noting that the desecration of Christian Churches and the persecution of Jews ceased because these were conditions of the negotiation set by Cyrus. That he made these requests at all seems to indicate that Muslim invasions usually involved persecution towards both. So where does a story about a guy running down to open the gates fit in with this scenario? It seems Dr. Peterson was conflating two different invasions and getting his stories mixed up.
It is also revealing that Dr. Peterson says Islamic conquests were bloodless in "many" cases, yet the example from the Egyptian raids which he uses to make his point, was clearly the exception not the rule. According to John the Copt, after the death of Cyrus Amr did not hold to his agreement and began to unleash fury upon the Egyptians:
Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou. There was not a single soldier to resist them. They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches - men, women and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found... But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when the occupied the island of Nikious, on Sunday, the eighteenth day of the month of Guenbot, in the fifteenth year of the lunar cycle, as well as the terrible scenes which took place in Caesarea in Palestine.
Centuries later, the calamity caused by the Muslim conquest was stuck firmly in the minds of the surviving Copts. According to one Monk from the 12th century, “The Muslims took [Egypt] from us, they appropriated it by force and violence, and it is from our hands that they seized power.” He then refers to the, “massacre that they wrought on our kings and our ruling families during their conquest.” (Documented in Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, 206)
Incidentally, the caliph Umar once asked the question, “Do you think that these vast countries, Syria, Mesopotamia, Kufa, Basra, Misr [Egypt] do not have to be covered with troops who must be well paid?” Why does Dr. Peterson suppose occupying troops would be needed, if, as he implies, the residents were grateful for their presence?
Ultimately we have first hand accounts from eye-witnesses, and then we have the politically correct academia assuring us the Muslims of times past were “amazingly gentle and merciful” in their conquests. This is a myth that lives on because of the protection is receives from the academy.
The Muslims did not force conversions, what they did was they gave people three choices… you can convert to Islam, or you can die
This is interesting because at this point Peterson concedes that in at least some cases, Islam was spread by force. Yet, he feels no need for balance when making the sweeping generalization that “Muslims did not force conversions.” This is political correctness gone amuk, and one needs to think more dimensionally in order to understand that there are various forms of coercion. In the case of most dhimmi conversions, the coercion was sociological and economical. However, in the case of the pagans/polytheists, conversions were often forced at sword-point.
In order to avoid the usual bigot-baiting tactic which asserts this understanding is one chosen from a premise of prejudice, and not information, I will demonstrate that my understanding is on par with various Islamic educators. For example, the website http://www.islam-qa.com is a pro-Islam website that is run by an imam who responds to questions offered by Muslims online. One inquirer asks, “Was Islam spread by the sword?” to which the imam responded in the affirmative, noting that this notion that Islam wasn’t spread by the sword is a “trap” set by Western academics. His rationale was that, “This goes against what the Muslim scholars have stated, let alone the fact that it goes against the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” The full explanation he offered is as fascinating as it is intricate.
On a similar website we find the following teaching:
The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger. It tells us that these people are given time in which to make up their minds and to present all their objections against the messenger (Rasu'l). It tells us that when the Al-knowing Allah decides that these people have been given adequate time and that they are now absolutely clear of the truthfulness of the messenger and thus are not left with any excuse for their rejection but still are persistent in their rejection then Allah directs his prophet to migrate from the area and then he destroys all those who have rejected his messenger. The Qur'an refers to the peoples (nations of the messengers of old - Noah, Hood, Lot, Shoaib, Saaleh and Moses (pbuh)- and narrates the result of their rejection. It declares to the direct addressees of Muhammad (sws) that if they don't accept the message of Allah's messenger (Muhammad) their fate shall be no different from those nations that have gone before them. (Surah al-Qamar the whole Surah especially verse no 43-45)
In short the Qur'an says it is the unalterable law of Allah that when he sends his messenger in a people, these particular people are left with no option but to accept his message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.
A Pakistani based Muslim web forum concurs: "Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah."
The point here is that this understanding is not a product of prejudice. It is a product of reasonable and popular interpretation of sacred Islamic texts, untainted by moral relativism and political correctness.
… or you can maintain your religion and maintain a slightly higher tax rate, in exchange for which you will not have to serve in the military and we will treat you just fine.
And yet, according to one Muslim historian, Habib Malik of the Lebanese American University:
Over the centuries political Islam has not been too kind to the native Christian communities living under its rule. Anecdotes of tolerance aside, the systematic treatment of Christians and Jews as second-class citizens (dhimmi) is abusive and discriminatory by any standard… Under Islam, the dhimmi are not allowed to build new places of worship or renovate existing ones dhimmi women are available for marriage to Muslims while the reverse is strictly prohibited; the political rights of dhimmis are absent; and the targeted d himmi community and each individual in it are made to live in a state of perpetual humiliation in the eyes of the ruling community… These measures can only spell a recipe for gradual liquidation. (Malik, “Christians in the Land Called Holy,” First Things, January 1999.)
It is sad when we find that products of academia are more than willing to dwell on sporadic anecdotes of tolerance, pretend they were the norm, and falsely characterize centuries of oppression and gradual liquidation, as being “treated just fine.”
Moreover, what the good doctor isn’t telling us is that these options were initially available only to Jews and Christians, while the majority theists – mostly of a polytheistic variety - were initially given only two choices, conversion or death; though dhimmi status was optional to polytheists by later caliphs for the sake of pragmatism.
The detailed analyses of the treatment of Islam’s subjugated peoples has become taboo. Those who have dared threaten the established consensus with newer findings have been attacked relentlessly and their research has for the most part gone ignored. Peterson asserts that the tax was only “slightly higher.” What is he thinking? What is his source for this generalization which covers centuries of dhimmitude? One hadith speaks of the dhimmi tax burden being twice that which was imposed on Muslims.(Malik ibn Anas, Muwatta’ Imam Malik, translated by Muhammad Rahimuddin, 2000 ch. 177, no. 661) According to Bishop John, "And the Moslem took possession of all the land of Egypt, southern and northern, and tripled their taxes." An increase of 100%-200% is what Peterson calls "slightly higher"?
And this makes perfect sense given the fact that the purpose of the tax increase was so that the subjugated peoples would “feel themselves subdued.” A "slightly higher" tax is unlikely to cause anyone to feel subdued; so it is pointless to rationalize a romantic view of the tax (i.e. suggesting the tax was lower than what they were used to, they were grateful for being exempt from military service, that the victims were just happy to be out from underneath the Byzantine yoke, et cetera). The whole point behind the tax was to humiliate, and this comes directly from the Quran, (Surah 9:29). Payment of the tax was usually in the form of public ritual, where the dhimmi would sometimes have to kneel before the collector and make payment as he is slapped across the face. This is how the famous Al-Ghazali described it:
…the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. (Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.)
The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 A.D.:
No Jew or Christian may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual; on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to greet them with the expression, “Peace be upon you’. In effect, ‘Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning. They are the confederates of Satan’s party; Satan’s confederates will surely be the losers!” A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace.
The famous Jew Moses Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordova with his entire family in 1148. Contrary to the myth of a tolerant society in Muslim Spain, he testified that,“..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” Never? Not even the Christian nations? Apparently not, but don't tell that to any modern-day MES scholar, as it would shatter one of their favored myths.
As mentioned before, dhimmitude worked so well that future caliphs preferred to extend this status to polytheists as opposed to killing them. After all, the taxes received boosted the Islamic economy. Subjugated people were always cows that needed to be milked first. And the exemption from military service was qualified by the fact that everyone was obligated to take up arms if the community was under attack. If one refused to fight, after the battle he would be put to death for treason. This was the justification for the beheading of 600-900 Jewish males which Muhammad based on no evidence other than "an angel told me."
Most people opted for that, in fact it took about five centuries before Egypt for instance became majority Muslim. It was a very gradual process. It was not done at sword point, in fact the Qu’ran forbids forced conversion…
Naturally it is a gradual process, but if Peterson is suggesting that people were not generally coerced to convert to Islam then he is being intellectually dishonest. There are many ways to force people to do something, aside from putting a blade to their throat. For the dhimmi, it was illegal to make them choose between death and conversion. This much is true. However, the restrictions placed upon the dhimmi meant social inequality to a spectacular degree. Conversion to Islam would relieve converts of many social inflictions that became unbearable. The restrictions placed on Jews and Christians, such as the lost privilege of rebuilding new places of worship and renovating existing ones, the lost privilege of practicing one’s religion publicly and being able to leave Islam without being put to death, were intended to eventually kill off these religions. The logic was that God’s true religion will reveal itself in numbers and prominence, and symbolism played an important role. This is why Muslims have traditionally built Mosques on top of cites where synagogues or cathedrals once stood. It is symbolic of the “age of ignorance,” (Judaism and Christianity) being replaced by Islam.
In fact Islam has been more tolerant on minority religions than Christianity has been, and I think that is another important point that really needs to be stressed.
Of course I am a bigot for judging the level of tolerance in Islam, but Dan gladly makes that judgment for Christianity! This is of course the Islamic apologist’s bread and butter argument that counts on a naïve and uncritical audience. The problem here should be obvious to those who understand that Islam and Christianity are not equal, but today there is this trendy philosophy of moral and cultural relativism that blinds most critical thinkers of the important differences. First and foremost is the fact that Islam and politics are inseparable. Islam is a political force by design. Thus, there is hardly any distinction that can be made between the actions of Islamic rulers, including Muhammad, and Islam itself.
By contrast, Christianity is a religion while its political counterpart, the Byzantine Empire (commonly called Christendom) was altogether a different entity. So for Dr. Peterson to immediately conflate the two without accounting for these crucial differences is carelessness. Bernard Lewis articulates this point well enough,
The founder of Christianity bade his followers 'render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's' (Matt 22:21) - and for centuries Christianity grew and developed as a religion of the downtrodden, until with the conversion to Christianity of the emperor Constantine, Caesar himself became a Christian and inaugurated a series of changes by which the new faith captured the Roman Empire and transformed its civilization. The Founder of Islam was his own Constantine, and founded his own state and empire. (Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam, p.6)
Thus, we must recognize and take into account these differences before we begin drawing parallels between what Islam allowed compared to Christianity. In Christianity there was the pope, a leader who declared what Christianity was supposed to be and he could act on its behalf. Byzantine kings acted on their own behalf, using Christianity as a symbol and political tool. Some were more influenced by the pope’s advice than others, but none were legally bound to it. When these emperors were intolerant towards minority faiths, it is erroneous to assume these were examples of “Christianity's” intolerance. Oftentimes these acts were in direct contradiction to what the pope had suggested. According to a lecture by Cecil Roth,
Only in Rome has the colony of Jews continued its existence since before the beginning of the Christian era, because of all the dynasties of Europe, the Papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews of Rome and Italy, but throughout the ages popes were protectors of the Jews…The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude.
In another example, when the pope tried to stop the notorious inquisition, the king of Spain refused the counsel and continued to use it to suppress those who would threaten his kingdom. When Muslims were denying Jews the right to practice their religion publicly, the popes were urging Christians everywhere to grant them this privilege. Further, the Islamic prohibition against Christians and Jews testifying in court against Muslims was in stark contrast to the popes who said it would be wrong to allow Christians to testify against Jews. This is a clear example on specifics, where Christianity was tolerant and Islam was not.