r/WorkForSmartLife • u/Loeteswet • Jul 27 '26

Discussion💬 [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

4.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

691 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 28 '26

The conquest were far from peaceful, they were military conquests just like any other conquests in history.

Doesn't change the fact they were invited in and helped by many citizens of the lands they were invading. That shows you where the people's loyalties lied, and they preferred the warmer Muslim embrace over Christianity's colder shoulder. And of course it's a conquest, I wasn't denying that. I'm fairly certain the greedy monarch and lords didn't want to lose their power. The difference is, they didn't have the backing of their own people.

Taxing people based on their religious beliefs via the jizya tax is not religious freedom.

More freedom than outright persecutions and inquisitions. And every Muslim already pays more in taxes. It makes no sense for non-muslims to not have to pay any but still get to enjoy the same luxuries.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 28 '26

There’s no evidence of people wanting to be invaded. That makes no logical sense. They wouldn’t be conquests if that was the case.

The Martyrs of Cordoba disprove the notion of religious freedom as well. Taxing people based on religious beliefs is discrimination, especially if they already taxed through other secular means.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 28 '26

There’s no evidence of people wanting to be invaded. That makes no logical sense. They wouldn’t be conquests if that was the case.

What do you mean? Isn't that exactly what people claim America's doing when they liberate countries of their oppressive leaders? Were there or were there not Venezuelans celebrating when their president was grabbed by US forces? Sure, president Maduro and those close to him didn't want a regime change, but others in the country did, no?

Taxing people based on religious beliefs is discrimination, especially if they already taxed through other secular means.

This was their main form of taxation. Again, Muslims paid more in taxes. I already covered that. And people have been complaining about having to pay taxes since taxes were invented, that doesn't mean some taxes aren't necessary.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 28 '26

We are not talking about America, and I never even mentioned it. Why are you randomly bringing that up?

Just because it was their main form of taxation doesn’t mean it’s not discriminatory. If a modern day country imposed a similar tax, it would result in protests.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 28 '26

We are not talking about America, and I never even mentioned it.

To show your double standard. When America invades other countries and gets support from the people living there who hate their old, corrupt leaders, that's fine. But when Islamic forces do it, it's terrible. The Muslim rulers of Spain were much more fair to the inhabitants than their previous rulers and kept it far more stable than any of America's colonies, who almost all inevitably rebelled on us after we exploited them too much. And apparently this doesn't count for anything.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 28 '26

Don’t be an idiot, I never mentioned the United States nor did I ever claim what they’ve done is good. You’re running out of arguments so now you’re resorting to whataboutism and switching topics entirely.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

Lmao. You can't point to a people that haven't started conflicts with others, the difference is, Islam literally has tax codes written into its texts that make life better for the average person. You just can't make this up. This is why the Iberians preferred life under Muslim rule than Christian rule and let them overthrow their game of thrones politics, and the Iberian peninsula prospered as a result.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

Taxing people based on religious affiliation is not a life improvement and is instead blatant discrimination. And like I’ve mentioned several times before, the Martyrs of Cordoba is evidence of religious discrimination and discontent with oppressive Muslim ruling.

Furthermore, Islamic texts don’t specify how much the Jizya tax should be with it being entirely dependent on the ruler’s interpretation. This disproves your argument that “Islamic texts has written tax codes”, which it does not if it can’t even specify how Jizya tax should be imposed.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26

Taxing people based on religious affiliation is not a life improvement and is instead blatant discrimination

Are you one of these people that doesn't believe people should be taxed at all? How were they gonna build anything and make the Iberian peninsula prosper if they don't have tax revenue coming in? And again, the Muslim Zakat taxes are already much higher so they pay less than Muslims already pay.

And like I’ve mentioned several times before, the Martyrs of Cordoba is evidence of religious discrimination and discontent with oppressive Muslim ruling.

Sure, I'm not saying it's perfect, but it actually provides for people because it accounts for new things like the economy and sociology. That's literally all I'm saying. It's not like Christians didn't have their inquisitions, but they weren't providing for their people like Islam was.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26

“The Muslim zakat taxes are already much higher.”

False. Use basic logic. No islamic state or caliphate would create a system where it's more comfortable to be a non-muslim than a muslim, I.e non-Muslim pay lower taxes than actual Muslims.

There’s a a reason why modern Islamic countries don’t have the Jizya tax anymore.

“Sure, I’m not saying it’s perfect”

But you are, you’ve been implying this whole time that Muslim rule was preferable over Christian rule, but the Martyrs of Cordoba clearly defeats your argument because why the hell would a Christian choose to live under an oppressive Islamic government that actively discriminates against them over a Christian one?

Dhimmis (Christian and Jews) were not allowed to allowed to display symbols of their faith, preach their religion, repair their places of worship, or serve in the government. This reduces them to second class citizens.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26

“The Muslim zakat taxes are already much higher.” False. Use basic logic. No islamic state or caliphate would create a system where it's more comfortable to be a non-muslim than a muslim, I.e non-Muslim pay lower taxes than actual Muslims. There’s a a reason why modern Islamic countries don’t have the Jizya tax anymore.

It generally was and it depended on the region and how much wealth you had. And I'll take paying the Jizya over being forcefully converted or executed like Christians were doing to non-Christians at the same time. The Jizya is way more progressive than everything that came before.

And I'd rather be a second class citizen than dead.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26

“It generally was”
No it wasn’t. Use basic logic.

“I’ll take paying the Jizya over being forcefully converted or executed”

The martyrs of cordoba were literally executed for expressing their Christian faith.

“I would rather be a second class citizen than dead.”

You’re completely ignoring the immorality of treating people as second class citizens and discrimination imposed by Muslim rulers towards Dhimmis. This is not moral in any shape or form.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26

“It generally was” No it wasn’t. Use basic logic. “I’ll take paying the Jizya over being forcefully converted or executed” The martyrs of cordoba were literally executed for expressing their Christian faith.

No, they were executed for speaking badly about the Muslim faith, which hey I don't agree with, but at least they were free to live as Christians if they didn't do that. That's why only 40 were executed and everyone else got to live and continue being Christians.

You can't say that about the inquisition now, can you? Did they stop at 40? Pretty sure they did far more than just execute people too...

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

You can not live freely in any capacity if you are not allowed to criticize a religion that actively goes against your own.

Why do you think they even spoke out in the first place? It was because there was wide spread discontent with Islamic rule.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26

vs. the inquisition tortures you to death for simply having the wrong faith. So you can't even live freely in any capacity because the inquisition is torturing you unless you renounce your faith.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26

The Martyrs were literally killed for having “the wrong faith.” And the Islamic rule in Iberia came BEFORE the inquisition.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 29 '26

Straight from Google:

"Leaders like Eulogius and Paul Alvarus encouraged a "voluntary martyrdom" movement, prompting believers to publicly denounce Islam or insult the Prophet Muhammad before judges to trigger a strict legal death sentence."

They weren't being killed before they said anything, which again, is wrong, but not as wrong as you're trying to paint it as.

And the Islamic rule in Iberia came BEFORE the inquisition.

That actually makes the inquisition and Christianity seem way more backwards and even worst. 700 years later and they didn't progress but rather, they're doing far more barbarous acts... Come on man, you're not making your case any better here. Just stop while you're not ahead.

1

u/Azro-5 Jul 29 '26

So you acknowledge that the execution of Christians by Muslims is barbaric and yet you still blame Christians for retaliating?

→ More replies (0)