NationStates

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
It should also be noted that the Crusaders were excommunicated at the time.

They were quickly received back when the Pope realized they were successful.

Salus Maior wrote:

Jolthig wrote:So that this hypothetical state protects you and let's you practice your faith?

I'm saying so because you said it doesn't matter how Jizya is enforced.

My position is that no Islamic state should exist, period.

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Excellent, then it won't force me to pay the Jizya.

How exactly does Jizya force you to renounce your faith?

Salus Maior wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:They were quickly received back when the Pope realized they were successful.

That's not my understanding of it. As I understand it, the Pope was one of the Latin critics of the 4th Crusade, and regardless it was illicit.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
That's not my understanding of it. As I understand it, the Pope was one of the Latin critics of the 4th Crusade, and regardless it was illicit.

If the Pope was such a critic of it, why did he have patriarchs of Constantinople consecrated for the Latin empire?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:How exactly does Jizya force you to renounce your faith?

It encourages me to do so and coerces me to do so by charging me for doing so.

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It encourages me to do so and coerces me to do so by charging me for doing so.

Firstly, no one is going to force you to pay or renounce your faith, and as with any other tax, if you refuse to pay, then the authorities will be sent after you. That's like if I somehow refused to pay taxes to the US government, I'd get in trouble if I did so.

Salus Maior wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Hence why I said "it depends on how you use it".

How about not at all.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Firstly, no one is going to force you to pay or renounce your faith, and as with any other tax, if you refuse to pay, then the authorities will be sent after you. That's like if I somehow refused to pay taxes to the US government, I'd get in trouble if I did so.

You have a strange idea of "not forcing me to pay or renounce my faith."

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:You have a strange idea of "not forcing me to pay or renounce my faith."

Because that's not what the Shariah advocates.

Jolthig wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
My position is that no Islamic state should exist, period.

Then, I am the opposite of you. Because I believe Islamic states should be established through persuasion and democracy once the majority of the populace choose to become Muslim. Preferably the Ahmadiyya community, and the closest nation that may do that is the Gambia.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Because that's not what the Shariah advocates.

But it does advocate that the authorities come after me?

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:But it does advocate that the authorities come after me?

Yes, for tax evasion.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
That's not my understanding of it. As I understand it, the Pope was one of the Latin critics of the 4th Crusade, and regardless it was illicit.

If the Pope was such a critic of it, why did he have patriarchs of Constantinople consecrated for the Latin empire?

Novus America wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:If the Pope was such a critic of it, why did he have patriarchs of Constantinople consecrated for the Latin empire?

“How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics.”

Pope Innocent III

Unfortunately yes he did take advantage of the aftermath.
Human nature though. To take advantage of things, even if you disagree with them.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:To be fair, the Pope did condemn the sacking of Constantinople and the perpetrators were punished.

I really didn't want to get drawn into another discussion of this tired topic, but that's more than a little disingenuous, Tarsonis.

Innocent III's attitude towards the Fourth Crusade was a model of inconsistency.

He excommunicated the entire Crusade after the notorious sack of Zara, but then quickly lifted the excommunications on all of the non-Venetians.

Following the sack of Constantinople, he initially condemned the Crusaders, and clearly he had significant misgivings about their actions, but then quickly accepted the new dispensation, accepted all gifts of looted goods given to him by the leaders of the Crusade, praised God for bringing the Empire under the control of Catholicism, and imposed a new Catholic hierarchy on those ecclesiastical seats under the control of the Latins. All of the senior perpetrators remained securely in control of their new political jurisdictions, their (second) excommunications rapidly lifted, with Doge Enrico Dandolo taking the title 'Lord of three-eighths of the Roman Empire'

Appreciating that we're talking about a very different sociopolitical context where Innocent likely saw the success of the Crusade as proof of God's approval (and his death in 1216 came before it was clear that the Latin Empire was a busted flush), those were hardly the actions of someone who was unequivocally opposed to the Crusade or its outcome.

Turbofolkia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
How about not at all.

No state implements the jizya today and I don't think it's been implemented by any state since it was abolished by the Ottomans in the 19th Century. Jews in Europe (at least the ones that weren't expelled) were forced to pay taxes for being Jews, so it's not like the jizya was anything extraordinary or extreme for its time.

Salus Maior wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Then, I am the opposite of you. Because I believe Islamic states should be established through persuasion and democracy once the majority of the populace choose to become Muslim. Preferably the Ahmadiyya community, and the closest nation that may do that is the Gambia.

And you try to "persuade" people into accepting this by asking them "why not?" when they reject the practice of your religion's doctrine that would make them second class citizens?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Yes, for tax evasion.

So they'll force me to pay the tax.

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:So they'll force me to pay the tax.

Yes because you're under the state.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Yes because you're under the state.

So they'll force me to pay the Jizya or convert.

Jolthig wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:So they'll force me to pay the Jizya or convert.

Nope. Prison for tax evasion.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Novus America wrote:
“How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics.”

Pope Innocent III

Unfortunately yes he did take advantage of the aftermath.
Human nature though. To take advantage of things, even if you disagree with them.

The Archregimancy wrote:
I really didn't want to get drawn into another discussion of this tired topic, but that's more than a little disingenuous, Tarsonis.

Innocent III's attitude towards the Fourth Crusade was a model of inconsistency.

He excommunicated the entire Crusade after the notorious sack of Zara, but then quickly lifted the excommunications on all of the non-Venetians.

Following the sack of Constantinople, he initially condemned the Crusaders, and clearly he had significant misgivings about their actions, but then quickly accepted the new dispensation, accepted all gifts of looted goods given to him by the leaders of the Crusade, praised God for bringing the Empire under the control of Catholicism, and imposed a new Catholic hierarchy on those ecclesiastical seats under the control of the Latins. All of the senior perpetrators remained securely in control of their new political jurisdictions, their (second) excommunications rapidly lifted, with Doge Enrico Dandolo taking the title 'Lord of three-eighths of the Roman Empire'

Appreciating that we're talking about a very different sociopolitical context where Innocent likely saw the success of the Crusade as proof of God's approval (and his death in 1216 came before it was clear that the Latin Empire was a busted flush), those were hardly the actions of someone who was unequivocally opposed to the Crusade or its outcome.

Jolthig wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
And you try to "persuade" people into accepting this by asking them "why not?" when they reject the practice of your religion's doctrine that would make them second class citizens?

Or maybe because you are being incredibly stubborn and hostile to the point that I am wasting my time with you.

No one is going to be treated as second class citizens
Smh.

Novus America wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Which is what I said. He did not plan it to go the way it did, was disgusted by it yet still willing to take advantage of the aftermath.