In “Treacherous Stab”, Bahrain Normalises Tie With Israel

[Feline Goetland]

I don't think hundreds of civilians have died in the latest flare up in tensions between Israel and Gaza. According to al-Jazeera, the principal targets thus far have been Hamas weapons depots and sites. I have read about a pregnant woman being inadvertently struck, which is awful and makes my heart sad. That said, my stance on this is more of a general "war is a bad time" and "Israel should be more precise in its bombings" than a "Israel shouldn't bomb Hamas sites in Gaza."

No one said they shouldn’t bomb Hamas. I hate Hamas. But... Israel’s military doesn’t really give a frick as to who in Palestine gets hit.

Harming civilians is definitely awful. This indeed needs to stop.

[Insaanistan]

You realize that in most Islamic empires, dhimmis were treated well and as equals.

In al-Andalus, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbaside Caliphate, the Ayyubid Sultanate, and the Ottoman Empire, at least on the broadest level, that wasn't really true. Clear religious and ethnic hierarchies existed in al-Andalus and the Umayyad Caliphate in particular with descendants of the Quraysh on top, Qahtanite Arabs below them, Adnanite Arabs a bit further down, Persian/Iberian/Amazigh Muslims often excluded from positions of power, Jews often managing to be less persecuted by Muslims than by Catholics, Christians near the bottom, and people who were not People of the Book at the bottom and subject to genocide and/or forced conversion. This sparked numerous non-Arab rebellions and, in one of the rare instances where a Jew did hold hereditary power as an equal to Muslim aristocrats, a pogrom occurred. Dhimmis weren't supposed to be subject to systematic persecution beyond having to pay taxes, being forbidden from holding arms, and such, but they definitely weren't equals.

Even when the law labeled them second class citizens, even in many of those empires they weren’t treated that way. As for the jizya, it was often less than the zakat Muslims had to pay. Minors, the elderly, the unemployed, the poor, and women all were not to pay jizya, and jizya was to be refunded to those it was collected from if the ruler failed to protect the dhimmis. But that wouldn’t fit your “iZlAm bAd” narrative, would it?

I don't think Islam is bad necessarily. I do think the social hierarchy that predominated in the medieval Dar as-Salaam was far from egalitarian or tolerant by modern standards. Modern Morocco or Turkey are probably far more equitable in how they treat religious minorities than Saladin, Hisham I, or Abd ar-Rahman III would have been.

I know about the revolts against the Ābbassids. However, the Ottomans and Ūmayyad’s were pretty tolerant throughout, the Āyyubids and Andalusian were initially tolerant, but became less tolerant over time. Again, Maimonides fled Muslim Spain to Muslim North Africa because it was tolerant. Also, I’d say Salahuddin matches modern tolerance standards.

[Feline Goetland]

Excuse me? Israelis don’t actually have intention to kill anyone. It is militant groups that absurdly kept trying to terrorize Israel which has to be dealt with. They are already much nicer than what other countries would have done..

Neither do Palestinians. You consntantly ignore the fact that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been slaughtered by the IDF. Also, you ignore the part where I am explicitly blaming the government, not the people. The 27 Israelis killed by hamas over the course of a decade certainly didn’t deserve to die, but neither did the up to 10,000 Palestinians who died in the same period

Sure...Why did they vote for Hamas though? Without Hamas terrorism Israelis couldn’t care less about Gaza.

[Insaanistan]

Are you seriously telling me that you’re so anti-Muslim that a tax usually lower than the tax mandatory for Muslims, the the tax that is refundable, is discrimination? Against who? Against Muslims?

Why would it be the same when the zakat is for Muslims only, and making non-Muslims pay it would be forcing shariā on non-Muslims, which Islam forbids?

Oh, so they were separate but equal. Got it

If by they, you mean their taxes, then still no, Muslim zakat was usually higher. The people? Regularly mingling and equal. You guys do remember I’m black and American, right?

[Bienenhalde]

Then they need to learn to live with Israel. I mean ethnic hatred does exist on this planet but not even Serbia and Croatia bomb each other every weekend for lulz.

Tell that to those Bosnian Muslims Serbia genocided.

Are you serious? So victims of abuse just need to learn to live with their abusers?

Yet Bosnia's only demand for making peace was that the Serbian war criminals be brought to justice. Bosnia didn't continue to wage a campaign of terror until Serbia was wiped off the map. Perhaps the Palastinian leaders could learn from them.

[Insaanistan]

Neither do Palestinians. You consntantly ignore the fact that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been slaughtered by the IDF. Also, you ignore the part where I am explicitly blaming the government, not the people. The 27 Israelis killed by hamas over the course of a decade certainly didn’t deserve to die, but neither did the up to 10,000 Palestinians who died in the same period

Sure...Why did they vote for Hamas though? Without Hamas terrorism Israelis couldn’t care less about Gaza.

No. Israel would either bomb it, annex it, or both. Palestinian often vote for Hamas simply out of knowing Hamas won’t cave in, which is just sad.

[VlaRiSsiA]

So because a bomb was detonated, you can massacre hundreds of civilians who likely don’t even know about the bomb in the first place.

I don't think hundreds of civilians have died in the latest flare up in tensions between Israel and Gaza. According to al-Jazeera, the principal targets thus far have been Hamas weapons depots and sites. I have read about a pregnant woman being inadvertently struck, which is awful and makes my heart sad. That said, my stance on this is more of a general "war is a bad time" and "Israel should be more precise in its bombings" than a "Israel shouldn't bomb Hamas sites in Gaza."

I agree that Israel should not be reckless when fighting hamas, but keep in mind, they are being as reckless as you can get. So many unnecessary civilian casualties have happened from countless air strikes and massacres by some IDF soldiers, and it seems the Israeli government isn’t doing anything at all to acknowledge these clear war crimes. It’s very heartbreaking to see so many Palestinian civilians killed at the hands of air strikes, and those not killed live in suffering from Israel’s blockade as well as the authoritarianism of Hamas which came to be due to the conditions. Let’s hope that someday, the government’s of Israel and Palestine change and that one day, after all the evil tyrants in the Middle East fall, peaceful coexistence can happen. This is most likely not going to be possible sadly since the Middle East is so messed up(thanks Sykes and Picot) Regardless of political beliefs, we can agree that the only real losers throughout all this horror are the Palestinian civilians caught in the fighting.

[Insaanistan]

Tell that to those Bosnian Muslims Serbia genocided.

Are you serious? So victims of abuse just need to learn to live with their abusers?

Yet Bosnia's only demand for making peace was that the Serbian war criminals be brought to justice. Bosnia didn't continue to wage a campaign of terror until Serbia was wiped off the map. Perhaps the Palastinian leaders could learn from them.

You say that in a way that makes me certain you did not see my many posts against Hamas.

[Feline Goetland]

Sure...Why did they vote for Hamas though? Without Hamas terrorism Israelis couldn’t care less about Gaza.

No. Israel would either bomb it, annex it, or both. Palestinian often vote for Hamas simply out of knowing Hamas won’t cave in, which is just sad.

They won’t. Due to demographic reasons nobody is going to annex Gaza to Israel.

[Insaanistan]

No. Israel would either bomb it, annex it, or both. Palestinian often vote for Hamas simply out of knowing Hamas won’t cave in, which is just sad.

They won’t. Due to demographic reasons nobody is going to annex Gaza to Israel.

Israel seems to be just fine with displacing Arabs, so I think they’d take care of that.

[Bienenhalde]

Yet Bosnia's only demand for making peace was that the Serbian war criminals be brought to justice. Bosnia didn't continue to wage a campaign of terror until Serbia was wiped off the map. Perhaps the Palastinian leaders could learn from them.

You say that in a way that makes me certain you did not see my many posts against Hamas.

Well, I know that Hamas was one of the most influential hardline groups in Palastine, but I was under the impression that there were fairly hardline secular Palastinian nationalists as well.

[VlaRiSsiA]

Neither do Palestinians. You consntantly ignore the fact that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been slaughtered by the IDF. Also, you ignore the part where I am explicitly blaming the government, not the people. The 27 Israelis killed by hamas over the course of a decade certainly didn’t deserve to die, but neither did the up to 10,000 Palestinians who died in the same period

Sure...Why did they vote for Hamas though? Without Hamas terrorism Israelis couldn’t care less about Gaza.

Vote? VOTE? You think Hamas didn’t use force, coercion and the overall tension from the massive blockade to get power? You think they didn’t exploit the abhorrent conditions that Israel forced upon by the massive Israeli blockade that could impress General Leeb? Oh, let’s massacre Germans because Hitler was elected in Germany! Let’s bomb Italians to the ground because of Mussolini! Russians were supportive of the Red Army? Drop white phosphorus on everyone with Slavic backgrounds! See where this is going?

[VlaRiSsiA]

Tell that to those Bosnian Muslims Serbia genocided.

Are you serious? So victims of abuse just need to learn to live with their abusers?

Yet Bosnia's only demand for making peace was that the Serbian war criminals be brought to justice. Bosnia didn't continue to wage a campaign of terror until Serbia was wiped off the map. Perhaps the Palastinian leaders could learn from them.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are horrible, but one of them is clearly more successful in exterminating the other

[Insaanistan]

You say that in a way that makes me certain you did not see my many posts against Hamas.

Well, I know that Hamas was one of the most influential hardline groups in Palastine, but I was under the impression that there were fairly hardline secular Palastinian nationalists as well.

Yes and no.

[Fahran]

I know about the revolts against the Ābbassids.

The Abbasids rebelled against the Umayyads because the Umayyads largely excluded Persian Muslims from power and had a tendency to favor ethnic Arabs, who were Muslims, over everyone else. They also claimed that the Banu Hashim were the rightful successors of Mohammed rather than the Banu Umayya. Mu'awiya I seems to have treated Christians well enough and one of his wives was a Christian from the Kalb tribe, but, by and large, the situation you're describing isn't religious equality. It's the absence of persecution. That was a big deal in the context of the early medieval period but it's often considered the bare minimum these days.

However, the Ottomans and Ūmayyad’s were pretty tolerant throughout, the Āyyubids and Andalusian were initially tolerant, but became less tolerant over time.

Again, you're describing a standard of relative religious tolerance in most cases, not a state of religious equality. Religious tolerance and equality, as understood in the West post-Locke, were not the norm in the medieval or even in the early modern period.

Initial conquests especially were often extremely brutal with atrocities being seen as morally acceptable in the absence of complete submission and the payment of the jizya. We can find glowing accounts from early Umayyad, early Ayyubid, and middle Andalusi sources exalting in the capture of slaves (mostly women and children) and booty. The Andalusi became more religiously extreme as they came under pressure from Catholic polities and, following the invitation of the Almoravids, you often had fanatically religious sects exercising suzerainty over the Taifas.

The Ayyubids, despite their reputation for religious tolerance under Saladin and Sephadin, inaugurated their dynasty by suppressing Shia Islam in Egypt and executing Sufis. They also enslaved the entire population of Jerusalem that could not afford a ransom. Again, this wasn't atypical of the time period but we shouldn't have any misconceptions about the mindset medieval people had.

Again, Maimonides fled Muslim Spain to Muslim North Africa because it was tolerant. Also, I’d say Salahuddin matches modern tolerance standards.

The Shias in Egypt still call Saladin by the laqab Kharab ad-Din. And his son may have executed Sufis on his father's orders.

Source
Source

[Fahran]

Israel seems to be just fine with displacing Arabs, so I think they’d take care of that.

If Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza, it would have done so by now. They withdrew from Gaza completely under Ariel Sharon to my knowledge. The issue is that loosening any of the security measures that are in place tends to result in more violence directed at Israeli civilians. So it's a no win situation from an Israeli perspective.

[Albionist Great Britain]

Poll:
1. Muslim states should recognise and normalise ties with Israel.
2. ‘Palestine’ isn’t a country, Israel is.
3. I do not support punishing Israel any further than the bare minimum for its failure to safely and securely resettle the Jordanian population in Gaza and the West Bank to more amicable steadings.

[Insaanistan]

I know about the revolts against the Ābbassids.

The Abbasids rebelled against the Umayyads because the Umayyads largely excluded Persian Muslims from power and had a tendency to favor ethnic Arabs, who were Muslims, over everyone else. They also claimed that the Banu Hashim were the rightful successors of Mohammed rather than the Banu Umayya. Mu'awiya I seems to have treated Christians well enough and one of his wives was a Christian from the Kalb tribe, but, by and large, the situation you're describing isn't religious equality. It's the absence of persecution. That was a big deal in the context of the early medieval period but it's often considered the bare minimum these days.

However, the Ottomans and Ūmayyad’s were pretty tolerant throughout, the Āyyubids and Andalusian were initially tolerant, but became less tolerant over time.

Again, you're describing a standard of relative religious tolerance in most cases, not a state of religious equality. Religious tolerance and equality, as understood in the West post-Locke, were not the norm in the medieval or even in the early modern period.

Initial conquests especially were often extremely brutal with atrocities being seen as morally acceptable in the absence of complete submission and the payment of the jizya. We can find glowing accounts from early Umayyad, early Ayyubid, and middle Andalusi sources exalting in the capture of slaves (mostly women and children) and booty. The Andalusi became more religiously extreme as they came under pressure from Catholic polities and, following the invitation of the Almoravids, you often had fanatically religious sects exercising suzerainty over the Taifas.

The Ayyubids, despite their reputation for religious tolerance under Saladin and Sephadin, inaugurated their dynasty by suppressing Shia Islam in Egypt and executing Sufis. They also enslaved the entire population of Jerusalem that could not afford a ransom. Again, this wasn't atypical of the time period but we shouldn't have any misconceptions about the mindset medieval people had.

Again, Maimonides fled Muslim Spain to Muslim North Africa because it was tolerant. Also, I’d say Salahuddin matches modern tolerance standards.

The Shias in Egypt still call Saladin by the laqab Kharab ad-Din. And his son may have executed Sufis on his father's orders.

Source
Source

The Kharab ad-din reference I’d have to look into more. I think it might be them just being angry with a Sunni Kurd taking over from Shiā Egyptians, but I’m not sure. I’ll look into, and thank you for the sources.

[Kowani]

Israel seems to be just fine with displacing Arabs, so I think they’d take care of that.

If Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza, it would have done so by now. They withdrew from Gaza completely under Ariel Sharon to my knowledge. The issue is that loosening any of the security measures that are in place tends to result in more violence directed at Israeli civilians. So it's a no win situation from an Israeli perspective.

To be fair, according to Sharon's deputy, the reason for the withdrawal was to avoid giving Palestine better PR.
"There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement – and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement – we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... [it] would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years."

[Fahran]

The Kharab ad-din reference I’d have to look into more

It means "Destroyer of the Religion." It's in reference to the toppling of the Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate and the persecution of Shias that followed under the Ayyubid Sultanate which effectively began the process of making Egypt a Sunni majority region.

I think it might be them just being angry with a Sunni Kurd taking over from Shiā Egyptians, but I’m not sure. I’ll look into, and thank you for the sources.

It goes a bit beyond that. Saladin is largely considered chivalrous by Catholics of his time. He dealt pretty savagely with his opponents in Egypt, even engaging in a massacre of rebellious Nubian slave-soldiers at one point after promising that he would grant them amnesty. He was also instrumental in beginning the transition of Egypt and Yemen to Sunni majority regions, which was a very ugly process in a lot of ways. The Fatimids and Sulayhids/Hamdanids had been Shias after all. And arguably the centers of the Shia faith. You're welcome for the sources though.

[Insaanistan]

The Kharab ad-din reference I’d have to look into more

It means "Destroyer of the Religion." It's in reference to the toppling of the Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate and the persecution of Shias that followed under the Ayyubid Sultanate which effectively began the process of making Egypt a Sunni majority region.

I think it might be them just being angry with a Sunni Kurd taking over from Shiā Egyptians, but I’m not sure. I’ll look into, and thank you for the sources.

It goes a bit beyond that. Saladin is largely considered chivalrous by Catholics of his time. He dealt pretty savagely with his opponents in Egypt, even engaging in a massacre of rebellious Nubian slave-soldiers at one point after promising that he would grant them amnesty. He was also instrumental in beginning the transition of Egypt and Yemen to Sunni majority regions, which was a very ugly process in a lot of ways. The Fatimids and Sulayhids/Hamdanids had been Shias after all. And arguably the centers of the Shia faith. You're welcome for the sources though.

I know what it means, though from the little I’ve read So far, while oppression in the Āyyubid Dynasty was real, evidence Salahuddin carried it out or allowed it is essentially limited to Shiā legend.

[Thermodolia]

13 Injured in Rocket attack

The attacks on civilians are tragic, and I am not a Hamas supporter, however, did you forget the innocent Gaza civilians being bombed again for weeks now?

And you are aware that Hamas uses civilians as shields right? They aren’t innocent in this any more than Israel

[Thermodolia]

Some people can’t get over the fact that a Massachusetts-sized country exists. How malicious does someone need to be to hate Israel????

You only need to hate oppression to hate Israel.

Based on that logic you should hate every nation in the world

[Thermodolia]

The fact that such a tax exists at all is bad, yes. It doesn't matter if it wasn't so bad in practice, it was bad in reasoning.

So because non-Muslims were taxed for protection, a tax Muslims didn’t pay only because they already were forced to pay zakat, which was often higher than jizya, the tax is bad?

Being taxed for protection is no better than the mob deciding that you need to pay them for protection

[Thermodolia]

Why not have a single, standardized tax? You can try to justify religious discrimination however you like, but don't tell me it was a good thing.

Are you seriously telling me that you’re so anti-Muslim that a tax usually lower than the tax mandatory for Muslims, the the tax that is refundable, is discrimination? Against who? Against Muslims?

Why would it be the same when the zakat is for Muslims only, and making non-Muslims pay it would be forcing shariā on non-Muslims, which Islam forbids?

It has nothing to do with anti-Islam or whatever and everything to with being against a Theocracy and religious based taxes