The Real War: Cristianity vS. Islam

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or more like Islamsofascism verses far right ideology.

Actually, it wouldn't be "far right" ideology. Extreme conservatism would include a vehement opposition to big government and big spending. Both have come about under the Bush administration, which is actually closer to Neo-conservatism than traditional conservatism (occasionally dubbed "Paleo-conservatism"😉.

Neo-conservatism involves a very large emphasis on Defense spending, the military, national security, etcetera. Pretty much everything under the Reagan Administration during the Cold War.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh, so now it's the [b]JEWS huh ? Their the bad guys now, aren't they ? 🙄 [/B]

What do you mean ''now''. Jews were always vewed as enemies of Islam - far more than Christians have been.

Christians can live in an islamic society provided they pay extra tax for not being a muslim. I think Jews are(and were) worst off than that.

Christians can live in an islamic society provided they pay extra tax for not being a muslim. I think Jews are(and were) worst off than that.

Originally posted by Eis
I don't know about now but I am fairly certain some Jewish groups lived fine under Muslim rule back when the Muslim empire was expanding out of the Arabian peninsula, of course paying tax for not being of Islamic faith though.

Arabian Peninsula, no. Muhammed is well documented saying that Kafirs must be expelled up until there is only the religion of Allah in the Arabia.

Jews made Arabia their home for over 2000 prior to that, however. Arabia was originally Jewish and some Christians, but overwhelmingly Pagan tribes, who fought between each other - Pagan trbes fought some Jews, but nothing to do with religion. Not until the raise of Muhammad anyway.

Look in all the land under Muslim rule there was such thing called jizya, a tax that was to be payed by non-Muslim men, it was originally mandated specifically for men who believed in Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Judaism. I am unsure if it applied to other monotheistic religions though.

I do not know if all non-muslims were expelled from Arabia but I doubt it, however that's besides the point.

You're right, you don't know.

And the tax was only for the dhimmis. All other who actually resisted died.
That included Pagans and other religions not of Abrahamic origin, althoug Im sure there are some Hindus in india under dhimmitude.

And the tax was only for the dhimmis. All other who actually resisted died.
That included Pagans and other religions not of Abrahamic origin, althoug Im sure there are some Hindus in india under dhimmitude.

You're right, you don't know.

Uum, no.

Dhimmi is a term for a second class citizens, which are subdued to the Muslims who are superiour, and ARE paying tax.
You can ONLY be a dhimmi, if you pay tax and feel yourself subdued.

Please read the Qur'an.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Furthermore, deffinition continues -

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety'' - a deffinition from an Arabic english dictionary.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Uum, no.

Dhimmi is a term for a second class citizens, which are subdued to the Muslims who are superiour, and [b]ARE paying tax.
You can ONLY be a dhimmi, if you pay tax and feel yourself subdued.

Please read the Qur'an.

Furthermore, deffinition continues -

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety'' - a deffinition from an Arabic english dictionary. [/B]

Okay, I never said the term dhimmi applied to those that didn't pay the jizya, so that about blows your entire post. What I did say was that the term dhimmi was at first intended only to people of the book but was later extended by some leaders to include other faiths.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Actually, it wouldn't be "far right" ideology. Extreme conservatism would include a vehement opposition to big government and big spending. Both have come about under the Bush administration, which is actually closer to Neo-conservatism than traditional conservatism (occasionally dubbed "Paleo-conservatism"😉.

Neo-conservatism involves a very large emphasis on Defense spending, the military, national security, etcetera. Pretty much everything under the Reagan Administration during the Cold War.

I wouldn't say "extreme" conservatism. That would take it back to the days of Hitler. It's basically radicalism (which is the jihadist idea) against just over moderate conservatism (which is the current u.s. administration idea.)

Hitler wasn't a conservative.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hitler wasn't a conservative.

Yes he was.

The Nazi's were a far right party in direct opposition to the far left communists.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes he was.

The Nazi's were a far right party in direct opposition to the far left communists.

Hitler was a fascist.

Somebody who supports or advocates a system of government characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes he was.

No, he was not.

actually Hitler had both conservative and a liberal issues

Hitler didn't even like his mommy........ 🙁

Originally posted by finti
actually Hitler had both conservative and a liberal issues

Yes, but his government was mainly a conservative-based system.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hitler was a fascist.

Somebody who supports or advocates a system of government characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

Yes he was a fascist, and the deffinition of fascism, taking into account its characteristsics would sound something like -

Nationalist, Anti-Marxist, mass-mobilising political movement, headed by a single charismic leader in a conquest of complete power through a single party system.

His government was a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hitler wasn't a conservative.

Hitler is what the world of politics calls a "Darth Vader" conserative. So in essence, yes he was.