vedaxcool

As we can see, Christianity by comparison did not offer an alternative then neither could it be looked upon as being a model to adopt by others even Spencer, Aliarexist hero, understands this fact, One of the chief reason Christianity got relegated in to the back ground is simply because it always ended up serving as a vehicle for oppression, either to the poor masses or to the non christians, it always ended up being used by the elite to perpetuate their wickedness on others!

And who did Christianity oppress?

These two sides (proponents of the interfaith utopia theory on the one hand and the Islamic persecution myth on the other hand) peddle their diametrically opposed paradigms, selectively quoting from various sources in order to “prove” their side. Of course, the truth lies in between this myth and counter-myth: dhimmis did not live under an idyllic interfaith utopia under Islamic rule–far from it: discrimination against nonbelievers was a prevalent phenomenon. Dhimmis were clearly treated as second-class citizens.

If you doubt it - prove it. Are Churches not bombed in Nigeria, are Christians not killed in their house of worship?

On the other hand, the counter-myth is equally dishonest and fails to contextualize the situation of dhimmis in the Islamic Orient with that of their counterparts in Christian Europe. We are always reminded by anti-Islam ideologues of the dhimmitude, a catch-all phrase which has caught on very well in recent times; the term is used as a stick to beat Muslims over the head with, as well as one to incite feelings of paranoia and xenophobia. This article will however recount what they–perhaps in their ignorance and zeal–have neglected to mention: there was in fact a direct corollary to the dhimmitude in the Christian West. It too has a catchy name: the Christian belief in the Perpetual Servitude of infidels, a concept which was in fact much more oppressive than the so-called dhimmitude.

Yarns - Sharia makes non-Muslims 2nd class citizen. Why would I need permission to build in a church in Saudi Arabia but they are free to put multi billion dollar churches in Europe and elsewhere?

Mark R. Cohen, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, is arguably considered to be the world’s leading scholar of Jews living in the Middle Ages under Islamic rule.[/b] He decided to write a book that contrasted the treatment of Jews living in the Islamic Orient with their counterparts in the Christian West. This book, Under Crescent and Cross, is the first of its kind, as it analytically compares the treatment of Jewish dhimmis (pejoratively called dhimmitude by ideologues) with that of the Perpetua Servitude (Perpetual Servitude) of Jewish infidels. Cohen’s magnum opus is remarkably balanced, neutral, and analytical: it rejects both myth and counter-myth, but concludes that while dhimmis were certainly not living under any sort of interfaith utopia, they did have better living conditions than nonbelievers in the Christian West. This article will use Professor Cohen’s book as a general template, but will cite other sources as well in order to cater to the online environment, taking into consideration the “internet chatter” and tailoring the arguments accordingly

Who is stopping you from sharing your views? I started a thread to share my view and you started with the attacks. You no see the war in Syria where Sunnis like yourself they kill and maim Shias and Christians but you come here to make noise

vedaxcool

Our problem in this thread is further compounded by the fact that its major proponent is simply a dishonest nonspecialist

I am, you don't say . So dishonest that you can't refute one point I have made. Are the killings of Copts and burning their churches in Egypt a fabrication?

Your response will tell us who is dishonest

A man that attacks the character in a public forum yet can't refute anything I have said. Robert Spencer is one of the best authority on Islam so much that non of your Scholars have accepted to debate him. If he was a hate monger and bigot as you claim, can't any of your muftis put him in his place? But you come here, as always - the defender of Islam and start doing your war dance

To create a case, you cherry picked Robert Spencer and tried label him a bigot and a hate monger. Compared to your brother Osama Bin Laden, does Robert come close? . You need to do more and more reading. Look up Mohammed Al Ghazoli, a former Islamic scholar and adviser to Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, believed and taught Islam as the one true religion. An arab and a scholar of the highest caliber in Islam (in comparison, you don't even come close) has to say of his years of study on the Koran and Hadith. He read in the Quran that Allah misleads whoever he wants and he wondered why one of the names of Allah is the "Misleader". Now, this is not Robert Spencer, this is an Islamic Scholar. So, go do some reading, then come back here and use your common sense.

Omo, park - sit down, take a chill pill and follow the thread

Since Aliarexist is going his normal rounds of ignorance and hate warmongering let's continue on the church perpetual servitude doctrine, which a well versed Jewish scholar has so far shown to be extremely poor in relation to religious freedom.

Cohen concludes:

The polarization of views that has thus dominated discussion of medieval Islamic-Jewish relations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult to write on the subject without getting involved in apologetics and polemics. I remain convinced that the “myth of the Islamic-Jewish interfaith utopia” and the “countermyth of Islamic persecution of Jews” equally distort the past. How might we address the underlying historical question in a way that avoids both extremes and, at the same time, deepens understanding of why, as most reasonable observers will agree, the Islamic-Jewish relationship bred so much less violence and persecution than relations between Christians and Jews [in Europe]? The comparative approach has seemed the most useful one…

When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the thirteenth century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom.

So we can see an important distinction, where as Jews suffered much persecution in Christendom , they fared better under Muslim rule, Jews only began to enjoy their rights as Christianity faded away from the position of governance and was replaced by secular authority, in fact the Jews suffered one last blow from the Christendom, in the form of an attempt to annihilate the whole of jewery, THE HOLOCAUST, never has such an attempt been made in Muslim lands! Now compared the actions of Muslims, Islam offered a better deal to religious interrelations and as Muslims have always stated it is dishonest non-specialist like the op and his hate monger mentor, spencer who has been banned from a land dominated by Christians and even a church, that like Osama et al, enjoy promoting inter-religious wrangling rather than face their own failings! teh op, spencer and Osama have one thing in common, they are extremist who thrive on spreading hate and lies! Please stay tuned!

vedaxcool

Since Aliarexist is going his normal rounds of ignorance and hate warmongering let's continue on the church perpetual servitude doctrine, which a well versed Jewish scholar has so far shown to be extremely poor in relation to religious freedom.

Grow up, name callings are for 4 year olds

So we can see an important distinction, where as Jews suffered much persecution in Christendom , they fared better under Muslim rule, Jews only began to enjoy their rights as Christianity faded away from the position of governance and was replaced by secular authority, in fact the Jews suffered one last blow from the Christendom, in the form of an attempt to annihilate the whole of jewery, THE HOLOCAUST, never has such an attempt been made in Muslim lands! Now compared the actions of Muslims, Islam offered a better deal to religious interrelations and as Muslims have always stated it is dishonest non-specialist like the op and his hate monger mentor, spencer who has been banned from a land dominated by Christians and even a church, that like Osama et al, enjoy promoting inter-religious wrangling rather than face their own failings! teh op, spencer and Osama have one thing in common, they are extremist who thrive on spreading hate and lies! Please stay tuned!

In your desperate attempt to derail this thread, you have displayed your ultimate ignorance - Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust . You are the same person that use your "advanced" logic and said Jesus is the most violate because when He returns in the future, the will judge the world and His judgement will be violent. As a result, Jesus is worse than Mohammed.

I keep asking you, can't you refute someone else statement? Can't Islam stand alone without Christianity?

We know you are desperate vexacool - you dey vex no be small

An Apocryphal Document

The first point that must be taken into consideration is that most experts agree that the document is itself a forgery:

Umar is attributed with the authorship of the “Covenant of Umar” or the “Pact of Umar”…The first western research done on the “Covenant of Umar” was initiated by T.W. Arnold in The Preaching of Islam, and A.S. Tritton in “Islam and the Protected Religions.” They both asserted that the “Covenant” was an apocryphal document. [9]

The historicity of this document is called into question by modern scholars, who hold that it is a product of later generations who mistakenly attributed it to Umar:

A later generation attributed to ‘Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje and Caetani have proved without a doubt that they are the invention of a later age. [10]

The document appears hundreds of years after Umar’s death:

No text of the document can be dated earlier than the tenth or eleventh century. [11]

Historians refer to it as a “spurious” document:

T[b]he so-called Pact or Covenant of ‘Umar, [is] a spurious treaty ascribed to the Caliph ‘Umar I. [12]
[/b]
And:

…the spurious Covenant of Umar, the terms supposedly granted to the Christians by the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab… [13]

Interestingly, Robert Spencer cites A.S. Tritton as a source in his book (chapter four of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades), but fails to mention that Tritton himself viewed the document as an outright forgery:

The covenant is not the work of ‘Umar.

As we see the dishonest non- specialist in the name of Aliarexist simply follows his heroes blindly not even making any use of his brain.

alexis: vedaxcool



Grow up, name callings are for 4 year olds

But goes on and does this,

alexis:
We know you are desperate vexacool - you dey vex no be small

see what we mean by Aliarexist?

WOFLMAO

Anyway we move on, the so called Umar pact was rarely applied;

However, it must be said that these restrictive laws were not generally enforced

Rabbi David Sherman, Judaism Confronts Modernity, 323. ISBN 0620181958, 9780620181952


By and large the restrictions of the Pact of ‘Umar were very unevenly and sporadically enforced
Spertus College of Judaica, Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies; The Solomon Goldman Lectures

Many of the restrictions stipulated by the Pact of Umar, the code of conduct imposed…[on the] Jews, were oftentimes ignored by the rulers.
Ken Blady, Jewish Communities in Exotic Places, 10. ISBN 0765761122

We know that the restrictions of the “Pact of Umar” (except for the collection of the progressive poll-tax) were only very rarely enforced in early Islam, usually by an especially fanatical ruler such as the [Ismaili Shi'ite] Fatimid Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (d. 1021).

Robert S. Wistrich, Demonizing the Other, 109. ISBN 9057024977, 9789057024979

we have been able to show once, that a hate monger repeatedly quoted by a dishonest non-specialist always end up being a messy affair!

The Perpetual Servitude of Infidels

---

Now that the Pact of Umar has been properly contextualized, we can compare the so-called Islamic “dhimmitude” with the Christian belief of the Perpetual Servitude of infidels. Professor Cohen notes that whereas the Islamic Orient was pluralistic (with many different minority faiths, including a large proportion of Jews and Christians), Christian Europe was more monolithic, with only one significant minority group: the Jews. (The pagans had largely been converted to Christianity.) The rules that dictated the lives of Jews were then applied to the few remaining pagans (which included Muslims) and heretics; indeed, the Christians considered it to be the Jewish-pagan-heretic axis. We will thus study how the rules came about for Jews, and then see how they were extended to other groups.

The position of the Jews in Christian society was based on the Doctrine of the Witness. This belief stipulated that Jews ought not to be killed but allowed to live in a state of “perpetual servitude” to Christians; their continued existence as dejected serfs served as a continual proof of the triumph of Christianity over those who rejected the Messiah:

Augustine and the other Church Fathers wrestled with this question of why Judaism continued if it had apparently lost its purpose? Augustine’s answer lay in the “Doctrine of the Witness.” T[b]his doctrine suggested that the continuing physical presence of the Jews was desirable because the Jews themselves provided testimony to the truth of Christianity in two ways: First, the Jews possessed Scriptures, thereby proving that Scriptures were no means invented retrospectively by Christians to predict the coming of Jesus…

Secondly, the physical status of the Jews provided testimony to the truth of Christianity. The Jews existed in a subjugated, second-class status as a defeated people…The perpetual servitude of the Jews reminded the world that the Jews are being punished for their rejection of Jesus. Therefore it was desirable that the Jew remain in Christian society. As long as Jews retained their second-class status, they would remind the world of their crime in rejecting Jesus and their validity of Jesus’s teachings…

Although the Jews’ status would always be second-class, the Church Fathers decreed that the Jews must be protected and not eliminated. In this context medieval Christian anti-Semitism provided a protective mechanism against the elimination of the Jews. Or, as Duns Scotus, a thirteenth century Christian theologian, put it, the Jews could be persecuted and virtually eliminated, but some of them would have to be kept alive on a deserted island until the Second Coming[/b].

and this is suppose to be the religion of love! Na wa oh !

This attitude towards Jews–of not slaying them but subjugating them to Perpetual Servitude–prevailed in Europe from the seventh century up until “the modern period”:

[b] The official church position on the Jews guaranteed their existence, but as a pariah people…The concept of a “witness people” received its clearest and most influential expression in the writings of Augustine, one of Christianity’s foremost theologians. He wrote that the Jews were dispersed over the world to bear witness through their Scriptures, as proof “that we have not fabricated the prophecies about Christ…the Jews are our attendant slaves, who carry, as it were, our satchels…” The Augustinian witness-people formula, which prevailed in Christendom up until the modern period, allowed the Jews to survive but never to thrive, since their misery was to serve as proof of the truth of Christianity. Like Cain, they were to carry a sign signifying their damnation, but they were not to be killed.

Over the centuries, the teaching of contempt of the Jews as a reprobate people knew no pause, and continued to be taught and preached in mainland Christendom, in Catholic as well as Protestant churches. Leading theologians continued to castigate the Jews…The principal Catholic theologian of the medieval period, Thomas Aquinas, wrote that it was permissible “to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime…with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life.” …The French Catholic theologian Jacques Bossuet allowed the Jews to continue to exist, but denounced them as “stamped by their reprobation…slaves everywhere they are, without honor, without freedom…” [49][/b]

If we were to even conmpare the apocryphal Umar pact with this perpetual servitude you would prefer the apocryphal umar pact than this, I you would notice Jews only began enjoying their rights as Christianity declined and gave way to secularity!

he belief of Perpetual Servitude was not limited to the Catholic Church, but was adopted by the Protestant movement from the very beginning of its existence. Martin Luther, whose antisemitic work was touted by the Nazis centuries later, was an ardent believer in this degrading position for Jews; indeed, Lutheran Germany outdid their Catholic brethren in their institutionalized oppression of the Jews.

Jewry laws (discriminatory rules) were applied in such a way as to reduce Jews to a life of Perpetual Servitude in order that they may be a Witness People to the triumph of Christ:

The Jews, said the popes, were to live in a state of Perpetual Servitude (Perpetua servitudo), a term first enunciated in the bull Etsi iudaeos. [50]

The Jews were to be punished with a life of misery in order that they confess Christianity:

St. Jerome warned, “Jews are congenital liars who lure Christians to heresy. They should therefore be punished until they confess.”

[51]

vedaxcool:

As we see the dishonest non- specialist in the name of Aliarexist simply follows his heroes blindly not even making any use of his brain.

Lol, let us see how you will stick your neck on the line - Are you saying the Pact/Conditions of Omar is false?

vedaxcool

Anyway we move on, the so called Umar pact was rarely applied;

Rarely applied? Are you kidding me - In the 1920s and 1930s, there were over 20% of Christian population in the Middle East, now it is less than 4%. Go figure

However, it must be said that these restrictive laws were not generally enforced

Go tell that to the Copts in Egypt - LIAR! Cha - see delusion. Taqiyya at it's highest order

Many of the restrictions stipulated by the Pact of Umar, the code of conduct imposed…[on the] Jews, were oftentimes ignored by the rulers.

No kidding, you were there abi or the slaughter of Copts by una Muslim brotherhood in Eqypt in now is not evidence enough abi? Later you will say it's Christians that caused the Holocaust or it was America that bombed the World Trade center

we have been able to show once, that a hate monger repeatedly quoted by a dishonest non-specialist always end up being a messy affair!

You haven't shown Jack - you just LIE with your mouth open

vedaxcool

Now that the Pact of Umar has been properly contextualized

Contextualized, you don't say. Do you even know the contents of the Pact of Omar. Let me bring it home for you because your ignorance on your own history is laughable and very much entertaining:

There are different versions of the text of The Conditions/Pact of Omar, but they all have the same theme. The complete text of one of the most authoritative versions of the Conditions - the 1st one Ibn Qayyim reproduced in his book - follows below. As in most versions, the conquered Christians appear to be speaking:

"[b][size=15pt]When you came to our countries, we asked you for safety for ourselves and the people of our community upon which we imposed the following conditions on ourselves for you.

Not to build a church in our city - nor a monastery, convent, or monk's cell in the surrounding areas - and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;

Not to prevent Muslims from lodging in out churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslims] passersby and travelers;

Not to harbor in them [churches, monasteries] or our homes a spy, nor conceal any deceits from Muslims;

Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the inner-most recesses of our churches;

Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;

Not to produce a cross of [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;

Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them near the market places of the Muslims;

Not to bring near to them [Muslims] pigs or alcohol;

Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;

Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;

To distinguish ourselves wherever we are and not to resemble Muslims in dress - whether in headgear, turbans, sandals, hair-parting, or modes of transportation;

Not to speak like them [Muslims], nor adopt their surnames;

To clip our foreheads and not part our forelocks;

Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor grid ourselves with swords;

To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;

None of us shall do business with a Muslim unless the Muslim commands it;

To host every traveling Muslim for 3 days and feed him adequately;

We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition[/size][/b]"

Please do your homework and read before you come here and display your ignorance.

we have been able to establish that the op is hell bent on promoting lies that is why despite abundance evidence that[b] the so called pact of umar is false and even cited authorities Spencer, the hate merchant,[/b] used in popping up his case, we still see the op being an unwavering liar has simply resort to wilful ignorance

Interestingly, Robert Spencer cites A.S. Tritton as a source in his book (chapter four of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades), but fails to mention that Tritton himself viewed the document as an outright forgery:

The covenant is not the work of ‘Umar.

so how do we help rehabilitate a dishonest non - specialist? well we continue with the church doctrine of perpetual servitude:

The concept of Perpetual Servitude led the state to claim ownership of the Jews, taking away their freedom and declaring them servi camerae nostrae (serfs of our royal chamber):

[The] monarchy took the final–in a sense, regressive–step. It declared Jews servi camerae nostrae, terminology which was inspired by the recently revived papal doctrine of servitus Judeorum (servitude of the Jews). Kisch believes that this church-inspired idea marked the beginning of Jewish unfreedom. From then on, he says, Jews were no longer part of the organic legal structure…Henceforth, the legal status of Jews was governed by special legislation designed specifically for them, a jus singulare…The honor of the Jews fell to a new low…reflected in the large-scale persecution of the Jews…Jewish “serfdom of the chamber” constituted an abasement of the legal status of the Jews. [52]

Jews became the property of the Church and/or the state:

The Siete Partidas offers the best glimpse we have of consolidated Jewry law as it was envisioned by a learned Christian monarch at the height of the Middle Ages…Jews are permitted by church and state to live among Christians, but only “that they might live forever as in captivity and serve as a reminder to mankind that they are descended from those who Crucified Our Lord Jesus Christ.” [53]

If compare the FALSE [/b]pact of Umar to the Doctrine of perpetual Servitude, what do we end up with? that Christianity promoted the most repugnant form of hatred and debasement, the Jews only enjoyed their right when secularity triumphed over the rule of Christianity, that is any sane individual would prefer the [b]FALSE [by FALSE I Refer to the fact that UMAR R.A WAS NEVER THE AUTHOR OF SUCH PACT] Pact of Umar than the church and religion of love, doctrine of PERPETUAL SERVITUDE


In the words of the “influential abbot of the time, [the] Venerable Peter of Cluny,” the Jews should be punished but not killed:

They should not be killed, but “like Cain, the fratricide, they should be made to suffer fearful torments and prepared for greater ignominy, for an existence worse than death.” [54]

The Church and state competed with each other over ownership of the Jews:

This happened, for instance, when the papacy exerted its own “ownership” of the Jews, under the cover of the old church doctrine of the “perpetual servitude of the Jews” and in competition with secular rulers, who asserted that the Jews were “serfs of the royal chamber.”

[55]

Jews were traded as chattel:

The crown laid claim to them as serfs of “the imperial chamber,” servi camerae…The attachment to the imperial chamber reduced Jews to the status of pieces of property that could be–and were–bought, loaned, and sold as any other merchandise. Kings paid off barons and barons paid off creditors with Jews. Kings would, for a consideration, transfer to nobles or townships the right to possess “his” Jews.

[56]


I ask again isn't the FALSE [/b]pact of Umar far better than the Doctrine of perpetual Servitude?

The concept of the Perpetual Servitude of Jews was extended to other religious groups. [b]Following the Crusades, the number of Muslims (called “Saracens”) under Christian rule increased, thereby prompting jurists to pass legislation specific to them. Despite being considered “worse than Jews,” the Saracens were placed in the same legal category:

The doctrine, therefore, was one of long standing: if Saracens living among us conform as do the Jews, they are to be treated in the same way…There were large numbers of Muslims in the West–in Sicily, for example, where despite mass emigration and slaughter there were many sunk in a life of servitude…In brief, the Muslim who accepted the position of the Jew, who gave no trouble, caused no scandal, and was “prepared to serve everywhere,” could enjoy the same legal protection. [57]

KORAN & CALIPH

So Muslims are turning back to Islam, and Christians are being persecuted. But is Islam itself to blame? What about ethnic, cultural, social, and economic considerations? Where is the proof that Islam and it's Sharia are intrinsically hostile to Christians? Below is a quick review of the most important Islamic sources that demonstrate why Christians are so vulnerable in the Islamic world.

THE KORAN

The Koran itself contains a number of anti-Christian verses. These include:

Koran 5:73 === Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three. This is a direct reference to the Christian Trinity

Koran 5:17 === Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary (See also Koran 4:171). To be referred to as an infidel (that is, a "kafir" is to be categorized as an enemy of Islam, one who must be either eliminated or subjugated (Surah 9:5 and 9:29)

Islamic apologists like vexacool often cite other Koranic verses that ostensibly speak well of Christians, such as in his last post where he claimed the Conditions of Omar weren't strongly or generally enforced. We ask him - If they weren't strongly enforced, why can't Muslims in Egypt leave Copts to live in peace?

Another area are the statements in the Koran regarding "abrogation," which was developed early in Islamic jurisprudence to deal with the Koran's many contradictory statements. Muslims believe that what wherever verses contradict each other, the verse from later in Muhammed's career cancels out the verse from earlier.

vedaxcool

we have been able to establish that the op is hell bent on promoting lies that is why despite abundance evidence that[b] the so called pact of umar is false and even cited authorities Spencer, the hate merchant,[/b] used in popping up his case, we still see the op being an unwavering liar has simply resort to wilful ignorance

Now you are saying is false yet earlier you said it wasn't generally enforced

The covenant is not the work of ‘Umar.

No kidding, it was the apostles in the Bible that wrote it abi

Jews became the property of the Church and/or the state

No kidding - It was Christians that attacked Israel & the Jews in the 5 day Arab world abi? Or it's Christians that attack them from Southern Lebanon and from Gaza abi?

@vedax please tell us why one cant build a church in saudi arabia. Please tell us why a non muslim cannot set foot in Mecca today.

An honest muslim that speaks his mind - perhaps vexacool can learn a lesson or two


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64V09tTIjR4

Joke: Why is this dog laughing at Aliarexist



It must have something to do with lying!

Church Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude cont'd

---

So far christians have been stunned by the teachings of church which can only be labelled evil and wicked, but the story goes on, so far we have been able to show compared to the apocryphal pact of umar, The Doctrine of perpetual servitude seems more like a demonic teaching that a religious injunction, compounding the problem, the doctrine of perpetual can thus be summerize as follow:
[b]
1] The Jews existed in a subjugated, second-class status as a defeated people…The perpetual servitude of the Jews reminded the world that the Jews are being punished for their rejection of Jesus. Therefore it was desirable that the Jew remain in Christian society. As long as Jews retained their second-class status, they would remind the world of their crime in rejecting Jesus and their validity of Jesus’s teachings…

2]the Jews are our attendant slaves, who carry, as it were, our satchels…

3] The Jews, said the popes, were to live in a state of Perpetual Servitude (Perpetua servitudo), a term first enunciated in the bull Etsi iudaeos.

4] St. Jerome warned, “Jews are congenital liars who lure Christians to heresy. They should therefore be punished until they confess.

5] Jews are permitted by church and state to live among Christians, but only “that they might live forever as in captivity and serve as a reminder to mankind that they are descended from those who Crucified Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

6] They [the Jews] should not be killed, but “like Cain, the fratricide, they should be made to suffer fearful torments and prepared for greater ignominy, for an existence worse than death.

7] The concept of the Perpetual Servitude of Jews was extended to other religious groups.

8] The Jews [and other religious minorities] became church property
[/b]

There is still more, but a point to note, the Jews suffered this faith even up to the modern time, these doctrine was supported by both catholic and protestants and was formulated by the Fathers of the church, if we compared this to the apocryphal writings of the pact of Umar, then we conclude the church promulgated an odious evil that no sane individual can ever tolerate, yet non of the adherents of the religion of love have felt the need to condemn the church for such odious doctrine, could it be they yearn for its' return? The Jews only began enjoying their rights as secularity undermined Christianity and as time went by the Jews finally got unshackled from Christianity's doctrine of perpetual servitude not by the church kindness but by a ruthless struggle between forces of secularity and christianity with former triumphing over the latter.

vedaxcool

It must have something to do with lying!

So you totally ignored the video above right

ALLAH CAN'T MAKE UP HIS MIND - THE ISSUE OF ABROGATION

Another area are the statements in the Koran regarding "abrogation," which was developed early in Islamic jurisprudence to deal with the Koran's many contradictory statements. Muslims believe that what wherever verses contradict each other, the verse from later in Muhammed's career cancels out the verse from earlier.

Allah himself justifies abrogation in the Koran: Whenever we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we replace it by a better or similar one. Know you not that Allah has power over all things? - Surah 2:106; 16:101, 13:39, and 17:86. It amazes me that the Muslim God can't make up His mind and he has to cancel His revelations because He contradicts Himself.

A it happens, the few verses that speak tolerantly of Christians are from early in Muhammed's career, when he had no political power, whereas the hostile verses that name Christians "infidel" enemies occur towards the end, near the height of his career. Thus, the later hostile verses cancel out any tolerance for Christians expressed in the earlier verses.

The Quran's final word on the fate of Christians and Jews is found in Surah 9:29 = Fight those among the people of the Book who do not believe in Allah nor the last day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. In Islamic parlance, "People of the Book" is a reference to those pre-Islamic peoples who had their own scriptures - chief among them, Christians and Jews. THIS VERSE GIVES DIVINE SANCTION TO THE PERPETUAL SUBJUGATION OF CHRISTIANS UNDER ISLAM. Surah 9:29 and it's equally bellicose counterpart Surah 9:5, known as the "Sword Verses", appears as Mohammed's armies were preparing to invade the Christian territories of the Byzantine empire.

To this day, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence holds that the Sword Verses have "abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace"

Oga vexacool argument is that Christians are imagining these things, Christians are the oppressors and not the Muslims and we are twisting facts. He feels Islam is peaceful yet the life-style of his prophet and caliphs state otherwise

vedaxcool

So far christians have been stunned by the teachings of church which can only be labelled evil and wicked, but the story goes on, so far we have been able to show compared to the apocryphal pact of umar, The Doctrine of perpetual servitude seems more like a demonic teaching that a religious injunction, compounding the problem, the doctrine of perpetual can thus be summerize as follow:
The Jews existed in a subjugated, second-class status as a defeated people…The perpetual servitude of the Jews reminded the world that the Jews are being punished for their rejection of Jesus. Therefore it was desirable that the Jew remain in Christian society. As long as Jews retained their second-class status, they would remind the world of their crime in rejecting Jesus and their validity of Jesus’s teachings…

I keep asking you simple questions, yet you go running in another direction and not answering:

1. Is it Christians burning Coptic Churches in Egypt and killing Coptic Christians or is it Muslims?
2. Are Christians attacking and launching rockets into Israel or is it your brothers Hamas and their likes?
3. Are Christians responding for the killings that is going on in Syria where Shia/Alawites government & Sunnis Terrorists are killing themselves

As always, I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored these questions

The Church Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude : The Taxation Policy of Christian Europe towards Jews and other Religious Minorities

---

What anti-Islam ideologues–such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller–fail to mention is that the Christian West taxed infidels in their lands at a much, much higher rate than the Islamic Orient did. We have the example of the Jews, for instance, who lived in both Europe and the Islamic lands; [b]there is no question that the Jews of Europe paid much heftier tithes than did the Jews of Islam.[/b]

According to the philosophy of the Perpetual Servitude of the Jews and their capacity as Serfs of the Royal Chamber, their wealth was considered the property of the church or the state. [This is nothing more than stealing in the name of Christianity something did repeatedly in the colonial time Therefore, the church leaders argued that all the possessions of a Jew could be seized , except that which was the bare minimum required for his survival (in order that he may endure as Witness):

In the thirteenth century, [Pope] Innocent III (1198-1216) spoke of the “perpetual servitude” of the Jews, and the Third Lateran Council (1179) of the “subjection” of Jews to Christians. St. Thomas Aquinas (1125-74), adhering to the feudal conceptions of his time, validated the principle of Jewish “servitude” to both Church and State, but added certain limitations. “It would be licit, according to custom,” he wrote, “to hold Jews, because of their crime, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State; however, they must use them with a certain moderation and not deprive Jews of things necessary to life.” A little later this principle was established by law. The great English jurist Bracton wrote: “The Jew cannot have anything of his own. Whatever he acquires he acquires not for himself but for the king.” [64]

Is there any parallel found in the apocryphal writings of the pact of Umar? Y[b]et this people have no single Condemnation for the action of the early Christians who punished the Jews on the account on of an allege crime their ancestors committed against Jesus![/b] Yet we have a simpleton who finds the apocryphal Pact of Umar worthy of talking about!

The dhimmis, on the other hand, were not considered state property; their property was considered protected under law, and could not be seized from them, based on the prophetic command “do not…devour their property,” which was applied quite consistently throughout Islamic history.

According to the Islamic law, the jizya could only be taken from the dhimmis once a year. On the other hand, Jews (and Muslims) under Christian rule were taxed repeatedly throughout the year. Although there were certainly exceptions (which the anti-Islam ideologues selectively cite), the general rule was–as Professor Cohen mentions–that the Muslims levied reasonable taxes (a graduated tax based on the capability of the dhimmi), whereas Christians crippled the Jews with unreasonable taxes. In fact, we have a primary text of a Jew who lived in Europe and then moved to the Muslim world; he compares the taxes between the two places:

In the thirteenth century, Jacob b. Elijah of Venice, a Jew, left his home in France for Venice and later settled in the Muslim East. Blaming Christians for the concentration of Jews in moneylending, Jacob compared the Jewish plight in Christian lands to their more favorable economic situation in Muslim countries. In a well-known polemical letter…Jacob wrote:

“Among the Orientals, each [Jewish] person makes his livelihood from whatever is his occupation. [color=#990000[b]]And, while Arab rulers may be wicked and sinful, they do possess reason and understanding. They take a prescribed tax each year, from the older ones according to his security and from the young according to his youthfulness. It is not this way in our [European] lands nor is it done in our place that way. Our kings and princes think only how to assail and fall upon us, in order to take away our gold and silver.”[/b][/color]

Jacob thus tells us that Jews living in Muslim lands enjoyed occupational diversification and that the taxes Oriental Jews paid were fair rather than arbitrary and exorbitant. Though simplistic, his comparison is accurate, and it shows that, even in the Middle Ages, Jews sensed that the contrast between Jewish well-being in East and West had much to do with economics.
[65]

Chei! This is pure wickedness!

alexis: vedaxcool


I keep asking you simple questions, yet you go running in another direction and not answering:

Alexis, vedaxcool only knows how to be a troll, he is not capable of making intellectual statements or even expressing himself in a coherent fashion so its better you don't expect too many intelligent comments from the guy if you don't want to end up being sorely disappointed.

NL member:

Alexis, vedaxcool only knows how to be a troll, he is not capable of making intellectual statements or even expressing himself in a coherent fashion so its better you don't expect too many intelligent comments from the guy if you don't want to end up being sorely disappointed.

From jump start, I knew he wanted to derail the thread. He started first by attacking my character then came up with Christianity being responsible for the Holocaust. He is now on the mission to show how it is Christians and not Muslims that HATE Jews

I don't take him serious but I will use this thread to speak the truth about the persecution that Christians face in the Islamic world today

alexis:

From jump start, I knew he wanted to derail the thread. He started first by attacking my character then came up with Christianity being responsible for the Holocaust. He is now on the mission to show how it is Christians and not Muslims that HATE Jews

I don't take him serious but I will use this thread to speak the truth about the persecution that Christians face in the Islamic world today

@bold,
Good. vedaxcool is a joke.

He comes to the religion section because he is bored of his miserable and boring Islam for muslim section. Nothing goes on in that place, the topics that were there at the beginning of the month are the same topics that are still there today. Such a boring and lifeless place......always the same three members and 2 guests viewing that section.

NL member:

@bold,
Good. vedaxcool is a joke.

He comes to the religion section because he is bored of his miserable and boring Islam for muslim section. Nothing goes on in that place, the topics that were there at the beginning of the month are the same topics that are still there today. Such a boring and lifeless place......always the same three members and 2 guests viewing that section.

I agree totaly with you,even most of them don't go there,they all rush to the religion section here.
@vexacool,i dnt even knw what to say abt d guy,him and betathings are two character that i dnt wish anyone shld emulate,always moving round in circle and u cn easily predict their next statements!
Alexis,i am actually learning...

Vedax posts long stupid posts deviating from topic raised. In islam muslims are allowed to lie in order to advance the cause of islam. In this thread only he and his muslim friends have no answer to a simple question- why are muslims still killing non muslims 1400 years later? He and all other muslims here have no answers so they engage in lies. Shame on them they cant use islam to answer what they are asked. Allah is the best deceiver from 2 quranic verses.

This is a public forum and vexacool is allowed to post whatever he wants. I created this thread here so the mods in the Islamic section wouldn't lock/hide or prevent us from posting what we want.

The persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is alarming. What is more alarming is that no one is doing anything about it. Christians fold their hands and are been slaughtered like chickens. God instructed us to be as harmless as doves but as wise as serpents. The main of this thread is to expose the Islamic persecution of Christians over 1400 centuries and even to now.

Our governments and so called Jeo/Christian Western nations turn their eyes the other way when Christians are been killed from Egypt to Indonesia, Iraq to Saudi Arabia and right in our own background in Nigeria. If we continue to remain passive as a religion, I am afraid the ramifications will be very dire.

God bless you all.

The Church Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude :The Taxation Policy of Christian Europe towards Jews and other Religious Minorities Cont'd

---

The Question arises why did the early Christians persecute other religious minorities with such level of cruelty and wickedness? we need to remember that the early Christians were closer to Christianity than their modern contemporaries, in fact, they were more likely to implement true Christian teachings compared to their modern contemporaries who have thus far move father away from teaching of Christianity. Comparing the Taxation policy of the Christian West on religious minorities to the taxation policy Muslims ruler in the ME we come up with the following points:

1. The Muslim rulers was based on kindness and social - economic consideration.

2. The Christian West policy was based on a deliberate attempt to punish people and make their life miserable.

Furthermore, unlike in the Christian West, Islamic law exempted women, children, and the infirm from the tax:

According to most jurists, since the poll tax represented a monetary payment in lieu of military service, logically those disqualified for army service did not have to pay. This category included women, the prepubescent young, slaves, and the infirm.

Another major difference between the taxes levied upon the infidels of the Muslim world and of Christian Europe was the fact that the jizya was in exchange for state protection of life, liberty, and property, whereas the tithes of Europe did not guarantee this. In other words, at least the jizya bought something crucial to the well-being of the Jews, whereas the Jews of Europe would pay extra taxes but be afforded no protection based upon it.

In the Latin West, the state would not only tithe the Jews throughout the year, but once the Jews were impoverished because of it, their utility was no more, their protection lifted, and they were then expelled. In order to prevent such a fate, Jews were forced to pay bribes to obtain protection, with no promise that these would be accepted of them. The anti-Islam ideologues berate the Muslims for the historical use of the jizya, but neglect to mention the shohad (bribery) prevalent in Christian Europe–which the Jews had to pay for their protection–and unlike the jizya, it was arbitrary and often rejected:

For a greater appreciation of the perception of security that the Jews of Islam associated with payment of the jizya, consider the more unstable situation of the Jews of Europe. The Jews there paid numerous and often unreasonably high and arbitrary taxes to the ruling authority, but–until 1342 in the Holy Roman Empire–no regular poll tax in return for official protection…

When physically threatened (which happened much more frequently than in the Islamic world) the Jews of Europe routinely resorted to bribery to purchase or restore protection. This reliance on bribery created uncertainty, instability, and collective anxiety, for one never knew when a payoff might be required or whether the sum afforded would be sufficient.

A sign of the widespread utilization of bribery in Jewish life in Latin Christendom is the regular use of the verb le-shahed (from the biblical noun shohad, “bribery”), rare in mishnaic Hebrew, to express the action. In Islam, as in Christendom, many a ruler discovered that the threat to enforce the sumptuary laws among the dhimmis was a convenient ploy to raise cash as a substitute. But by contrast, I know of little evidence from the classical Islamic period that bribing officials to prevent violence against persons became a regular Jewish practice. Carrying the comparison further, in the Latin West, Jewish residential security was often linked to their economic utility. Thus, in England in 1290, when tallages had ceased to yield significant sums from the increasingly impoverished Jews, King Edward I canceled their right of residence and expelled them, confiscating what little remained of their property.

Despite the humiliating connotation and the financial burden, the Jews of Islam had in the jizya a surer guarantee of protection from non-Jewish hostility than their distant brethren had in the Latin West. The “testament” of Caliph ‘Umar, the purported originator of the Pact bearing his name, stipulates regarding the Protected People, that Muslims must “do battle to guard them, and put no burden on them greater than they can bear, provided they pay what is due from them to the Muslims, willing or under subjection, being humbled.” This principle was not always upheld, but it remained a steadfast cornerstone of Islamic policy toward the non-Muslims even into late medieval and early modern times. [67]

Truly this early Christian who promulgated the law are quite heartless, it is funny no single condemnation for their action by their brethren in faith could they share the same heartlessness? Yet we ask isn't the doctrine of perpetual servitude amongst the greatest evil ever thought of by men?

5. Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.


https://www.nairaland.com/1264396/8-telling-signs-suffer-islamophobia


we know their tricks

more appetizers:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims

https://www.nairaland.com/997325/real-persecution-muslims-west-not#11528201

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Men-fascinated-mass-killer-Anders-Breivik/story-19702018-detail/story.html#axzz2cpKfTtdj

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/the-faces-behind-the-veil-muslim-women-speak-out-against-ban-8812767.html

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Man-attacked-EDL-march-Hull/story-19673165-detail/story.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/air-force-sergeant-accused-of-planning-mosque-attack-as-muslim-leader-denounces-islamophobic-france-8758129.html

http://ihrc.org.uk/news/articles/10631-horrific-attack-on-55-year-old-muslim-women

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/07/let-us-speak-ourselves-five-womens-experiences-islamophobic-attacks

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/press-release.asp?ID=4970

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/19/suspected-mosque-bombing-midlands?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Another long NONSENSICAL hypothetical post from vedax.

Muslims have now converted forcefuly a coptic church in Egypt into a mosque. Everyone is silent, for those in the know rage is seething. One day this rage will explode while cowardly muslims are busy subduing non muslims. It will take a reagan who declared communist russia the evil empire; for a leader with balls like Putin to declare that islam is the enemy for the outlook to change. I reckon this will be within 2 years at most. Islam has persecuted xtians for 1400 years. 2 years thanks to internet.