I noticed the URL, that doesn't change what I wrote: the article itself is empty. Just being posted on a upenn URL doesn't make it automatically authentic nor academic.
There is no evidence of the "dung gatherer decree" except in fictional work. As I wrote, I deny all accusation unless cited properly.
> Uh-huh. The ones it conquered and colonized?
No, the lands it spread to whose inhabitants accepted Islam without force, whose local culture and language was preserved, and which flourished afterward, and whos non-Muslim population was granted rights and protections.
The Armenian and Greek genocides was due to the rise of secularist movements like the young Turks. I mentioned this in another post. Those are explicitly anti-Islamic, and purely secular. Again proving my point that those would not have happened under Islamic rule.
And the UPenn article was literally written by a professor of Arabic studies!
And the quote about the piles of corpses I gave you was referencing the fall of Constantinople, when it was sacked by the Ottomans; I even gave you the Wikipedia link where you could find it. It in fact happened under Islamic rule and there is plenty of primary evidence of it.
Not to mention mass killing and forced conversion of Christians under the Ottomans:
For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_...
Your repeated assertions that none of this happened are simply ahistorical.
> The term appears in the serial fiction "Consolaçam 10" by Ron Singer, where it is described as one of several newly enacted laws that forced Jews to flee their homeland due to such humiliating and discriminatory treatment
> There is no evidence in the provided search results that the "Dung-Gatherer's Decree" is a historical law from real-world legal or religious history; rather, it appears to be an example of anti-Semitic legislation within a narrative, illustrating the use of dehumanizing laws to marginalize and persecute a minority group
So that's out.
It doesn't matter if the UPenn article was written by a professor of Arabic studies, there are no citations.
I read about the fall of Constantinople. Most references I found were of orientalists who have a vested interest since their emergence to distort events. However, let's say that looting and killings did happen. That would fall solely on the individuals who ordered them and partook in them; Islam is free from blame.
You can read about the Pact of Umar and how he allowed the jews back into Jerusalem after they were massacred by the Romans and Byzantines. Yet, this is conveniently dropped when the anti-Muslim crowd attempts to paint a picture that Muslims are somehow "anti-semitic", but in reality, we saw who the real anti-semites are based on how the jews were treated in europe. Classic projection.
As far as the 1934 lootings, from the page itself:
> The event took place during a power vacuum while Ibrahim Pasha was fighting to quell the wider revolt in Jerusalem.
And according to the same article, it was done by Arabs and Druze. Nothing to do with Islam nor was it ordered by any official in power. We've seen what destabilization causes around the world when there is no power. We've seen the Sabra and Shatila massacres, but that was officially supported by the israeli government and army. No comparison can be made here.
The Mawza exile article cites the rise of the Shabbathian movement as a contributed. Yet again, these are isolated instances in the history of the Islamic nation, as opposed to the continuous killing and murdering and raping of the Palestinians (even underage females, all well documented) ever since their land was occupied and stolen from them.
Forced conversions are not allowed in Islam. We have no issue calling out violations of Islamic Law by whomever commits them. But today, the world watches international law being violated and war crimes being committed in front of our eyes live on TV. The israleis are literally committing mass starvation as we speak, but it's ok since they're "defending themselves". Never has history seen such atrocities while the rest of the world sits passive. But all of this has been foretold over 1400 years ago[1]
I was responding to your claim "the local culture was preserved, no one was forced out."
If you just keep making things up, providing no sources, and then backtracking and acting as if your claims were meaningless as soon as they're disproved, there's really no point to engaging with you. This has happened over and over. Not to mention the constant victim blaming, and claiming that victims must be biased and therefore not trusted.
There is a reason no non-Muslims are interested in living under a Muslim caliphate. If you refuse to understand why after being given numerous examples, that's on you.
There is no evidence of the "dung gatherer decree" except in fictional work. As I wrote, I deny all accusation unless cited properly.
> Uh-huh. The ones it conquered and colonized?
No, the lands it spread to whose inhabitants accepted Islam without force, whose local culture and language was preserved, and which flourished afterward, and whos non-Muslim population was granted rights and protections.
The Armenian and Greek genocides was due to the rise of secularist movements like the young Turks. I mentioned this in another post. Those are explicitly anti-Islamic, and purely secular. Again proving my point that those would not have happened under Islamic rule.