#Jizya

[sissa-arrows]

Do Christians/Catholics and Jews in Muslim countries have to pay dhimmi nowadays? Or was that a medieval thing? (I know ISIS did it in the territories they occupied but obviously I'm not counting them)

First thing first Dhimmi is the name of men who had to pay the tax and it means “protected person” the tax itself was called Jizya.

No Muslim state currently apply it or wish to apply it right now.

That being said the Jizya is very often misunderstood so I will explain what it is. You have to put things in their historical context. People were very often at war and borders were not as secure as they are (mostly) nowadays. In Islam you can “draft” Muslim men if a war was to happen but you cannot “draft” non Muslim men they have to chose to join the army (some didn’t allow non muslim men in the army making them automatically dhimmi) So the Jizya was a way to participate to the protection of ALL the people (including non Muslims) for men who were physically able to take arms to defend the land but didn’t. Women, children, elderly and disabled people who were not Muslim didn’t have to pay it. Same with non Muslim abled men who wanted and were allowed to take arms instead to protect the land and its people. In the majority of cases but not all people who couldn’t afford it were also automatically forgiven. The Jizya was also a way to be allowed autonomy and freedom in their religious practices.

It’s also important to say that the amount was often based on existing taxes before the Islamic conquest in the area and that Muslims had to pay their own taxes that non Muslims didn’t have to pay. (For exemple I don’t even live in a Muslim country and I give 2.5% of my savings, value of my gold jewelry included, to someone in need or to charity every year because it’s an obligation for Muslims.).

In some cases Muslims also had to pay the Jizya. In what is today day Algeria and part of Libya for example the Imazighen were like “we’re okay with the whole religion thing we revert to Islam but Arabs (actual Arabs not Arabized Imazighen) can’t rule us we will rule ourselves”. Because of that the Arabs did not trust the Imazighen with weapons they didn’t allow them to serve in the military and made them pay the Jizya instead. Which was lived as an injustice (they also had to pay the Muslim specific taxes and making them pay the Jizya was implying that they were not Muslims) and led to revolts against actual Arabs not against Islam.

Lastly and this is not against anon at all as it seems to be a genuine question, people (again not anon) who mention the dhimmi status or the Jizya as a way to make Islam look oppressive and bad are stupid as fuck. Because it was at a time where Europeans gave you the option of conversion, exile or death. You can think the Jizya is wrong but it clearly was a HUGE improvement for a lot of the places where it was applied and it was better than what the white Christian neighbors were offering to religious minorities.

[irradiate-space]

The Ottoman Empire would let the human Bionicle people pay jizya

[shakir2]

Is Islamic Traditionalism rational and relevant? 

It is understandable why some Muslims view the modern/Western academic study of Islam with suspicion, while others look down on traditionalist study as some relic of the past. Both mindsets are, at some level, justified, and both are reductionist. It is wrong to assert that it must be one or the other way, for both have pros and cons.  Traditional study is the bedrock of a Muslim’s Islamic…

[tamamita]

how is isis different from hamas?

Gonna make it easy and comprehensible:

ISIS or DA'ISH is a transnational terror organization consisting of Iraqi Baathists, former Syrian rebels or moderates, recruited fighters from all over the world, former US captives in Iraq, and oppressed and disenfranchised Sunnis. Wahhabi in nature, ISIS subscribes to the literalist tradition of Islam, based on a strict adherence to Tawhid (Islamic monotheism), rejecting the concept of intercession and saint venerations, seeing them as an act of idolatry. Their religious verdicts are based on the literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah, rejecting metaphorical exegesis. They aim to establish a global caliphate, seeking to eliminate anyone who opposses it regardless of religious or ideological differences. They see their cause as a hastening of various Islamic end time prophecies in their interpretation of Islamic eschatology. Like many Salafis, they reject Taqlid, which is to conform to one of the four schools of thought in Sunni Islam. On top of that, they reject religious innovations (Bid'ah), which is the idea that anything introduced to the religion without any religious basis is heresy. Whether it be practical or theological, they deem any Muslim who engage in Bid'ah to be an apostate or heretic. They are notorious for their intolerance of non-Muslims and application of Takfirism (excommunication) on Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'a. Christians had to pay the Jizya (poll tax) in their territories, while in other cases, they were murdered, expelled and had their churches destroyed or converted. They have no tolerance for Shi'a Muslims and will kill them on the spot (see: Speicher Massacre), and have often targeted them with IEDs or suicide bombers. Non-Muslims, like the Ezidis or Ahlul Haqq, were often subjected to execution whereas their women and children were either married away, converted or used as sex slaves. DAESH is not interested in national liberation, seeing it as a blasphemous innovation. DAESH does not consider Hamas to be Muslims due to struggle for national liberation which is supported by Iran and various Shi'i proxies.

Hamas is a political and military resistance group that consists of Palestinians. After the failures of the Oslo accord, Hamas broke away from PLO and formed their own political party. They either subscribe to the Shafi'i school of thought or some form of Ikhwani Salafism (Salafism as envisioned by the Muslim Brotherhood). They're a semi-governmental power in Gaza and are responsible for upholding the social and civil institutions, such as hospitals, schools and etc. Hamas' specific aim is localized and seeks to destroy the Zionist entity in order to form a one-state solution under an Islamic emirate or Islamic democracy. Their only enemy is Israel and any of its allies. As of the Hamas charter of 2017, they do not have an intolerance for non-Muslims or people of different religious and ideological comportments, as seen by them holding ties with both Shi'a and Socialist militias, such as Hezbollah and the PFLP/DFLP. Hamas is concerned with the national liberation of Palestine and the Palestinians. Being an entirely localized resistance group, they do not engage in global jihadism like ISIS nor do they carry out attacks internationally.

[girlactionfigure]

hunting Jews: the truth about Hamas

SEPTEMBER 15, 2024

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology.

Recently rescued Israeli hostage, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, an Israeli Bedouin Muslim, gave the following testimony:

Farhan’s testimony, along with a plethora of other evidence, only makes what we’ve been saying all along abundantly clear: Hamas is not a “resistance” group against oppression. Hamas is a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group that targets Jews.

ISLAMISM IS AN INHERENTLY ANTISEMITIC IDEOLOGY

Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group. What does this mean? 

Islamists believe that the doctrines of Islam should be congruent with those of the state. Islamists work to implement nation-states governed under Islamic Law (Sharia), emphasize pan-Islamic unity (in most cases, hoping for an eventual worldwide Islamic Caliphate, or empire), support the creation of Islamic theocracies, and reject all non-Muslim influences. For this reason, Islamists tend to portray themselves as “anti-imperialist,” while in truth they are striving to swap western imperialism with Islamic imperialism.

Islamist ideology can be traced back to Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. Al-Banna viewed the 1924 dissolution of the last Islamic Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, and the European colonization of the Middle East, beginning with France’s 1830 occupation of Algeria, as an affront to Islam. The early 20th century was a period of rapid secularization in the Middle East, when Arab nationalism threatened to replace pan-Islamic identity with a pan-Arab identity. Al-Banna opposed all of this, hoping to return to “authentic” Islamic practice through the (re)establishment of the Islamic Caliphate.

Islamism is an antisemitic ideology. Islamists hate Jews -- and by extension, the Jewish state -- because of the Prophet Muhammad’s conflict with the Jewish tribes of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century. Islamistsbelieve that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in a struggle between Muslims and their “eternal enemies,” the Jews.

Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, viewed the dissolution of the last Islamic Caliphate (empire) and the secularization of the Muslim world as an affront to Islam.

ISLAMISM, DHIMMITUDE, AND THE JEWS

Islamists seek to revive “authentic Islamic practice,” by which they mean, essentially, that they wish to go back in time. This desire to turn back the clock puts them in conflict with Jews for two reasons:

During his earliest conquests, the Prophet Muhammad and his army came into fierce conflict with a number of Jewish tribes that had settled in Arabia, some of which had refused to convert to Islam and even accused Muhammad and his followers of appropriating figures from the Torah. For Islamists, this initial conflict between Jews and the earliest Muslims is “proof” that Jews are “eternal enemies” of Islam.

Following Muhammad’s death in 632, the Arab Islamic empires conquered lands exponentially quickly. As a result of this rapid colonization, the Muslim authorities were faced with the “problem” of how to handle the conquered Indigenous peoples that resisted conversion to Islam. This “problem” was solved with a treaty known as the Pact of Umar. This so-called treaty allowed select religious and cultural minorities, known as dhimmis, or “People of the Book,” to practice their beliefs so long as they paid the “jizya” tax and abided by a set of restrictive, second-class citizenship laws.

Under Islamist regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jews are, to this day, still treated as dhimmis.

THE GENOCIDAL ANTISEMITISM OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Hamas emerged as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, worshipped Adolf Hitler.

Like Hitler, al-Banna sought to exterminate all Jews…in his case, from the Middle East.

According to German documents from the period, in the 1940s, the Nazis trained some 700 members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nazi Germany heavily funded the Brotherhood, which contributed to its massive growth. In 1938, the Brotherhood had some 800 members. By the end of World War II, it had grown to a million members.

In 1939, Germany “transferred to al-Banna some E£1000 per month, a substantial sum at the time. In comparison, the Muslim Brotherhood fundraising for the cause of Palestine yielded E£500 for that entire year.”

Naturally, Nazism deeply influenced the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology. 

The father of Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yasser Arafat, the most influential Palestinian leader of all time, began his “career” fighting for the Muslim Brotherhood. Which brings us to Hamas. Hamas’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and was responsible for establishing the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In 1987, he founded Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s hatred for Jews goes far beyond its original Nazi affiliations. During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Mandatory Palestine, during which Palestinian Arabs revolted against Jewish immigration and carried out a number of antisemitic massacres, the Muslim Brotherhood began disseminating antisemitic rhetoric, often targeting the Egyptian Jewish community.

Al-Nadhir, the Muslim Brotherhood’s magazine, published openly antisemitic articles, peddling conspiracy theories and demonizing the Egyptian Jewish community for its success in various industries. Notably, Al-Nadhir even called for the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, accusing Jews of “corrupting” Egypt and calling Jews a “societal cancer.” Al-Nadhir made boycott lists of Jewish businesses.

Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood’s antisemitism is not a relic of the past. Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood’s present day “Supreme Guide,” believes Jews “spread corruption on earth” and calls for “holy jihad” as an antidote.

THE ORIGINAL HAMAS CHARTER: EXPLICITLY GENOCIDAL

Hamas’s founding 1988 charter is explicitly antisemitic and genocidal. Below are some excerpts:

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” -- Introduction

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." -- Article 7

“In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” -- Aritcle 15 

“With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.” -- Article 22

“Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.” -- Article 28

BUT...HAMAS CHANGED THEIR CHARTER!

Some Hamas apologists will tell you that Hamas no longer intends to exterminate all Jews, because in 2017, they “replaced their [openly genocidal] charter.” Well, lucky for you, Hamas is here to set the record straight. See, after releasing their “new” charter, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar assured the media that the 2017 document did not replace their original 1988 charter.

The 2017 document was thus not a “new” charter from a “reformed” Hamas, but rather, a propaganda document aimed at redeeming Hamas’s image to the west.

Since 2017, Hamas has made openly genocidal calls toward Jews. For example: 

In 2018, Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV media channel predicted “the cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews.”

In 2019, Hamas Political Bureau member Fathi Hammad said, “You seven million Palestinians abroad, enough warming up! There are Jews everywhere! We must attack every Jew on planet Earth –- we must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help.” In 2021, Hammad called, via Al-Aqsa TV, for the Palestinians in Jerusalem to “cut off the heads of the Jews.”

In May of 2021, the leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, led a rally in which the crowd was encouraged to chant, "We will trample on the heads of the Jews in front of everyone..."

ISLAMIST INFLUENCE ON PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM

The earliest Arab nationalists in Palestine were not necessarily Islamists. Falastin, an influential anti-Zionist, Arab nationalist newspaper, was founded by two Palestinian Christians in 1911. Khalil Beidas, who was the first Arab to identify as Palestinian, in 1898, was a Christian. Nevertheless, the Palestinian nationalist movement soon fell under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Initially, Palestinian Arab nationalists advocated for a unified Arab state in Greater Syria. In 1920, Haj Amin al-Husseini began advocating for an independent Palestinian Arab state. To draw people to his cause, which was not yet well-known to the average population, he began emphasizing the importance of Palestine to Islam, and particularly the importance of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Soon, he began disseminating the libel that the Jews intended to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque. This libel has cost thousands of Jewish lives and is spread widely to this day.

Early on, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt adopted the Palestinian cause. After World War II, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had spent the war working as a propagandist for the Nazis in Berlin, escaped to Egypt with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood fought against the State of Israel in 1948, along with other Islamist militias, such as the Army of the Holy War. Among its fighters were Yasser Arafat. In the 1960s, Arafat came under the influence of the Soviet Union and shifted his image to that of a communist counterrevolutionary, as opposed to an Islamist, though his rhetoric in Arabic continued emphasizing the importance of jihad and Al-Aqsa Mosque to the Palestinian movement. Nevertheless, after Islamic Revolution in Iran, after which the Islamic Republic adopted the Palestinian movement, and with the establishment of Hamas and groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian nationalism has once again been undergone an Islamization.

rootsmetals

as always: this post is not an endorsement of any given Israeli policy or politician. You can be highly critical of Israel’s handling of the situation without obfuscating or whitewashing the origins and goals of this ideology. It always, always came down to antisemitism. I won’t engage with straw man arguments in the comments 😗

MAIN SOURCES on Instagram

[mapsontheweb]

Number of non Muslim jizya paying population in Ottoman Balkan for 1700-1815

by Yellowapple1000

[howtomuslim]

The Rights of Non-Muslims Under Sharia Law

Sharia law is often misunderstood, especially regarding its treatment of non-Muslims. However, the Sharia has a rich tradition of pluralism, allowing non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews to follow their own laws while living in Muslim-majority societies.

1. Pluralism Under Sharia: A Historical Perspective

Sharia law is not a monolithic system but rather a framework that has historically embraced justice. Within Islamic societies, non-Muslims, particularly “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), were allowed to practice their religion freely and follow their own legal systems concerning personal matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error.” (Quran 2:256)

This verse underscores that faith is a personal choice and that people should be allowed to practice their religion without coercion.

2. Dhimmi Status: Protection, Responsibilities, and Benefits

Non-Muslims living under Islamic rule were given the status of “dhimmi,” which granted them protection and certain rights in exchange for the payment of jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslim citizens. The jizya was not merely a tax but a means to ensure the safety and protection of non-Muslims in a Muslim-majority state. It also exempted them from military service, which was obligatory for able-bodied Muslim men.

A lesser-known aspect of the jizya is that it also contributed to providing pensions and other benefits to non-Muslims. This system ensured that non-Muslims were cared for in the state, particularly in old age or during times of need.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasised the sanctity of the protection given to non-Muslims:

“Whoever kills a mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise…” (Sahih Bukhari 3166)

“If somebody harms a disbeliever that’s living under the protection of the Muslims, they have harmed me; if they have harmed me, they have harmed God.” — Prophet Muhammed, Peace be Upon him

Islamic law does not allow for double standards when it comes to justice. Non-Muslims have the right to seek justice if they are wronged by a Muslim. Historical examples show that even the highest leaders, like Caliph Ali and Caliph Umar ibn Abdulaziz, upheld the rights of non-Muslims, ensuring that justice was served when a non-Muslim was wronged.

For instance, during Caliph Ali’s time, a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim was brought to justice, and the non-Muslim’s family was given the choice to demand the death penalty or accept compensation. Islamic Governance made sure everyone was responsible for their actions and justice was served.

3. Legal Autonomy: Non-Muslims and Their Laws

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Sharia’s application is its respect for the legal autonomy of non-Muslim communities. Non-Muslims were allowed to maintain their religious laws and customs in matters of personal status. This legal pluralism was practiced in various Islamic states, where Christian, Jewish, and other religious communities had their courts and legal systems.

“To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way…” (Quran 5:48)

4. The Role of Jizya in Social Welfare

Non-Muslims under Sharia law were required to pay a tax called jizya (often being lower than the 2.5% tax on the wealth of Muslims paid towards charity yearly). However, this tax was a system that provided benefits, including protection and exemption from military service and those who would be burdened to pay it were exempted from paying it. Furthermore, certain groups, such as Christian monks who dedicated their lives to worship, were even exempted from paying the jizya, showing the flexibility and fairness of the system.

In contrast to modern taxation, where everyone must contribute regardless of their role in society, Islamic law recognised the unique circumstances of different communities and adjusted its requirements accordingly.

The Jizya was used not only for the administration and protection of the state but also to provide pensions and social services and support for those in need, including the elderly and disabled non-Muslims. This practice ensured that non-Muslims were not only protected but also cared for, reflecting the Islamic commitment to justice.

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Quran 5:8)

The positive effects of this system can be seen during the time of Umar ibn Abd-Alaziz, poverty was wiped out, justice was deeply woven into the society and the animals were fed with the surplus food and wealth as they were seen as also a part of the responsibilities of the Caliph.

There are numerous historical examples of Islamic leaders advocating for the rights of non-Muslims. For instance, the scholar Taqi al-Din famously negotiated with the Tartar leaders to secure the release of both Muslim and non-Muslim prisoners of war, demonstrating that Islamic justice extends beyond the Muslim community.

To learn more about Islam visit: howtomuslim.org

[eretzyisrael]

by Raymond Ibrahim

A few November headlines from the ongoing jihadist-genocide of Christians in Nigeria follow...

Coptic Christians suffer the double injustice of living under systematic discrimination by the Egyptian government, and also from regular members of Egyptian society who attack Copts and their property with impunity. The reality for Copts in Egypt is one of life as second-class citizens.

"Most of the native population converted to Islam over six centuries to escape the jizya [protection tax] and humiliations of dhimmi status. The term 'Copt' came to define the native Christian population that had not converted to Islam..." — Coptic Solidarity, a human rights organization, in a report titled, "Advocacy of Hatred Based on Religion or Belief."

-

Mozambique: Muslim terrorists raided a Christian village in the terrorism-plagued Cabo Delgado region, and killed four. The Islamic State later took credit for the attack. According to one report:

"Through propaganda channels, the group assumed that the attack on the 'Christian village' took place on Friday November 10, using machine guns by 'soldiers of the caliphate.' The attack took place during a ceremony in preparation for a female initiation ritual that was scheduled for Sunday November 12, with the terrorists entering the camp, firing bursts of gunfire."

Nigeria: A few November headlines from the ongoing jihadist-genocide of Christians in the African nation follow:

At Least 10 Christians Slain in Taraba State

Kidnapped Pastor Killed in Nigeria after Ransom Payment

Terrorists Kill Christian, Kidnap 25 Others in Northern Nigeria

Pastor Slain, Wife Kidnapped in Kaduna State

Pastor's Wife Shot Dead in Taraba State

General Muslim Violence and Hostility against Christians

Ireland: On Nov. 23, a Muslim man of Algerian origin stabbed a group of preschool children attending Saint Mary's, a private Catholic primary school in Dublin, as the children were leaving school around 1:30 pm. Three children — two girls and a boy aged between 5 and 6 — and a care assistant who tried to defend them, were stabbed in the assault. Stabbed near the heart, a 5-year-old girl was critically injured and, as of the last reporting from December, remains hospitalized in critical condition. According to one report:

"The motivation behind the attack remains unclear; however, considering the assailant's background and the specific target being children leaving from a well-known Irish Catholic primary school, an anti-Christian motive seems not unlikely."

Although the Algerian attacker had a prior criminal record, his order of deportation was revoked and in 2014 he was granted Irish citizenship. In response to the stabbing, angry Irish citizens took to the streets and rioted that evening.

Greece: On Nov. 11 in the town of Colonos, a 38-year-old Muslim man of Afghan origin knifed a 56-year-old Egyptian because the Egyptian had converted to Christianity. He was stabbed in the head and in one of his hands. He told police, who arrived on the scene and arrested the Afghan, that he was attacked "because he was a Muslim and was baptized a Christian."

[racefortheironthrone]

How did all the heresies and theological arguments of the Late Roman Empire lead to "the Arab caliphates getting a decent navy and winning the Battle of the Masts"?

This is actually a fascinating story about the nature of the religious world and religious politics in the Late Roman and Byzantine Empires and the Rashidun Caliphate.

Because heresies and theological arguments tended to start at the level of bishops and patriarchs fighting with the bishops and patriarchs of other metropoles (and that filters out to which missionaries were sent where), there were strong regional variations as to which position was in the local majority.

Skipping over the Arian controversy because it's not relevant to the Battle of the Masts, Cyril of Alexandria was the leader of the Monophysite faction ("physis" meaning "nature," i.e Christ has one nature, which tracks with the Council of Nicaea's declaration that he had one "essence"), and his dyophysite (meaning two "natures") rivals were based out of Antioch - and Alexandria and thus Egypt became Monophysite. However, Constantinople and Anatolia were dyophysite and worked to make sure that the Second Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon declared monophysitism a heresy and dyophysitism as Orthodoxy, thus leading to the Chalcedonian Schism.

Following on from this, the emperors Justin II and Justinian I were Orthodox. Now, Justinian tried to end the Schism through the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, but this didn't really work and it remained state policy to persecute Monophysites. However, the empress Theodora was Monophysite and acted as patroness and political defender of Monophysites throughout the empire - which made her very popular in Egypt...and with the Greens in the Hippodrome, who were also Monophysites. Naturally, if the Greens were Monophysite, the Blues were Orthodox, because why not turn your sports rivalry into a religious rivalry and a pseudo-political party system? It's not called the Byzantine Empire because it's simple.

Even though Theodora was a Green, Justinian supported the Blues, which meant that no matter what your sports team or religious views or pseudo-partisanship you could support the imperial family. (Indeed, many historians think that the two at least somewhat arranged their religious and sports affiliations with this in mind.) This worked...up until the Nika riots ended up with Belisarius turning the Imperial army on the sports fans turned revolutionary rioters in the Hippodrome, leading to the deaths of as many as 30,000 people.

And so it went, with Alexandria tending to be the losers in the monoergism vs. dyoergism (does Christ have one "energy" or two?) debate, and the monolethitism vs. dyolethetism (does Christ have one "will" or two?) debate. Notably, these debates saw the Emperors of the time trying to get the Church to adopt a compromise (both monoergism and monothelitism were essentially an attempt by the Emperor Heraclius and his Patriarch to find a new theological formulation that the Alexandrians could live with while pointing urgently in the direction of first the Persians and then the Arabs) and failing due to religious partisans digging in their heels, or Emperors siding violently with one side or the other, ironically in the name of Imperial unity.

And this brings us to the Arab Conquest that gave birth to the Rashidun Caliphate. Now, the Christian population of Alexandria was not exactly thrilled about suddenly being ruled over by Muslim Arabs in 642...but in a genius stroke of enlightened self-interest, the Rashidun Caliphate adopted a policy whereby non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) would be left alone in terms of religious matters as long as they paid their jizya taxes on non-Muslims (with the idea being to create a financial incentive to convert). While this wasn't the most popular, the Alexandrians realized that having to pay religious taxes and then getting left alone in peace and quiet to be Monophysite was a much better deal than having to pay Byzantine imperial taxes and getting religiously persecuted all the damn time.

This mattered geostrategically, because the Port of Alexandria was one of the largest ports in the Mediterranean, and thus had one of the largest shipyards and a lot of shipbuilders, and a hell of a lot of trained ex-Roman sailors and marines who were heavily Monophysite. These recently-unemployed sailors and marines were very happy to work for the Rashidun Caliphate, especially when the Caliphs started to shift resources into the navy to combat Byzantine dominance on the seas. Thus, only a few years after the Rashidun conquest of Egypt in 642, the Arab navy was suddenly able to fight on equal terms with the Byzantine navy - and then started kicking their ass.

This at last brings us to the Battle of the Masts in 655, where an Arab fleet (crewed mostly by Monophysite Egyptians) of 200 ships under the command of admiral Abu al-A'war came into contact with a Byzantine fleet of 500 ships led by the Emperor Constans II off the coast of Lycia...and smashed it to pieces. According to the historian al-Tabari, it was called the Battle of the Masts because there were rough seas and both fleets lashed themselves together to allow for marine boarding operations, so that soldiers were literally crossing from mast to mast. Constans II supposedly only managed to escape by changing uniforms with one of his subordinates as a disguise.

The defeat was so crippling that Constantinople was brought under siege for the first time by the Rashidun that same year, although that brief siege (the brevity of which is why historians refer to the siege of 674-678 as the "First Arab Siege of Constantinople") was unsuccessful due to a storm that sunk the Arab ships carrying the artillery and siege engines that the land army was counting on. Naturally, the Byzantines attributed this storm and the first Arab civil war that broke out in 655 (which bought the Byzantines some desperately-needed breathing room) to divine intervention.

Just to show how the past is always with us, I wanted to share a bit of a statement by the Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States:

"The Coptic Orthodox Church was accused of being 'Monophysite' in the Council of Chalcedon. The term monophysite comes from two Greek words meaning "single nature". Monophysitism merged Christ's humanity into His divinity so that effectively it meant that in Christ there was only one single nature, a divine nature. This is NOT what the Coptic Orthodox believes. We believe that "Christ's divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye" and we recite this statement in every liturgy. As a result, we are Miaphysite and not Monophysite. Miaphysitism (one nature) means the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect human and perfect divine and these two natures are united together without mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration in one nature; the nature of God incarnate."

[caesarsaladinn]

this is a jizya fanblog

[theworsthistorynerd]

"In the late 6th century, a new monotheistic religion called Islam was founded by its prophet Muhammad, whose followers became known as Muslims. Muhammad united the tribes of Arabia into a religious polity, a caliphate, whose domains he and his successors extended into a vast empire through holy war (jihad).[296][ci] They conquered Palestine in 636 to 640.[247][cii][ciii]

Society in the caliphate formed a pyramid with five layers.[297] Arabs were at the top, followed by converts to Islam (mawali) (this distinction disappeared after the Abbasids seized power).[297] Below them stood dhimmis, followed by non-Muslim free men and slaves at the bottom.[297] The dhimmi (meaning "protected person") were Christians, Jews, and Samaritans, who the Muslims designated as "peoples of the Book" (ahl al-kitab), meaning that they, like the Muslims, based their worship on a book God had given to them, which, in its essence, was identical to the Koran.[298] Unlike the previous rulers, the Muslims allowed them to practice their religions in peace. However, non-Muslim men had to pay a special tax (jizya) and they had to be submissive to Muslims.[298][civ] Dress regulations were imposed on non-Muslims, but it is uncertain whether they were ever enforced in Palestine.[299][cv] Muslim men were permitted to marry non-Muslim women even if the latter choose to remain in their faith. Muslim women, however, could not marry non-Muslim men, unless they first converted to Islam.[300][cvi] The Muslims also lifted the Romans' centuries-long ban on Jews in Jerusalem.[301]

The Muslims organized the territory of the Byzantine Dioceses Orientes (Syria) into five military districts, or provinces (jund, pl. ajnad).[302][cvii][cviii] The territory of Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Tertia became Jund Filastin and stretched from Aqaba in the south to the lower Galilee in the north and from Arish in the west to Jericho in the east.[303][cix] The Tulunids later expanded the borders of the province eastwards and southwards to include regions in modern-day southern Jordan and north-western Saudi Arabia.[304][cx] The newly founded city Ramla became Jund Filastin's administrative capital and most important city.[305] Jund al-Urdunn corresponded with Palaestina Secunda, covering most of the Galilee, the western part of Peraea in Transjordan, and the coastal cities Acre and Sur (Tyre).[306] Tabariyyah (Tiberias) replaced Scythopolis as the province's capital.[307]

Throughout the period, Palestine was a sort of gold mine for the caliphate and among its most prosperous and fertile provinces.[308] Palestine's wealth derived from its strategic location as a hub for international trade, the influx of pilgrims, its excellent agricultural produce, and from a number of local crafts.[309] Products manufactured or traded in Palestine included building materials from marble and white-stone quarries, spices, soaps, olive oil, sugar, indigo, Dead Sea salts, and silk.[310] Palestinian Jews were expert glassmakers whose wares became known as "Jewish glass" in Europe.[311] Palestine was also known for its book production and scribal work.[312]

The Muslims invested much effort in developing a fleet and in restoring seaports, creating shipyards, fortifying coastal cities, and in establishing naval bases in Palestine.[313] Acre became their chief naval base from which a fleet set out to conquer Cyprus in 647.[314] Jaffa came to replace Caesarea as Palestine's main port due to its proximity with Ramla.[315]

Though Palestine was now under Muslim control, the Christian world's affection for the Holy Land continued to grow. Christian kings made generous donations to Jerusalem's holy sites,[cxi] and helped facilitate the ever increasing pilgrimage traffic.[317][cxii] Pilgrims ventured for the adventure, but also to expiate sin.[319][cxiii] Many pilgrims were attacked by highwaymen which would later be cited by the Crusaders as a reason to "liberate" Jerusalem from the Muslims.[320]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Crusader_period

[actualmermaid]

So it turns out you can end up with legally-recognized polyamory and gay marriage for both men and women in CK3 (assuming the house head holds enough property to support multiple spouses)

You do this by starting as the al-Yiliqi dynasty in 867, conquering Iberia and most of France, and pushing an aggressive policy of cultural and religious tolerance

In more detail:

Start as the al-Yiliqi dynasty, which follows Muwalladi Islam (patriarchal and polygamous but chill with gay relationships)

You have now unlocked an event where two male vassals (who are attracted to men) can fight over a male junior spouse, who will be listed as a "husband" after the event is resolved

Conquer the northern Iberian kingdoms, which are Catholic (patriarchal and monogamous) but encompass multiple cultures that are more culture- and gender-egalitarian

Conquer southern France, which also encompasses more egalitarian Catholic cultures

Let everyone do their own thing. Enforce cultural tolerance and grant Catholic rulers jizya status instead of converting them.

Avenge the Battle of Tours! This will inspire your more stubborn Catholic vassals to convert to Muwalladi Islam.

Now you have multiple vassals where the culture recognizes female inheritance, but the religion recognizes polygamy and gay relationships

Landed female rulers can now have harems of multiple husbands.

If the female ruler has an open "husband" spot, she can marry a man who also has multiple wives. I learned this when my male caliph became the second (trophy) husband of a Catalan countess, who simultaneously was the caliph's third wife

Presumably you can get the "fighting over a spouse" event for lesbians, but I haven't seen it yet

LOVE WINS

[sefarad-haami]

Un breve resumen: judíos y musulmanes en Marruecos

🇪🇸 El primer capítulo de "Judíos y musulmanes en Marruecos: sus mundos interrelacionados," editado por Joseph Chetrit, Jane S. Gerber y Drora Aarussy, explora la rica interacción cultural y política entre judíos y musulmanes en Marruecos. La conferencia "Uncommon Commonalities: Jews and Muslims in Morocco," organizada en junio de 2019 en Nueva York por el "American Sephardi Federation Institute of Jewish Experience," reunió a académicos de diversas partes del mundo para examinar esta interacción. La presencia judía en Marruecos se remonta al siglo VIII a.C., con la guerrera/priestisa Kahina resistiendo las conquistas musulmanas. Durante la Edad Media, la vida judía en Fez se vio enriquecida por correspondencias con estudiosos en Irak, conservadas en la Geniza de El Cairo. A pesar de enfrentar restricciones y el impuesto de jizya, los judíos marroquíes mantuvieron una vibrante vida cultural que incluía poesía, música y rituales compartidos con sus vecinos musulmanes. La colonización francesa en el siglo XX trajo cambios significativos, y aunque la comunidad judía marroquí ha disminuido de más de 250,000 en 1956 a aproximadamente 2,500 hoy en día, su influencia persiste en las comunidades judías en Israel, Francia, Canadá y Estados Unidos.

El capítulo también aborda la profunda influencia mutua en el ámbito lingüístico y cultural, destacando la interacción a través del "Darija" y el uso de múltiples lenguas en la vida cotidiana. Las mujeres judías adoptaron proverbios musulmanes y poesía oral beduina, mientras que el poeta israelí Najara (1555-1628) fusionó melodías árabes con poesía litúrgica hebrea. En el contexto político, la caída de Granada en 1492 y la posterior expulsión de los judíos de España llevaron a una migración significativa hacia Marruecos, aunque la recepción no siempre fue acogedora. Las fuentes históricas y crónicas reflejan un panorama complejo de desafíos y adaptaciones para los refugiados. A pesar de las dificultades, los judíos en Marruecos lograron establecer comunidades prósperas y transformar sus tradiciones culturales.

🇺🇸 The first chapter of "Jews and Muslims in Morocco: Their Intersecting Worlds," edited by Joseph Chetrit, Jane S. Gerber, and Drora Aarussy, explores the rich cultural and political interactions between Jews and Muslims in Morocco. The conference "Uncommon Commonalities: Jews and Muslims in Morocco," held in June 2019 in New York by the "American Sephardi Federation Institute of Jewish Experience," gathered scholars from around the world to examine these interactions. Jewish presence in Morocco dates back to the 8th century BCE, with the warrior-priestess Kahina resisting Muslim conquests. During the medieval period, Jewish life in Fez was enriched by correspondence with scholars in Iraq, preserved in the Cairo Geniza. Despite facing restrictions and the jizya tax, Moroccan Jews maintained a vibrant cultural life, including shared poetry, music, and rituals with their Muslim neighbors. French colonization in the 20th century brought significant changes, and although the Jewish community in Morocco has decreased from over 250,000 in 1956 to approximately 2,500 today, its influence remains in Jewish communities in Israel, France, Canada, and the United States.

The chapter also addresses the profound linguistic and cultural influence between Jews and Muslims, highlighting interactions through "Darija" and the use of multiple languages in daily life. Jewish women adopted Muslim proverbs and Bedouin oral poetry, while the poet Israel Najara (1555-1628) blended Arabic melodies with Hebrew liturgical poetry. In the political context, the fall of Granada in 1492 and the subsequent expulsion of Jews from Spain led to significant migration to Morocco, although the reception was not always welcoming. Historical sources and chronicles reflect a complex picture of challenges and adaptations for the refugees. Despite these difficulties, Jews in Morocco succeeded in establishing prosperous communities and transforming their cultural traditions.

[girlactionfigure]

by design

INTRODUCTION

Since the October 7 massacre, antisemitism worldwide has skyrocketed to levels reminiscent of the eve of the rise of the Nazis. Dozens of synagogues around the world have been firebombed or set on fire. A 12-year-old Jewish girl was raped in France on account of her Jewishness; another French Jewish woman was allegedly kidnapped and raped “to avenge Palestine.” A pro-Palestinian protestor killed a 69-year-old Jewish man in Los Angeles. An ISIS-supporting teenager stabbed a 50-year-old Jewish man in Zurich, leaving him in critical condition. A San Diego Jewish dentist was murdered under suspicious circumstances. Protestors have defaced Holocaust memorials, nearly lynched Israel’s 20-year-old Eurovision participant, the mother of an Israeli female hostage had to be rescued from a pro-Palestine mob in New York City, protestors disrupted a memorial walk at Auschwitz on the Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Day, and the list goes on and on…

In 2017, the white supremacist Unite the Right Rally, during which participants exclaimed “Jews will not replace us,” drew widespread condemnation from the left. Yet today, day after day, thousands march in main western cities, including New York City, proudly displaying the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah, and even the Houthis, whose banner proclaims “a curse upon the Jews,” and the left hardly bats an eye. Worse, we are gaslit. We are told that these are merely “ceasefire” or “anti-war” protests. We are told “a few bad apples” don’t represent the movement. We are told we are blowing things out of proportion, or that their hateful actions are valid because of X, Y, and Z. 

But these are not a few bad apples or fringe extremists. I don’t doubt that the vast majority of people worldwide who feel solidarity with Palestinians are not genocidal Jew-haters. But the antisemitism that we see coming from the pro-Palestine crowd is not a fluke. It’s not a coincidence. It’s not an exaggeration, a distortion, or a lie. 

It’s by design. It’s, unfortunately, what this movement was designed to do from its inception, to the detriment of Jews, Palestinians, and Israelis alike. 

THE LONG LEGACY OF DHIMMITUDE 

To really understand what’s going on, we have to go back in time to 637 CE. Following Muhammad’s death in 632, the Arab Islamic empires conquered lands exponentially quickly. As a result of this rapid colonization, the Muslim authorities were faced with the “problem” of how to handle the conquered Indigenous peoples that resisted conversion to Islam.

This “problem” was solved with a treaty known as the Pact of Umar. This so-called treaty allowed select religious and cultural minorities, known as dhimmis, or “People of the Book,” to practice their beliefs so long as they paid the “jizya” tax and abided by a set of restrictive, second-class citizenship laws. 

In other words, to survive, Jews had two choices: pay a tax or convert to Islam. But the system of dhimmitude didn’t end there. Jews faced a myriad of second-class restrictions. For instance, Jews could not govern, lead, or employ Muslims. Jews could not join the military or work for the government. When harmed by a Muslim, Jews had to purchase Muslim witnesses, which left Jews with virtually no legal recourse. 

You may think that dhimmitude, which was only abolished in 1856, is too long ago, too far removed from the conflict and the Palestinians of today. But it isn’t. That’s not how history works. Fast forward to the beginnings of the twentieth century and political Zionism. Palestinian Arabs, the majority of whom were Muslim, might not have held any ill will toward Jews. But they were accustomed to a certain social structure, in which Muslims dominated and Jews and other religious minorities were second-class citizens. The “threat” of Zionism challenged this structure. Jews were fine, so long as they knew their place. Once Jews started asking for more, well, that became a problem. 

THE FORMER DHIMMIS

In 1916, the British promised the Arabs a unified Arab state in Greater Syria, which included Palestine. A year later, the British issued the Balfour Declaration, which stated that “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

It’s worth noting that the British did not yet occupy Palestine at the time either of these promises were made. To the Arabs, the Balfour Declaration reneged the earlier promise made to them, whereas the British argued that it, in fact, did not. After all, the Balfour Declaration never specified the exact nature of this Jewish homeland. 

Up until 1917, the vast majority of Arabs in Palestine, save for the higher classes, had never heard of Zionism. To prevent any sort of Jewish homeland from ever coming to fruition, the Palestinian Arab leadership, led by Haj Amin al-Husseini, had to mobilize the masses. So what did he do? He incited antisemitic violence, by disseminating the conspiracy that the Jews intended to take over Temple Mount. This incitement resulted in a series of antisemitic massacres, most notably, the 1929 Hebron Massacre. 

A couple of things are telling about these massacres. First, the language that was used. At the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, Muslim Arabs ravaged the Jewish community in Jerusalem, chanting “Palestine is ours!” and “the Jews are our dogs!” Second, if al-Husseini’s problem truly was Zionism, he could’ve incited violence against the new Zionist communities that had been established over the previous decades. Instead, however, this violence almost exclusively targeted the oldest continuous Jewish communities in Palestine, in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and more. The threat of autonomous Jews prompted Palestinian Arabs to attack their very own neighbors, the former dhimmis.

SEEDS OF CONFLICT 

Today, Palestinians certainly have many legitimate human rights grievances against Israel. But up until the 1930s, when the Zionist paramilitary Irgun carried the first Zionist retaliatory attacks against Arabs, this just wasn’t the case. The Zionist movement purchased lands legally. As a matter of official policy, the Zionists avoided purchasing lands occupied by Palestinian farmers. 

The 1937 Peel Commission corroborated this, stating: “Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased.” In 1931, the British created a register for landless Arabs; only 664 Arabs out of a total of nearly 900,000 met the criteria. 

It’s worth noting that the Ottoman Empire had restricted Jewish land purchases. Once again, Zionist land purchases upset the previously existing social order, in which Jews were tolerated so long as they stayed in line. 

In fact, Haj Muhammad Said al-Husseini, the Mufti of Gaza, admitted as much in 1948, when he issued a fatwa stating that “Zionism has created a reality in which Jews have forgotten they are dhimmis.” A similar fatwa had been issued in 1935. 

What’s happening today is not at all shocking considering the earliest Palestinian violent “resistance” to Zionism was, to put it plainly, resistance to Jews. In 1937, when Haj Amin al-Husseini was asked whether he would be willing to absorb the 400,000 Jews already residing in Palestine into a future singular Palestinian Arab state, he plainly said, “No,” and implied that they would be expelled. Of course, he also rejected any partition of the land between Arabs and Jews. In other words, Haj Amin al-Husseini rejected the very existence of Jews in Palestine regardless of the political arrangement. 

Their problem wasn’t just with Zionism. From day one, their problem was with Jews. So is it any surprise Jews today are being terrorized around the world in the name of Palestine?

ionist land purchases did not displace Palestinians. As a matter of policy, the Zionist movement avoided purchasing lands occupied by fellahin, or Palestinian farmers. This is corroborated by the 1937 Peel Commission, which noted, “Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased.”

But up until 1936, when the Irgun, the right-wing Zionist paramilitary group, carried the first Zionist retaliatory attacks against Arabs, this wasn’t the case. Land purchases 

"His Majesty's government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine." 

British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, 1947

SKEWED PRIORITIES

Time and time again from its inception, the Palestinian “resistance” has prioritized the murder of Jews over their own national aspirations. Between 1939-1947, the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected a number of iterations of a “one state solution” with an Arab majority on account of the fact that said state would have too many Jews or afford Jews too much autonomy. 

The original 1964 charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization is telling. In 1964, the charter explicitly stated, “This Organization [the PLO] does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip, or the Himmah area.” In other words, the PLO’s main aim was the destruction of Israel, as opposed to self-determination for the Palestinian people living under the occupation of two different Arab nations. It was only in 1968, shortly after Israel captured those territories during the Six Day War, that their charter was amended to include Gaza and the West Bank.

The pattern has continued. In the early 1990s, when Israel and the PLO pursued a peace process known as the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat, al-Husseini’s protege and chairman of the PLO, gave an address at a Johannesburg mosque where he assured the worshippers that this peace agreement was merely a “tactical step” in the ultimate goal to annihilate Israel. 

Among the most heard chants at pro-Palestine protests today are a number of variations of “globalize the intifada,” but the intifadas drastically deteriorated the quality of life of Palestinians. The checkpoints and the West Bank wall, for example, were erected in response to the intifadas.There is absolutely no strategic reason in calling for an intifada if the concern is truly Palestinian human rights. The only reason to call for an intifada is if what you wish to prioritize is the murder of Jews. 

In the 1960s, Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giáp advised Arafat to "…stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your [Arafat's] terror war into a struggle for human rights." But the fact remains: Arafat, and his successors, continued to prioritize Israel’s destruction over Palestinian human rights. 

rootsmetals

[mapsontheweb]

Religious Distribution in the Subdivisions (Nahiyas) of the Mount Lebanon Emirate in the 1540s according to Ottoman Tax Registries.

by u/R120Tunisia:

The map wasn't made by me. The original post is here though I modified it by adding a small graph that shows the overall percentages below.

The map uses various books that summarize the results of the tax registries as a source.

In case you might be wondering : "Wasn't Lebanon Christian majority ?" well at that point, no. The largest religious group at the time would have been the Druze followed by Shias. Note the Druze were technically part of the Muslim millet and didn't pay the Jizya so they were included in the Muslim category at the time.

The Druze though were far from united. They originated from the foothills of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains and were settled by the Ayyubids and Mamluks over the years along the central Levantine coast to guard from Crusader naval incursions and raids. In the absence of crusader threats, the various Druze clans started to fight among each other, with a divide appearing between Qaysi Druze clans (who claimed descent from Northern Arabian tribes) and Yamani Druze clans (who claimed descent from Southern Arabian tribes). The former were supported by local Sunnis and Shias while the latter had the support of local Ottoman authorities.

The Qaysis eventually gained the upper hand following the Battle of Ain Dara and most of the Yamani Druze were expelled from Lebanon with most moving into what is today Jabal al-Druze which was sparsely populated at the time (this was how Syria got most of its Druze as well). Meanwhile, the Qaysi clans that prevailed started to invite Christian peasants from the Mt Lebanon area as well as from all over the Levant into the area to repopulate the towns and villages left empty by the Yamanis and to become tenant farmers under them. These new immigrants were mainly Maronite but also Orthodox and Melkite to a lesser degree.

This Christian immigration would increase following the takeover of the Shihab dynasty, a Sunni family from the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, following the death of the last Druze Qaysi Ma'nid Emirs. The new dynasty were in frequent conflict with Druze landlords so to build a power base in the area they started to support the Maronite clergy and created local conditions friendly to Christian life (some Shihab Emirs would even convert to Christianity).

And finally two other factors : Christians tended to be poorer and rural (especially Maronites), and the rural poor tend to have higher birthrates, and at the time, there was a split among the local Orthodox population of the Levant that caused many to join the new Melkite Catholic Church leading to many members leaving their communities for sectarian reasons and moving into Lebanon to create new communities out of scratch (most notables of these is Zahlé, Lebanon's third largest city and the largest Christian majority town in the Middle East, which continues to have a Melkite majority to this day).

Tl;dr : in the late 17th and early 18th century following inter-Druze conflict and the takeover of the Shihab dynasty, a demographic shift occurred in what is today Lebanon that led to a huge decrease in the Druze population and an increase of the Christian population due to immigration (to re-populate areas emptied by the Druze who left and trigged by both the local conditions in the area as well as theological disputes within the Christian communities of the Levant) as well as higher birthrates, eventually leading to Christians becoming a slight majority in the area.