Except Islam isn't ruled by a single, non-Muslim country with the ability to control them.
Not quite: During the Jewish revolt (or just prior to it) Judea was a independant "Hellenistic" kingdom. Its king, Harrod swore allegance to Rome but Judea did not have a Roman Governor.
Sure it did. His name was Gessius Florus and he was an overall bastard (at least according to Josephus). Judea was a Roman province ever since the death of Agrippa the First. StarshipTitanic is correct in saying that Islam is not ruled by a single non-Muslim country
What I was trying to get at is that both Islam and Judaism have some similarites in that their religion is focused around a place. The temple in the case of Roman era Jews and Mecca in the case of Mulisms.
The differences are what is complelling. Jews during Titus' time had a very strict interpritation handed down by the temple presists. The destruction of the temple essentially liberated the religon from the strict interpritations, eliminated the key differences driving the radical sects and gave rise to the Rabbis as a moderate social/coumminuty leader.
Islam on the other hand already has decentralized leaders, the Imans. While the religon has no central authority, individual Imans can venture opinons on any subject and are not required to agree. Although they would argue this, pointing out that the Quran can only be interpreted by the faithful and Allah would lead them to the conclusion desired.
That is correct. ALthough both the Jews and the Muslims were compelled to violence by radicla factions.
Btw, the sicarii (aka "daggermen") are not the same as the Zealots. The Sicarii were a terrorist organization prior to the revolt, whereas the Zealots were a faction that emerged during the war.
Have a very nice day.