Islam is an Advocate of Peace, Not Terror

Originally posted by skajkingdom
reply to post by LittleSecret

 

Oh yeah they always like to come up with the jizya - Oh noez, look, non-muslims must pay jizya as a humiliation for them.

Really now?

Non-muslims, in an islamic state must pay taxes, just as muslims must.
The difference is: while muslims also must serve in military and defend the non-muslims too, these (the non-muslims) have no obligation to serve in the military.

And thejizya tax is much lower than the taxes muslims have to pay, which are zakat and sadaka.

So, basically we have this:

Islamic State:

Muslims:

1. Have to serve in the military and risk their life.
2. Have to still pay taxes, zakat and sadaka, which are higher than jizya.

Non-Muslims:

1. Are free from obligation in serving in the military. No risking their life.
2. They pay jizya tax instead which is lower than what muslims pay.

Where is here the "discrimination" and "humiliation" of the non-muslims?

Obvious haters are obvious.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by skajkingdom]

I took the Qur'an, sura 9, verse 29, as an honest statement concerning the jizya.

am I mistaken, then? Did the Qur'an lie to me?

reply to post by LittleSecret


It's understandable that there are some points I raised you chose not to address. Some of them can be embarrassing in trying to portray Islam as a "religion of peace".

Things like the way Mohammed arbitrarily "dissolves" his treaty in 9:3 (they call that 'breaking' a treaty around here), and the way that all of the first 6 verses of sura 9, taken as a whole, announce offensive warfare to spread islam, and subdue the pagans, and the way that verse 29 extends that war to the People of the Book.

Thoroughly subdued the land. Sounds a lot like aspirations of conquest to me...

Sorry but if I missed the subjugation please inform me.

What do you think "subdue" means in the context of war, which was being spoken of there?

I don't believe I said that the jizya was "subjugtion", but I may not have been clear, so please, let me clarify myself. The jizya is a tribute tax, levied on conquered, subjugated people. The subjugation is already done, already accomplished, before the tax is levied, as a tribute to the masters. 9:29 is very clear in that:

" Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Bible], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, feel themselves subdued."

Bin Laden said it was 2% when he offered to stop fighting America if we surrendered to him. My Pakistani friend says it is the same rate as zakat.

It's funny how one of the the Qur'ans I have here call it the "exemption tax" (translated by Asad, printed in England by 'The Book Foundation') in order to try to "pretty it up". "Exemption" is right, in a way. It makes the subjugated peoples "exempt" from further attacks - as long as they continue to pay the tribute to the masters.

I've never paid jizyah, and I never will. I'm willing to take the sword instead, rather than accept a humiliating defeat, and lifelong reminder of my cowardice.


[edit on 2010/7/8 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by zappafan1

 

but what is the purpose of only listing one side of the history?

Because the thread topic is "Islam is an advocate of peace, not terror". It doesn't make the same claim in the title for christians.

Basically, it's because islam is the thread topic, not christianity.

reply to post by queenannie38

:lol

is she going to need a bail-out?

tell her she can call me!

If you knew my luck with the cops you'd know I was joking.

Can I call you some time?
If I ever did have to call'em. I'd most likely end up maced , clubed and shot!

[edit on 8-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by zappafan1

 

but what is the purpose of only listing one side of the history?

Because the thread topic is "Islam is an advocate of peace, not terror". It doesn't make the same claim in the title for christians.

Basically, it's because islam is the thread topic, not christianity.

thank you

yesterday, that seemed to be a valid question, before and after i asked it.

but today...it is self-evident, isn't it???

that's awful.

i don't mind admitting i get tunnel vision sometimes but i hope i never decide to wear tunnels for eyeglasses.

thanks for helping!

Originally posted by randyvs

If you knew my luck with the cops you'd know I was joking.

oh
so it's like that

i feel ya, all the way.
i'm not prone to good fortune, myself.

Can I call you some time?

If I ever did have to call'em. I'd most likely end up maced , clubed and shot!

yeah, call me.
i have a bunch of unemployed soldiers-of-fortune who like to play darts every other Saturday.

we'll come in like 28 John J. Rambo's and turn your luck around!



unless, of course, you mean can you call me when your pregnant wife beats you?

uhhh...you'd better ask her first, and see if she says it's okay!

reply to post by nenothtu


i asked Little Secret where she lived, in another thread.
now i see that you are not American, either.

i'm wondering if you wouldn't mind telling me what country you live in?
if you want, you can U2U me and you also can just tell me that you'd rather not share that.

i'm just interested in knowing as much as i can about all things, and i haven't had a lot of opportunity to learn about Islam from non-Americans. i've been acquainted with one or two but it was many years ago and the things discussed were worlds away from the issues of today.


i want to say that i appreciate both of you participating in this thread and for doing it in an admirable fashion, especially compared to many of the alternative ways chosen by many of my compatriots in this thread and elsewhere that brought tension and bad vibes up to a toxic level right away with no signs of voluntary reprieve. it was making me sick and i've stayed away, but the debate you two are having is a positive addition to the thread and i thank you both.

the negativity has sharply declined since a couple of days ago and now i think i can go back and pick up reading where i left off in an effort to not let my own attitude deteriorate from trying to withstand the sheer onslaught of hate and fear that i brought into being because of starting this thread.

i feel literally like Pandora here, and i'm holding on to hope for all of us, all earthlings to one day get it right and make a peaceful world to live in, for every human being, before it's too late for both us and our planet.

reply to post by nenothtu


Firstly, what did I avoid, if you read my post again you will see I talked about all the verses you mention, but in context.

The pagans broke their treaty, so GOD reiterated the position Muslims should have in regards, let's do this again, let's start from verse 1 of the chapter:

9:1 (Asad) DISAVOWAL by God and His Apostle [is herewith announced] unto those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God, [and] with whom you [O: believers] have made a covenant.

If you look at this verse by itself it looks like it means dissolve all your treaties with pagans.

That is why you don't read one sentence, or paragraph of a book and make an assumption.

9:2 (Asad) [Announce unto them:] "Go, then, [freely] about the earth for four months [2] -but know that you can never elude God, and that, verily, God shall bring disgrace upon all who refuse to acknowledge the truth!"

Thats between GOD and them.

9:3 (Asad) And a proclamation from God and His Apostle [is herewith made] unto all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage: [3] "God disavows all who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and [so does] His Apostle. Hence, if you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never elude God!" And unto those who are bent on denying the truth give thou [O Prophet] the tiding of grievous chastisement.

GOD is saying if you repent, it is for your own good, and if you turn away, GOD will take care of you. But if you examine this verse on itself it would seem as if GOD is asking for all the treaties to get dissolved, but let's continue reading.

9:4 (Asad) But excepted shall be [4] -from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - [people] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfil their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then, your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. [5] Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him.

There you go. GOD sets the conditions for treaty dissolvament. If the pagans, or who ever non Muslim breaks their treaties and promisses, or support others against Muslims, the treaty with them should be dissolved.

Let's move on:

9:5 (Asad) And so, when the sacred months are over [6] , slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, [7] and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place [8] ! Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

Once again, if you take this verse on its own, it seems as if GOD is ordering the believers to slay all those pagans where ever you find them etc. But that is not the case if you take in to consideration the context.

Let's keep reading:

9:6 (Asad) And if any of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God seeks thy protection, [10] grant him protection, so that he might [be able to] hear the word of God [from thee]; and thereupon convey him to a place where he can feel secure: [11] this, because they [may be] people who [sin only because they] do not know [the truth].

This verse talks about those who do not want to fight, give them protection. See the previous verse is attached to this verse, you can't take one verse and make an assumption because then you will be driving in the opposite lane.

Let's continue reading:

9:7 (Asad) HOW COULD they who ascribe divinity to aught beside God be granted a covenant by God and His Apostle, [12] unless it be those [of them] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant in the vicinity of the Inviolable House of Worship? [13] [As for the latter,] so long as they remain true to you, be true to them: for, verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him. -

See it makes sense as you read along. As long as they are true to you, be true to them.

Keep reading:

9:8 (Asad) How [else could it be]? [14] -since, if they [who are hostile to you] were to overcome you, they would not respect any tie [with you,] nor any obligation to protect [you]. [15] They seek to please you with their mouths, the while their hearts remain averse [to you]; and most of them are iniquitous.

That is pretty self explanatory. So please, read the whole chapter, if I post every verse it won't fit. Until we reach the verse with your concerns:

....

:

" Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Bible], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, feel themselves subdued."

So here we are, to the one where the word jizya is used. So if you take this out of context if means fight everyone until they are willing to pay jizya. That is absurd, read the previous verses to see the conditions setup for this verse.

See let me explain this in layman terms:
If you take this sentence:
"Don't come to prayer, if you are drunk"
OK, think about this for a second, see the condition?
The condition can be set at the beginning, or at the end, for example:
"If you are drunk, don't come to prayer"

You can't take the first/second part of the sentence and use it as bases of a whole argument that we shouldn't go to prayer. Forgetting about the conditions set to support your argument is naive and hence you are in denial.

If you refuse to see the condition, whose fault is it? The author? Or the reader?

If you can't see the conditions, then I can admit, it is the author's reader, but in regards to this discussion, the conditions are set, and are very clear who should be fought, and who should be avoided.

In regards to Jizya, no, it is not subjugation, you still haven't proven that. Are you gonna deny that Muslims pay higher Tax than Jizya? Is that subjugation on Muslims? Here in New Zealand I pay 12 %, actually more than that, isn't that subjugation? If you have two jobs, the tax jumps to 30 % I think.

reply to post by LittleSecret


OK, I'm going to let the discussion on treaty obligations slide. It very clearly says to me that muslims can break treaties with non muslims at will, when it's advantageous to them, and it very clearly says to you something else altogether. It's probably a matter of emphasis, which words and phrases we give more weight to, and demonstration after demonstration has shown how it is put into practice - but that discussion would necessarily veer away from the Qur'an, and into the historical records.

So I'll let that slide, and allow the reader to make up their own mind in the matter.

Now, regarding the matter of the jizyah, it may be a clash between western values and eastern, coloring our perceptions differently. Because of that possibility, I'm going to try to get an understanding of how you view it, more precisely.

My friend Salim and I have had the same discussion over many an evening, and those discussions are primarily what leads me to the differing perceptions hypothesis. He just can't understand why I would die rather than to pay it.

So to begin helping me to understand your viewpoint, let me ask this: what do you think the jizyah IS? I mean, specifically, not just to say "it's a tiny tax", but what do you view the PURPOSE of that tax to be?

reply to post by nenothtu

Thanks for allowing people to decide their mind in regards to treaty obligations.

what do you think the jizyah IS? I mean, specifically, not just to say "it's a tiny tax", but what do you view the PURPOSE of that tax to be?

The Jizya has the same qualities as TAX.

The TAX is used for many purposes, hence for the army, SINCE non-Muslims are exempt from joining. It is used for the infrastructure, which the non-Muslims would be using etc..

Let me reiterate, it has the same qualities as TAX.

Muslims pay Zakat, non-Muslims pay TAX + exempt from joining the army.



I'm gonna see how you twist this, it is gonna be very interesting.

Edit to FIX error in judgement.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Thanks for allowing people to decide their mind in regards to treaty obligations.

I'm just being pragmatic. I don't expect to change your mind, and you probably realize you're not going to change mine, so ultimately, each must find his own understanding of what he reads.

what do you think the jizyah IS? I mean, specifically, not just to say "it's a tiny tax", but what do you view the PURPOSE of that tax to be?

The Jizya has the same qualities as TAX.

The TAX is used for many purposes, hence for the army, SINCE non-Muslims are exempt from joining. It is used for the infrastructure, which the non-Muslims would be using etc..

Let me reiterate, it has the same qualities as TAX.

Muslims pay Zakat, non-Muslims pay TAX + exempt from joining the army.



I'm gonna see how you twist this, it is gonna be very interesting.

Edit to FIX error in judgement.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

Yes, yes, you've already established that you view it as a mere tax. My question more involves WHO pays it, and why THEY pay it, in your opinion.

This conversation could get a bit more involved, I think, and complicated, because national boundaries don't have the same character now as they had in the 7th century when it was instituted.

Edit: pesky spelling errors. I'm full of 'em.

[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

Yes, yes, you've already established that you view it as a mere tax. My question more involves WHO pays it, and why THEY pay it, in your opinion.

This conversation could get a bit more involved, I think, and complicated, because national boundaries don't have the same character now as they had in the 7th century when it was instituted.

I already stated who pays, I will reiterate, [the non-Muslims].

Anyone who is not a Muslim and lives under Muslim rule must pay the Jizya because they are exempt from Zakat, and exempt from joining the army to fight in case of conflict.

Originally posted by LittleSecret

I already stated who pays, I will reiterate, [the non-Muslims].

Anyone who is not a Muslim and lives under Muslim rule must pay the Jizya because they are exempt from Zakat, and exempt from joining the army to fight in case of conflict.

Ok. WHY are "non-muslims" singled out to pay it? Why do they not pay the same as muslims? Do they not use the same infrastructure?

Why is their tax "different"?

reply to post by nenothtu

Ok. WHY are "non-muslims" singled out to pay it? Why do they not pay the same as muslims? Do they not use the same infrastructure?

Why is their tax "different"?

" WHY are "non-muslims" singled out to pay it?"
Why are Muslims singled out to pay the Zakat>?

"Why do they not pay the same as muslims?"
What would you be telling me if Zakat, a pillar of Islam was forced on members of other faiths?

"Do they not use the same infrastructure? "
Not just infrastructure, also religious sites are build by Jizya for other faiths. Also used for defense.

"Why is their tax "different"?"
Why is that question important.

I want to know your point, obviously trying to prove subjugation, but why is it so hard for you to do that>?

Define Subjugation:
" forced submission to control by others"

Use that definition to help you.

reply to post by LittleSecret


I will ask you some questions now:

Why do Muslims pay Zakat and non-Muslims pay Jizya>?

Why do Muslims pray 5 times a day and not non-Muslims?

Why do Muslims go to hajj once in their life time, and non-Muslims don't?

Why do Muslims do this, and why do non-Muslims do that.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Anyone who is not a Muslim and lives under Muslim rule must pay the Jizya because they are exempt from Zakat, and exempt from joining the army to fight in case of conflict.

Interesting debate.
Does "exempt from joining" mean not required or not permitted?

Originally posted by LittleSecret

Why are Muslims singled out to pay the Zakat>?

A very good question. If it's a "tax" why ARE they?

"Why do they not pay the same as muslims?"
What would you be telling me if Zakat, a pillar of Islam was forced on members of other faiths?

See, this is where western vs eastern perceptions start to come into play. To us, if zakat is a pillar of faith, it's not a tax, it's a religious duty. Taxes are collected by governments, not religions. Alms and such like are paid to religions, not governments. So yes, I'd buck up pretty quick if anyone, muslim or anyone else, forced their religion on me. I'd also get pretty ticked off if I had to pay a tax that someone of another religion DIDN'T have to pay, solely because of their religion.

So, zakat is either a religious obligation or a civic one. If religious, it's only proper that the religion in question observe it, and no one else. If civic, then it's only proper that EVERYONE pay it.

Do muslims in NZ pay more, less, or the same tax to the government as other citizens of like station?

"Do they not use the same infrastructure? "
Not just infrastructure, also religious sites are build by Jizya for other faiths. Also used for defense.

Build religious sites of other faiths? Who pay to tear them down, then? For example, did jizyah pay to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban?

A related matter, since you bring up defense, why are non-muslims not obligated to military service the same as muslims?

"Why is their tax "different"?"
Why is that question important.

Because it shows differential treatment afforded to non-muslims vs muslims.It shows that they are not equals.

I want to know your point, obviously trying to prove subjugation, but why is it so hard for you to do that>?

Define Subjugation:
" forced submission to control by others"

Use that definition to help you.

OK. Since you brought it up, by what authority did Mohammed impose the jizyah on non-muslims, non-Medinans and non-Meccans? These peoples had their own territories. By what authority did Mohammed impose a foreign tax on them if not by authority of subjugation, per your very own definition?

[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by LittleSecret

 

I will ask you some questions now:

Why do Muslims pay Zakat and non-Muslims pay Jizya>?

I don't know. That's what we're trying to get at here. I'm guessing the right response is because zakat is a religious duty, and jizyah is a political tribute from conquered peoples.

Why do Muslims pray 5 times a day and not non-Muslims?

Religious duty.

Why do Muslims go to hajj once in their life time, and non-Muslims don't?

Religious duty - and also, because non-muslims are banned from Makkah. Hard to go on hajj if you'll get shot or imprisoned for it before you even get there.

Why do Muslims do this, and why do non-Muslims do that.

That depend entirely on the "this" and "that" whereof you speak.

It's good of you to ask, though. That's the whole object - to figure out the perceptions of any particular thing that we each hold. Without that basic understanding, no meaningful conversation can take place.

reply to post by 23refugee

Sir Thomas Arnold, an early 20th century orientalist, gives an example of a Christian Arab tribe which avoided paying the jizya altogether by fighting alongside Muslim armies "such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty"

Jizya is just paying for protection and other means for other faiths, or people living under Muslims rule.

Let me elaborate, you can join your own people's army and fight along side Muslims, but you can't join Muslim armies.

There has to be differentiation between beliefs, ideologies, etc.

If you choose to live under Muslim protection, then Jizya applies to you. You have to make that agreement before living under Muslim protection, so it is up to you.

People seem to think that if you become Muslim then you pay less, or you do less, that is not true.

Muslims have to pay Zakat, and do many other things which are obligatory for them and exempt are the non-Muslims.

The system is very fantastically created. I find it fair and just.

And should I choose not to live under Muslim protection? What then?