Jizya - A tax that you must pay for not accepting Islam

reply to post by butcherguy


I have problems dealing with submission and as a christian lady
I do try to submit to my husband.
I will never submit to islamic laws or customs ever!

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I have problems dealing with submission and as a christian lady
I do try to submit to my husband.
I will never submit to islamic laws or customs ever!

I am guessing that your husband submits to you also, as a relationship should function.
A woman is a woman and a man is a man. We are different, but not unequal.

reply to post by boncho

The problem here is that Christianity has modernized with today's world, yet many Islamic states want to hold onto the way things used to be done....

If Christianity had modernized, then women could be pope. Christianity is as much in the dark ages as it ever was.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by boncho

 

The problem here is that Christianity has modernized with today's world, yet many Islamic states want to hold onto the way things used to be done....

If Christianity had modernized, then women could be pope. Christianity is as much in the dark ages as it ever was.

Christianity has modernized. Some call it the Reformation (it happened in the year 1517).
The Protestants don't have a Pope, you know.
I listened to sermons delivered by female pastors in a United Methodist Church as a child. Some Christian churches have homosexual ministers.
Everyone hasn't remained in the dark ages.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
If Christianity had modernized, then women could be pope. Christianity is as much in the dark ages as it ever was.

Not really. If women don't like being Catholic, they can change to some other religion.
Not so with Muslim women. Leave Islam ... get beat up by hubby and a fatwa is put on you.
Big difference.

reply to post by maes2


What are trying to say?
That what I have stated in the thread is wrong??
Well I might tell you that I found this from Wikipedia and the english translation of Quran.
If you can ,prove me wrong by showing 'how' this thread is misleading as you claim.
Also look at the links I provided in the thread,there are two links about how Christians,Hindus and Sikhs are threatened to pay Jizya.
Problem yet?

reply to post by svmpua

Jazia is approximately an obsolete law in Islam. and that was not just because of not accepting Islam.
so if those black sheeps (Taliban,radicals) are threatening people to pay Jazia. people should defend their rights. those radicals are laying. that is a Tribute not Jazia !!! and the existence of those murderers is itself contrary to all monotheistic religions !!!!!!!

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by svmpua

 

Jazia is approximately an obsolete law in Islam. and that was not just because of not accepting Islam.
so if those black sheeps (Taliban,radicals) are threatening people to pay Jazia. people should defend their rights. those radicals are laying. that is a Tribute not Jazia !!! and the existence of those murderers is itself contrary to all monotheistic religions !!!!!!!

Well I did not want to bring it .But since you persist , i have to do it .

1)You say "Jazia is approximately an obsolete law in Islam."
Well you may not be aware that there are many muslims who are demanding that Jizya be practised .
Now before you claim that I am lying,i present to you ->

Muslims Demand Catholic Priest Convert To Islam Or Pay Jizya
Muslim ‘Gang’ Torments Christian Copts for Jizya-Money

2)You say " and that was not just because of not accepting Islam. "
Yes you are right.It is because of the protection that the state has to provide too.
It is for 'allowing them to practice their religion too'.
For more details,refer to the thread.

3)You say "so if those black sheeps (Taliban,radicals) are threatening people to pay Jazia. people should defend their rights."
Now lets break it down into two parts :-
(a)Taliban are not black sheep's .They are human just like us.They fight for Islam.
The dictionary defination of human is :-
"a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child."
The dictionary defination of Taliban is :-
"A fundamentalist Muslim group that controlled much of Afghanistan from 1995 until U.S. military intervention in 2001"

See the difference?
Your claim that the Taliban is "black sheep" is totally a lie and scientifically unproven.They are human's just like us.The only thing is that they believe they fight for "Quran".Here is more prove ->
Talib an justifies shooting of schoolgirl: "The Quran says that people propagating against Islam and Islamic forces would be killed"

3)You say "those radicals are laying."
What do you mean be "laying".
The dictionary defination of "laying" is :-To place in or bring to a particular position: lay the cloth over the painting.

You see ,your statement does not make any sense and neither does it have any validity.
I fail to understand why you wrote that statement.Do you want to make fun of me.Are are against me because I wrote against Jizya?
Either way this statement is senseless.
4)You say "that is a Tribute not Jazia !"
Do you have any prove that this is a tribute and not Jizya?How can you justify this ?
I have already stated in my thread how Mohammad encouraged even the use of force for the collection of "Jizya".

So your statement this this is a "tribute" is humorous.

5)You say "and the existence of those murderers is itself contrary to all monotheistic religions."
But you must not forget that the Taliban fight for Allah itself.And they follow the Quran too.
I am not making this up.For proof,refer here :-

Taliban and other terroists fight for Allah

Anything more?

reply to post by svmpua

I reiterate maes2's assertion. Jizya is an obsolete concept in today's world. NO "muslim" country or group or people take jizya from anyone today, which makes sense: jizya is a tax levied on non-muslims during a time of war, as they did not participate in fighting. If you want to prove otherwise, perhaps it might be more effective if you can reference some reputable news sources.

Do you know what a "black sheep" is? Since you like dictionary definitions so much: " A member of a family or other group who is considered undesirable or disreputable". So the Taliban would fit that in the context of being a subset of human beings as well as muslims. Hope that helps.

Originally posted by ZeroReady

The Inquisition: A Model For Modern Interrogators

(Heretics being nailed to stakes by Christians.)

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Link
Link

A recent peaceful Muslim demonstrator in Sydney, Australia

reply to post by ZeroReady

Please explain what the pope has to do with Christianity?

funny... am buddhist and have lived in islamic countries in the past NEVER got taxed for not being muslim.

1)You say "Jazia is approximately an obsolete law in Islam."
Well you may not be aware that there are many muslims who are demanding that Jizya be practised .
Now before you claim that I am lying,i present to you ->

I never say that you are lying. I know how those black sheeps are.

2)You say " and that was not just because of not accepting Islam. "
Yes you are right.It is because of the protection that the state has to provide too.
It is for 'allowing them to practice their religion too'.

yes I know that you wrote the truth but :
1-in that time Mohammad was a leader of a popular and legitimate government. Taliban and those radical terrorist groups are neither a government nor legitimate.
2-in that time there were no concept of nationality. so the minority christians and jews did not participate in wars neither for and nor against polytheists in the neighbourhood. because of such exemptions they would pay Jazia as a tax. and Muslims would pay Zakat as a tax.
3-Mohammad was not cruel against minorities. because monotheistic religions are all from one source and Koran declares it many times. the only conflict between Mohammad and other religions I can remember now is when the minority jews broke the agreement and cooperated with foreign Polytheists and that conflict ended without any bloodshed and the minority jews gave in without any war. and I can not remember any conflict between Mohammad and chiristians ! there were no conflict between them. not at all !!

(a)Taliban are not black sheep's .They are human just like us.They fight for Islam.
The dictionary defination of human is :-

I did not mean they were sheeps, black sheep was an idiom. it means they are the cause of humiliation of real Islam.

"A fundamentalist Muslim group that controlled much of Afghanistan from 1995 until U.S. military intervention in 2001"

Afghans had been fighting with those radicals even before any USA's intervention. moreover Taliban has still enough power to oppress people.

3)You say "those radicals are laying."
I fail to understand why you wrote that statement.Do you want to make fun of me.Are are against me because I wrote against Jizya?

oh excuse me I meant lying.

5)You say "and the existence of those murderers is itself contrary to all monotheistic religions."
But you must not forget that the Taliban fight for Allah itself.And they follow the Quran too.
I am not making this up.For proof,refer here :-

oh yes and Taliban is following Koran the same that Bush followed Bible !!!!!!!
I know how they pray for God and then behead innocent people ! and how they suicide bombing here and there for the sake of God !!!! they have killed many of our people too ! the same that what they are doing in Syria and Iraq.
you mean Koran has said them to terror innocents. I do not think so. for real muslims Koran is regarded as God's speech to Mohammad and all of it's verses should be understood with considering the purpose and situations they revealed for. what those blinded radicals are not capable to do.

On here: Full of rabbits dancing on false tune.

jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes. In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.

en.wikipedia.org...


Christmas is here folks!

Originally posted by Expat888
funny... am buddhist and have lived in islamic countries in the past NEVER got taxed for not being muslim.

Some countries only apply the jizya if you are JEWISH.

Maybe someday they will come for the Buddhists.

Were you okay with this?
Buddhas of Bamiyan

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by svmpua
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

LOL in western countries 'each and every' person has to pay tax irrespective of his/her religious background.
But here we are talking about 'tax' that is only to be paid by 'non muslim's'.

Really, you aren't required to pay state or federal taxes

edit on 4-12-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

Right, as long as you don't mind being hailed, or burning to death in a fiery mini-apocalypse, Waco-style. I always find it ridiculous when people make this statement. This is not utopia, and the government does not necessarily give a damn about the Constitution. Of course you're free to not pay your taxes, but you're also free to not open fire at police officers. Again, the tradeoff for exercising such freedom of choice is imprisonment, or death.

I'd like to see them try and enforce it here in the UK, mind you after a rather radical known group had their mega mosque request turned down I suspect they would try anything.

Again, this only applies to Islamic states and as far as I know from earlier today we are still not an Islamic state (officially).

Slightly related, people on here who read my drivel will know I'm married into a Muslim family although not a religious person my self and I also have a pretty good understanding of the faith and customs of Muslims. But what I want to know is how a Muslim group founded in the 20's in India who have well confirmed radical links and have been known to teach extreme radical lessons to teens in this country ever got to be allowed an application for a Mosque?

If you are clearly involved in hate speech and want to surprise surprise build a mosque which so happens to be a place of religious prayer and learning does it not click that it will be used for radicalising the young?

And not just a few, a place with spaces for 10,000 people, 3 quarters male of course, can't have those women daring to worship in mass. Who knows what wicked anti men stuff they might dare talk about.

When this case came up it should have been thrown out at the start and never considered, radical involvement should have been the key to a NO.

It also alarms me that this group has already been in dispute with the council there over building without permission, somehow they managed to build a place with room for 2500 people and its not been torn down because of zero permission.

Why, If my mate tries to add an extended loft without permission he would be legally challenged and told to knock it down at HIS expense and the building checked by the council again at his expense. But if you are a hate speech training camp you get to do your own thing.

Its about time people were treated as individuals and not religious / political groups.

One rule for us all please, that's the way it works best....

Lovely ...

Islam takes over and forces people to give them money simply because those people have too much common sense to buy into what Islam is selling. That's a case of the inmates running the asylum. Talk about insanity and something dragging humanity backwards! YIKES!

Originally posted by GFB12
reply to post by ZeroReady

 

Please explain what the pope has to do with Christianity?

Ok. The Romans adopted Christianity after persecuting it for many years. They then "Romanized" the faith, creating a strict hierarchy of church officials in the style of their bureaucracy. The Romans were nothing if not efficient. This led to the creation of the pope's position (pope comes from the Latin Papa for father). Of course when the Eastern Orthodox split from the Roman Catholic, they elected their own pope. The split is still an area of contention today.

Basically the Romans instituted the pope because they viewed religion as a state affair and so it needed a clear leader.