Typical Muslim response! As far as I’m concerned, you can keep your religion, but don’t try to force it on me!
And it will not and should not be forced on you.
If that’s not the calling the kettle black…You may think I’m simpleminded, but my common sense tells me that it’s not smart to stake one’s eternal salvation on anyone’s so-called “private revelations”
typical response. who here has tried to force islam upon you??? all the muslims here have tried to do is clarify and refute the misconceptions and allegations made against there religion.
.
Why do you dislike Paul so much? What have you got against him? I don’t understand where you get the idea that our religion is based on Paul. I will say this, though, after his bump as you call it, his life made a complete turn around. But just because someone proclaims himself a prophet does not mean he is one!And it will not and should not be forced on you.
If that’s not the calling the kettle black…
Your entire religion is based on “private revelations”, NOT from someone who claimed to be a Messenger, but rather, from a person who did NOT even know Jesus, Paul.
If, and keyword, IF, my religious beliefs were completely unfounded and were only based on “private revelations”, I would be more confident if those private revelations were received from someone claiming to the status of prophethood and messengership, as opposed to someone who never knew Jesus, bumped his head on some road to somewhere, and then ended up authoring or influencing over half of what you call the word of God.
But yes Vickie, Allaah does say to you your religion and to us our religion. To you your deeds, and to us our deeds. Discussion Vickie, is nice and at times helpful. But we will not always come to agreement, and there is no reason for us to lose civility in our discussions. We may end up agreeing to disagree; and so be it. But the posts earlier were mainly to point out to you the flaw in your thought-process about calling the rules of God inhumane. And I was still hoping you would come forward and state that you now understand why that was wrong to say.
Regards,
Jonathan
Margoliouth says that Imaam Bukhari has stated that the sentence:
.Again you are wrong. Please man, provide your references. I don’t want to keep answering your thoughts and imaginations. A Muslim who doesn’t pay the zakah will suffer a severe punishment in the afterlife, and here what’s gonna happen in this life:
TEXT DELETED. The only scholar who mentions something related to this is Umar Zamakhshari, this man is not the Prophet pbuh, not a companion, and not even close to the hadith scribes, and he’s well known as Mutazalite, and as I expected he’s Iranian (Shiite) from the Mu’tazila who abandoned the true teachings of Islam.
Again let’s define Jizyah: “a tax paid by non-Muslims living in a Muslim State. Since the non-Muslims are exempt from military service and taxes imposed on Muslims, they must pay this tax to compensate. It guarentees them security and protection. If the State cannot protect those who paid jizyah, then the amount they paid is returned to them.”
). On the contrary as I explained previously poor non-muslims are eligible for the zakat (i.e. muslims give zakat money to poor non-muslims).That’s your personal opinion, I respect it. Thanks for sharing it with us. And as I mentioned in a previous post, if one doesn’t like the Islamic laws, then please DO NOT convert to Islam.
Thanks. And Good answers from your side, but there is still more room for improvement.
Go back to post #79,
sorry for using fractions. 1/10 = 10 % and half of that…… (I guess you can calculate it by your self).
It is 2.5% as my muslims friend told me.
. No need to revise Bivar!. You are on the right path 
yeah, and that automatically makes it true…
Hello to you too.
Rejected – this is nothing more than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. When you have learnt what logical fallacies are and how to avoid committing them, perhaps we might have a discussion.Margoliouth says that Imaam Bukhari has stated that the sentence:
“Except that you respect the relation that exist between me and you”
“was a divine revelation through Wahy, but the commentators say that this sentence does not exist in the Glorious Qur’an (where is the proof?). Therefore, they consider this sentence as an explanatory note to the Qur’aanic Ayaah (verse 23) of Surah Ash-Shura.” (See Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics V. 1, Page 543)
This was Margoliouth claim that Bukhari didn’t know the exact verse. Compare it to Sahih Bukhari
Sahih Bukhari: 1 -CHAPTER: The saying of Allah (the Exalted and Almighty): -
«Except to be kind to me for my kinship with you (42:23)
[4818] Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that he was asked (regarding): -
«Except to be kind to me for my kinship with you. (42:23)
Sa’id bin Zubair (who was present then) said: «It means here (to show what is due for) the relatives of Muhammad (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him)». On that Ibn Abbas said: You have hurried in giving the answer! There was no branch of the tribe of Quraish but the Prophet (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had relatives therein. The Prophet (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: «(I do not want anything from you) except to be kind to me for my Kinship with you».
What Margoliouth quoted from Bukhari and claimed it’s a verse, was nothing but an explanation from the Prophet pbuh to the verse (42:23).
Anyways, I read his book “Mohammedanism”, it’s all filled with guesses and speculations, no facts, baseless. His arguments are as weak as his references. Worst of all he’s described by the Christians as having knowledge in Islam more than some Muslem scholars, yet he doesn’t know how to read the verses of the Qur’an, doesn’t know that number of the Qur’anic verses is written after the verse not before it
His mistakes and lack of knowledge are all over the place in his books. But the shame is on the people who quote him like parrots.
…
off topic, but if you’re going to quote an article, you should at least make it apparent that you’re quoting it… :tsktsk:
Sue me.
you know, some would consider that to be plagiarism, which is basically lying since you’re trying to pass off someone else’s writings as your own.
You misunderstand me. Read my post again. I did point out that some rulers do punish Muslims who don’t pay the zakat. My point about the zakat being voluntary is that in my cases people don’t get killed for not paying the zakat. I ask you: in Muslim countries today, do people get killed for not paying the zakat?
I already know some Muslim rulers punish non-payers. Move right along.
I wasn’t talking about Allah burning people in hell.
The Crusades happened 400 hundred years AFTER Islam was created, in 1096. How come the non-Muslims needed protected from Crusaders that didn’t exist?
Wrong. I mentioned other scholars as well.
The point is: the only people who were going to attack these dhimmis were the Muslims. So, your answer is wrong.
Firstly, the definition of a poor non-Muslim is only wealth of less than 200 dirham. He has to pay the 1 dinar even if he has no money at all. Some rulers exempt the poor but that is merely their prerogative. There is nothing in the Quran to say they should. Many rulers like Aurangzeb force even the dirham-less to pay. That is why some kafirs had to sell their women and children.
Like I said – sue me. If you want the reference you know where to find me.
try the search feature on the site for “apostate”.
Hey, you got to do the sums right for everything. What is excluded from this calculation of nisab?Go back to post #79,
" • Zakah of cultivated land crops is paid once the crop has ripened and has been harvested. Its Nisab is 612 kilos, which equals 1,346.40 lb. There is no Zakah on production that is less than this amount. If the production depends only on rainwater, or without any human labor or irrigation, the due Zakah is one-tenth of the total. If equipment and tools are used for irrigation, then the Zakah due is half of one-tenth of the total production."
And this is on Farms, which many Muslims do have. So, it’s not 2.5% in most cases as you keep suggesting. Revise your point.
IS KILLING APOSTATES RIGHT? YES OR NO.
accidental huh?
sure, i’ll take your word for it 
. as for my mistake referencing the ibn 'abbaas statement to saheeh al-bukhaaree, sur, we can go back there… and you can also take a look at the post i made clarifying the mistake i made when i realised it.
I will have to be extra careful when we discuss. I didn’t think this is an academic discussion forum. I thought we were having a friendly discussion. But no matter.accidental huh?