Interesting idea: 12 step "Islamic Terrorist Detox" program in Canada

[Jay53]

do you know that the taxes taken from nonmuslims (jeziah) are less than the taxes taken from muslims themselfs (zakaht)

But, are Muslims made to “feel subdued” with humiliation and lowliness when they pay their zakat? And if Muslims don’t pay their zakat, are they killed?

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:29

“I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, then you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then you must pay the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will then fight you until God decides between us and you.” (Al Tabari, Volume XI)

Khalid bin Al-Waheed (Muslim General, 632AD)

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted. (Al Tabari, Volume XII)

Umar ibn al-Khattab during the conquest of al-Basrah (636 CE)

 

[elwill]

Even if that is the case, it matters very little! Where are the “not peaceful non-Muslims” in Iraq who are the Christians and the only ones without a militia (and who are being denied the right to start their own police force to protect themselves by the Kurdish government), so they are being slaughtered? Sorry, I do not buy this for a second, because I recognize that it is not the NON-MUSLIM who gets to decide what “fighting” is, and to the Muslim terrorist just BEING a non-Muslim on what they see as “Muslim land” is an act treason, blasphemy, and aggression.

so , Iraq this unstable country which amrica occupied it is your standard example for the action of muslims

what happens in Iraq is the consequences of the america 's war , not the consequences of islam religion

This sort of objection would make sense if the Holy Bible commanded Christians to fight militarily against people** for not accepting Christianity **and to oppress them and cut their fingers or heads or whatever, but it DOESN’T, so I think you’re stretching your credibility by bringing it up.

neither in quran

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are deeply misguided in this area because that attitude creates a mindset of “give me what I want or I will keep killing/hurting/threatening until I get it”

for me the mindset is different , it’s " give me my property or i will take it by force

. Abuna Chacour makes the great point that the rights of the Palestinians and the Jews alike are not to be granted by man - they can’t be! They’re given by God to all alike. So by murdering people like terrorists do, you don’t guarantee rights. You become another person in the never-ending line of cannon-fodder for a world conflict. Abuna Chacour gets it. It’s a shame you do not.

don’t you think that israil are terrorists

of course you can’t swallow it, you’re a Muslim and you’re brought up to think that there can’t possibly be anything wrong with it, so you won’t seriously look at it. If you were a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist or anything but a Muslim, you start to see it.

being a muslim have nothing to do with the facts i’m asking about
you said that quran inspire terrorism , and my question was how many of muslims in the world are terrorist , it’s very simple equation to evaluate your view

And I don’t know how many Muslims are terrorists. This is not important. Other people here make this argument from numbers, but I won’t because I think ideologies say more than numbers. Every single Muslim I have ever gotten to know has been completely peaceful, kind, gentle and caring. That makes me love Muslims as PEOPLE,** but I hate the sick ideology of their religion that says all these terrible things about me and my brothers and sister in Christ just because we refuse to ever give up the cross. We will simply have to agree to disagree, you and I.**

what these terrible things which quran says about you ? that your beliefs are wrong and that jesus is great prophet and isn’t God and that God isn’t trinity ?

by the way , i’m not always disagree with christians , i believe that we common in many things , at least , we are common in the love of christ and we are common with believing in God’s existance

Yes, but to what end? I also said in my reply that I have looked at these verses in their context, and I remain completely unconvinced. So what more can I do? I don’t see the justification that you apparently see in the contextual readings of the verses.

you read it in thier context and remain completely unconvinced , this is great work
but you forgot to tell us the view of the peacfull muslims which you felt not convinced with , right ?
anyway , we allready examine the verses now , neglect this point

Or they do like I do and say neither. They will say “the Qur’an INSPIRES terrorism with its violent verses that have no justification” and brace themselves for the onslaught of “that’s not true Islam!”, “You’re biased!”, “You hate Muslims! You say we are all terrorists”, etc. Save it! I’ve heard it all by now. We are dealing with the QUR’AN and its words - don’t you care about it enough to address the WORDS OF THE QUR’AN? When the Qur’an says “terrorize these people because of what they believe”, you turn around and say “oh, well, the context means something else”, and when I provide you the context (which I did in post #28) you say NOTHING. You say everything BUT what you need to say to address the verse! Please address the verse as given there or at least stop acting like I haven’t provided the context. I’m not just pulling this stuff out of thin air, my friend. These are the offending verses as they are written in the Qur’an. I did not put them there to make Islam look bad.

i allready responded to your question which you asked in post 28

 

[elwill]

But, are Muslims made to “feel subdued” with humiliation and lowliness when they pay their zakat? And if Muslims don’t pay their zakat, are they killed?

actually , yes
abu bakr , the first khalifah after the prophet fought the muslims who didn’t pay zakaht

exactly as your government will prison you if you didn’t pay your taxs

it’s international laws

 

[Jay53]

actually , yes
abu bakr , the first khalifah after the prophet fought the muslims who didn’t pay zakaht

exactly as your government will prison you if you didn’t pay your taxs

it’s international laws

Is the Abu Bakr considered correct for having killed Muslims who didn’t pay zakat and is this action continued today?

Imprisoning someone for not paying taxes is NOT the same as murdering them for the same. Dhimmis were killed if they didn’t accept Islam/Muhammad or pay the humiliation tax. In our country we don’t have the concept of “Accept Obama as President or pay a humiliation tax or be murdered”.

And I didn’t understand - was your “yes” in the first line in response to this question?

But, are Muslims made to “feel subdued” with humiliation and lowliness when they pay their zakat?

 

[Jay53]

being a muslim have nothing to do with the facts i’m asking about
you said that quran inspire terrorism , and my question was how many of muslims in the world are terrorist , it’s very simple equation to evaluate your view

This is my point with fard kifayah. The Quran DOES have verses that inspire terrorism, but since most people/Muslims DON’T WANT TO BE TERRORISTS, they are able to avoid these verses by letting those who do want to follow these verses handle it. As long as some Muslim somewhere is doing it, it lets the others “off the hook”. All they have to do is support the charities that will funnel the money to the jihadists so that they can say they are doing their part in the eyes of Allah.

My question is: if NO Muslims ANYWHERE are fighting jihad against unbelievers, is the whole ummah considered to be sinning in the eyes of Allah?

 

[dzheremi]

why you feel offness when God say that he will punish unbelievers in the hearafter ?

I do not believe that the Qur’an is from God, so I am unsure as to how to answer this question. God says unbelievers will be punished in the Bible, too, but the difference is in the approach. Much punishment is according to DEEDS, and in the Old Testament according to the breaking of Jewish laws (obviously, Christians may or may not hold the same standards, depending on the particular law). You can follow this link to Nave’s “Topical Bible” to know more about punishment in the Bible. What I do not see in the Bible are Qur’an-style verses about attacking unbelievers. Nave’s Topical Bible does not show much in that regard, and many other quotes I could show you about unbelievers in the Bible that seem violent are from parables that the Savior uses to tell moral lessons, such as the parable of the servant in Luke 12, wherein Jesus contrasts the good servant with that of a bad one who is “(cut) to pieces and (assigned) a place with the unbelievers” (i.e., punished in the hereafter). This is NOT something to happen temporally, as the New Testament is not so concerned with judicial-type punishment, but with awakening people to the reality of God’s relationship to man, which is given its perfect expression in Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. What is said about those who will not receive the message of God? Luke 9:5 and Matthew 10:14 talk of “shaking the dust off your feet” in protest against them, not cutting off their fingertips, heads, etc.

so your critical issue starts here
let me just quote the verse you used again and i will give you our understnading for this verse based on knowledge , i will insert my interpretation inside brackets

Allah did indeed fulfilled His promise to you ( in the beginning of the day of Uhud) when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy ( or be victories in the battle ),-until ye flinched** ( or lost courage)** and fell to disputing about the order , and disobeyed it (such as the mistake made by the archers)after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world **( referring to those who sought to collect the booty when they saw the enemy being defeated) ** and some that desire the Hereafter.
Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For Allah is full of grace to those who believe.
(This Ayah means, Allah gave pagans the upper hand to try and test you, O believers,)

do you know this battle? in this battle muslims were defeated
it’s very clear for anyone have simple knowledge about islam that the verse talking about the events of this battle

Okay, it is true that this is talking about the events of this battle, but it is teaching a questionable moral lesson. It is setting a bad precedent for future Muslims to follow (and they did follow it).

one thing yet we didn’t discuss , the " booty "
so tell me what is your view about booty of the war , i can’t imagine that the army which gain the victory will leave the booty of the wars , tell me your suggestions towards it

There is a lot about this, particularly in the Old Testament, that concerns the distribution of the booty. As for my personal view, these were battles thousands of years ago among legendary peoples and the people of Israel, and not instructions for today. If you could say the same thing about the Qur’an, then why were such rules regarding “spoils” instituted as part of the “divine” social order in Islamic societies? After all, the supposed right to collect jizya (which I suspect you will not see as related, but I do, because I am a Christian) comes only as a result of Islamic victory and imposition of taxes upon the conquered non-Muslims, doesn’t it? So that too is a form of “war booty”, not just a regular tax roughly equivalent to whatever Muslims might pay. In fact, I am not exaggerating when I say that everything that the Muslims have in the Middle East outside of the Arabian peninsula is “war booty”, because it was all gained through war at one point or another. Unsurprisingly, I think you guys are proving to be incredibly poor stewards of the land and ought to give it back to its rightful owners, the Assyrians, Berbers, Nubians, etc. but I won’t hold my breath waiting for any admission to this…

do you know that the taxes taken from nonmuslims (jeziah) are less than the taxes taken from muslims themselfs (zakaht)

Do you know that this is not the primary problem that Christians have with the jizya tax? Please read my reply to Hamba2han in the “Jesus4Sharia” thread here.

When the Muslims came to extract the jizya from the Maronite Christians in Lebanon during the time of Ottoman occupation, the priest would give all the treasures of his church over to them in order to pay the tax, so great was the suffering of his poor community at the hands of the collectors. I don’t have the book anymore, but Maronite historian Dr. George T. Labaki writes about it (using primary sources as his documentation) in his book “Maronites in the United States”, when he is talking about the forces which caused the initial immigration of the Maronites from their ancestral home on Mt. Lebanon.

As a Christian I try my best hate things, but I think it a sign of a healthy moral center to say that I hate the jizya. It is unjust and directly from Satan.

 

[elwill]

This is my point with fard kifayah. The Quran DOES have verses that inspire terrorism, but since most people/Muslims DON’T WANT TO BE TERRORISTS, they are able to avoid these verses by letting those who do want to follow these verses handle it. As long as some Muslim somewhere is doing it, it lets the others “off the hook”. All they have to do is support the charities that will funnel the money to the jihadists so that they can say they are doing their part in the eyes of Allah.

My question is: if NO Muslims ANYWHERE are fighting jihad against unbelievers, is the whole ummah considered to be sinning in the eyes of Allah?

all muslims of the world actually condemns the terrorism

may be you have to ask muslims
" why you are not terrorist ? " i doubt that you will find someone saying
becuse there are some of them allready perform this holy duty , God bless them all

find for me one scholar says that muslims can to be peacefull as long as thier are others perform the holy duty of terrorism

jay , please don’t proclaim that you know our way of thinking , try to give us proofs that muslims hold this beliefs about terrorism

 

[dzheremi]

Just because you don’t call it terrorism doesn’t mean that isn’t what others will call it. After all, plenty of the world calls the state of Israel “the Middle East’s only democracy”, and I’m sure you’d disagree with that.

Islam also calls adultery something other than what it is, slavery something other than what it is, oppression something other than what it is, murder as something other than what it is, child abuse as something other than what it is, etc. This is all from a non-Muslim perspective, of course, so it’s not really a matter of telling Muslims their own mindset (I didn’t sense that from Jay’s post to begin with, but I’m referencing your reply to it because you obviously did). It is a matter of telling Muslims ours, because outside of forums like this you will never hear our point of view. Christians have no inalienable rights in the parts of the world that are controlled by Muslims. If you care at all about having a discussion with us, please consider this context, as it motivates all of our understandings of your religion and how and why it does what it does.

 

[Jay53]

all muslims of the world actually condemns the terrorism

may be you have to ask muslims
" why you are not terrorist ? " i doubt that you will find someone saying
becuse there are some of them allready perform this holy duty , God bless them all

find for me one scholar says that muslims can to be peacefull as long as thier are others perform the holy duty of terrorism

jay , please don’t proclaim that you know our way of thinking , try to give us proofs that muslims hold this beliefs about terrorism

Now, elwill, you know that a scholar is not going to say that muslims can be peaceful as long as there are others to perform the holy duty of terrorism. They will, however, say that about** jihad** - which to those being killed this is the same thing!!

And, from the beginning, I have indicated that this is my opinion, but I still think it fits the facts of what is happening in the world.

From Imam Abdullah Azzam: (I do not have an indication as to when this article was written and he was killed in 1989 so it has obviously been awhile.) In the interest of space, I have posted what I think are relevant passages. You can read the whole thing, here: religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_caravan_6_conclusion.htm

“Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn, like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.”

1. Jihad is currently fard ayn - individually obligatory, in person and by wealth, in every place that the Disbelievers have occupied. It remains fard ayn continuously until every piece of land that was once Islamic is regained.

1. The word “jihad”, when mentioned on its own, only means combat with weapons, as was mentioned by Ibn Rushd, and upon this the four Imams have agreed.

1. The saying, “We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)” which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.

1. Jihad today is individually obligatory (fard `ayn), by self and wealth, on every Muslim, and the Islamic community remains sinful until the last piece of Islamic land is freed from the hands of the Disbelievers, nor are any absolved from the sin other than the Mujahideen.

 

[Jay53]

Here’s another one: (emphasis mine)

Since then, there are two conditions relative to the unbelievers: If they remain in their own territories, then jihad is not an obligation on all Muslims. As long as a sufficient number of Muslims undertake it, the remainder are released from this duty. If they invade one of our territories, its population are obliged to repel them with all their force. If fighting is possible then fighting becomes an obligation. Every slave, poor person, son and debtor must prepare for war, even though they may not have permission…" And in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudama of the Hanbali school, who said: ‘Jihad is a fard kifayah. If a group of people engage in it, the remainder are released. islamworld.net/resources/503

 

[Jay53]

And yet another for your perusal, lest anyone think I pulled this theory out of thin air! Again emphasis is mine. As I am reading more about this, I am finding this more and more disturbing!!

The author of the “Majma’ al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar”, in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: "Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief).

It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfil the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard ‘ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people. This obligation is by virtue of what He, the Almighty, said:Then fight the polytheists…!’

(Surat at-Tawbah (9), ayah 5)

and by what the Prophet (PBUH) said:

‘Jihad is in effect until the Day of Judgement’

**If the whole body [of believers] abandons it, they are in a state of sin’ **(up to where the author of the book says: ‘If the enemy conquers any territory of Islam, or any regions of it, it becomes a fard ‘ayn, and the woman and the slave shall go forth without the permission of husband or master. In the same way, the child shall go forth without the permission of his parents, and the debtor without the permission of his creditor.’

‘Jihad is obligatory on the Muslims, but if the borders of the Muslims can be protected, the enemy can be repelled and fought within his own territory then the remainder of the people are released from it. And if not, then the obligation remains. God Almighty said:

‘Go ye forth, (whether equipped) light or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah!’

(Surat at-Tawbah (9), ayah 41)
web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/#scholars

I hope that you will also note the Quranic verses that these Muslims are quoting in support of their position.

 

[Jay53]

OK, two more and then hopefully everyone who hasn’t already will see my point.

Ibn Qudaamah said: “Jihad is an obligation upon the community; if some people undertake it, the rest are relieved of the obligation.” What fard kifaayah means is that if it is not undertaken by enough people, then all the people are guilty of sin, but if enough people undertakes it, the rest will be relieved of blame. Initially the command is addressed to all of them, as in the case of an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn), but then in the case of fard kifaayah the obligation is dropped if enough of the people undertake to do it, unlike the case with fard ‘ayn where the obligation is not dropped if someone else does it. Jihad is a fard kifaayah, according to the majority of scholars.” {al-Mughni, 9/163}

The scholars have said that this type of jihad is for maintaining the Jizyah (compulsory tax paid by non-Muslims living under an Islamic state). Scholars have also said: “Jihad is Da’wah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam.” {Hashiyah Ash-Shirwani and Ibn Al-Qasim in Tuhfah Al-Muhtaj Alal Minhaj 9/213}

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Everyone who hears the call of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to the religion of Allah with which he was sent and does not respond to it must be fought so that there will be no fitnah and so that submission will all be for Allah.” {Majmu’ al-Fatawa 28/249}salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/Qital/Imam_condition.htm

Secondly, indeed fighting the disbelievers and going on expeditions against them whenever possible, perfectly suites the aims and objectives of fighting Jihad. Some of these objectives include removing corruption from the face of earth and spreading the Islamic authority all over the world. The obligation of Jihad will only ever cease being a duty when Jihad’s true purpose is realised, that being the complete control of the whole earth such that not a single hand-span is left which is not under Islamic rule or by struggling ones utmost to accomplish this. Only when this has been done, does the obligation of Jihad cease since the Muslims have tried their best to realise its aims and objectives e-prism.org/images/The_Ruling_on_Jihad_and_its_Divisions_-_Yousef_Uyery.pdf

 

[Hadi]

Jyziah was prescribed for a time in history where the circumstances were different from modern day world…just like Slavery…the regulations are there in our texts,but we don’t apply them anymore… …remember that the Ottoman caliph actually abolished the Jyziah in the 19th century…

Caliph: the supreme authority in Islamic Shariah.

 

[dzheremi]

Slavery and jizyah was prescribed, you say? I’m sorry, but I cannot accept that. I can accept that God allowed it (He allows many things without explaining them to me…), but that does not mean that it was prescribed! That is a horrifying thought, because underneath it is the assumption that some were just (naturally? divinely?!) meant to rule over others. This flatly contradicts Galatians 3:28, which says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” You can say perhaps “What about the time before Jesus, then?”, but I do not believe that this will stand up to scrutiny, because Jesus Christ sets right those things that are wrong in the world - meaning that they were wrong BEFORE His incarnation, too!

On this point, I am reminded of the Savior’s explanation of the “change” in permissibility of divorce, from the times of Moses when it was allowed to the time of Christ, under whom it is disallowed. From Mark 10:

1 Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.

2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”

5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,

8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Perhaps I can relate this to the Islamic concept that the natural order of humanity is to be Muslim. Please forgive me, I cannot remember the Arabic term for this concept, but it is my understanding that Islam holds that all people have a natural inclination towards Islam, and that this is why converts to Islam are called “reverts” and not “converts”. In a similar way, we say that Jesus Christ taught the perfect message (as it came from the Father, not from the Pharisees), which sought to teach the way things SHOULD be when all are following the correct path, not how they ARE since some are being wicked by oppressing others, preaching against God, etc.

 

[Hadi]

Slavery and jizyah was prescribed, you say? I’m sorry, but I cannot accept that. I can accept that God allowed it

ok, the word “prescribed” wasn’t a good choice from me…

Jyziah was allowed for a time in history where the circumstances were different from modern day world…just like Slavery…the regulations are there in our texts,but we don’t apply them anymore… …remember that the Ottoman caliph actually abolished the Jyziah in the 19th century…

Caliph: the supreme authority in Islamic Shariah.

 

[dzheremi]

Interesting related content:

I have just finished reading a short booklet that I got in the mail a few days ago called “Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Challenge of Islam” (#7 in the “Moran 'Etho” series on Syriac Christianity topics, published by St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute in Khottayam, India), In it, we learn that the Syriac writers who were the first Christian people to encounter Muslims as the Islamic power came from the West to dominate their lands saw their dominance as punishment from God. In other words, as something that was ALLOWED, but certainly not prescribed! (Just like slavery, jizya, etc.)

“It is clear that for the most part the (Syriac) historians considered the coming of Islamic rule as a punishment which God allowed to fall upon his people for their sins. In no way can one find in their chronicles the thesis sometimes advanced by modern scholars that the Syriac-speaking Christians welcomed the Arab invasion and the Islamic conquest as a liberation from the oppressive fiscal and theological policies of Byzantine rule.” (Griffith 1994: 7)

 

[dzheremi]

Haha. I simply MUST learn to not post so much, since my posts always end up getting crossed with others, so I seem like I’m not recognizing their responses! I was writing my second post as you were writing your reply, Hadi.

Okay, Hadi, “prescribed” is not the word. That’s okay. But do you see the difference between our two communities’ views on this subject? You now say “ok, it was allowed, but that is in the past, because circumstances are different”, but you do not consider it as a negative punishment, do you? You do not consider it as inherently unjust, right? I would be VERY surprised to meet a Muslim who would say that, as the Jizya is accepted by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence and is mentioned in Hadith (see here), and at least according to some sources was collected during the time of Muhammad.

This is my understanding, anyway. If I have anything wrong, I await your correction.

The bottom line: The fact that jizya was abolished does not excuse it from ever existing in the first place. It shouldn’t have.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

i have interesting question also

why always people discuss the violence of islam reference to the action of muslims’s group instead of discussing the quran itself ?

I actually cited a passage in the Koran in my post on the first page.

 

[Hadi]

but you do not consider it as a negative punishment, do you? You do not consider it as inherently unjust, right?

No, it’s not inherently unjust… for instance,Zakat is taken from the male, female, old, young, insane, sane… while the Jizyah is taken *only *from the capable adult male…and it’s usually less than Zakat…

The bottom line: The fact that jizya was abolished does not excuse it from ever existing in the first place. It shouldn’t have.

A Muslim would also ask the same question regarding the OT laws…

 

[Jay53]

Haha. I simply MUST learn to not post so much, since my posts always end up getting crossed with others, so I seem like I’m not recognizing their responses! I was writing my second post as you were writing your reply, Hadi.

Okay, Hadi, “prescribed” is not the word. That’s okay. But do you see the difference between our two communities’ views on this subject? You now say “ok, it was allowed, but that is in the past, because circumstances are different”, but you do not consider it as a negative punishment, do you? You do not consider it as inherently unjust, right? I would be VERY surprised to meet a Muslim who would say that, as the Jizya is accepted by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence and is mentioned in Hadith (see here), and at least according to some sources was collected during the time of Muhammad.

This is my understanding, anyway. If I have anything wrong, I await your correction.

The bottom line: The fact that jizya was abolished does not excuse it from ever existing in the first place. It shouldn’t have.

No, I think “prescribed” was the right word, because the verse in the Quran, (supposedly verbatim the words of God) specifically states that the “People of Book” are to pay the jizya with “willing submission” and “feel themselves subdued”

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:29

So, Muslims would have us believe that these are the words of God - that He specifically decreed that some of His people should be humiliated in such a way by other human beings. Sorry, but I don’t buy it! :dts: