The Kaisar was the title. not the name of the king of Rome. It was like the Pharoah’s of Egypt.
… I will ask you about the Kaisar mentioned in the bible [sic]. Pharisees asked Jesus “Was it legal to give tax to Kaisar?”. Jesus replied “Give unto Kaisar what is Kaisar’s and unto God what is God’s”… What do you say? Who was the Kaisar collecting tax from the Jews in the time of Jesus?
There was no “king” of Rome. The Pharisees were referring to the Roman Emperor who was Augustus Caesar at the time of Jesus. Augustus ruled from 27 BC until his death in 14 AD. There were no Islamic states at that time because this was over 600 years before Mohammed. Not only that, but since Christianity itself had not yet even been established, there were no “nearby christian [sic] states under the major influence of the christian [sic] ‘king Kaisar’ of Rome.” And the Roman Empire fell in 450 A.D., two hundred years before the time of Mohammed. So how could your dead “king Kaisar” and extinct “Rome” have influenced non-existent Christian states to “assemble armies on the borders of the non-existent Islamic state of Madinah”?
And what would you call that tax which he was extracting from the Jews? Would that not be Jizyah too? They were Jews living under the Roman law area.
It was not a jizya because it applied to everyone.*** The Islamic jizya applies only to dhimmis for the privilege of being allowed to go on living.*** The Gospel of Luke says the purpose of the census was so “the whole world” could be taxed. “The whole world” obviously means the world under Roman rule.] Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign in the provinces of
Egypt and
Sicily. In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service. The earliest such provincial census was taken in
Gaul [roughly present day France] in 27 BC; during the reign of Augustus, the imposition of the census provoked disturbances and resistance. None of these were based on religious beliefs of the conquered.
"Dhimmitude"
Violent jihad warfare [conquest] on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression called “dhimmitude”, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine. Only some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims. The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his apostle. Jews, Christians, et al, must pay the jizya [see below]. On offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the [Muslim] official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on his mandible. They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells; their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddlework is of wood, and he must ride side-saddle; and of course, he is not allowed to carry arms of any kind. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear an identifying patch, even women, and even in the public baths dhimmis must hold their tongue. If a dhimmi strikes a Muslim, the whole dhimmi community could be wiped out.
**
The Protection Racket**
The essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi "tributaries” subjugated by jihad, is captured with this laconic statement, "The vanquished may purchase their lives by the payment of tribute.”
The [non-Muslim] enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. The nature of such “protection”, i.e., a blood ransom, is reinforced in this definition of jizya written by E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:
“The tax that is taken from the non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain”.
[And we were told that "Jim Crow” laws were humiliating!]
Modern Dhimmitude
The worst kind of dhimmitude is the voluntary kind, whereby the non-Muslim subjects
HIMSELF to dhimmitude. A good example of this is the security inspections at our airports: we subject ourselves to this degrading process out of fear of the "superior” Muslim. Another is our refusal to profile Muslims as the most likely to be terrorists: we must not offend the Muslim.
But the worst of the worst is the breast-beating Christian. You do not respect him; no one respects one who licks the boot that kicks him. You might like him because he’s a good dhimmi, but not respect.
