Pay, convert or die. Muslims, do you believe this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
Very recently it has come to light that ISIS is taking over Christian homes and Churches in Syria and Iraq. The message they have written on the walls is “Pay, convert (to Islam) or die”.

I do not know Islam well enough to know whether this is an extremist view or the standard Muslim position. Can a Muslim please help me here?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
What ISIS is doing is wrong in so many ways. I think that any person with a functioning brain and heart is capable of determining just how depraved these people are.

That being said, ISIS does not define all Muslims, just as the Westboro Baptist Church does not define all Protestants. As someone who grew up in a moderate Muslim household and who has a very religious extended family, I can assure you that most practitioners of the Islamic faith are opposed to violence, especially towards people of other races.

But yes, ISIS is a terrible organization. That much most Muslims can agree on.
 
peace_at_last said:
Actually, the Shias have expressed outrage over the actions of ISIS since day 1 but the media in the western countries do not cover these stories.

The first group of people to offer help to the Christians of Mosul were the Shias of Karbala in Iraq. The only link in English I could find to this story is this:

india.shafaqna.com/content/iraq-hazrat-abbas-holy-shrine-expresses-readiness-host-christians-displaced-mosul
Click to expand...
Thank you for both links, Josie L and Peace-at-last. They give me hope. 🙂
 
TheLiberator said:
What ISIS is doing is wrong in so many ways. I think that any person with a functioning brain and heart is capable of determining just how depraved these people are.

That being said, ISIS does not define all Muslims, just as the Westboro Baptist Church does not define all Protestants. As someone who grew up in a moderate Muslim household and who has a very religious extended family, I can assure you that most practitioners of the Islamic faith are opposed to violence, especially towards people of other races.

But yes, ISIS is a terrible organization. That much most Muslims can agree on.
Click to expand...
But where is the moral outrage if most Muslims are opposed to violence. Yes, as has been demonstrated on this thread there are those who have spoken out. But most? I don’t think so. The very roots of Islam seem to be steeped in violence, especially against those who are not Muslim.
 
dronald said:
Thanks. This is why it’s so hard being unable to speak Arabic, because whenever I post the English translations I quickly realize that it must have been translated terribly.

Here’s the passage:Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

When it should look something like this: Surah 9:29 Negotiate with those who do not believe in Allah nor hold forbidden what Allah hath forbidden; assuming they want to live under Islamic law. If they do, they may have to pay the Jizya but maybe not.

30 Christians say that Jesus is the Son of God, but they are still equal and not cursed at all. Besides, Muslims pay a tax too, so it’s basically the same thing.

Oh please. Find me an early Islamic commentator that has the interpretation that you have.

Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.
Click to expand...
You have quoted Tafsir ubn Kathir, a SUNNI commentary on the Quran and I won’t comment on it. As I said, I narrated the Shia perspective.

As for the translation of the verse:
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

What did I say that went against the verse? I said the verse says you fight with them until they submit. Once this happens and they submit, the matter changes and a contract is negotiated on how to pay the taxes. The Quran only mentioned the fight and the submission it did not speak about what happens afterwards. The details of the many laws in Islam are found in the words of the Prophet and the Imams, not the text of the Quran.

The matter is fairly simple: suppose a group of Mexicans want to live in the US without submitting to the central government and paying taxes. The US government will fight with them (using law enforcement agencies) until they are subdued and then will either punish them or will deport them or will give them a chance to become US citizens under a predetermined contract (US constitution) or set of obligations. The Quran is basically saying the same thing.

Regarding the verse about Uzair being the son of God, It has been mentioned in a number of narrations that this was the belief of a number of Jews who came to debate some subjects with Prophet Muhammad. It does not say it was a mainstream Jewish belief or that those statements were inscribed in the Torah.
 
I don’t know how much news coverage these stories get in the west:

It has been reported that ISIS just blew up the shrine of Jonah (the Prophet of Nineveh) in Mosul. :mad:
 
peace_at_last said:
You have quoted Tafsir ubn Kathir, a SUNNI commentary on the Quran and I won’t comment on it. As I said, I narrated the Shia perspective.

As for the translation of the verse:
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

What did I say that went against the verse? I said the verse says you fight with them until they submit. Once this happens and they submit, the matter changes and a contract is negotiated on how to pay the taxes. The Quran only mentioned the fight and the submission it did not speak about what happens afterwards. The details of the many laws in Islam are found in the words of the Prophet and the Imams, not the text of the Quran.

The matter is fairly simple: suppose a group of Mexicans want to live in the US without submitting to the central government and paying taxes. The US government will fight with them (using law enforcement agencies) until they are subdued and then will either punish them or will deport them or will give them a chance to become US citizens under a predetermined contract (US constitution) or set of obligations. The Quran is basically saying the same thing.

Regarding the verse about Uzair being the son of God, It has been mentioned in a number of narrations that this was the belief of a number of Jews who came to debate some subjects with Prophet Muhammad. It does not say it was a mainstream Jewish belief or that those statements were inscribed in the Torah.
Click to expand...
No, it’s different. It’s more like this - back in 1845, the US and Mexico fought a war. The US dominated the war, and due to the treaty, annexed the Southwest US. The people in the Southwest US were born in Mexico but the land became US land, and were now living in the US by default. The US understood this. As such, the US government did not require these people to become Americans - they gave them a choice. The people could remain Mexican citizens or become American citizens. They were not immediately expected to submit to the US government just because the territory that they had lived in since birth had changed hands. Most of them did, of course, but mainly because the US government was more effective at meeting their needs than the Mexican and Spanish governments had been.

Alsace and Lorraine changed hands between Prussia/Germany and France after the Franco-Prussian war and then again after WWI. The people were not asked whether they wanted to be under a foreign power or not - they were forced to. Likewise, the Christians being forced to flee from ISIS do not wish to live under Islamists. Even if ISIS didn’t offer the sword to them if they did not comply, it should not be their duty to pay a tax to ISIS to be able to live. One should not be compelled to submit to a group that has overtaken their home by force. Otherwise, it’s not a tax - it’s tribute.
 
powerofk said:
No, it’s different. It’s more like this - back in 1845, the US and Mexico fought a war. The US dominated the war, and due to the treaty, annexed the Southwest US. The people in the Southwest US were born in Mexico but the land became US land, and were now living in the US by default. The US understood this. As such, the US government did not require these people to become Americans - they gave them a choice. The people could remain Mexican citizens or become American citizens. They were not immediately expected to submit to the US government just because the territory that they had lived in since birth had changed hands. Most of them did, of course, but mainly because the US government was more effective at meeting their needs than the Mexican and Spanish governments had been.

Alsace and Lorraine changed hands between Prussia/Germany and France after the Franco-Prussian war and then again after WWI. The people were not asked whether they wanted to be under a foreign power or not - they were forced to. Likewise, the Christians being forced to flee from ISIS do not wish to live under Islamists. Even if ISIS didn’t offer the sword to them if they did not comply, it should not be their duty to pay a tax to ISIS to be able to live. One should not be compelled to submit to a group that has overtaken their home by force. Otherwise, it’s not a tax - it’s tribute.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t speaking about ISIS for as I said I have no idea what they were planning. I don’t even regard them as Muslims, for most of their actions are against the teachings of Islam.

I merely provided a commentary on verse 9:29 of the Quran about Jizya tax which as I already mentioned in an earlier post can even be completely ignored for a number of reasons and that is why it is not being practiced in Islamic countries like Iran or Iraq.
 
peace_at_last said:
I wasn’t speaking about ISIS for as I said I have no idea what they were planning. I don’t even regard them as Muslims, for most of their actions are against the teachings of Islam.

I merely provided a commentary on verse 9:29 of the Quran about Jizya tax which as I already mentioned in an earlier post can even be completely ignored for a number of reasons and that is why it is not being practiced in Islamic countries like Iran or Iraq.
Click to expand...
Don’t they often stone adulterers in those countries?
 
dronald said:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10089270/Iran-amends-law-on-stoning-for-adultery.html

???

Also, what do you say about people like Saeed Abedini?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402254/Saeed-Abedini-U-S-pastor-sentenced-8-years-Iranian-prison-preaching-Christianity-appeal-rejected.html

We cannot preach Christianity in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc. And adulterers are killed all the time as prescribed by Muhammad.
Click to expand...
I thought you had sent me a link about someone being stoned. The first link only further confirmed the NOPE that I uttered.

The second link, is the case of Saeed Abedini. I don’t understand how it is related to the subject of this thread, and I don’t usually comment on political cases when discussing religion because politicians usually overstep their religious authorizations. Anyway, these links might be helpful:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition
 
So our Muslim brother has seen fit to link us to a sordid aspect of the history of the Catholic Church, in which her enemies were tortured and put to death. I detect an incipient tu quoque fallacy here.

The subject of this thread is Islam and not Catholicism. Therefore we shall discount arguments pointing to the behavior, tenets and practices of Catholicism and its adherents and focus on Islam and Muslims. The central question appears to me as one of whether it is in the nature of Islam itself to be violent and radical. Are violent and radical acts the norm in the history of Islam, or are they an exception to the rule? Was Islam spread by exploration and trading or by conquest and oppression? Do the founders and leaders of Islam preach love and redemption or do they preach something else?
 
Elizium23 said:
So our Muslim brother has seen fit to link us to a sordid aspect of the history of the Catholic Church, in which her enemies were tortured and put to death. I detect an incipient tu quoque fallacy here.

The subject of this thread is Islam and not Catholicism. Therefore we shall discount arguments pointing to the behavior, tenets and practices of Catholicism and its adherents and focus on Islam and Muslims. The central question appears to me as one of whether it is in the nature of Islam itself to be violent and radical. Are violent and radical acts the norm in the history of Islam, or are they an exception to the rule? Was Islam spread by exploration and trading or by conquest and oppression? Do the founders and leaders of Islam preach love and redemption or do they preach something else?
Click to expand...
🙂

The subject of this thread was: The ISIS order to Christians in Mosul to “Pay, convert or die. Muslims, do you believe this?” Your questions and the questions of dronald and his links are not related to this subject. You deem it fit to post these non-related material but you see it unfit if I answer them?!
 
peace_at_last said:
🙂

The subject of this thread was: The ISIS order to Christians in Mosul to “Pay, convert or die. Muslims, do you believe this?” Your questions and the questions of dronald and his links are not related to this subject. You deem it fit to post these non-related material but you see it unfit if I answer them?!
Click to expand...
The link I showed had a death sentence amended for adultery. For a death sentence to be amended there must be a law in the first place no?

The title of the topic is about death for failure to convert so I’ve brought up the issue of apostasy in the countries you seem to support. I do understand if you want to ignore and sugar coat rules for apostasy as it’s ridiculously hard to convert or live freely in Iran or Iraq without experiencing death threats from relatives, friends and then the government.

I’m just glad I’m not wanting to become a Christian in a Muslim country.

Also, when you as a Muslim post what Catholics did hundreds of years ago it makes me believe that Muslims are living in the dark ages.
 
Iran on Apostasy

Article 225-7: Punishment for an Innate Apostate is death.

Article 225-8: Punishment for a Parental Apostate is death, but after the final sentencing for three days he/she would be guided to the right path and encouraged to recant his/her belief and if he/she refused, the death penalty would be carried out.

Article 225-9: In the case of a Parental Apostate, whenever there appears to be a possibility of recanting, sufficient time would be provided.

Article 225-10: Punishment for women, whether Innate or Parental, is life imprisonment and during the sentence, under the guidance of the court, hardship will be exercised on her, and she will be guided to the right path and encouraged to recant, and if she recants she will be freed immediately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top