Islam is an Advocate of Peace, Not Terror

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by 23refugee

 

Jizya is just paying for protection and other means for other faiths, or people living under Muslims rule.

See, in America at least, and probably most western countries, that's called a "protection racket", is usually run by organized crime gangs, and is highly illegal.

Oops - my bad - I didn't allow you to elaborate on what that "protection" is protection FROM.

I know what the historical record states it is, going all the way back to the days of Mohammed. That's why I equate it to a mafia "protection racket".

Let me elaborate, you can join your own people's army and fight along side Muslims, but you can't join Muslim armies.

There has to be differentiation between beliefs, ideologies, etc.

Which makes you "less". It's sort of like the "separate but equal" rhetoric of American Apartheid in the 60's. The "Equal" part never panned out quite the way it was supposed to, but the "separate" part was strictly enforced.

We see how well THAT worked.

If you choose to live under Muslim protection, then Jizya applies to you. You have to make that agreement before living under Muslim protection, so it is up to you.

Can you elaborate on what the alternative is? What happens if you choose NOT to? Remember now, we're mostly talking about the seventh century, since you've restricted it to what is written in the Qur'an, but I'll let it slide, and you can apply any time period you like.

People seem to think that if you become Muslim then you pay less, or you do less, that is not true.

That, also, is "by choice", isn't it? If so, then there's not any point in complaining.

Muslims have to pay Zakat, and do many other things which are obligatory for them and exempt are the non-Muslims.

ALL religions have their own religious duties, peculiar only to them. The rest, however, don't impose religious duties on other religions. Jizyah IS a "religious duty", in the sense that it is imposed per religion - on non-muslims only.

The system is very fantastically created. I find it fair and just.

I don't. That's one of the places we differ.

[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

A very good question. If it's a "tax" why ARE they?

ZAKAT is a religious duty, once again, why are Muslims singled out? Because.... They are..... Muslims.

See, this is where western vs eastern perceptions start to come into play. To us, if zakat is a pillar of faith, it's not a tax, it's a religious duty. Taxes are collected by governments, not religions. Alms and such like are paid to religions, not governments. So yes, I'd buck up pretty quick if anyone, muslim or anyone else, forced their religion on me. I'd also get pretty ticked off if I had to pay a tax that someone of another religion DIDN'T have to pay, solely because of their religion.

Your Western mentality shows due to the separation of state and belief. I don't agree with that. ZAKAT has similar qualities as TAX. Jizya has similar qualities as TAX. So ultimately not only has Islam made it fair, but also has stopped Muslim from imposing Islam on others.

So, zakat is either a religious obligation or a civic one. If religious, it's only proper that the religion in question observe it, and no one else. If civic, then it's only proper that EVERYONE pay it.

Zakat has similar qualities to TAX and also Jizya. Zakat is paid by Muslims because it is their religious obligation, Jizya is payed by non-Muslims because it is their civic obligations. Do you see the balance?

Do muslims in NZ pay more, less, or the same tax to the government as other citizens of like station?

Nope, but the poor are treated different than the rich, the handicapped are treated different than us etc. Get the point?

Build religious sites of other faiths? Who pay to tear them down, then? For example, did jizyah pay to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban?

We have already drifted far enough from the source of Islam, we don't more drifting, but I will take that like a man

A related matter, since you bring up defense, why are non-muslims not obligated to military service the same as muslims?

Why should they?

Because it shows differential treatment afforded to non-muslims vs muslims.It shows that they are not equals.

You're telling me that Muslims and non-Muslims are not different?

Equal has absolutely no meaning, it is a Western rhetoric.

Do you think men and women are equal? What do you mean by equal? Do you think Muslim and non-Muslim are equal? What do you mean by equal?

OK. Since you brought it up, by what authority did Mohammed impose the jizyah on non-muslims, non-Medinans and non-Meccans? These peoples had their own territories. By what authority did Mohammed impose a foreign tax on them if not by authority of subjugation, per your very own definition?

On what authority? Let's get back to Islamic source, drifting off.

What is your point based on Islam here?

What did Islam (Quran) say in regards [with context].

reply to post by nenothtu


I'll concede to the "fantastic" part. Having a bit of trouble choking down the "fair and just" bit, though.

Originally posted by 23refugee
And should I choose not to live under Muslim protection? What then?

If you live under someone else's rule, then you won't pay Jizya, you will pay TAX to the rulers of those territories, if they have it in their law.

Let's end this Jizya thing, you have failed, let me elaborate:

Islamic society, citizens of Islamic society = Muslim.

Your argument is that non-Muslims are treated differently, my argument is that ofcurse they are treated differently, but they are not treated unjustly.

Do you expect American citizens to be treated with the same standards as non-American citizens? Americans will argue that they pay taxes etc. So why should our hard work go to people who do not even pay taxes etc.

In America, in order for you to become an American you must meet certain conditions. If you are not willing, then leave, go somewhere else. Many people have been evicted from America.

In Islamic societies it is the same, in order for you to become a Muslim you must meet certain conditions. Get it>?

Or must we chuck 10 more posts back and forward for one point to get resolved.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

A very good question. If it's a "tax" why ARE they?

ZAKAT is a religious duty, once again, why are Muslims singled out? Because.... They are..... Muslims.

Just as christians are singled out to pay alms, because they're christians. The difference is, they don't force every one around them to pay a "tax" for NOT being christian.

A RELIGIOUS obligation is religious, not civic.

See, this is where western vs eastern perceptions start to come into play. To us, if zakat is a pillar of faith, it's not a tax, it's a religious duty. Taxes are collected by governments, not religions. Alms and such like are paid to religions, not governments. So yes, I'd buck up pretty quick if anyone, muslim or anyone else, forced their religion on me. I'd also get pretty ticked off if I had to pay a tax that someone of another religion DIDN'T have to pay, solely because of their religion.

Your Western mentality shows due to the separation of state and belief. I don't agree with that. ZAKAT has similar qualities as TAX. Jizya has similar qualities as TAX. So ultimately not only has Islam made it fair, but also has stopped Muslim from imposing Islam on others.

Having similar qualities to something does not make it that something. A rifle barrel has similar qualities to a tire iron, but it is NOT a tire iron.

But yes, that is one of the basic differences, the western separation of religion and state. That is why democracy doesn't work in islamic countries very well, and why islamic rule will not work in the west.

Jizyah is not "fair" by my standards, which of course are western, and will always be met with stiff resistance.

Now, we have another difference of opinion on just what stopped muslims from imposing islam on others. I would argue that it hasn't stopped, it has just slowed way down. The beginning of that was the battle of Tours, where Charles Martel turned back the invading muslim armies, and ran them all the way back to Andalusia, and out of everywhere else in western Europe.

That stopped islamic expansion by warfare in that direction, and turned it back, not payment of jizyah.

So, zakat is either a religious obligation or a civic one. If religious, it's only proper that the religion in question observe it, and no one else. If civic, then it's only proper that EVERYONE pay it.

Zakat has similar qualities to TAX and also Jizya. Zakat is paid by Muslims because it is their religious obligation, Jizya is payed by non-Muslims because it is their civic obligations. Do you see the balance?

No. By imposing jizyah according to one's religion, it is being MADE a religious obligation, administered by muslims upon non-muslims.

A related matter, since you bring up defense, why are non-muslims not obligated to military service the same as muslims?

Why should they?

Military service is an obligation to one's own country. In light of that, you're probably right. Non-muslims shouldn't be obliged to fight for someone else's country.

That would indicate that non-muslims are less than full citizens, and supports my contention of subjugation.

Because it shows differential treatment afforded to non-muslims vs muslims.It shows that they are not equals.

You're telling me that Muslims and non-Muslims are not different?

Equal has absolutely no meaning, it is a Western rhetoric.

Do you think men and women are equal? What do you mean by equal? Do you think Muslim and non-Muslim are equal? What do you mean by equal?

And there we have the islamic view of equality in a nutshell. Thank you.

Everyone is "different", but I am no LESS than ANY man.

OK. Since you brought it up, by what authority did Mohammed impose the jizyah on non-muslims, non-Medinans and non-Meccans? These peoples had their own territories. By what authority did Mohammed impose a foreign tax on them if not by authority of subjugation, per your very own definition?

On what authority? Let's get back to Islamic source, drifting off.

What is your point based on Islam here?

What did Islam (Quran) say in regards [with context].

Rethink that, whether or not you REALLY want ME to answer that. I'm giving you a chance to air YOUR views here.

My point is to show that the jizyah IS a subjugation tribute, which you dispute. If you can't answer the question I put to you here, I reckon THAT will be answer enough.

What bearing it has on islam should be self-evident. No other religion imposes the jizyah.




Edit to add: saw your post about stepping out for a smoke, Agreed. Roohan dukheen.


[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by LittleSecret
Let's end this Jizya thing, you have failed, let me elaborate:

Islamic society, citizens of Islamic society = Muslim.

Your argument is that non-Muslims are treated differently, my argument is that ofcurse they are treated differently, but they are not treated unjustly.

Failed at what? I've adequately demonstrated the injustice of islam regarding non-muslims living under islamic rule, and done so with your help. How is that a "fail"?

Do you expect American citizens to be treated with the same standards as non-American citizens? Americans will argue that they pay taxes etc. So why should our hard work go to people who do not even pay taxes etc.

In America, in order for you to become an American you must meet certain conditions. If you are not willing, then leave, go somewhere else. Many people have been evicted from America.

In Islamic societies it is the same, in order for you to become a Muslim you must meet certain conditions. Get it>?

So your contention is that non-muslims are classed as non-citizens under islamic rule? That's all that can be drawn from that comparison, and strengthens my case, that non-muslims are "second-class citizens", subject to injustices, such as the jizyah tribute tax. If that's their home, if they are technically citizens, they should in no way be less than muslims.

Or must we chuck 10 more posts back and forward for one point to get resolved.

Noo... I think that last revelation of yours just about wrapped it up.

reply to post by nenothtu


Let's end this Jizya thing, you have failed, let me elaborate:

Islamic society, citizens of Islamic society = Muslim.

Your argument is that non-Muslims are treated differently, my argument is that ofcurse they are treated differently, but they are not treated unjustly.

Do you expect American citizens to be treated with the same standards as non-American citizens? Americans will argue that they pay taxes etc. So why should our hard work go to people who do not even pay taxes etc.

In America, in order for you to become an American you must meet certain conditions. If you are not willing, then leave, go somewhere else. Many people have been evicted from America.

In Islamic societies it is the same, in order for you to become a Muslim you must meet certain conditions. Get it>?

Or must we chuck 10 more posts back and forward for one point to get resolved.

That would indicate that non-muslims are less than full citizens, and supports my contention of subjugation.

This is where some of my thoughts in regards to new age GODS come in to play.

See the new age GODS are nation GODS, hence:
1. We pray for nations (national anthem)
2. We work for nations
3. We live for nations
4. We die for nations
5. etc

Separation of Church and State is a joke. All these nations are worshiped as GODS, if separation Church and states was meant to keep Christianity away, then it has worked, but if it was suppose to keep religion away, it has failed.

That being said, the argument which you are trying to present is not just isolated in Islamic sense, but it is everywhere around you.

This leads me back to my main point, here:

....

3. Islam means peace, GOD states in the Quran how that peace is achievable. Let me elaborate:
We human beings have been at war with each other since we can remember, since as far as our written/verbal history can remember.

Throughout the history there is conclusive evidence that we had multiple GODS, that we believed in different GODS.

Not once in history was there a time when all human beings started believing in one GOD.

The Quran repeatedly states there is one GOD, the Quran puts a huge importance on that message, and states believe in one GOD.

If we human beings were smart enough, we would have for once in our damn history give this a try. Give it a try, what have you got to loose?

Believe in one GOD, everyone of us, see what the out come is.

That is just an over view of what we are suppose to do to gain peace. There are other important aspects also, for example in the Quran GOD has qualities, in other words, GOD has names. For example the MOST merciful, the MOST just.. etc..

If we believe in GOD with such qualities, we will have a perfect system which will allow to finally have the previliage of using the Quran how it is suppose to be used.

Let me elaborate:
"GOD is the most just"
That means justice is important, then if you think you will come to conclusion that you can't gain justice without truth, which leads us to the next quality of GOD hence:
"GOD knows all"

Ultimately all those qualities, under one GOD leads to peace.

reply to post by nenothtu

that non-muslims are "second-class citizens", subject to injustices, such as the jizyah tribute tax.

You haven't proved how that is injustice?

Try again.

If you mean different, then OK, but if you mean injustice, then you have dearly failed.

We already went through this 100X

Muslims pay Zakat, non-Muslims pay Jizya.

Where is the injustice?

And obviously they are not forced.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

reply to post by nenothtu

that non-muslims are "second-class citizens", subject to injustices, such as the jizyah tribute tax.

You haven't proved how that is injustice?

Try again.

If you mean different, then OK, but if you mean injustice, then you have dearly failed.

We already went through this 100X

Muslims pay Zakat, non-Muslims pay Jizya.

Where is the injustice?

I reckon we can move on from the jizyah. I've made my points, which you have failed to counter. Now, you're starting to say what you've already said over and over (looked like an exact cut and paste), and all that has already been countered, so we can move on now, to keep you from popping a gasket.

What was your next subject on this topic? It might have to wait for tomorrow, as it's after 4 am here, and I might have to sleep some time.

It would be nice to know what you wanted to discuss next, so I could sleep on it, though.

reply to post by nenothtu


Can we discuss whether nations are treated as GODS or not?

and if they are, whether that will ultimately lead to peace or not?

Since the the main thread title talks about peace.

I just thought I'd reply to this bit while I was waiting to find out the next subject. I know you said it several pages back, but since you brought it up again, I thought this would be a good place to answer it.

Originally posted by LittleSecret

That would indicate that non-muslims are less than full citizens, and supports my contention of subjugation.

This is where some of my thoughts in regards to new age GODS come in to play.

See the new age GODS are nation GODS, hence:
1. We pray for nations (national anthem)
2. We work for nations
3. We live for nations
4. We die for nations
5. etc

1. One does not pray FOR a god, one prays TO a god.
2. I also worked for my wives and my kids. That didn't make THEM gods, and it wouldn't make a nation a god, either.
3. Maybe you live for YOUR nation, but I don't live for mine, and I don't know anyone here who does. Most of us live for our families, our friends, and our selves. No, none of THOSE are gods, either.
4. What I die for has not yet been determined. My dad died for lack of doctor visits, but lack of doctor visits is not a god.
5. etc.

Separation of Church and State is a joke. All these nations are worshiped as GODS, if separation Church and states was meant to keep Christianity away, then it has worked, but if it was suppose to keep religion away, it has failed.

Separation of "church and state" is meant to keep government from promoting any one religion above any others. It doesn't pertain to just christianity, and technically, from the constitution, it doesn't keep religion out of government, either. It just prevents government from establishing any one religion in preference over others.

So, no, it wasn't supposed to keep anything away.

The Quran repeatedly states there is one GOD, the Quran puts a huge importance on that message, and states believe in one GOD.

If we human beings were smart enough, we would have for once in our damn history give this a try. Give it a try, what have you got to loose?

Believe in one GOD, everyone of us, see what the out come is.

That is just an over view of what we are suppose to do to gain peace. There are other important aspects also, for example in the Quran GOD has qualities, in other words, GOD has names. For example the MOST merciful, the MOST just.. etc..

If we believe in GOD with such qualities, we will have a perfect system which will allow to finally have the previliage of using the Quran how it is suppose to be used.

Let me elaborate:
"GOD is the most just"
That means justice is important, then if you think you will come to conclusion that you can't gain justice without truth, which leads us to the next quality of GOD hence:
"GOD knows all"

Can we vote on which one god that should be? I might vote for Vishnu or Ahura Mazda, or possibly one of the older ones, like Marduk or Anu. I mean, if the main point is just to force everyone under ONE god, what does it matter which one it is, so long as we all just pick ONE, right?

[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Can we discuss whether nations are treated as GODS or not?

and if they are, whether that will ultimately lead to peace or not?

Since the the main thread title talks about peace.

Oops. see the post I wrote while waiting on this one. I suppose we're at least in the same groove somewhere...

Edit to add: We can discuss the bearing of religion on peace, too, but right now, I've got to go fire up another cigarette. You must be getting on my nerves or something...

I'll be back shortly, for a bit.

[edit on 2010/7/9 by nenothtu]

I can't say what I think about islam.
It would get me banned.

You cannot say Muslims are for peace as there are many who want to see the end of all other religions. In Indonesia which was previously a Hindu nation the Muslims are even actively pulling down and destroying Hindu places of worship. Basically the Muslims want all other religions to preach tolerance of other religions whilst they themselves do not.

The ones you have to be careful of are the evil men who hangout at some mosques looking for young Muslim males with weak minds. They befriend a group of such men and then fill their minds with rubbish and evil. They are the ringleaders in all of this, the self appointed sifus (I have met with a few of them personally)

reply to post by LUXUS


The Topic is NOT "Muslims are an Advocate of Peace", it is rather "Islam is an Advocate of peace".

Do not judge a religion by its adherents.

Since adherents of islam are known as "muslims", They are germaine to the discussion, as is the behavior produced in them by islam.

If a religion cannot be evaluated by the people who adhere to it, what is it then to be evaluated by? Only by the teachings they ignore, and evaluators should ignore the teachings they honor?

I had a plum tree in my back yard, which produced the nastiest plums I ever tried to eat. The tree was no good to me at all, because the plums it produced were no good to me.

I cut it down.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
The Topic is NOT "Muslims are an Advocate of Peace", it is rather "Islam is an Advocate of peace".

Then whats the point of this thread?

So in other words Muslims are not for peace but Islam is? Then what exactly do Muslims follow? What good is a religion and it's teaching if it's followers do not follow it's teaching? Without them then it's not a religion it becomes a philosophy.

I see nothing but assertion after assertion that a sword is peaceful until I choose to fall upon it. Pointless.