Let's Stop Pretending That Islam is a Religion of Peace

[YmirGF]

Keep in mind, I have very limited knowledge of this. I was just saying that the way raph explained it ,it made more sense. If I moved to a Muslim country to live there long term and was required to pay a tax in exchange for not serving in the military I could accept that. If I were paying a tax simply for not being a Muslim I would think that pretty ridiculous. So which is it? I don't know. But at the same time the old saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" applies here. If I knew this was their custom and did not agree with it I just wouldn't move there. Now at the same time, the non-Muslims from that area is another thing altogether.

Different contexts. Looking at it from our current perspective is unhelpful. Look at the concept when it was introduced to see how incredibly unjust it was. Today it is just another tax. In those days you literally financed your own captivity.

 

[mystic64]

Okay, so what do you hope to happen for the future of Islam? I'm not a follower of Islam, for I had issues with different aspects of it.

I'm still trying to gather the point of the thread. Is it mainly to vent for those who loathe Islam, or is there some other point of it?

Sir there are two Islams and one of them is peaceful and the other one is not peaceful. And the not peaceful one really needs to be understood for what it is. The non peaceful one is about the world domination of Islam and anyone who dies helping to accomplish that goal goes to Paradise.

And Sir, go ask the supreme leader of Iran if Islam is a religion of peace? He will tell you that there can be no peace between Islam and those who worship false gods or no gods or follow any religious scripture but the one he considers the only Holy. And the only rule that he and others like him have is, "Do whatever it takes to win no matter who gets hurt." If they are his followers, then they go to paradise. If they are not his followers, then they deserve what they get. No mercy. And his Holy Scripture gives him permission to do this. His God gives him permission to do this.

The other Islam is a religion of peace, but at the same time Saudi Arabia does need weapons from the Great Satan to exist as followers of a religion of peace. And they also have two Holy religious scriptures and the other one explains why Islam is a religion of peace. And if the truth be known things do change without that second book.

 

[raph]

Different contexts. Looking at it from our current perspective is unhelpful. Look at the concept when it was introduced to see how incredibly unjust it was. Today it is just another tax. In those days you literally financed your own captivity.

Sometimes nations got conquered, **** happens. When your nation gets conquered, youll stop paying taxes to your former king, and start paying them to your new king. It was normal at that time.

The other way would be that the conquered people dont pay taxes, which would cause everything to collapse.

The normal thing would be that the conquered people would be forced into military. So they would be even fighting "for their own captivity".

Which is better? Paying for your own captivity like in muslim states. Or fighting for your own captivity which was normal in Rome for example?

 

[mystic64]

If you buy into the theology, you submit to Allah. If you do not buy into the theology you submit to Muslim rule and being a 2nd class citizen.

That is the kicker isn't it !

 

[mystic64]

Sometimes nations got conquered, **** happens. When your nation gets conquered, youll stop paying taxes to your former king, and start paying them to your new king. It was normal at that time.

The other way would be that the conquered people dont pay taxes, which would cause everything to collapse.

The normal thing would be that the conquered people would be forced into military. So they would be even fighting "for their own captivity".

Which is better? Paying for your own captivity like in muslim states. Or fighting for your own captivity which was normal in Rome for example?

Both are wrong.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

By your logic, every tax is mafia protection money because any state will fight and terrify you until you pay your taxes.

Mafia protection money is not just, because you get nothing for it really.

Any tax is just, because you get something for it (like better schools)

Jizya is just, because you get something for it. You can live in a muslim state and enjoying military protection from enemies, without joining the military. So actually you are paying the military to protect you. You get something of real value for your money therefore it is just. It is "protection money", but the good kind. Not the mafia kind of protection money.

Regular taxes are applied equally without reference to things like religious affiliation. Individual rights like freedom of religion are not contingent upon paying these taxes; they are inalienable.

The jizyah is extortion because it is used as a method of segregation, of humiliation and it is designed to further impoverish minorities simply because they are not Muslims. If the jizyah were also applied to Muslims who wished to not fight in wars then your case might have some standing; but this is not what happens. The jizyah applies exclusively to non-Muslims because they are non-Muslim. Rights are conferred and removed from minorities based upon their willingness to pay. It's discrimination, pure and simple.

Jizya is just, because you get something for it.

For paying the jizyah you lose basic rights, your social status is seriously degraded and the only thing you 'get' is the promise of direct physical violence without legal recourse if you stop paying. By your logic protection, money is just because you 'get' the promise that mafiosi will not come round to break your legs while you continue to pay.

I honestly cannot understand why you're bothering to defend a religion that killed your religion's founder and encouraged people to persecute your religious compatriots simply for daring to believe differently, I really can't.

 

[FearGod]

It only makes sense on a very superficial level.

Think about it for just a second. You are a captive of a Muslim army. You are paying for "protection" by that army against enemies of that army. Those enemies are quite likely your friends. Get it?

No, they weren't captives.
A captive can't travel and work other than being slaves which wasn't the case obviously.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

But Shad says FearGod is not his friend?
Regards

In that case he was also using 'son' ironically. At least that's what the context indicates.

Still confused? That's completely understandable.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Thats good. I think we all need to evolve (for lack of a better word) beyond using violence to solve our issues, marriage and otherwise. And also realize that just because it was done that way long ago doesn't mean we should use it for an excuse do behave that way now. If God is a merciful God (which I believe that He is) should we not also strive to be merciful? I mean if your wife displeases so much get a divorce before it escalates into violence.

Agreed.

I just hope that nothing similar to the reasons behind having those laws in the past, when civil laws were almost non existing, comes up in the future and causes arguments about the current laws we have now, the laws we see now good, but in the future some voices start arguments against it that make us see these laws bad then. Fines or imprisonment for husbands for beating wives are still negative counter measures in nature by themselves, but we see it good because the husband started it and we think deserve it. Dunno how's the public opinion is gonna be in the future.

Eh? Did I just invent a rocket up there? What I just said even confuses me

By the way, even the most extreme interpretation of beating wives in the Quran (I live here so I know) is barely physically effective, far from being violent, and it is strictly forbidden to be on the face (the latter is a general Islamic rule actually), not to mention generally has strict rules. And it is not about generic displease, so if a husband is just displeased with his wife, it is forbidden to do anything to her. I'm saying this regardless to whither I agree with it or not, I'm saying it just to clarify the most extreme interpretation, nothing else (the interpretation us funny, so I think I won't put it here). I personally would never upset my wife (if I had one, lol) and even prefer having her beat me up instead. I think women are too beautiful to have disagreement with them

All in all, it is sad to see external force like civil laws interfere with family issues. Real good families should have mutual understanding among their members, even if a problem emerges, it should be solved internally instead of having strangers interfere in their affairs. Oh well, I guess some families never learn, so I guess civil laws had to be enforced to interfere after all. Good family members should not even allow external interference even if the member is the victim. Personally if my father hits me, I'd never allow the law to interfere and try to solve it myself with goodness first. Only in hopeless cases I think it is okay to depend on external interference. Prophet Muhammad said that real good people are good to their families.

 

[David1967]

Agreed.

I just hope that nothing similar to the reasons behind having those laws in the past, when civil laws were almost non existing, comes up in the future and causes arguments about the current laws we have now, the laws we see now good, but in the future some voices start arguments against it that make us see these laws bad then. Fines or imprisonment for husbands for beating wives are still negative counter measures in nature by themselves, but we see it good because the husband started it and we think deserve it. Dunno how's the public opinion is gonna be in the future.

Eh? Did I just invent a rocket up there? What I just said even confuses me

By the way, even the most extreme interpretation of beating wives in the Quran (I live here so I know) is barely physically effective, far from being violent, and it is strictly forbidden to be on the face (the latter is a general Islamic rule actually), not to mention generally has strict rules. And it is not about generic displease, so if a husband is just displeased with his wife, it is forbidden to do anything to her. I'm saying this regardless to whither I agree with it or not, I'm saying it just to clarify the most extreme interpretation, nothing else (the interpretation us funny, so I think I won't put it here). I personally would never upset my wife (if I had one, lol) and even prefer having her beat me up instead. I think women are too beautiful to have disagreement with them

All in all, it is sad to see external force like civil laws interfere with family issues. Real good families should have mutual understanding among their members, even if a problem emerges, it should be solved internally instead of having strangers interfere in their affairs. Oh well, I guess some families never learn, so I guess civil laws had to be enforced to interfere after all. Good family members should not even allow external interference even if the member is the victim. Personally if my father hits me, I'd never allow the law to interfere and try to solve it myself with goodness first. Only in hopeless cases I think it is okay to depend on external interference. Prophet Muhammad said that real good people are good to their families.

I appreciate you brother.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread closed for review.​