Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Sabour]

Here are some misconceptions of Islam. One of which is that Islam was spread by the sword

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wRrP_YOKx0

 

[paarsurrey]

I have no idea about today but their predecessors certainly had swords and used them quite often in Spain. How about Tours for example? If it was not for swords there would probably not be any significant Islamic population in Spain.

I don't get you exactly; please elaborate.

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Legal base
Says
What is built on falsehood is false
Islam spread by force and will be spread through other means disaster for humanity
Other ways are to use the means through sexual legalize marriages with four women
And also temporary marriage
And Zoajalchgar
The application also Almkhalah
And Almkhalah mean that women give money to the men in return for divorce
Islamic laws are not known to the Western
If the West today live in a state of moral chaos
The reason is staying away from its historical roots
But the West will return purer than before when he wakes up on the teachings of the Islamic Gender touched its doors

 

[Chev Chelios]

Why it is oppression ? Muslims used to to pay Zakat which is more than the taxes. And Muslims were the ones responsible to defend the territory. And once I heard from a scholar that they had the opportunity not to pay taxes if they want in condition that they join muslims in sharing the responsibility to defend the territory (I can't assure you that as I didn't look for his proof about that).

To suggest Jizya was analogous with Zakat is not fair at all – both were very different not only in terms of amounts but also in their purpose. You say that it was not oppressive?? Erm – well I can confidently say that the Koran clearly states that the payment of the Jizya is to serve as a means of humiliation to those that pay it which ties in very nicely with the idea of oppression! See, its payment came with the package deal of being a Dhimmi where religious minorities under Islamic rule were assigned a subordinate status - they had to accept of an apartheid type existence (oppression!).

These Dhimmi’s were forced to pay the Jizya, accept Islam as their faith or die - so we can see that its implementation was nothing more than a protection racket akin to that run by Mobsters - pay up and we will allow you to live (in 2nd class citenzery), don't and there will be big trouble. This is testament to the insidious nature of Islamic rule so to try and dress it up as fair is quite ludicrous.

Now, we must remember that Moslems freely accepted the payment of Zakat by virtue of the fact that they agreed to become a Moslem - so payment of Zakat was a choice Moslems entered into. Jizya was not a choice for non Moslems - they were strong armed into it. Moslems seem to try and qualify Jizya by saying that Moslems were well within there rights to charge non Moslems for living within 'their' lands. This is a distortion of the facts because they conveniently fail to point out that the Jizya was not the only taxes Non Moslems paid, Jizya was an additional tax hence it is commonly referred to as a poll tax - Jizya was almost certainly higher than Zakat as well.

We must remember one final thing – Zakat was NOT applied to Moslems across the board in the way Jizya was – there was/is a certain threshold of wealth that was required before Zakat was implemented – I am certain this was not the case for Jizya.

So – I think we can conclude that Jizya and Zakat were in no way mutually exclusive and that Jizya was not good and not fair at all.

 

[Chev Chelios]

I cannot read 77 pages but then I do not need to - yes - Islam was certainly spread by the sword. To suggest that nations would just welcome a people and a faith into their land to be converted and brought under the rule of another at their own volition is pure fantasy (I suppose the conversion of Constantinople to Istanbul was another example of the passivity of Islams mystical osmotic spread).

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

To suggest Jizya was analogous with Zakat is not fair at all – both were very different not only in terms of amounts but also in their purpose. You say that it was not oppressive?? Erm – well I can confidently say that the Koran clearly states that the payment of the Jizya is to serve as a means of humiliation to those that pay it which ties in very nicely with the idea of oppression! See, its payment came with the package deal of being a Dhimmi where religious minorities under Islamic rule were assigned a subordinate status - they had to accept of an apartheid type existence (oppression!).

These Dhimmi’s were forced to pay the Jizya, accept Islam as their faith or die - so we can see that its implementation was nothing more than a protection racket akin to that run by Mobsters - pay up and we will allow you to live (in 2nd class citenzery), don't and there will be big trouble. This is testament to the insidious nature of Islamic rule so to try and dress it up as fair is quite ludicrous.

Now, we must remember that Moslems freely accepted the payment of Zakat by virtue of the fact that they agreed to become a Moslem - so payment of Zakat was a choice Moslems entered into. Jizya was not a choice for non Moslems - they were strong armed into it. Moslems seem to try and qualify Jizya by saying that Moslems were well within there rights to charge non Moslems for living within 'their' lands. This is a distortion of the facts because they conveniently fail to point out that the Jizya was not the only taxes Non Moslems paid, Jizya was an additional tax hence it is commonly referred to as a poll tax - Jizya was almost certainly higher than Zakat as well.

We must remember one final thing – Zakat was NOT applied to Moslems across the board in the way Jizya was – there was/is a certain threshold of wealth that was required before Zakat was implemented – I am certain this was not the case for Jizya.

So – I think we can conclude that Jizya and Zakat were in no way mutually exclusive and that Jizya was not good and not fair at all.

Thank you
I forgot to give examples of the spread of Islam in Turkey also
And also a tribute
And also Islamic law, which says
That which does not convert to Islam be dhimmi
This is the Islamic law
Is one of the racist laws
Because people are not being Palmsawh Islamic Fagm
And past history, which was not written this fact
I have lived with Muslims and Christians were second-class
Even in secular states that Nchaet after World War I.
Christian was a second-class citizen

 

[paarsurrey]

@ mahasn ebn sawresho: Post#667

At the beginning of the call of Muhammad did not announce that he Messenger

The Meccans believed in G-d but associated with Him human intercessors as partners.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad have given a Kalima (or motto/slogan) to Muslims:

There is none worthy of worship except Allah (the One-True-God); Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (the One-True-God).

A Muslim has to testify both the above items to become a Muslim from the day one Muhammad was given a message for the whole mankind and appointed prophet/messenger by Allah (the One-True-God).

For example of the first item I quote here The Holy Quran : Chapter 109: Al-Kafirun Classification,Meccan

[109:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[109:2] Say, ‘O ye disbelievers!
[109:3] ‘I worship not that which you worship;
[109:4] ‘Nor worship you what I worship.
[109:5] ‘And I am not going to worship that which you worship;
[109:6] ‘Nor will you worship what I worship.
[109:7] ‘For you your religion, and for me my religion.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

This chapter revealed at Mecca corrected, rectified and reformed concepts of Meccans, Christians and Jews at one go.

Muhammad was a straightforward person; he told exactly what was revealed on him by Allah in the teeth of the opposition whoever they might be; Meccans, Christians and or Jews.

The declaration was unequivocal but the non-believers were told that they could co-exist with Muslims peacefully remaining firm on their beliefs; freedom of religion was allowed.

Please correct yourself. The message was clear and the messenger was straightforward; yet peaceful for everybody.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Rwanda:[2]

History

Compared to east African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, the history of Islam in Rwanda is relatively modern. While a few written sources are available regarding its origins, it is claimed that Islam came through Arab merchants who first entered the country in 1901. Others say that Islam came when Europeans brought in Muslim clerks, administrative assistants, and merchants, from the Swahili-speaking coast of Tanzania. Islam was also bolstered by Muslim merchants from India, who married local Rwandans. Rwandans built their first mosque in 1913.[2] This mosque is known as the al-Fatah mosque.[3]

During its history, many efforts were made to impede the spread of Islam in Rwanda. These efforts generally exploited anti-Arab sentiment, and presented Muslims as foreigners. Catholic missionaries often went to great lengths to counter what they perceived influence of rival religions, such as Islam and Protestantism.[4]

Muslims were further marginalized by the fact that most Muslims settled in urban areas, whereas 90 percent of the population was rural. As neither Arab nor Indian merchants ever attempted to further their faith, there was little spirit of preaching amongst Muslims. Only a few conversions took place, mostly amongst the marginalized urban population: women who had married foreigners, illegitimate children and orphans. Even these conversion were sometimes superficial, motivated by desire for social and economic security that Muslims provided, than for religious conviction in the Islamic faith.[5]

Under the Belgian administration, Muslims in Rwanda were to some extent marginalized. Since Muslims had no place in the Catholic church, which maintained great influence over the state, Muslims were often excluded from education and important jobs in the government. As a result Muslim employment was largely confined to engaging in petty trade, and taking up jobs as drivers.[4]

In 1960, the former government minister Sebazungu ordered the burning of the Muslim quarter and the mosque in Rwamagana. Following this event, Muslims were terrified and many of them fled to neighbouring countries. It is alleged that the Catholic Church was involved in these events, which aggravated the bitterness between Muslims and Christians.[4]

Before the 1994 Genocide, Muslims were held in low regard, because they were seen as traders, in a land where farmers are highly regarded. The Muslim population before the genocide was 4% which was unusually low compared to that of neighbouring countries.

Islam in Rwanda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Rwanda.

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

@ mahasn ebn sawresho: Post#667




The Meccans believed in G-d but associated with Him human intercessors as partners.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad have given a Kalima (or motto/slogan) to Muslims:



A Muslim has to testify both the above items to become a Muslim from the day one Muhammad was given a message for the whole mankind and appointed prophet/messenger by Allah (the One-True-God).

For example of the first item I quote here The Holy Quran : Chapter 109: Al-Kafirun Classification,Meccan

[109:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[109:2] Say, ‘O ye disbelievers!
[109:3] ‘I worship not that which you worship;
[109:4] ‘Nor worship you what I worship.
[109:5] ‘And I am not going to worship that which you worship;
[109:6] ‘Nor will you worship what I worship.
[109:7] ‘For you your religion, and for me my religion.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

This chapter revealed at Mecca corrected, rectified and reformed concepts of Meccans, Christians and Jews at one go.

Muhammad was a straightforward person; he told exactly what was revealed on him by Allah in the teeth of the opposition whoever they might be; Meccans, Christians and or Jews.

The declaration was unequivocal but the non-believers were told that they could co-exist with Muslims peacefully remaining firm on their beliefs; freedom of religion was allowed.

Please correct yourself. The message was clear and the messenger was straightforward; yet peaceful for everybody.

Regards

You do not know the difference between the states of Mecca and Medina states
You Islam Qhobea
I do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad
Did you know that Muhammad Satan entered him in one of the verses

Go and Read Aqrank well
Look for this verse
Do you think that the devil enters Allenbaasahih
If you were to Atsedkna
Read the book of Salman Rushdie
The name The Satanic Verses
Read and Khomeini's fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie
Because one state
Explained Salman Rushdie
And realistic manner
Do you think that the devil affects the sincere Prophet
Satan entered and gave a talk to Mohammed
And talking books explain this clearly

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Mohammed accused the Christians charge void
Do you know the names of Allah in Islam
It's a name p
And one of the names of God are
Harmful
And also Avenger
And also Feline
Do you believe in these names
Does God believe in this
You do not know Islam well
Learn and Study
Do you know that God is in the Koran is the Best of Planners
Do you know this verse

 

[Chev Chelios]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Rwanda:[2]

What a completely irrelevant comment. So - are you seriously saying that because Rwanda is seeing a large conversion rate to Islam somehow allows you to extrapolate this fact to be sufficient evidence that Islam wasn't spread by the sword? If it is then please do tell all of us how Islam is being spread in Nigeria, Sudan, in-fact please detail its rise across the entire area of North Africa.

To understand the conversion being seen in Rwanda we need to understand its historical context. We have seen a direct correlation between the exponential rise of Islam virtually immediately after the Tutsi genocide in 1994. This seems to have been the impetus which stimulated Islam’s growth. I am alluding to a quite unique situation which may have helped propagate the spread of Islam. You just can't use one or such an example to mean the general rule - no-one doubts there are examples where Islam has spread peacefully - but this does not mean it makes the general rule and it was certainly not how it happened in the beginning. Christianity is spreading in parts of the Orient - very peacefully, but this fact does not afford me the right to use this as proof that Christianity wasn't forced on many people throughout its early years.

 

[Sabour]

To suggest Jizya was analogous with Zakat is not fair at all – both were very different not only in terms of amounts but also in their purpose. You say that it was not oppressive?? Erm – well I can confidently say that the Koran clearly states that the payment of the Jizya is to serve as a means of humiliation to those that pay it which ties in very nicely with the idea of oppression! See, its payment came with the package deal of being a Dhimmi where religious minorities under Islamic rule were assigned a subordinate status - they had to accept of an apartheid type existence (oppression!).

These Dhimmi’s were forced to pay the Jizya, accept Islam as their faith or die - so we can see that its implementation was nothing more than a protection racket akin to that run by Mobsters - pay up and we will allow you to live (in 2nd class citenzery), don't and there will be big trouble. This is testament to the insidious nature of Islamic rule so to try and dress it up as fair is quite ludicrous.

Now, we must remember that Moslems freely accepted the payment of Zakat by virtue of the fact that they agreed to become a Moslem - so payment of Zakat was a choice Moslems entered into. Jizya was not a choice for non Moslems - they were strong armed into it. Moslems seem to try and qualify Jizya by saying that Moslems were well within there rights to charge non Moslems for living within 'their' lands. This is a distortion of the facts because they conveniently fail to point out that the Jizya was not the only taxes Non Moslems paid, Jizya was an additional tax hence it is commonly referred to as a poll tax - Jizya was almost certainly higher than Zakat as well.

We must remember one final thing – Zakat was NOT applied to Moslems across the board in the way Jizya was – there was/is a certain threshold of wealth that was required before Zakat was implemented – I am certain this was not the case for Jizya.

So – I think we can conclude that Jizya and Zakat were in no way mutually exclusive and that Jizya was not good and not fair at all.

Jizya is just like the way you pay taxes for your country. Do you think taxes are not fair?

I was only comparing the amount of Zakat to that of Jizya.

Concerning the Quraan, you have to see what is the context and the reason of the revelation of the verse.

What I said is not a distortion of the facts friend. Muslims used to protect everyone living in their caliphate whether they were muslims or non muslims.

 

[Sabour]

I cannot read 77 pages but then I do not need to - yes - Islam was certainly spread by the sword. To suggest that nations would just welcome a people and a faith into their land to be converted and brought under the rule of another at their own volition is pure fantasy (I suppose the conversion of Constantinople to Istanbul was another example of the passivity of Islams mystical osmotic spread).

Islam was never spread by the sword. How can a one man begin spreading it by the sword?

How can a minority spread it by the sword?

Point to me 1 time in the Quraan the word Sword was used?

 

[Poeticus]

To suggest Jizya was analogous with Zakat is not fair at all – both were very different not only in terms of amounts but also in their purpose. You say that it was not oppressive?? Erm – well I can confidently say that the Koran clearly states that the payment of the Jizya is to serve as a means of humiliation to those that pay it which ties in very nicely with the idea of oppression! See, its payment came with the package deal of being a Dhimmi where religious minorities under Islamic rule were assigned a subordinate status - they had to accept of an apartheid type existence (oppression!).

These Dhimmi’s were forced to pay the Jizya, accept Islam as their faith or die - so we can see that its implementation was nothing more than a protection racket akin to that run by Mobsters - pay up and we will allow you to live (in 2nd class citenzery), don't and there will be big trouble. This is testament to the insidious nature of Islamic rule so to try and dress it up as fair is quite ludicrous.

Now, we must remember that Moslems freely accepted the payment of Zakat by virtue of the fact that they agreed to become a Moslem - so payment of Zakat was a choice Moslems entered into. Jizya was not a choice for non Moslems - they were strong armed into it. Moslems seem to try and qualify Jizya by saying that Moslems were well within there rights to charge non Moslems for living within 'their' lands. This is a distortion of the facts because they conveniently fail to point out that the Jizya was not the only taxes Non Moslems paid, Jizya was an additional tax hence it is commonly referred to as a poll tax - Jizya was almost certainly higher than Zakat as well.

We must remember one final thing – Zakat was NOT applied to Moslems across the board in the way Jizya was – there was/is a certain threshold of wealth that was required before Zakat was implemented – I am certain this was not the case for Jizya.

So – I think we can conclude that Jizya and Zakat were in no way mutually exclusive and that Jizya was not good and not fair at all.

I would have to agree with the above, at least most of it if not all of it.

The notion purported by apologetics that a religious tax is no different than the taxes proposed and collected under secular governments is not only misleading but ultimately a false correlation. A tax under secular governments is not theological in orientation. A religious tax, on the other hand, is imposed out of the rigorist colloquial best described as the following: the perpetual reiteration of the superiority of one's religious conviction. A secular tax is not meant to discriminate; the mere act of collecting revenue from non-members through a religious tax, on the other hand, is radically discriminatory: it is segregating and hierarchal at its very core. In essence, the reality of a religious tax would be no different than slaves paying more than freedmen---either through monetary means or through physical restitutions. In a rational world or setting, religious taxes are abominably backward and their very existence is heinous. It indirectly invades the pluralistic notion of freedom of thought and deed; and monetarily suppresses it in the long-run.

 

[YmirGF]

Muslims used to protect everyone living in their caliphate whether they were muslims or non muslims.

What has always mystified me about this statement is, considering dhimmis were literally surrounded by Muslims, who, exactly, did they need protection from?

 

[1robin]

I don't get you exactly; please elaborate.

Regards

When Muhammad died Islam's inherent hatred almost destroyed Islam in the cradle. Different factions of the Islamic army (for lack of a better word) which held mutually exclusive interpretations of the infant and wide ranging versions of the Quran fought each other and Islam almost ended there. Is that very wise work of a few men of vision (good or bad but at least vision) Uthman in particular created a Quran which he liked and confiscated and burned the rest. He did so in order to create unity out of chaos. He meant to turn all the hatred and vengeance of Islam outward instead of on it's self. Then began the campaign from Arabia across the fractured and week Mediterranean world until the high water mark in Spain. Except for what was left of the Eastern Roman empire and some European knights no one could field a descent army. Islam promoted the convert, pay a higher tax and assume your selves subdued and second class citizens, or die campaign from Arabian to Spain. The only thing that stopped them was knights with swords who were better fighters and better organized them their selves. Spain in particular included constant fighting. Islam fought the Teutonic knights, the Visigoths, the Basque tribe, the Vandals, the Asturias', etc..... until they were finally defeated. Without weapons Tariq Ziyad would not have made it off the beaches at Gibraltar.


Now that should speak for it's self but I will add a little more. I am a life long military historian. I understand nothing better. Tribal populations of any size from a family to a nation resist outside change at almost any cost. Even if say Rome wanted a starving and destitute Barbarian horde to submit to their rule. Even though it meant new schools, highways, medical knowledge, economic prosperity, military protection, etc.... it is likely they would have instead fought them until decimated. That is more often true than not in history. Islam did not even unite their fellow Arabs without force do you think they could unite Spaniard's, North African's, the Turks, the shattered remnant of a once great Roman empire without force. Despite their not speaking the same language do you think this brand new faith was so persuasive it converted all these warlike tribes by merit the way Christianity did in Rome? That is absurd. It was their army not their missionaries that took the Mediterranean world. With the sword Islam almost killed it's self, without they never would have advanced outside Muhammad's friends and family. Let me ask a question.



The first dozen years when Muhammad was not violent Islam had only 250 followers that were mostly Muhammad's family and friends. After given troops and weapons Muhammad began to raid caravans. Over the next bloody dozen years when Muhammad had power, money, and vengeance to offer, Islam grew to over 100,000. How was the sword not what made Islam?

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry; I don't agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Rwanda:[3]

Rwandan genocide

During the Rwandan genocide, Islam as a faith was not the main target of the genocide. Muslims were able to shield most Muslims from the massacres, as well as many non-Muslim Tutsis. According to Marc Lacey of The New York Times, the safest place during the genocide was a Muslim neighborhood. In Kigali, many of Rwanda's Muslims crowded together in the Biryogo neighborhood. When Hutu militias surrounded the place, Hutu Muslims did not cooperate with the Hutu killers.

The Hutu Muslims say that they felt far more connected through religion than through ethnicity, and Muslim Tutsi were spared.[6] While Hutu Muslims saved most Muslim Tutsis, they also saved the lives of thousands of Christian Tutsis as well. Imams spoke out publicly against the killings, urging their congregations to not partake in the massacres.[2]

There were only a few incidents in which Tutsis in mosques were attacked. The most widely known example occurred at Nyamirambo Main Mosque, where hundreds of Tutsi had gathered to take refuge. The refugees in the mosque fought off Hutu militias with stones, bows and arrows, putting up stiff resistance against the soldiers and militiamen of the Interahamwe. Only once the soldiers attacked with machine gun fire were the Interahamwe able to enter the mosque and kill the refugees.[2]

In some cases Hutus were afraid of searching Muslim quarters for Tutsis. The widely believed myths that both Muslims and their mosques were protected by the power of highly efficacious Islamic magic, and the fear of the jinn (creatures of fire mentioned in the Qur'an), turned out to have saved the lives of Tutsis who sought refuge with Muslims. In one case, a mosque was set ablaze in Cyangugu, but the arsonists ran away instead of destroying the mosque and its inhabitants because they believed jinn were inside the mosque.

In some cases when a Muslim was inclined towards killing, one Tutsi testifies : "If a Hutu Muslim tried to kill someone hidden in our neighbourhoods, he would first be asked to take the Qur'an and tear it apart to renounce his faith. No Muslim dared to violate the Holy Book and that saved a lot of us."[4]
Nevertheless, there are allegations against several Muslims. A most prominent case is Hassan Ngeze who is considered the masterminds of the anti-Tutsi ideology and propaganda (e.g. as the author of the Hutu Ten Commandments) .[4] Another Muslim, Yussuf Munyakazi who passed himself later as an Imam, was convicted of Genocide at the ICTR for his involvement in the killing of thousands of Tutsis in a Catholic church.[7]

Post-genocide

The number of Rwandan Muslims increased after the 1994 genocide due to large numbers of conversions.[8] Many Muslims had sheltered refugees, both Hutu andTutsi.[citation needed] Some converts state that they converted to Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide.[9]Human-rights groups have documented both incidents in which Christian clerics permitted Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death-squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis.[10]

Personal accounts relate how some Tutsi converted for safety, as they feared continuing reprisal killings by Hutu extremists, and knew that Muslims would protect them from such acts. Many Hutu converted as well, in search for "purification". Many Hutu want to leave their violent past behind them and to not have "blood on their hands". There are also a few isolated instances where Hutu have converted in the hope that they could hide within the Muslim community and thereby escape arrest.[2][11]

The rate of conversions slowed in 1997. According to the mufti of Rwanda, the Islamic community has not seen any increases in conversions in 2002/2003.[12]Christianity remains as the country's leading religion. Catholicism (which arrived in the late 19th century with the White Fathers order of the Roman Catholic Church) remains deeply embedded in the culture.[6] In 2002 The Washington Post reported that Muslims made up 14 percent of the 8.2 million people in Rwanda, Africa's most Catholic nation, twice as many as before the killings began.[9]

Islam in Rwanda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Rwanda.

Regards

 

[Shad]

Jizya is just like the way you pay taxes for your country. Do you think taxes are not fair?

I was only comparing the amount of Zakat to that of Jizya.

Concerning the Quraan, you have to see what is the context and the reason of the revelation of the verse.

What I said is not a distortion of the facts friend. Muslims used to protect everyone living in their caliphate whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims.

Nations do not have tax rates based on ones religion in the modern world. Canada does not tax an atheist more, less or under a different system than a Muslim. People are taxed by income and percentage rates. Jiyza is a head tax so is not the same as current tax codes. Nations "defend" the rights of it's citizens regardless of their religion.

There are also a number of massacres, in Spain for example, in which the state failed to defend it's non-Muslim citizens from it's Muslim citizens. Both the Cordoba and Granada massacres were backed by a religious ideology and violence. Of course many states fail to defend it's own citizens. However most of these states are not placed on a pillar of religion. When a human system fails we can accept that. When a "perfect" system of God fails, we are in trouble.

 

[Chev Chelios]

Jizya is just like the way you pay taxes for your country. Do you think taxes are not fair?

I was only comparing the amount of Zakat to that of Jizya.

Concerning the Quraan, you have to see what is the context and the reason of the revelation of the verse.

What I said is not a distortion of the facts friend. Muslims used to protect everyone living in their caliphate whether they were muslims or non muslims.

No. Jizya was not just a tax - it was a payment expected to be paid by non Moslems because they were non Moslem. It was a discriminatory tax designed to serve as a sign of humiliation and to oppress - taxes are not supposed to discriminate or humiliate or oppress nor should they be expected to be paid by people just because they do not follow a certain faith!

I have already pointed out that Non Moslems paid their taxes just like the Moslems - Jizya was added on top of these other taxes that they paid - it was an unfair and unequal ADDITIONAL tax.

What makes you think Jizya was equal in monetary terms to Zakat????? I am certain that it wasn't.