Why is Babar Ahmed being extradited to the US?

Exactly.It's a shame that mariachi is pursuing this to the lengths of this Earth to prove us wrong.

Lame, lame

If people prefer to pay double zakat rather than jizyah, it means that jizyah was more than double the zakat.

Sadakah is quite clearly the same as zakat. It means "alms" which is exactly what "zakat" means. In any case, I will even give you the quote from my copy of the Futuh. May take some time.

Christian Arab tribes in the north of the Arabian Peninsula refused to pay jizya, but agreed to pay double the amount, and calling it sadaqa, a word meaning "alms" or "charity".

sorry, but this is nonsense

pease, show me where I have said that "Jizya was set at a much higher rate than the Zakaat".

This is what I said:

-there is absolutely no proof that jizyah was, as a general rule, lower than zakat

-jizyah was only one of the various taxes paid by "dhimmis". Kharaj was, at least, just as important

-I have quoted a specific example where, notionally, jizyah must have been around double zakat

-I have stressed that zakat revenue goes to the muslim community, whereas jizyah goes to the State budget. You cannot therefore, methodologically, offset one against the other

-I have highlighted the impossibility of translating 7th-9th century monetary values in present-day money, and the impossibility of financing a modern-day budget on the basis of zakat/jizyah/kharaj

-I have noted some "selective quoting" in action

That's all. Best

please, show me where I have said that "Jizya was set at a much higher rate than the Zakaat".

This is what I said:

-there is absolutely no proof that jizyah was, as a general rule, lower than zakat
-jizyah was only one of the various taxes paid by "dhimmis". Kharaj was, at least, just as important
-I have quoted a specific example where, notionally, jizyah must have been around double zakat
-I have stressed that zakat revenue goes to the muslim community, whereas jizyah goes to the State budget. You cannot therefore, methodologically, offset one against the other
-I have highlighted the impossibility of translating 7th-9th century monetary values in present-day money, and the impossibility of financing a modern-day budget on the basis of zakat/jizyah/kharaj
-I have noted some "selective quoting" in action

That's all.

it's a shame that you are denying evidence

you should prove that jizyah was less than zakat, and you are unable to do so

I am very generous in going somehow in depth on this particular episode, since it is not up to me to prove anything.

Prove your claim, now, instead of criticizing me.

learn to read. I said "for those tribes". My whole point is that there was no universal precise amount for jizyah. If you didn't undertstand that, what are we talking about ?

and now, good night. the rest, tomorrow

-jizyah had a special meaning, being a symbolic humiliation of the "dhimmi". For this reason, there are cases where some Arab Christian tribes would insist on paying double zakat, instead of jizyah. This is also an indication, in my view, that jizyah for those tribes would have been quite higher than zakat



Please see above.



And I replied by saying that we would discuss one issue at a time. Seeing as how you haven't answered to the bulk of my rebuttals, I see no way in which we can progress from Jizya to Kharaj.



But you also didn't reply to my question about your SOURCES for this.



And I have stressed that and GIVEN EXAMPLES from sources which indicate that the Jizya was paid back in certain circumstances like if the Muslims could not defend the people from whom they were collecting Jizya from.

Again, it's a shame that you haven't replied to my rebuttals.



It may be difficult but it's not impossible. All you need is some figures and calculators.

Again, you had a chance to rebut my argument but you didn't.



I only quoted what was relevant to our discussion namely the amounts to be paid as the Jizya. The discussion was not about whether it is fair or not or whether it was a "submissive tax" or not.



I have responded to your arguments in my earlier post yet I seem to have had no reply. However, this means that I have had to engage with you in the same discussion with the same rebuttals that I had made earlier. If you have no recourse or no reply argument, please do not peddle the same arguments to other people in this forum in the hope of gaining controversy or whatever your aim is.

*By "selective replying", you have attempted to steer the discussion on grounds which you feel are safer.

this is really a ridiculous post.

You should learn that performing victory dances usually means the opposite : it is an admission of defeat

anyway, it's too late. But you will get yours tomorrow, don't worry

OK, take out the second paragraph of my post (comparing the treatment of jews to muslims) and concentrate on my first paragraph.

You seem like an intelligent guy: why are the US building camps all over America, on the pretext that they are for people's safety in national emergencies, when they have watchtowers, barbed wire facing inwards, with not one, but two layers of fencing with roughly ten feet between each fence?

At the same time, why did Barack Obama - on New year's day - sign a defense bill which allows the US military to arrest and detain anyone indefinitely?

If this isn't a country preparing to detain large quantities of people in the near future, what's going on, in your opinion?

x

x

it's not a problem of "fair trade" : I give you 5 suspects, you give me 5... if you want another one, you have to surrender me one more of yours etc etc...

there are some principles set in the extradition agreement. The full evidence can be examined only in the trial, but as I indicated, you cannot hold a trial before each extradition

Once again : don't confuse extradition with a guilty verdict. People are extradited so that they receive a trial, on the basis of international agreements, and the assumption that they will receive a fair trial. The UK and the US, in other words, trust each other that their justice systems operate according to the rule of law. If such trust is not there any more, similar agreements are usually terminated.

The UK agreement with the US has been criticized in the past (especially in the case of the NatWest three) but it was upheld in past reviews. People may of course ask for a new review.

So, it is disingenuous to consider that the agreement is some sort of Islamophobic operation : this is simply how extradition works

Actually, while there is no trial before extradition, and you're probably right in suggesting one can't be had to find them guilty or not, you're wrong in thinking it is not feasible for the evidence to at least be examined before deciding on whether extradition can occur or not. This happens now to an extent after America request an extradition of a person, but in Baber's case, not all the evidence was looked at before the decision to allow extradition was given, which is why Baber's lawyers feels this extradition was falsely approved because a lot of evidence was sent over before being looked at (something a few MPs want to know the reasons behind).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9174104/Extradition-treaty-with-US-needs-radical-overhaul-say-MPs.html

The home affairs select comittee concluded its report recently that found the treaty "one-sided", so they clearly consider the issue of fairness to be an important one and one they want overhauled. Mariachi, just because this is the way things are now, it doesn't mean its Gospel and can't be changed. The MPs urge that an evidence test be required before the decision to extradite be given to sure up the need and validity for extradition. They also want a forum bar introduced which will allow judges to determine where the trial can occur. At the moment, this doesn't seem to be the case, so no challenge is made as to the location of the trial. I think both of the these recommendations are very wise and should be introduced to prevent people unnecessarily being extradited and to allow them to be tried in the UK if judges deem that acceptable. This is the point High Voltage seems to be making.

LOL mariachi when did i say it was an Islamophobic operation?

Noasaer you explained that amazingly (Y)

Yeah that'll be it. Or maybe it's because he has to face charges relating to terrorism.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot he was muslim! So terrorist must be the answer, obviously, what was I thinking?

Those are the charges against him. The idea that these charges are against him simply because he's a Muslim is absurd and it panders to the "boo hoo I'm a victim" mentality of some. That's not the case at all, just like it's not the case that this is simple because "America has too much time on it's hands."
The USA appears to have a case against him, he therefore is going to stand trial. That is why.