[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by The Owl of Minerva)
Not always and not that often in the colonial context. In fact the elevation of Christianity over pagan "Hinduism" was a large part of Orientalist colonial discourse. Read Richard King's "Orientalism and Religion" in this regard.

And lest we forget, the protestant work ethic of Max Weber was also a famous attempt at attributing economic progress to Religion and is debated even today.

Orientalist colonial discourse also denigrated the practice of islam as some pervertion of true christian values- and can be viewed in the same light-
That essentially is the point being asserted in this thread, not that the phenomenan is unique to islam.

WHat perhaps is different is the fact that a modern generation of islam still mimic this hypocritical dual-opinion. I have read of critisim of , for example US expansion of political and military influence, but never of the same that occurred to a much greater extent under islamic banners.

[Risserd]

because criticism ones own actions or faith is big taboo in islam. youll never hear a muslim say sorry.

[madders94]

It always happens in pretty much every religion. God is never a bad guy for killing thousands of people every day, but every new life born into the world is a miracle sent from God

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by cheetahs56)
Mate, the prophet (PBUH) freed his slave and adopted him as his son. Muslims bought slaves just so they could free them. And other countries were invaded as a result of attack on them, so are you saying if you're country is attacked you stand buy and be oppressed. And funny how Christians are quick to forget the brutal Crusades which were pointless aren't you?

So no, the invasions were Islamic, as SELF-DEFENCE is Islamic. So kindly get you're facts right.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC ChaCha A810e

"Muslims bought slaves just so they could free them"
sorry lad, this comment is just stupidity - if it were true all the millions of slaves bought during the 990 or so years of the arab slave trade would have been free and muslims would have been bankrupt for spending all their money freeing them

This view highlights the problem being addressed on this thread ie - when directed to subject of slavery in islam, muslims pre-programmed response is "slaves were only taken to be freed"
simarly "muslims only invaded other peoples lands in self defence"

Both statements in fact largely garbage, but commonly circulated by muslims on tsr anyway. And What do the crusades have to do with this duality of morals?

So why could they not admit the actual fact that muslims regularly invaded countires simply as part of colonisation throughout islams history and operated the biggest slave trade in human history ( the arab slave trade)

[Marco1]

(Original post by Elipsis)
It is called cognitive dissonance. Whereas some religions and cultures look at the negative aspects and rationally question how they can improve or *shock horror* entertain the idea they might be wrong, a Muslims first line of defense is deny deny deny - attack back. Imagine if you were heavily brainwashed from the day you were born, on a daily basis, and you suddenly discovered that everything you'd be taught was a lie. It would be much easier to deny what people were saying about your religion/cult than it would be to accept that you'd be lied to by all your friends and family.

I think the comment above is a very perceptive and important one and I would certainly agree with it. I would like to add this phrase to ponder on: "The psychology of Islam?". It strikes me that the religion of Islam has a psychology of inretractability and inability to accept apostacy and see validity or spiritual truth in any other religion or spiritual writing. This is not even due to a perceived lack of spiritual depth and quality of these other writings/teachings but simply because of coercive, threatening statements in the Koran. In my opinon a person most close to God can understand that God is in all people and wishes no harm towards them but seeks to understand others. A religion which imbues a dislike of Jews and Christians and can justify the bloodthirsty persecution of them (e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Indonesia) is not a spiritual path at all, but an unhealthy, immature dogma.

[Flash7]

As an ex-Muslim, I am all too aware that you are taught that the Qur'an is the absolute word of God and that you cannot question it. If you have doubts about Allah, the Qur'an or the Prophet Muhhammad, it's the devil trying to bring doubt into your mind. Open mindedness is not preached. Instead, it's steadfast belief and faith in a religion that's written in a language that most of the world does not speak.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Marco1)
In my opinon a person most close to God can understand that God is in all people and wishes no harm towards them but seeks to understand others. A religion which imbues a dislike of Jews and Christians and can justify the bloodthirsty persecution of them (e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Indonesia) is not a spiritual path at all, but an unhealthy, immature dogma.

Since you know so much about Islam, maybe you can show me where it encourages the persecution of "Christians and Jews"?

[Norton1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Since you know so much about Islam, maybe you can show me where it encourages the persecution of "Christians and Jews"?

I believe that it mandates extra taxes (dhimmi) for Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Norton1)
I believe that it mandates extra taxes (dhimmi) for Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands.

Can you tell me what these "extra" taxes are?

[Norton1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Can you tell me what these "extra" taxes are?

Read the wiki page, I'm not going to do your research for you.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Norton1)
Read the wiki page, I'm not going to do your research for you.

Why would I be stupid enough to get info on Islam from wiki lol (maybe if the sources are checked, which takes a while and most are pretty bad)? Why don't you show me what the extra taxes are? I just simply want to know your understanding of it, what extra taxes it is you're talking about that equates to persecution. Jizya? or something else?

[Norton1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Why would I be stupid enough to get info on Islam from wiki lol (maybe if the sources are checked, which takes a while and most are pretty bad)? Why don't you show me what the extra taxes are? I just simply want to know your understanding of it, what extra taxes it is you're talking about that equates to persecution. Jizya? or something else?

Wiki is actually an excellent source.

It looks as if Jizya is part of the dhimmi, so probably so. I'm no expert, you asked for an example of discrimination and I gave you one which was justified with reference to the hadiths etc.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Norton1)
Wiki is actually an excellent source.

Certainly not, especially on stuff that's debated so often, such as religion etc. You'd be pretty naive to read something there (which is user edited, just like me and you can go and do it ourselves) without checking on the sources used.

You look at most Islam pages (and it's probably the same on other religious/historical pages ), and not only are sources pretty bad/cherry picked, but in the "Talks" page, there's always "revert (changing edits) wars" and a whole bunch of arguments. It's definitely bad in many Islam based articles.

Point is, I have never seen or nor will I expect to see, any Academic who's doing an Academic paper to write; "Reference; Wikipedia".

So, I'd advise you, if you like to learn about Islam, do it from more credible sources or at least sources you know you can verify.

(Original post by Norton1)
It looks as if Jizya is part of the dhimmi, so probably so. I'm no expert, you asked for an example of discrimination and I gave you one which was justified with reference to the hadiths etc.

Sorry, but you said persecution, not "discrimination". Which defeats the purpose of the argument, since the original poster (Marco1) said Islam teaches persecution of Jews and Christians. So I take it that can't be proved, unless Marco wants to enlighten us.

This is the context in which persecution is always used;

---

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times ‘by the sword’ to get them to abandon their faith. - Uri Avnery, Jewish Writer, Muhammad's Sword (September 27, 2006)

---

As for the claim Dhimmi's having to pay taxes known as Jizya, as "discriminatory", then I think we should first evaluate the context here. Remember, we're looking at Religious (Islamic) law on this subject.

1. Dhimmi's paid Jizya, however, Muslims would pay Zakat. And from a historical perspective, sometimes Dhimmi's would pay more taxes, sometimes Muslims would pay more taxes. It just depended on various factors of certain periods.

It is agreed by all however, that the tax Dhimmi's paid, should not in any way be burdening or difficult.

---

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:

I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."

---

2. Now, let's see which Dhimmi did not pay Jizya;

---

There are conditions which may exempt non-Muslims from paying the Jizyah tax, which could be summarized as follows;

- Women and children are excused absolutely
- Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich
- Needy (poor), slaves and mad-men
- Day laborers, servants or wageworkers
- A chronically ill-man even if he is rich
- Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories
- If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.
- If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax.

(See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Umm¸ pp. 172-1)

---

Only healthy, able, young men, who can afford it, would pay the Jizya.

In contrast to the above, all Muslims had to pay Zakat, unless they are poor or children. By your logic, it would sound more "discriminatory" toward Muslims than Dhimmi's.

3. Dhimmi's were exempt from Military services and the Muslims were obliged to protect them.

And yes, there were times where Dhimmi's fought alongside Muslims and did not pay jizya. And yes, there were times when Muslims weren't properly able to protect the dhimmi's and so they returned all their jizya back to them (Christian Syrians being the most famous example).

---

This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Call To Islam, pp. 79-81)

---

So imagine, being invaded etc. Usually, every abled person would have to go to war regardless. But in the Shariah, the Dhimmi has no obligation to take up arms, whereas the Muslims are, especially in protecting the Dhimmi's.


4. Although not as related, it's still worth noting. Look at the taxes you pay in the west today;

In the west you have;

income tax
capital gains tax
corporate tax
property tax
inheritance tax
expatriation tax
transfer tax

The list just goes on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

You don't have the above in Islam. In fact, it's theoretically calculated, that with the legality of the taxes Shariah permits, people would probably be better off.

---

In Islam although simplified, the wealth tax falls at 2.5%. This means that the within one year, the average person can save at is at least £10,000. This means that the average person will have an extra £700 to spend each month as he will not be taxed on his income.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/th...am-and-taxatio

---

Anyways, the idea that jizya is "discriminating" is a false one. I'm sure when Jizya was abolished, the Muslim leaders/governments would've been happy, because now they weren't limited to who they could tax or how much they could tax them. Yes, there may have been times in history when rulers would make Jizya oppressive (by overburdening Dhimmi's), but we know in Islamic legality, this isn't a valid action.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
X

Meh.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Sorry, but you said persecution, not "discrimination". Which defeats the purpose of the argument, since the original poster (Marco1) said Islam teaches persecution of Jews and Christians. So I take it that can't be proved, unless Marco wants to enlighten us.

So is there discrimination in your opinion?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
As for the claim Dhimmi's having to pay taxes known as Jizya, as "discriminatory", then I think we should first evaluate the context here. Remember, we're looking at Religious (Islamic) law on this subject.

1. Dhimmi's paid Jizya, however, Muslims would pay Zakat.

Zakat is charity, Jizya is tax. There is a difference.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And from a historical perspective, sometimes Dhimmi's would pay more taxes, sometimes Muslims would pay more taxes. It just depended on various factors of certain periods.

It is agreed by all however, that the tax Dhimmi's paid, should not in any way be burdening or difficult.

---

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:

I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."

"[B]eyong their capabilities". Hmm because that is specific. No room for abuse there.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

---

2. Now, let's see which Dhimmi did not pay Jizya;

---

There are conditions which may exempt non-Muslims from paying the Jizyah tax, which could be summarized as follows;

- Women and children are excused absolutely
- Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich
- Needy (poor), slaves and mad-men
- Day laborers, servants or wageworkers
- A chronically ill-man even if he is rich
- Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories
- If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.
- If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax.

(See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Umm¸ pp. 172-1)

---

Only healthy, able, young men, who can afford it, would pay the Jizya.

In contrast to the above, all Muslims had to pay Zakat, unless they are poor or children.

Right, so not "all Muslims" as you incorrectly said.

And the poor? You are talking about Islamically defined poor according to Nisab?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
By your logic, it would sound more "discriminatory" toward Muslims than Dhimmi's.

Except Zakat is charity, Jizya is tax.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
3. Dhimmi's were exempt from Military services and the Muslims were obliged to protect them.

And yes, there were times where Dhimmi's fought alongside Muslims and did not pay jizya. And yes, there were times when Muslims weren't properly able to protect the dhimmi's and so they returned all their jizya back to them (Christian Syrians being the most famous example).

---

This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Call To Islam, pp. 79-81)

---

So the classical scholars of Islam are in agreement that Muslims should fight the people of the book until they either convert, pay jizya, or serve in the Islamic army? What Islamic scripture are they using to back up their stance?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
4. Although not as related, it's still worth noting. Look at the taxes you pay in the west today;

In the west you have;

income tax
capital gains tax
corporate tax
property tax
inheritance tax
expatriation tax
transfer tax

The list just goes on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

You don't have the above in Islam. In fact, it's theoretically calculated, that with the legality of the taxes Shariah permits, people would probably be better off.

---

In Islam although simplified, the wealth tax falls at 2.5%. This means that the within one year, the average person can save at is at least £10,000. This means that the average person will have an extra £700 to spend each month as he will not be taxed on his income.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/th...am-and-taxatio

---

Anyways, the idea that jizya is "discriminating" is a false one. I'm sure when Jizya was abolished, the Muslim leaders/governments would've been happy, because now they weren't limited to who they could tax or how much they could tax them. Yes, there may have been times in history when rulers would make Jizya oppressive (by overburdening Dhimmi's), but we know in Islamic legality, this isn't a valid action.

Funny how you used wikipedia as as source in the same post as the one in which you started out chastising the OP for using it as a source himself.

Do you honestly think that any state can function with a level of taxation at a flat rate of 2.5%? Really?

[Marco1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Since you know so much about Islam, maybe you can show me where it encourages the persecution of "Christians and Jews"?

These are just some:

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (5:73) - “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Here Trinity obviously refers to Christians. The funny thing is that Christians believe in ONE God also, but have a trinitarian theology. Also, muslims seem to think Mary is part of the Christian Trinity which is a plain wrong.)

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
This seems more bloodthirsty than spiritual to me.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Why would I be stupid enough to get info on Islam from wiki lol (maybe if the sources are checked, which takes a while and most are pretty bad)? Why don't you show me what the extra taxes are? I just simply want to know your understanding of it, what extra taxes it is you're talking about that equates to persecution. Jizya? or something else?

Jizya is largely accepted to equal protection money, like the mafia do -
Ie "we invade your country with a muslim army and claim governance, you dont all have to convert to islam, becuase apparantly there is no compulsion in islam. There are however regular raids, rapes, murders, kidnappings and pillaging of your lands and possesstions from our soldiers that we wont be able to stop, unless you cough up some money (jizya) on a regular basis , whereupon they will all miraculously stop."