seed of islamic dominance


#1

the surrah instructs

surrah 9:29 " fight agaist those who 1. believe not in Allah 2. nor forbid that which is forbidden by Allah and his messenger 3. and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the scripture(jews and christians) until they pay jizyah(tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued"

Let us analyze.
What is the Command? : to fight(not to defend)
to fight whom?: non believers(kafir)
Is the command to fight conditional?no the command is without condition and the only condition is "until the non belivers pay jizyah(tax)"
Is the command to fight offensive? yes because it says fight the non believers until they PAY JIZYAH(TAX). The fact that there is imposition of jizyah(tax) implies a conqured people under muslim control otherwise if it is a defensive fighting how can they impose jizyah(tax) when is self defense you do not conquer people?

comment: IS IT not the payment of jizyah(TAX) BY UNBELIEVER
IS an act of economic strangulation to force a non beliver to convert to islam to free himself from this burden?what if he is poor?what is the consequence of not paying tax?

is it not the imposition of jizyah(tax) a violation od ones freedom og religion?a human right? by means of jizyah(tax), the faith of non muslims becomes expensive hence forcing him to abandon his expensive faith just to feed himself.


#2

[quote=memnoch_lover]the surrah instructs

surrah 9:29 " fight agaist those who 1. believe not in Allah 2. nor forbid that which is forbidden by Allah and his messenger 3. and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the scripture(jews and christians) until they pay jizyah(tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued"

Let us analyze.
What is the Command? : to fight(not to defend)
to fight whom?: non believers(kafir)
Is the command to fight conditional?no the command is without condition and the only condition is "until the non belivers pay jizyah(tax)"
Is the command to fight offensive? yes because it says fight the non believers until they PAY JIZYAH(TAX). The fact that there is imposition of jizyah(tax) implies a conqured people under muslim control otherwise if it is a defensive fighting how can they impose jizyah(tax) when is self defense you do not conquer people?

comment: IS IT not the payment of jizyah(TAX) BY UNBELIEVER
IS an act of economic strangulation to force a non beliver to convert to islam to free himself from this burden?what if he is poor?what is the consequence of not paying tax?

is it not the imposition of jizyah(tax) a violation od ones freedom og religion?a human right? by means of jizyah(tax), the faith of non muslims becomes expensive hence forcing him to abandon his expensive faith just to feed himself.
[/quote]

All your answers are here: answering-christianity.com/jizyah.htm If he is poor he doesn’t have to pay the jizya, also it is not to encourage him to accept Islam, because after he accepts Islam he still has to pay the zakat which is usually more than the jizya. By the way the jizya money is used to protect the Christians and their churches and places of worship etc. It all goes in the cause of their religion.


#3

Yet more misinformation,

BAT YE’OR is an expert on the history of Dhimmitude…This is what her research reports :

DHIMMITUDE

Like the rules of jihad, the rules of dhimmitude were elaborated from the Koran, the hadiths and the biographies on the Prophet. Those laws and their religious justification were taught throughout the Islamic Empires. Despite some differences in the four schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, there is a quasi unanimity in matters concerning the dhimmis. The fundamental rulings relevant to them were established quite early. We read of them extensively in Abu Yusuf (731-98), a follower of Abu Hanifa (d. 767) the founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. He expounded them in a treatise written for the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). Their implementation over the dhimmi populations is mentioned by numerous Muslim jurists throughout the centuries.

The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace’. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of ‘toleration’ is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres*sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.

**The first ‘right’ is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi… The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel. **

Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was **not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." **

Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their ‘protection’ as they no longer pay the jizya.

dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

Read it all above.


#4

un_dhimmi I don’t think you read the article I posted below. Go back and read it please.


#5

And what makes you think I didn’t ?

I am welll aware of what jizya and zakat is.

To begin with, your intial post contradicts what is on the link you provided :

You said :

he still has to pay the zakat which is usually more than the jizya

while your site says :

The Muslims have to pay taxes (which is 2.5 percent of their annual income) under the name of “Zakah” to the “Muslim Financial Institute” or the “House of the Muslim Money” which all goes to provide welfare to the poor and the needy citizens; from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The poor and the needy (such as the Orphans, Widows and the disabled) from the Muslims are exempt from paying taxes.

The non-Muslims have to pay the same amount under the name of “Jizyah”, which is taxes that don’t go to help poor and needy Muslims, but instead, it goes to the government

So there is a disconnect. You say it is less, your site says it is the same.

Which is it ?

Secondly, why would Allah want dhimmis to until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

Why should dhimmis feel subdued ?

Thirdly, you try to beatify the concept of jizya by claiming it was to “Provide means for them to practice their religions freely by building Temples or Churches for them”. Do you have any clue of what the rules of dhimmitude are ?

Let me help you :

In “The Laws of Islamic Governance”, al- Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned Baghdadian jurist, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e., shari’a) law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self-administration in religious and civil law. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement. Furthermore, dhimmis, including those living under “enlightened” Turkish domination, suffered, at periods, from slavery (i.e., harem slavery for women, and the devshirme child levy for Balkan Christian males), abductions, and deportations.

Not at all very nice, actually.


#6

I am sorry. I believe that I heard from a scholar that jizya is sometimes less than zakah (and in some cases it might be). Since I am not a scholar, I will leave them to answer your questions and misconceptions. Please read these:

islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=64354

islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=63995


#7

[quote=un_dhimmi]And what makes you think I didn’t ?

I am welll aware of what jizya and zakat is.

To begin with, your intial post contradicts what is on the link you provided :

You said :

while your site says :

The Muslims have to pay taxes (which is 2.5 percent of their annual income) under the name of “Zakah” to the “Muslim Financial Institute” or the “House of the Muslim Money” which all goes to provide welfare to the poor and the needy citizens; from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The poor and the needy (such as the Orphans, Widows and the disabled) from the Muslims are exempt from paying taxes.

The non-Muslims have to pay the same amount under the name of “Jizyah”, which is taxes that don’t go to help poor and needy Muslims, but instead, it goes to the government

So there is a disconnect. You say it is less, your site says it is the same.

Which is it ?

Secondly, why would Allah want dhimmis to until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

Why should dhimmis feel subdued ?

Thirdly, you try to beatify the concept of jizya by claiming it was to “Provide means for them to practice their religions freely by building Temples or Churches for them”. Do you have any clue of what the rules of dhimmitude are ?

Let me help you :

In “The Laws of Islamic Governance”, al- Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned Baghdadian jurist, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e., shari’a) law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self-administration in religious and civil law. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement. Furthermore, dhimmis, including those living under “enlightened” Turkish domination, suffered, at periods, from slavery (i.e., harem slavery for women, and the devshirme child levy for Balkan Christian males), abductions, and deportations.

Not at all very nice, actually.
[/quote]

A) why should they feel subdued?

because if they dont then that means they ARENT subdued, which means they are fighting, which means terror in the streets and rebellion, which isnt good for either muslim nor non-muslim. The Iraqis have not been subdued, the Afghanis have. There is a comparison.

B) Who on Earth wrote that unbelievable biased and extremely opinionated article? Dude, if you want to find what happens to on-muslims in a muslim country, go to the sites Emad sent, not something like that, which has literally no evidence to support his claims.


#8

Do you have any idea of what the rules applied to dhimmies are ?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.