Jizya in Quran is compensation and war reperation and not tax

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

sounds as though you are just learning about the reality i have been aware of for more than 40 years.
reality might be a new thing to you dear, but remember, i am the OLD hag.
not a lot you could enlighten me about, so don't waste your preciuos time...PREACHING.
i think some of you kids have IMAM COMPLEXES.

if you really knew, how come you say stupid things?

People get wiser when they become older. What happened to you?

[faye]

so point out what was so stupid. i was pointing out facts, before you stuck your bib in.

[faye]

they didn't do that because they cared about poor and helpless Afghans.

see, you butted in to change the subject.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

so point out what was so stupid. i was pointing out facts, before you stuck your bib in.

its stupid so say what you said because you clearly know that they are not doing any help because of charity and good will.

Its like me saying: " well some Muslims who are thieves and criminals do sell drugs at discount prices to their customers in parts of Birmingham and London where they provide for the needs of the local British drug addicted community."

We all know that those guys are not doing so because Islam teaches them this. Neither do they do so because of charity and good will.

So why would you say such a thing?

[faye]

lol, give your poor wee brain a rest will you and stop babbling rubbish.

[Bigmo]

Yeah, and in Canada my taxes net me free healthcare, education, world class infrastructure, and subsidized post secondary education. In addition to the material benefits, I'm also considered a fully equal citizen here. The Dhimis were second class citizens and paid solely for a privilege which was formerly a right. If you're going to now argue that I'm not really an equal citizen and that this somehow justifies a 7th century practice, skip it; it's disingenous and a waste of time.

Lastly, morality evolves. It's evolution is a function of reality which in turn is a function of the socio/political/technological changes of any period in time. They are all ontologically connected.

The question here is not whether Jizya was beneficial or not or whether it was fair or not. The question here is whether Jizya as understood by the Quran is what Muslim authorities claimed it was.

Jizya was mentioned in the Quran only when the believers where about to enter Mecca whose inhabitants forced the believers out of Mecca and then initiated wars against them to sway them from delivering the message of the Quran.

I dont know about you but if I was forced out of my land and lost my home and property and business and whatever else I owned and then returned vivtorious I would want some orm of compensation or reperation.

Later Muslim authorities applied that to anyone who is living under a Muslim state who is not a Muslim. They can call it what they want but it has nothing to do with the Jizya the Quran used in verse 9-29.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The question here is not whether Jizya was beneficial or not or whether it was fair or not. The question here is whether Jizya as understood by the Quran is what Muslim authorities claimed it was.

Jizya was mentioned in the Quran only when the believers where about to enter Mecca whose inhabitants forced the believers out of Mecca and then initiated wars against them to sway them from delivering the message of the Quran.

I dont know about you but if I was forced out of my land and lost my home and property and business and whatever else I owned and then returned vivtorious I would want some orm of compensation or reperation.

Later Muslim authorities applied that to anyone who is living under a Muslim state who is not a Muslim. They can call it what they want but it has nothing to do with the Jizya the Quran used in verse 9-29.

That argument faiils since it was the Infidels that forced the Muslims from Makkah. The verse in question 9:29 has nothing to do with the scenario you describe.


also your narrative and interpretation is not contained within the Qur'an but is rather your own narration that you're interpolating into the Qur'an; this is no better than what you claim Jurists are doing.

[Bigmo]

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[2] monks, hermits and the poor,[3] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory.[47] There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.[14][48]
Though jizya was mandated specifically for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[49] Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.[citation needed]
In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their religion. Their economic and political security was guaranteed by the Islamic state, provided that they accepted Islamic control.[50] They could not serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. If someone refused to pay the jizya, he could be imprisoned.[51] The jizya was used for paying the salaries of state servants, pensions and on charities. In some instances, however, it ended up in "private" treasuries.[4]
According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of Harun al-Rashid, those who didn't pay jizya should be imprisoned not to be let out of custody until payment. Though it was an annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments.[14]
If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Sahih_Bukhari

The thing about Sunnis and Shia authorities is they never tell us the whole story about their Islamic law and often we have to research ourselves.

This shows why Jizya as understood by the Islamic sects really was established for the benefit of the rulers. It has nothing to do with Islam. Hadiths the justifies such behaviors were fabricated probably by the rulers so they can enjoy all these oppressive policies and claim that its Islamic. The people who collaborated with them on this will go to hell no doubt.

Quran is peace!

[khushal]

The argument here is about unfair taxation without representation. One of the main reasons behind the American revolutionary war and is still a debated issue to this day.

In Islam a muslim is a citizen of the republic where he/she forego the jizya tax and a non muslim is not a citizen and is obligated to pay that tax. Is this fair?

One must list the obligation of muslims vs non muslims that reside in the republic.
Who is obligated to contribute to the armed forces, public administration through service or other means. I believe non muslims were free from this obligation but enjoyed the benefits of protection from it. America has voluntary armed forces, but during draft time, residents whether they are citizens are not but reside in the republic are forced into the draft. President Clinton is infamous for dodging the draft.

If one looks at Puerto Rico which is a territory of the US whose residents are non US citizens is debated about unfair taxation without representation. The residents of Puerto Rico pay more federal taxes than the benefits they receive compared to the citizen residents in the states that pay federal taxes. Now the question arises is it fair for those residents to pay the taxes but receive less benefits. Now one can say that Puerto Rico is protected by the US but still they contribute fighting men to the US armed forces so still their contribution is still more compared to what they receive.

In the US all states were once territories except for the original 13 colonies. The residents in those territories all paid more in federal taxes than what they received in benefits until they became a state which was done through a referendum. The territories received protection from a big power that other powers feared.

Another good example is NATO. The vast majority of the financial burdon and members of the armed forces is contributed by the US while European nations are the main benefactors of the alliance. It was them that was protected from the Soviets. Some Americans argue that is one of the reason why Europeans can pay for free education and free healthcare for its citizens. They don't have to pay for defence.