Jizya in Quran is compensation and war reperation and not tax

[Afghanistan2010]

Je ne sais pas --- ?

[Perseveranze]

While Jizya was a reasonably good idea for the 7th century it cannot be justified by modern morality. It is time to look to the future rather than be tethered to the 7th century. Islamic values might be applicable for all time but certain archaic customs and rituals are temporal in nature and should be left buried in the past.

What are you talking about? You are paying a lot more in taxes (in secular countries) then Dhimmi's paid in Jizya.

In the UK theres stuff like road tax, tv licences and so on, it just piles up. Even western orientilists admit how cheap Jizya was during the Early Caliphates -

To these Dhimmis - Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabaeans, Jews - the Umayyad caliphate offered a degree of toleration hardly equated in contemporary Christian lands. They were allowed the free practice of their faiths, and the retention of their churches, on condition that they wear a distinctive honey-colored dress, and pay a poll tax of from one to four dinars ($4.75 to $ 19.00) per year according to their income. This tax fell only upon non-Moslems capable of military service; it was not levied upon monks, women, adolescents, slaves, the old, crippled, blind or very poor. In return the dhimmis were excused (or excluded) from military service, were exempted from the two and a half per cent tax for community charity, and received the protection of the government. Their testimony was not admitted in Moslem courts, but they were allowed self-government under their own leaders, judges and laws. - Will Durrant, The Story of Civilisation:

.And we're talking Umayyad here, it was probably cheaper during the Rashidan. If the above tax is oppression, then I wonder what you think today's taxes are.

ps. Modern morality? Lol, there is no "modern morality", it's not something that can be objectively judged. What you might think is moral, someone else probably won't think is moral. So the "morality" argument is fairly weak.

[faye]

[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;614668]Shows how you demonize islam and throw gas into fire...please read the history of islam.

dumbo, i am reading the history of islam by muslim historians as well as others. maybe you should stop looking through that ONE EYE ONLY.

remember that ancient chinese saying -"he who sees through one eye
only use half of brain"

[Dota]

What are you talking about? You are paying a lot more in taxes (in secular countries) then Dhimmi's paid in Jizya.

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.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The Dhimis were second class citizens and paid solely for a privilege which was formerly a right.

What is your proof?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I looked at the verses

Who are you?

[Perseveranze]

Yeah, and in Canada my taxes net me free healthcare, education, world class infrastructure, and subsidized post secondary education.

1. Despite the above, the Jizya was still considered cheaper in that context of time.

2. None of the above would be barred from being included in an Islamic state, in fact a lot of the stuff you mentioned were already guaranteed in an Islamic state. For example;

Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab alone used Social Security

·To provide Food during serious drought or famines to the people according to the family size.

· For the poor and disabled

·To provide education to the children

·To finance marriages of the unmarried poor or needy persons.
· Child benefits

· To grant old age benefits and in old age investment

· To give loans for economic activity

· For granting Interest-free loans
· Disability health care

· To pay off the debts of persons under obligation

· As Social Insurance to pay blood money of convicts in involuntary homicide

· To pay stipends to widows, married and unmarried women, young men and the immigrants.


etc.

'Allama Shams ad-Din ar-Ramili ash-Shafi'i in his book, Nihaya Al-Muhtaj lla Sharh Al-Minhaj makes it clear that non-Muslims are like Muslims in this regard and that their protection from suffering is an obligation upon the Islamic society. He further explains that there are two opinions on this issue: (1) To provide non-Muslims with the means to protect their lives and, (2) To provide suitable provision. As the second is more recognized, they should be given suitable dress and suitable food according to summer and winter seasons, including medicine, treatment, and servant charges. The Muslims should also struggle to free their non-Muslim warriors from prison.(Yusuf Al Qaradawi, Non Muslims in the Islamic Society, p. 8-9)

and so on. Undoubtedly, you would get more benefits + women and other people in society that would usually pay taxes, would be completely exempt from jizya.

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 wouldn't have none of this in Islamic state. The difference between Jizya and current day taxes is a huge margin.

And finally, read this, shows a comparison to todays health care problems with the early Caliphates - http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/th...n-the-khilafah

And this is the best read, it compares current taxes to Islamic tax - http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/th...am-and-taxatio I'll quote -

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.

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.

"formaly a right"? Before his time, the whole welfare system was never carried out the same way Umar(ra) carried it out.

You have the jews of Jerusalem, the Syrians, the Spanish, then you had those ruled by the Byzantines paying less taxes/less oppression, same in Persia etc. - all gained better rights upon the arrival of Islam.

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.

Sorry, but how does this change the fact that morality is subjective? Was hitlers actions against Jews a case of biological morality (especially considering most germans saw it as "morally acceptable"?) And how can you even say "evolved morality" is the correct morality? How can you say something like that won't happen again?

In this respects, morality has absolutely no meaning.

[faye]

perseveranze, bear in mind that some muslim countries are also kept afloat by aid from taxes of the secularists, who are so despised here.
it is ironic that the west is blamed for every ill but never seen also, as those taking in the refugees running from abuse by other muslims and giving financial aid, annually to - iraq, bangladesh, afghanistan, pakistan and indonesia. these are just some of the countries that benefit from the billions of tax $ aid annually, and for special circumstances, such as tsunamis, floods, earthquakes etc.

[Perseveranze]

perseveranze, bear in mind that some muslim countries are also kept afloat by aid from taxes of the secularists, who are so despised here.
it is ironic that the west is blamed for every ill but never seen also, as those taking in the refugees running from abuse by other muslims and giving financial aid, annually to - iraq, bangladesh, afghanistan, pakistan and indonesia. these are just some of the countries that benefit from the billions of tax $ aid annually, and for special circumstances, such as tsunamis, floods, earthquakes etc.

How's that different to what countries like Saudi and other Muslims nations who donate to natural disasters do? And with the west (with all their colonial riches), it's hardly without some personal benefit. Look at Pakistan, because they jailed a traitor (like any country would) the USA are now cutting down on their funds. Otherwise the funds were a good exchange for the thousands of lives lost in drone bombings. That's why Al Shabab don't really accept western aid, as they believe that it's not without intention of wanting something back. The US also never really gave aid to Afganistan when they were dying of hunger before they decided to invade and wreck the place even more.

It's also known that at least half of taxes (in USA at least) goes towards military expenses.

Anyways, I just had to make the point clear to the other guy, who tried to say "Jizya is oppressive" when in reality, it was much cheaper than what you are paying today, not to mention the numerous people that were exempt from it + Muslims had to pay Zakat (and only the poor/unable are exempt).

[Perseveranze]

Jizya is paid for protection. Protection from whom? From the Muslim himself obviously.

Should the Islamic state become unable to abide by the contract, it may not collect the Jizyah. This rule was followed by Abu 'Ubaidah when he learned of the situation in several Syrian cities. Syria had fallen into the hands of the Muslims, but as the Romans were gathering troops to regain it, he decided not to undertake the protection of the non-Muslims. The Jizyah was, therefore, returned with the announcement:


We have returned your money to you because we have been informed of the gathering of the enemy troops. You people, according to the conditions stipulated in the contract, have obliged us to protect you. Since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we are returning your money to you. We will abide by the conditions as agreed upon if we overcome the enemy. (Related by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj)


Thus, a huge amount was taken from the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed,


"May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property. (Imam Tabari, Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 1, p. 2050)


Link

[faye]

afghanistan was being aided, at least developmentally, by america and others, when i was there in 1977. people told me that different countries had built hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. if i remember correctly, it was russia, america and england
wasn't aid given via pakistan to help afghans fight the russians.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

afghanistan was being aided, at least developmentally, by america and others, when i was there in 1977. people told me that different countries had built hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. if i remember correctly, it was russia, america and england
wasn't aid given via pakistan to help afghans fight the russians.

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

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

perseveranze, bear in mind that some muslim countries are also kept afloat by aid from taxes of the secularists, who are so despised here.

They only do so in order to serve their own interests.

Why wouldn't they help those poor African Americans, Latino's and Native Americans in reservations and projects and ghetto's?

Why doesn't Australia use its money to help Aborigines? Why isn't India helping millions of poor Indians who live like rats?

Why isn't Britain helping their own Irish, English and Scottish ''chavs" who live like second class citizens?

Why would they go out of their way to help "Muslims" thousands of kilometres away from home?

[faye]

in case you hadn't noticed, we were talking about the tax systems. not whether they cared about others or not.
well, sometimes afghans don't care about afghans either. that's life.

[faye]

They only do so in order to serve their own interests.
Why wouldn't they help those poor African Americans, Latino's and Native Americans in reservations and projects and ghetto's?
Why doesn't Australia use its money to help Aborigines? Why isn't India helping millions of poor Indians who live like rats?
Why isn't Britain helping their own Irish, English and Scottish ''chavs" who live like second class citizens?
Why would they go out of their way to help "Muslims" thousands of kilometres away from home?

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.