Islam: How was it spread?

[amateurdentist]

Good that you did not try to refute it [Hindus converted to Islam due to Jazya]

yes meant that i refute it. that was your question. reread my first line again.

During Aurengzeb's era, no one cared if you cud afford it or not.
and if you cannot, your only option was to embrace Islam.

(only instance he didn't enforce this was for deccan as he was told that hindus would just leave the region)

where did you read this? have you considered that alot of his taxing was for the expensive wars he fought against both muslims and hindus? both his muslim and non-muslim citizens had to bear that burden

Your comparing zakat vs jazya is silly... as during that era, only 1 hindu out of 1000 would be in Zakat bracket.

it was not silly when earlier in the thread you claimed that non-muslims had to pay 70% of their yearly income as jizya while muslims paid 2.5% as zakat. which is clearly not the truth

 

[Black Zero]

yes meant that i refute it. that was your question. reread my first line again.

Okay, then we need to agree on facts first before we can proceed.

I will scan some pages tomorrow for your review.

 

[Saqs]

What would be interesting is to map out the various reasons that all the major religions spread (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc.)

I would think cultural relativity, and historical context would have a lot to do with how each of the religions spread.

Islam was just around to fill a void where others had failed. And it did a great job at that.

Whether that be in Arabia where the slaves and women had no rights, or in India where there was an existing caste system, or in Africa - where the simplicity of the religion compared to others that existed at the time was so attractive (e.g. early Islam had none of the opulence that we see in the grand mosques around the world now).

 

[amateurdentist]

read the thread over the last 2 pages. you use wikiislam and you used wikiislam for your Kinanah "arguement" and you tell people not to use material from a historian? .

 

[Solid Snake]

I quoted an Orientalist to prove how it was universally accepted that the so called pact of Umar had nothing to do with him.

The first time I had even heard of the pact was from an Islamic speaker, who mentioned it was falsely attributed to Umar by later jurists (just in case you were trying to present it as if Muslims believe it to be correctly attributed to him), and that it had no Islamic authority.

Furthermore, no country on Earth imposes the so called Pact, and that includes the likes of Saudi and Iran. So much for the 'spirit' of it still being followed to this day.

No churches allowed to be built or repaired in the Middle East? Wow thats news to me seeing as I've lived in several Middle East countries all my life. And to back up that baseless accusation, you provide a news article stating the BIGGEST Church in the gulf is under construction, which has attracted some clerics to protest. Good job!

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

heres one when you lied about the meaning about verse 60:8



and also you didnot tell the whole truth about kinanah. half truths are also a form of deception/lies

also post #199 where you claim islam is responsible for the difficulty in church repair/building in egypt when in fact it was a 19th century law enforced by hosni mubarak

Also to add the above, he says no churches are being built in the middle east, another lie as the first church was built in Qatar 4 years ago and I believe another one is set to be complete by the end of this year

 

[Garuda]

Good question(s), if I may copy/paste the following extract it answers your questions

Sir Thomas Arnold, an early 20th century orientalist, gives an example of a Christian Arab tribe which avoided paying the jizya altogether by fighting alongside Muslim armies "such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty".

Looks like its an exact example of questions I raised.

Which makes it clear that if this has already happened, this nagates the need of taxation on the basis of religion in a state.

End of the day, it says, if you can fight for the state, you do not pay tax. If not you pay tax.

It shouldn't target a or few religion. even if a muslim who do not want to fight in the army should pay the tax too.

 

[Garuda]

Jizya is not protection money. The protection of all the citizens are responsibility of the government and the army.

If an eligible non-muslim decide to serve in the military and ready to fight in the battlefield then he will be exempted from paying jizya.

For Muslim adult its required for him to have at least military training. But the Jizyah will also be imposed on Muslim men who want to be exempted from military service.

So, I assume this tax is not linked to a religion but dependent on whether you join army or not. (irrespective of if you are a muslim or not). Even a muslim adult will have to pay this tax if he is not joining army. Correct?

Again Jizya is not protection money and eligible non-muslim can also avoid paying it as explained above.


Jizya is a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.




Lets think this way that there are 2 citizens both are eligible for paying of jizya.

One citizen will be serving in the military ready to fight and also ready to give his life in the battlefield to protect the 2nd citizen.
And the 2nd citizen is providing financial contribution to the 1st citizen in this service.

1st citizen life at stake. (Exempted from jizya)
2nd citizen contributing financially. (paying jizya)

I don't think there is any discrimination here.

Again fair enough and again you say the same thing that it's not targeted to a religion but dependent on whether you give your service to state or not (irrespective of religion).

Now question arises, why is the need? they could have just said you pay this tax if you are not in army. What was the need to have a different tax for muslims and diff for non-muslims?

 

[the Great Khan]

So, I assume this tax is not linked to a religion but dependent on whether you join army or not. (irrespective of if you are a muslim or not). Even a muslim adult will have to pay this tax if he is not joining army. Correct?




Again fair enough and again you say the same thing that it's not targeted to a religion but dependent on whether you give your service to state or not (irrespective of religion).

Now question arises, why is the need? they could have just said you pay this tax if you are not in army. What was the need to have a different tax for muslims and diff for non-muslims?

Because the Zakaat is written into our faith..hence it is an obligation thus we have to pay it no matter what..and as mentioned I believe we have to pay a form of Jizya to get out of army service too so thats twice the fun for us..add in other govt taxes and if you do calculate we probably end up paying more..

although in the old days Muslims were discouraged to do dawa in the newly conquered territories to help the excequer, as Non Muslims would pay the Jizya..also understand in the 7th 8th centuires a conquering army would normally : Chrisitan(convert or die, rape, pillage etc etc), Persian( rapae,pillage, slavery etc etc, plus taxes, plus more slavery), tartars( rape pillage, rape, destroy, burn,) Vikings( rape pillage, well you get the idea), Muslims(Islam,jizya, war) you had a choice..

 

[Garuda]

Because the Zakaat is written into our faith..hence it is an obligation thus we have to pay it no matter what..and as mentioned I believe we have to pay a form of Jizya to get out of army service too so thats twice the fun for us..add in other govt taxes and if you do calculate we probably end up paying more..

although in the old days Muslims were discouraged to do dawa in the newly conquered territories to help the excequer, as Non Muslims would pay the Jizya..also understand in the 7th 8th centuires a conquering army would normally : Chrisitan(convert or die, rape, pillage etc etc), Persian( rapae,pillage, slavery etc etc, plus taxes, plus more slavery), tartars( rape pillage, rape, destroy, burn,) Vikings( rape pillage, well you get the idea), Muslims(Islam,jizya, war) you had a choice..

Well, I am not challenging the fact that who used to pay more or who less.

I am trying to understand the need for different tax system for muslims and non-muslims and then see if it was for some reason.

Now if you read some posts, some says jizya was for protection but some says it was not.


Now, Zakaat is a religious mandate and not a state mandate. So if muslims pay zakkat that shouldn't be an excuse to tax non-muslims to balance it.

Secondly, where was the money collected from Zakaat was being used?

Like jizya was for protection from invaders what was the use of Zakkat ?

 

[the Great Khan]

Well, I am not challenging the fact that who used to pay more or who less.

I am trying to understand the need for different tax system for muslims and non-muslims and then see if it was for some reason.

Now if you read some posts, some says jizya was for protection but some says it was not.


Now, Zakaat is a religious mandate and not a state mandate. So if muslims pay zakkat that shouldn't be an excuse to tax non-muslims to balance it.

Secondly, where was the money collected from Zakaat was being used?

Like jizya was for protection from invaders what was the use of Zakkat ?

to be honest I'm not sure why there is a different tax other than it being a protection tax. Everything I have read points to this e.g the conquests of khalid etc. To get a better Idea one would probably have to study the economic sysem adopted by the later caliphates e.g. the ottomans who regulary employed non muslims and perhaps Tipu. I cant give you a specific answer but I'll catch up on some historical research and let you know.

Zakaat wasnt the only tax, there were others, but Zakat was essentially a requiremnt on the people. It was collected and placed into the baitul maal. this money was then used for social welfare, e.g. orphanages, protection houses for women, caravan serais, welfare funding, etc etc...in the old days madrassa's were part of the masjids that were funded sepearatley to zakaat.

Zakaat is the medieval equivalent of british national health insurance.

Jizya was used to buy weapons, equipment and construct defence installations like keeps, moats etc..the rulers own wealth was also used for this. The army was generally salaried (faaris) with additional ghazi's (volunteers) and some slaves (Mamlukes) who were generally the best soldiers (elite)..

then you had sadaqa that would be colected into trusts(waqfs) that would look after Masjids,schools, hospitals, caravan serais,

tax collection got infinitley more complicated in the 19th and 20th centuries so i would have to look that up..

 

[youboy]

So, I assume this tax is not linked to a religion but dependent on whether you join army or not. (irrespective of if you are a muslim or not). Even a muslim adult will have to pay this tax if he is not joining army. Correct?

Correct.

Earlier it was compulsory for adult Muslim who is eligible to join the army and serve in battlefield. Later it was also introduced that if they pay the jizya amount as non-Muslims do then they can be exempted.

Again fair enough and again you say the same thing that it's not targeted to a religion but dependent on whether you give your service to state or not (irrespective of religion).

Now question arises, why is the need? they could have just said you pay this tax if you are not in army. What was the need to have a different tax for muslims and diff for non-muslims?

Here we are going in circles as I said earlier

Muslim serving in the army by physically participating in it.
Non-Muslim supporting the army by financially participating.

The Muslims and non-Muslim citizen are required to serve different duties under the government or under the ruler.

There are no different tax for Muslims or non Muslims in Islam as a citizen of the state. There is no concept of the current type of income tax which an employee pays in Islam as it is in this current world, Even in these so called Islamic republic countries collecting of this kind of Income tax is against Islam. Example: Pakistan. That is the reason I call Pakistan as a secular republic as 90% of the laws contradict with laws in Islam. There are some other taxes like land tax, or tax on the crop which were taken by only those farm owners or lets say in the current world can be taken by industry owner etc. and these taxes are equal for both Muslims and non Muslims citizen. An employee whose income depends only on his job doesn't have to pay a single tax or any other hidden tax likes sales tax etc. The employee will take his whole monthly income in his pocket and still receive all the basic facilities under Islamic welfare state.


Jizya
The word jizya is derived from the word 'jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state.
So here an eligible non-Muslim is paying compensation to the government if not willing to serve in the army.
It is not protection money or showing discrimination towards non-Muslims or considering them as a 2nd class citizen or forcing them to pay jizya.


Zakaat
A little off topic but i think Zakaat needs to exlained here.
Zakaat is not a tax on income for Muslims. It is a religious obligation and a percentage amount to be paid yearly on whatever savings kept for one year. (people not meeting the minimum savings eligibility are exempted).
The Zakaat money is distributed to the poor people of the society.

It is not an Islamic law that government should collect the Zakaat. People have to give the minimum required amount on their own. Under specific government it was seen that some people were not following this religious obligation by holding back their wealth and are committing this sin of not giving Zakaat due to which the poor people of the society are not getting the benefit. Then this rule was introduced by that specific government or ruler that the Zakaat will be collected by government and then they will distribute it. As far as I know that there is no Zakaat collection department under government in most Islamic countries, people do give Zakaat on their own. Also in Pakistan it was introduced at the time of General Zia that a part (not full) of the minimum required zakaat payment will be deducted annually from the savings of the Muslims annually

Now question arises, why is the need?

How do you show your loyalty to the government or the ruler or the country. "Like we say Aey watan tujh per jaan qurbaan".

An eligible Muslim is showing his loyalty by serving in the army and ready to fight in the battlefield.
An eligible Non Muslim is showing his loyalty by providing financial support to the army.

For a Muslim Jihad bil saif (Fight with sword) in the name of Allah is a religious duty and an honour and if he dies (receive Shahadat) then great rewards await him.
For non-Muslims this concept of Jihad is not there in their religion, so forcing them to join army for this cause even if they are eligible will be discrimination. Then how do they show loyalty to the army and the ruler. Jizya was introduced that even if they are not serving in the army but they are supporting the army financially and hence providing material proof also that they accept the government laws and the Caliph as their ruler.

 

[James]

I know this is complex and I frankly suck at economics; I was wondering how these taxes ultimately work out. Because I can appreciate a fair bit of what is in Islamic law, particularly the requirement for irrefutable evidence before serious convictions, but I don't fully understand the Muslim and non-Muslim financial situation.

Say, hypothetically, myself and a Muslim both earned twenty thousand pounds gross per annum under Sharia, what would be our respective net salaries? Would we be equal in the end?

 

[anakin]

apart from religious texts .. where the prophets converted the non-believers by their aura( such cases are there in all religious books )
history is littered with political, financial and social persecutions on all sides forcing people to convert.

 

[the Great Khan]

I know this is complex and I frankly suck at economics; I was wondering how these taxes ultimately work out. Because I can appreciate a fair bit of what is in Islamic law, particularly the requirement for irrefutable evidence before serious convictions, but I don't fully understand the Muslim and non-Muslim financial situation.

Say, hypothetically, myself and a Muslim both earned twenty thousand pounds gross per annum under Sharia, what would be our respective net salaries? Would we be equal in the end?

youd probably end up with more..as you wouldnt need to pay zakaat and be "asked" to pay sadaqa etc..
you would simply be asked to pay jizya and thats it...no income tax, zakaat,sadaqa etc etc..

 

[James]

In the Sharia state is it legally arranged that the zakaat and sadaqa should be paid? Or would these still be more of a religious obligation/recommendation for the individual to mull over?

Either way I would be quite happy to pay my jizya, particularly if it worked out as less than income tax plus National Insurance

 

[the Great Khan]

In the Sharia state is it legally arranged that the zakaat and sadaqa should be paid? Or would these still be more of a religious obligation/recommendation for the individual to mull over?

Either way I would be quite happy to pay my jizya, particularly if it worked out as less than income tax plus National Insurance

it was legally maintaned eventually because hey you have to run a country right?? and now it would be even more rigourosuly maintained coz you gotta pay for roads etc and modern hospitals etc etc..youd have to computerise it and so forth..

so yeah you would get off cheaply..cheapskate..lol

 

[James]

Would we also get an NHS? (I don't think we appreciate that enough in the UK sometimes) This sounds better and better

 

[Garuda]

Correct.

Earlier it was compulsory for adult Muslim who is eligible to join the army and serve in battlefield. Later it was also introduced that if they pay the jizya amount as non-Muslims do then they can be exempted.

Good, so we both agree that its a tax or service situation.

You give service to the army or pay tax. Fair enough.

The confusion is it is being showcases as if only non-muslims used to pay this tax.

If you confirm that muslims also paid this tax, I don't see any issue. (Unless you can claim that there were no muslim adult who didn't serve for army).

Here we are going in circles as I said earlier

Muslim serving in the army by physically participating in it.
Non-Muslim supporting the army by financially participating.

I will reduce the debate to more smaller questions as my doubt is very particular and not trying to challenge it.

If I take your comments in above quote, it feels non-muslims never wanted to fight for their state or they are not allowed to.

If a muslim can fight for his state so as a non-muslim. Why jizya in the name of religion?

It should have been protection tax for all religion. Isn't it?

 

[the Great Khan]

Would we also get an NHS? (I don't think we appreciate that enough in the UK sometimes) This sounds better and better

theoretically , yes you would get universal medical coverage since the hospitals would be funded by the populations zakaat and sadaqah..whetehr it would be in exactly teh same form as the NHS is anyones guess especially with islams promotion of capitalism too..so you would probably have some private hospitals and govt ones and also charitable institutions...in general you would theoretically pay nothing for alot..but we would get you to pay for all the shiney weapons and tanks muwahaha..

 

[ahsan88]

Advice your Sir Thomas W. Arnold's "The Preaching of Islam", a massive book which details the introduction of Islam by geographical area (that's what makes it less "academic"... or boring.)
Freely available in the e-galaxy:

http://archive.org/details/preachingofislam00arnouoft

Not found a better work on the said subject.
For those interested in India, it's the chapter 9 (pp. 208-242.)

Most brilliant.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[youboy]

Good, so we both agree that its a tax or service situation.

You give service to the army or pay tax. Fair enough.

The confusion is it is being showcases as if only non-muslims used to pay this tax.

If you confirm that muslims also paid this tax, I don't see any issue. (Unless you can claim that there were no muslim adult who didn't serve for army).



I will reduce the debate to more smaller questions as my doubt is very particular and not trying to challenge it.

If I take your comments in above quote, it feels non-muslims never wanted to fight for their state or they are not allowed to.

If a muslim can fight for his state so as a non-muslim. Why jizya in the name of religion?

It should have been protection tax for all religion. Isn't it?

I think with the below explanation, your this doubt should be clear.

Non-muslims or Muslims who dont want to serve in the Army will pay Jizya. If they want to serve in the army and fight for the country they are exempted from Jizya.

The most important part "The fight is not only to defend the country".

One type of Jihad with sword is that when a rule of Islam is established in the state and it is stable and capable enough both economically and military it has to expand, Other cities or countries should come under the rule of Islam (rule of Allah). Definitely to expand not every country or city will accept to pay Jizya and come under the Muslim state government. So there will be battles or wars with the opposite army.
For a Muslim it is a religious cause in taking part in those wars or battle but for non-Muslims their is no religious cause to take part in them. So a non-Muslim will say that I don't want to take part in the battle as that battle can be with the people of his religion. So in a normal state he will be disobeying the government or the ruler. By giving Jizya as a financial support to the army is an act of him accepting the government laws (of this kind of Jihad) and the rule of the country and subordinate of the government and he will be exempted to take part physically in the army and still will receive all the facilities and protection as any other citizen of the state by the government.

 

[Garuda]

I think with the below explanation, your this doubt should be clear.

Non-muslims or Muslims who dont want to serve in the Army will pay Jizya. If they want to serve in the army and fight for the country they are exempted from Jizya.

Fair enough with this view. But we have agreed with this point.

Your second point is what is the confusion.

The most important part "The fight is not only to defend the country".

One type of Jihad with sword is that when a rule of Islam is established in the state and it is stable and capable enough both economically and military it has to expand, Other cities or countries should come under the rule of Islam (rule of Allah). Definitely to expand not every country or city will accept to pay Jizya and come under the Muslim state government. So there will be battles or wars with the opposite army.
For a Muslim it is a religious cause in taking part in those wars or battle but for non-Muslims their is no religious cause to take part in them. So a non-Muslim will say that I don't want to take part in the battle as that battle can be with the people of his religion. So in a normal state he will be disobeying the government or the ruler. By giving Jizya as a financial support to the army is an act of him accepting the government laws (of this kind of Jihad) and the rule of the country and subordinate of the government and he will be exempted to take part physically in the army and still will receive all the facilities and protection as any other citizen of the state by the government.

Are you sure this is the reason ???

If this is the reason then you are accepting

1. Islam was spread with sword.
2. It was not a religion which was peaceful as it always wanted to spread by hook or crook.
3. So if non-muslims don't want to fight with others of same religion, the state asks them money ??

So muslims can have ummah and do jihad but others should either fight for muslims or help muslims financially to kill their ppl ??

Do you see the double standard ??

I guess this is not a reason as you are conflicting yourself with many of your other posts about Islam.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Fair enough with this view. But we have agreed with this point.

Your second point is what is the confusion.



Are you sure this is the reason ???

If this is the reason then you are accepting

1. Islam was spread with sword.
2. It was not a religion which was peaceful as it always wanted to spread by hook or crook.
3. So if non-muslims don't want to fight with others of same religion, the state asks them money ??

So muslims can have ummah and do jihad but others should either fight for muslims or help muslims financially to kill their ppl ??

Do you see the double standard ??

I guess this is not a reason as you are conflicting yourself with many of your other posts about Islam.

This question of yours makes no sense, who exactly will help muslims financially kill their people? If a non-Muslim lives in an Islamic state, Jizya would be necessary for him (providing the conditions are met) and that Jizya would fund weaponry etc BUT if a non-Muslim is not comfortable with that then they could go live elsewhere*


*not too dissimilar to say a Muslim that pays tax in the UK, that funds the army (be it directly or indirectly) - if somebody finds that extremely uncomfortable then a simple solution is to move elsewhere

I might be mistaken (and apologies if I am) BUT your questions are kind of advocating a "have your cake and eat it approach" - you can't as a non-Muslim live in an Islamic state, receive the various benefits BUT not pay for it

 

[chacha kashmiri]

i cant remember what hapened to mohammed ali when he didn't enlist into the army

 

[Garuda]

This question of yours makes no sense, who exactly will help muslims financially kill their people? If a non-Muslim lives in an Islamic state, Jizya would be necessary for him (providing the conditions are met) and that Jizya would fund weaponry etc BUT if a non-Muslim is not comfortable with that then they could go live elsewhere*

Isn't it double standard ?

You hear in this forum ppl advocating how muslims all over the world are same irrespective of country and shouldn't fight or help anyone invading muslim world.

But at the same time, you fine it is mandatory for non-muslims to join (either self or financially) with muslims to invade other lands where their fellow religion ppl would get killed?

*not too dissimilar to say a Muslim that pays tax in the UK, that funds the army (be it directly or indirectly) - if somebody finds that extremely uncomfortable then a simple solution is to move elsewhere

Yes, but here in UK the tax for muslims is not because they are muslims. The tax is uniform accross religion. So the argument is not valid here.

We are trying to understand why there were different tax for different religions. And honestly none have provided an answer.

I might be mistaken (and apologies if I am) BUT your questions are kind of advocating a "have your cake and eat it approach" - you can't as a non-Muslim live in an Islamic state, receive the various benefits BUT not pay for it

No, You misunderstand.

I am talking about non-muslims who are living in their own country. Muslims have invaded and taken over many states. So he is not living in a muslim state, he is living where he was.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

But at the same time, you fine it is mandatory for non-muslims to join (either self or financially) with muslims to invade other lands where their fellow religion ppl would get killed?

Uptill the end of the ww1, the world was a free for all of other countries invading other countries and creating their mark across the world
You might criticise the mughals but during their reign there were hindu rulers who went around fighting and creating bloodshed

As for different tax codes, non muslims don't pay zakah, muslims do

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Non-Muslim men must pay a nominal tax called Jizya that gives them full citizenship rights, exempting them from National Service and taxes specific to Muslims like zakat . Jizya is means tested and there are different bands for different levels of wealth. Caliph Omar imposed three bands for the Jizya tax - 4 dinars (£108) for the rich, 2 dinars (£54) for the middle class and 1 dinar (£27) for the poor. The Jizya tax rate is much lower rate than that of zakat , t herefore the tax burden of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims in the Caliphate.


http://www.caliphate.co.uk/caliphate/nonmuslims.htm

 

[Garuda]

Uptill the end of the ww1, the world was a free for all of other countries invading other countries and creating their mark across the world
You might criticise the mughals but during their reign there were hindu rulers who went around fighting and creating bloodshed

As for different tax codes, non muslims don't pay zakah, muslims do

As I understand that is a religious mandate and not a state tax.

All religion ppl contribute or donate as per their religion need.

By the way, for my knowledge, what is Zakah spent on?

 

[speed]

As I understand that is a religious mandate and not a state tax.

All religion ppl contribute or donate as per their religion need.

By the way, for my knowledge, what is Zakah spent on?

not all only those who can afford to.

 

[Garuda]

not all only those who can afford to.

was that same for jizya also? I mean only those will pay who can afford to?

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

was that same for jizya also? I mean only those will pay who can afford to?

Yes

Women, Children, elderly, poor, sick etc were exempt. It was only payable for adult males that were physically fine and had the financial capability to do so

Honestly, it isn't the evil system it is made out to be by some

 

[Garuda]

Yes

Women, Children, elderly, poor, sick etc were exempt. It was only payable for adult males that were physically fine and had the financial capability to do so

Honestly, it isn't the evil system it is made out to be by some

yaar, no where I have said it was evil or something like that.

Can we say that the tax system we have today is always fair to all ? No.

Just trying to understand the reason for different tax for diff religion. As you can see none can really have an answer.

Without a convincing answer it will always give ammunition for those who would like to show it as an evil system.

Anyway, I think I am out of this now as I feel I have got as much answer I could have and honestly I feel anyone has an clear answer.

 

[James]

I don't see how a lesser tax with a health service is a cruel system in theory...

However I do agree that being a non-Muslim minority under Sharia could be difficult in some ways…

 

[Lalafied]

The biggest benefit of an Islamic State will be the end of privatization of resources which would spell the end for multi-national corporations as well as end of the oppressive income tax + inflation (hidden tax) + sales tax etc.

Sound money will be the medium of exchange or currency aka Gold, Silver and commodities. A stable economy and and sound money would mean that people wouldn't have to work like machines like they have to today just to barely survive.

 

[shan]

The biggest benefit of an Islamic State will be the end of privatization of resources which would spell the end for multi-national corporations as well as end of the oppressive income tax + inflation (hidden tax) + sales tax etc.

Sound money will be the medium of exchange or currency aka Gold, Silver and commodities. A stable economy and and sound money would mean that people wouldn't have to work like machines like they have to today just to barely survive.

Yep lets go back to stone age while we are at.

 

[Lalafied]

Yep lets go back to stone age while we are at.

so you would rather put up with coming hyperinflation and go bankrupt overnight if your assets are in paper?

sounds to me you are the one living in stone age. quit trying to defend the damned status quo.

you would rather work like an animal or see people work like animals to barely scrap by? is that the only purpose in life?

best if you take your head out of the sand!

 

[shan]

so you would rather put up with coming hyperinflation and go bankrupt overnight if your assets are in paper?

sounds to me you are the one living in stone age. quit trying to defend the damned status quo.

you would rather work like an animal or see people work like animals to barely scrap by? is that the only purpose in life?

best if you take your head out of the sand!

People in western countries dont work like animals. And remember one thing there is not enough gold at current prices for everyone. The world is much better place then it was 50-100 years ago let alone 1000 years ago.

 

[Lalafied]

People in western countries dont work like animals. And remember one thing there is not enough gold at current prices for everyone. The world is much better place then it was 50-100 years ago let alone 1000 years ago.

oh really? because majority of the middle and lower class works multiple jobs. Of course I'm not taking into account the college graduates etc. but in cases of doctors they do end up working a LOT.

Gold is not the only medium of exchange in Islam which is why I said commodities will also be used as money if there's shortage.

The world technologically may be a better place but morally it is on a significant decline.

Islam is for all times, and the notion of Islam being against technology & innovation is completely bogus. To the contrary it promotes anything that will benefit mankind & doesn't go against Islamic beliefs.

The biggest benefit as I said will be the end of multi-nationals who are exploiting humanity. People are having to pay astronomical prices just to get basic necessities. Islam forbids privatization of resources which these multi-nationals have done.

 

[Buffet]

oh really? because majority of the middle and lower class works multiple jobs. Of course I'm not taking into account the college graduates etc. but in cases of doctors they do end up working a LOT.

Most wealthy people did not have same quality of life what an average person has today. If a king had to travel 2000 miles it would have taken ages to do so. There was hardly any cure for deadly diseases which are available to average Joe right now. There is absolutely no argument against humanity being better off now as compared to 200-300 years back.

People have to work very little now days for food but 300 years ago family would have died if rain did not come even after working 12 hours a day. A small percentage of average income goes for food in modern era. 200-300 years , it would have been horrible to be born in not well to do family.

 

[Lalafied]

Most wealthy people did not have same quality of life what an average person has today. If a king had to travel 2000 miles it would have taken ages to do so. There was hardly any cure for deadly diseases which are available to average Joe right now. There is absolutely no argument against humanity being better off now as compared to 200-300 years back.

People have to work very little now days for food but 300 years ago family will die if rain did not come even after working 12 hours a day. very little percentage of average person income goes for food. 200-300 years , it would have been horrible to be born in not well to do family.

The circumstances outlined are definitely not part of an Islamic State. And I acknowledged that humanity is definitely better off technologically but the status quo is leading mankind towards unimaginable catastrophe and Islam stands to not only counter it but provide the ultimate solution.

Food, fuel, water, shelter, clothing etc. these things will go up in price as inflation continues to cripple the purchasing power of paper money. This is visibly seen in 3rd world nations like Pakistan and India for example where middle & lower class are barely managing to get by. The time is not far when it'll be seen across America, UK and much of Western World as we;;. Heck it's already here, just see what has happened in Greece!

 

[youboy]

Fair enough with this view. But we have agreed with this point.

Your second point is what is the confusion.

Are you sure this is the reason ???

If this is the reason then you are accepting

1. Islam was spread with sword.

You are confusing yourself here. Can you differentiate here between spreading of Islam as a religion and expansion of Islamic State.

2. It was not a religion which was peaceful as it always wanted to spread by hook or crook.

Again you are confusing by the expansion of Muslim state and spreading of Islam as a religion.

The rule of Allah has to be established in the land. It is saying about expansion of Muslim state and government law to be established. Also it is not a personal choice it is an order.

Where it says enforcing of Islam as a religion or that every non-Muslim should become a Muslim?
That was and will remain the personal choice of the individual whether to accept Islam as a religion or not.

3. So if non-muslims don't want to fight with others of same religion, the state asks them money ??

So muslims can have ummah and do jihad but others should either fight for muslims or help muslims financially to kill their ppl ??

Do you see the double standard ??

I guess this is not a reason as you are conflicting yourself with many of your other posts about Islam.

Again you are confusing yourself here by using a point which was given as 1 of the example.
There can be umpteen reasons that a non-Muslim doesn't want to fight for the ruler or the government.
Maybe his religion doesn't allow to fight these kind of wars.
Maybe it his personal choice that he don't want to serve in army.
One of the reason can be that he doesn't want to raise his sword against the army comprising of people of his religion
etc etc.

Also a non-Muslim can serve in the army as a doctor, nurse, driver etc. where he would not have to raise his sword or gun to fight but still he doesn't want. For Muslims citizen the government can issue the law that they will not be exempted from taking part in the war even if they are willing to pay jizya amount as it was the case earlier to introducing jizya option for Muslims also. So here all the forcing thing is on Muslim citizens but non-Muslim have bigger rights that hey have an option that they can chose and they will not be forced to serve in the army.

By the way when 2 armies face each other. It does not say that an army of Islam facing army of any other religion.

It will say army of Muslim empire facing the army of Persian Empire or army of Roman Empire etc.

I think you ignored my point that jizya is an act of a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state showing loyalty to the government or a ruler.

Jizya is a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.

If you have another suggestion that there is another way a non-Muslim citizen can show his loyalty (in a most extreme case which is a battle or war) to a Muslim ruler or government then please bring it out here. Muslim will be very happy to listen to it.

To all people who think that Islam gives equal rights to Muslims citizens and non-Muslims citizens are wrong. Actually the rights of non-Muslim citizens are much bigger than a Muslim in a Muslim state. They have option to their have for their own education system for their children, they have option for their own judicial system and many more. They have option in all basic rights as a citizen of the state and it is not forced on them

 

[amateurdentist]

In the Sharia state is it legally arranged that the zakaat and sadaqa should be paid? Or would these still be more of a religious obligation/recommendation for the individual to mull over?

Either way I would be quite happy to pay my jizya, particularly if it worked out as less than income tax plus National Insurance

according to most applied rates of jizya, your jizya would be 5 times less than zakat you would have to pay to the state.

And if you accepted islam, you would have to pay zakat on your land, jewelry of your wife, any worthy thing you have and also for the adult members in your family, while as a non-muslim you would have to pay a fixed amount(5 times less than the zakat of a person earning a similar amount of income) and also not applicable for the women of your household.

and zakat is not a recomendation. it is a an Obligation and those who do not pay zakat are fought against for denying the rights of the state on them.
When the Prophet passed away, several newly converted tribes refused to pay zakat to Caliph Abu Bakr in Madinah. They however claimed to be muslims. Abu Bakr sent armies against them and took zakat by force. So you cannot say that zakat is just a form of charity which is recommended. It is one of the 5 pillars of Islam

 

[Wicket Hit]

Again you are confusing by the expansion of Muslim state and spreading of Islam as a religion.

Expansion of the Muslim state? And its disturbing hardly one or two posters have spoken out against this expansionist line of thinking. Do you not see anything wrong in going to a neighboring country who practice a different set of laws and asking them to impose Islamic rule? And if they refuse to do it, you don't see anything wrong in engaging them in a war? As long as people with this grandeur of Islamic dominance and expansion through violence exist and are sheepishly watched by other Muslims its difficult to envision a more positive image of Islam being accepted in the world. In fact, with such a line of thinking how can you even find anything wrong with any invasion of a Muslim country because all the other party is trying to do is expand it's ideology first by choice and if the Muslim country does not accept then by war. Oh and by the way you will still be allowed to practice Islam on a personal level.

 

[youboy]

Expansion of the Muslim state? And its disturbing hardly one or two posters have spoken out against this expansionist line of thinking. Do you not see anything wrong in going to a neighboring country who practice a different set of laws and asking them to impose Islamic rule? And if they refuse to do it, you don't see anything wrong in engaging them in a war? As long as people with this grandeur of Islamic dominance and expansion through violence exist and are sheepishly watched by other Muslims its difficult to envision a more positive image of Islam being accepted in the world. In fact, with such a line of thinking how can you even find anything wrong with any invasion of a Muslim country because all the other party is trying to do is expand it's ideology first by choice and if the Muslim country does not accept then by war. Oh and by the way you will still be allowed to practice Islam on a personal level.

Can you bring out any expansion which happened in the history or establishing and the expansion of Israel in the current world (Did the Jews came and fight with the army of Palestine and after winning the war established their ideology in the land. I cannot recall any other expansion in the 19th century other than this), in which a common Muslims were allowed to practice Islam according to their religion.

The history shows persecution of common Muslims and also people of other religions by British, Mongols, Romans, Spain etc.

For Muslims it is not a personal choice its an order by Allah (S.W.T.) to establish the rule of Allah in the land. The first thing is establish the rule of Allah within your land and then expand it to other area. Islam is total submission to Allah (S.W.T.). So any Muslim who is not accepting this is Nauzubillah going against Allah (S.W.T.) order.

 

[James]

.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Expansion of the Muslim state? And its disturbing hardly one or two posters have spoken out against this expansionist line of thinking. Do you not see anything wrong in going to a neighboring country who practice a different set of laws and asking them to impose Islamic rule? And if they refuse to do it, you don't see anything wrong in engaging them in a war? As long as people with this grandeur of Islamic dominance and expansion through violence exist and are sheepishly watched by other Muslims its difficult to envision a more positive image of Islam being accepted in the world. In fact, with such a line of thinking how can you even find anything wrong with any invasion of a Muslim country because all the other party is trying to do is expand it's ideology first by choice and if the Muslim country does not accept then by war. Oh and by the way you will still be allowed to practice Islam on a personal level.

Is how it works in Capitalism? I'd never really looked on it like that before but ultimately it's logical I suppose.

 

[Wicket Hit]

Can you bring out any expansion which happened in the history or establishing and the expansion of Israel in the current world (Did the Jews came and fight with the army of Palestine and after winning the war established their ideology in the land. I cannot recall any other expansion in the 19th century other than this), in which a common Muslims were allowed to practice Islam according to their religion.

The history shows persecution of common Muslims and also people of other religions by British, Mongols, Romans, Spain etc.

For Muslims it is not a personal choice its an order by Allah (S.W.T.) to establish the rule of Allah in the land. The first thing is establish the rule of Allah within your land and then expand it to other area. Islam is total submission to Allah (S.W.T.). So any Muslim who is not accepting this is Nauzubillah going against Allah (S.W.T.) order.

Oh yeah, the we poor Muslims are being persecuted by each and everyone throughout history sob story.

As for your last paragraph I suppose its fair game for non Muslims to eliminate Muslims as and when they can because if they don't do it while they have some semblance of power they will be forced to live under the law of Muslims in the future so they can quench their thirst for expansion following on from orders from Allah.

 

[Wicket Hit]

Is how it works in Capitalism? I'd never really looked on it like that before but ultimately it's logical I suppose.

Is capitalism a religion? Are people in Saudi Arabia forced to buy Pepsi? The thread is about the spread of a religion, specifically Islam. Someone from your religion is claiming that you are under orders from Allah to expand Islam, first by request and if the counter party does not agree then by war and force and all you can bring up is how McDonalds is taking over Pakistan?

 

[James]

I've encountered many decent Muslims but then there are Muslims like youboy. In a similar way, I've always been embarrassed that however many good Christians are out there, the atrocious ones ensure that Christianity is often associated with fundamentalism, violence and lunacy. Point is the problem isn't the ideology, it's the people.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is capitalism a religion? Are people in Saudi Arabia forced to buy Pepsi? The thread is about the spread of a religion, specifically Islam. Someone from your religion is claiming that you are under orders from Allah to expand Islam, first by request and if the counter party does not agree then by war and force and all you can bring up is how McDonalds is taking over Pakistan?

I didn't bring anything up, just highlighted a quote of yours because you brought up an interesting point. On the topic of Islamic expansionism when fighter planes from Muslim countries are flying over British skies I'll start to take it seriously.

 

[Garuda]

You are confusing yourself here. Can you differentiate here between spreading of Islam as a religion and expansion of Islamic State.

I think you are the confused one here my friend.

Everytime you are saying something that is conflicting with your past statements.

Islam is a way of life. Everything you do should be according to Islam. Isn't that what we have been hearing here ?

So when you expand Islamic state by war, how are you spreading peace ? Can you explain please?

Again you are confusing by the expansion of Muslim state and spreading of Islam as a religion.

The rule of Allah has to be established in the land. It is saying about expansion of Muslim state and government law to be established. Also it is not a personal choice it is an order.

Okay, If I agree with this statement though I can ask why, still tell me by what means ? By WAR ?

So how is it peaceful ?

If one has to either work in army or pay for invading other countries to spread islamic STATE, then how is the contribution peaceful ?

Please explain !!!

Where it says enforcing of Islam as a religion or that every non-Muslim should become a Muslim?
That was and will remain the personal choice of the individual whether to accept Islam as a religion or not.

Again, I haven't said any such thing. We are discussing about the need for different TAX system.

As per your view, the tax is not as per religion but depends on if you join the army or not to invade and spread islamic state.

So if an islamic state is ready to expand itself by war then it is not following its religion. Isn't it ? Remember defending is different than invading. You are talking about invading to spread.

Again you are confusing yourself here by using a point which was given as 1 of the example.
There can be umpteen reasons that a non-Muslim doesn't want to fight for the ruler or the government.
Maybe his religion doesn't allow to fight these kind of wars.
Maybe it his personal choice that he don't want to serve in army.
One of the reason can be that he doesn't want to raise his sword against the army comprising of people of his religion
etc etc.

Can you be sure ?

If someone's religion doesn't allow then why will he be forced to support financially ? Isn't it same thing ?

And this point is all your view and nothing to the debate. You are just assuming things here.

Also a non-Muslim can serve in the army as a doctor, nurse, driver etc. where he would not have to raise his sword or gun to fight but still he doesn't want. For Muslims citizen the government can issue the law that they will not be exempted from taking part in the war even if they are willing to pay jizya amount as it was the case earlier to introducing jizya option for Muslims also. So here all the forcing thing is on Muslim citizens but non-Muslim have bigger rights that hey have an option that they can chose and they will not be forced to serve in the army.

I think we have agreed on this point. So no point discussing.

If you join the army you don't pay, and if you don't you pay. Fair enough.

But like above, I said, you are now claiming something as per Islamic rule which is conflicting Islam. i.e. Invading other countries to spread the STATE (where as the religion asks for peace).

By the way when 2 armies face each other. It does not say that an army of Islam facing army of any other religion.

It will say army of Muslim empire facing the army of Persian Empire or army of Roman Empire etc.

I think you ignored my point that jizya is an act of a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state showing loyalty to the government or a ruler.

Jizya is a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.

If you have another suggestion that there is another way a non-Muslim citizen can show his loyalty (in a most extreme case which is a battle or war) to a Muslim ruler or government then please bring it out here. Muslim will be very happy to listen to it.

To all people who think that Islam gives equal rights to Muslims citizens and non-Muslims citizens are wrong. Actually the rights of non-Muslim citizens are much bigger than a Muslim in a Muslim state. They have option to their have for their own education system for their children, they have option for their own judicial system and many more. They have option in all basic rights as a citizen of the state and it is not forced on them

Again you are changing your point.

You said the army needs the service to spread Islamic STATE to nearby cities and countries. We are not discussing defence from invader.

I am challenging your view of spreading the state when calling oneself as follower of peaceful religion.

Jizya is a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.

So this is not a protection tax like you said earlier ? Why non-muslims need to acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws. Every citizen should. Right? So others who do not pay are not accepting of subjection of the state and its laws?


In all the above points, I basically challenged you on one

You are supporting spreading Islamic state by army. On the other hand you claim islam to be peaceful religion. So either the state is not following Islam or Islam is not peaceful.

Which one is true ???

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't really want to go through this whole thread as it's mostly academic. If we are talking about HOW Islam was spread, then like most other beliefs of the times I'm sure there might have been some swords at use at some point for whatever reason. Those were some pretty barbaric times by today's standards. Certainly the expulsion of Muslims from Spain at the hands of the Christians was no picnic. I don't think they were asked politely to leave or their passports would be confiscated.

If we are talking about Islam being spread by force today then that would be a pretty alarming matter. If it wasn't for the fact that the Muslim world is in about as much in a position to take over the world by force as the Teletubbies. Although actually the Teletubbies already did in any meaningful fashion.

 

[shakil]

In the Sharia state is it legally arranged that the zakaat and sadaqa should be paid? Or would these still be more of a religious obligation/recommendation for the individual to mull over?

Either way I would be quite happy to pay my jizya, particularly if it worked out as less than income tax plus National Insurance

Except that you may need to pay double taxation. First pay taxes to your own country and then pay jizya tax to the Khilafah for protection.

Or in the other case, if Muslims have captured your country because your don't agree to pay jizya, Muslims will sieze your property (as happens in wars) and force you to pay jizya anyway.

Take your pick.

Note that in Islam there are four schools of thoughts that people usually follows. Different school of thoughts have different rules of when to attack a non-Muslim nation.

I discussed this a long time ago with Abdulrazzaqfan at http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4406625&postcount=157

Edit: The link for the book is http://www.hoor-al-ayn.com/Books/6) Mashari Al-Ashwaq ila Masari al-Ushaaq [Revised Edition].pdf

Which discusses the opinion about aggressive jihad from the point of view of different fiqhs. This book is freely available for download from an Islamic website. It should clear things a lot for non-Muslims and provide better and objective opinions on Jihad other than from people like Robert Spenser, Sam harris etc.

 

[Solid Snake]

Wicket Hit, this thread deals with a historical topic, that is the spread of Islam.

The first thing a student of history is taught, is that a basic tenet of the practice of history is not to judge past events by todays standards, it's not fair nor is it useful. I don't want to harp on about this point, because it is universally agreed on, but if you disagree with this assertion we can discuss it further.

Back on topic, in the time frame we're looking at (the advent of Islam), possession of the Middle East region was constantly shifting back and forth between the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Empires were common before then and long afterwards, all across the world. Many nations that exist today, are based on Empires built of the past (e.g. China).

In the past, civilisations were built by Empires. The notion of sovereign states with fixed and recognised borders, believe it or not, didn't exist as they do today.

The Muslim Arabs established an empire that wrestled control of territories that had been under Persian and Byzantine control. It is however wrong to say that their religion or it's laws were imposed on the populations they governed. Non-muslims had the freedom to practice their faith and the right to follow their own legal and religious rulings; "The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts" (Mark Cohen, 1995)

If it's a so called Muslim's duty to spread Sharia across the planet, then why didn't the earliest Muslim rulers (companions of the Prophet(PBUH) no less!) actually implement this on the people that fell under their jurisdiction?

Islam, or it's rulings, cannot be imposed on anyone PERIOD.

 

[KingKhanWC]

And this is the main reason why there is "War on terror" going around. Whereas a few years back "Communism/Fascism" used to be the greatest danger to world peace (Hitler, Stalin etc.), these days "Khalifah/Jihad" is the greatest thread to humanity esp. with Pakistan having nukes. "US being at the forefront" has always been liked that ...

P.S. I don't subscribe to these views but it is important to make people realize that War on terror is not war against Islam but "War against Khilafah/Jihad"

The Caliphate was abolished around a 100 year ago. How can something which doesn't exist be the biggest threat to mankind?lol

As for Jihad in physical terms is simply the right of self defence, it's a universal principle every human being accepts.

The biggest threat to world peace is Zionism. You must have missed all the invasions, occupations, bombings, covert support for terrorist groups, support of dictators, assassinations in the last 10 years and throughout the last century.

You trolling right?

 

[Wicket Hit]

Wicket Hit, this thread deals with a historical topic, that is the spread of Islam.

The first thing a student of history is taught, is that a basic tenet of the practice of history is not to judge past events by todays standards, it's not fair nor is it useful. I don't want to harp on about this point, because it is universally agreed on, but if you disagree with this assertion we can discuss it further.

Back on topic, in the time frame we're looking at (the advent of Islam), possession of the Middle East region was constantly shifting back and forth between the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Empires were common before then and long afterwards, all across the world. Many nations that exist today, are based on Empires built of the past (e.g. China).

In the past, civilisations were built by Empires. The notion of sovereign states with fixed and recognised borders, believe it or not, didn't exist as they do today.

The Muslim Arabs established an empire that wrestled control of territories that had been under Persian and Byzantine control. It is however wrong to say that their religion or it's laws were imposed on the populations they governed. Non-muslims had the freedom to practice their faith and the right to follow their own legal and religious rulings; "The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts" (Mark Cohen, 1995)

If it's a so called Muslim's duty to spread Sharia across the planet, then why didn't the earliest Muslim rulers (companions of the Prophet(PBUH) no less!) actually implement this on the people that fell under their jurisdiction?

Islam, or it's rulings, cannot be imposed on anyone PERIOD.

My response to youboy was a slight tangent to the thread because of the manner in which he was advocating the conquering of other nations and impose Islam on them by peace or force. And also an element of surprise that his expansionist ideas hardly got any censure from other Muslims.

I agree with you that the initial Islamic conquests were largely political and it would be incorrect to ascribe religious overtones to them. But as I said earlier in the thread quoting from authentic historical sources that Islam in the subcontinent was spread by:

1. Force: Timur's autobiography saying how he killed hundreds of thousands of infidels, Tipu Sultan's open proclamations forcing Hindus to convert, Aurangzeb's letters to his generals commanding the destruction of temples etc. are well preserved historical documents whose veracity can easily be verified.

2. Inducements: Rulers like Tughlaq, Shah Jahan did conversions through offering inducements to Hindus converting to Islam like gifts, personal meetings with the emperor, priority in getting justice etc. Again these are well documented.

3. Missionaries: With the intermingling of Hindu and Muslim culture, Sufism gained strength. It made an alien concept of Islam more palatable to the local Hindu population, specially lower caste Hindus who frankly had little to look forward to in their lives as Hindus, in certain societies with a strong Brahmin influence.

However, some posters are trying to make the argument that spread of Islam was minimal at best by sword. That is not correct in the context of the Indian subcontinent, though it does largely hold true for South East Asia.

The worrisome part about youboy's post is that his ideology is no different from the fundamentalists who are giving a bad reputation to the religion. The justification that Allah commands a Muslim to impose Shariah nations not adhering to Islam is frightening and its also true a good number of Islamic fundamentalists do believe that to be the case.

 

[shakil]

The Caliphate was abolished around a 100 year ago. How can something which doesn't exist be the biggest threat to mankind?lol

Dude which planet are you living in. Check the video please

(Edit: Check from 4:53 onwards)
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1YM_dr0J7Q0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was starting to emerge in Afghanistan with Ameer Mullah Omar. Anyway, I said "Khilafah/Jihad" i.e. both are equally dangerous. For most common Muslims there is no Jihad before Khilafah but for many Jihad is an obligation even without Khilafah.

Off course, private security firms are making millions out of the war and perhaps oil is being taken from Iraq but War against jihad is the official implicit reason.

As for Jihad in physical terms is simply the right of self defence, it's a universal principle every human being accepts.

You are dead wrong and grossly misrepresenting Islam. If you don't know the position of the Aaama-e-Araba, the four imams then please don't describe Jihad.

Dude I posted link to a whole book about Jihad. There is an aggressive Jihad in Islam. There is no denying that. Check my post # 316 for details .

 

[Wicket Hit]

Dude I posted link to a whole book about Jihad. There is an aggressive Jihad in Islam. There is no denying that. Check my post # 316 for details .

It is discussions like these which are hugely irksome. I am not implying you are saying anything wrong, but making a broader point about how non Muslims are led to believe that Islam is the simplest of all religions and anyone can understand and follow it.

The ground reality is that over the past 1400 years there has been no universal or simply understood version of Islam. One set of people make certain claims and others the completely opposite claim. 1400 years and Shias and Sunnis haven't even been able to settle on the method of praying both claiming theirs is the correct way.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Dude which planet are you living in. Check the video please


It was starting to emerge in Afghanistan with Ameer Mullah Omar. Anyway, I said "Khilafah/Jihad" i.e. both are equally dangerous. For most common Muslims there is no Jihad before Khilafah but for many Jihad is an obligation even without Khilafah.

) ) ) You've really tickled me. Mullah Omar was the head of the Taliban who are only a few million in one Muslim nation, there are near 2 billion Muslims around the world. Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on Earth, it had no influence on any Muslim nation. There is no so called Jihad movement sweeping the planet, if there is name it.

Off course, private security firms are making millions out of the war and perhaps oil is being taken from Iraq but War against jihad is the official implicit reason.

lol, so the war against 'Jihad' was the reason for the Iraq war? That beats the WMD drama, Bush and Blair should have employed you.

You are dead wrong and grossly misrepresenting Islam. If you don't know the position of the Aaama-e-Araba, the four imams then please don't describe Jihad.

You go ahead, I'm all ears.

Dude I posted link to a whole book about Jihad. There is an aggressive Jihad in Islam. There is no denying that. Check my post # 316 for details .

Sure, what next I should spend a month in the library?

 

[shakil]

It is discussions like these which are hugely irksome. I am not implying you are saying anything wrong, but making a broader point about how non Muslims are led to believe that Islam is the simplest of all religions and anyone can understand and follow it.

The ground reality is that over the past 1400 years there has been no universal or simply understood version of Islam. One set of people make certain claims and others the completely opposite claim. 1400 years and Shias and Sunnis haven't even been able to settle on the method of praying both claiming theirs is the correct way.

Why assume that I have a certain agenda? In the exact same post, I also stated

For most common Muslims there is no Jihad before Khilafah but for many Jihad is an obligation even without Khilafah.

And I am stating "but for many Jihad is an obligation" based on my time spent with "Hizb ul tahreer" in Pakistan and "killing of Shias" in Pakistan.

As for Shia's (twelvers) Islam, if you want to know - their "Jihad" will resume when last imam come back

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It would help (if you want serious answers) if people would stick to the topic which was about how Islam was spread in HISTORY. If you want to discuss the current political situation in Pakistan or Londonistan today then probably another thread might be a good idea.

I did re-read the OP just to make sure that the poster did want to learn about how Islam came to be spread which was quite a while ago for the most part so I'm not really sure what relevance the War on Terror has to that.

 

[Wicket Hit]

Why assume that I have a certain agenda? In the exact same post, I also stated



And I am stating "but for many Jihad is an obligation" based on my time spent with "Hizb ul tahreer" in Pakistan and "killing of Shias" in Pakistan.

As for Shia's (twelvers) Islam, if you want to know - their "Jihad" will resume when last imam come back

I didn't want to imply that you have an agenda. Just quoted your post to make the broader point regarding the notion that Islam being a simple and easy to implement religion is far divorced from reality.

 

[shakil]

lol, so the war against 'Jihad' was the reason for the Iraq war? That beats the WMD drama, Bush and Blair should have employed you.

Seems like you never listened to the bbc radio link I posted. The whole post was about Afghanistan war and you quickly jumped to Iraq war for no reason.

You would do good to hear about the opinion of UK army general whose opinion has more weight than my opinion or yours.

The book, whose link I posted, is ~100 page long. It is a good book on the subject, written by a Muslim and goes through the point of view of all four fiqhs.

Rather than saying "I am all ears", listen to the youtube video I posted and read the book.

 

[shakil]

It would help (if you want serious answers) if people would stick to the topic which was about how Islam was spread in HISTORY. If you want to discuss the current political situation in Pakistan or Londonistan today then probably another thread might be a good idea.

I did re-read the OP just to make sure that the poster did want to learn about how Islam came to be spread which was quite a while ago for the most part so I'm not really sure what relevance the War on Terror has to that.

The "War on Terror" and crusades are pertinent to the discussion about how Islam spread. Discussing about the reality of Jihad is germane to the idea that Byzantine and Persian empire were attacked by Muslims and not the other way around.

Islamic historians will present a biased POV as they are Muslims. However, the orientalist have very little history to rely upon. Discussion the expansion of Islam and stating that Jihad is for defense only is bizarre to say the least.

 

[Lalafied]

Oh yeah, the we poor Muslims are being persecuted by each and everyone throughout history sob story.

As for your last paragraph I suppose its fair game for non Muslims to eliminate Muslims as and when they can because if they don't do it while they have some semblance of power they will be forced to live under the law of Muslims in the future so they can quench their thirst for expansion following on from orders from Allah.

Seems you've got your pants in a twist.

We Muslims believe that the reality of this world is an on going battle between Truth & Falshood, Islam vs Kufr. So either you dominate, or be dominated. And at the moment, we Muslims are being dominated. We have no Islamic leadership to defend our lands. The West wants Muslims to integrate into their ideals & values which can never happen. When they learned through the course of history that they cannot defeat Muslims through military means, they decided to launch an ideological attack to weaken the minds of Muslims and their convinction in Islam to lead them through. Post 9/11 we now see occupation of Muslim lands in the name of 'terrorism' which really is just a ploy to seize our resources and to enslave us to their tyranny.

Under Islamic Rule, Non-Muslims are free to practice their religion. And we do not kill civilians which include kids, women, elderly and religious clerics of different religions, neither do we destroy their places of worship. So we have rules of War if it comes to that.

But really as I mentioned previously, the first priority of the Caliph will be to expand the Caliphate throughout all Muslim nations, that in itself would be what we call Islamic Dawah to the world. I really believe, it wouldn't even come down to fighting wars if people can see the justice done by Islamic State by themselves. We wouldn't need to convince anyone. In fact we will invite the authorities of other states to come & see how

Islam is a Way of Life, so it encompasses politics & governance as well. What the West doesn't want is for Islam to re-emerge as a political power.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The "War on Terror" and crusades are pertinent to the discussion about how Islam spread. Discussing about the reality of Jihad is germane to the idea that Byzantine and Persian empire were attacked by Muslims and not the other way around.

Islamic historians will present a biased POV as they are Muslims. However, the orientalist have very little history to rely upon. Discussion the expansion of Islam and stating that Jihad is for defense only is bizarre to say the least.

Sorry but the idea of an expansionist Islam today is ludicrous which is why it is pointless in trying to link it with the actual expansion of Islam centuries ago. Stick to one topic and stop trying to link current events to historical ones. Unless like HT and Youboy you seriously believe that a bunch of warring tribes in flip flops and turbans are about to patch up their differences and plant the flag of Islam in Washington.

 

[James]

Unless like HT and Youboy you seriously believe that a bunch of warring tribes in flip flops and turbans are about to patch up their differences and plant the flag of Islam in Washington.

) A brilliant return to form!

 

[shakil]

Sorry but the idea of an expansionist Islam today is ludicrous which is why it is pointless in trying to link it with the actual expansion of Islam centuries ago. Stick to one topic and stop trying to link current events to historical ones. Unless like HT and Youboy you seriously believe that a bunch of warring tribes in flip flops and turbans are about to patch up their differences and plant the flag of Islam in Washington.

Did you listen to the UK general's opinion about it in post # 329. But anyway you don't need to reply to my posts if you think that they are not relevant to the OP.

 

[PakPrince]

so whatss the last 5 pages been about?

qucik summary

 

[shakil]

Unless like HT and Youboy you seriously believe that a bunch of warring tribes in flip flops and turbans are about to patch up their differences and plant the flag of Islam in Washington.

I have stated all along that I don't hold such views but apparently general of UK and US govt. does

Also apparently, 9/11 and 7/7 did happen in this universe

 

[shakil]

so whatss the last 5 pages been about?

qucik summary

That People converted and subscribed to Muslims view through discussion. Something like in this thread or other thread on PP

P.S. I have always maintained that it was a mix of military expansion, community and business value, the attractive idea of Tauheed and being affected by good manners of Muslims. I can bet all my money that intellectual discussions were NOT a factor at all in conversions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I have stated all along that I don't hold such views but apparently general of UK and US govt. does

Also apparently, 9/11 and 7/7 did happen in this universe

9/11 and 7/7 did happen in this universe and were terrorist outrages carried out by a bunch of fundamentalist renegades. What relevance has that got to the expansion of Islam centuries ago? If we accept that there were religious or ideological wars during the period of Islamic expansion then we would also have to accept that Muslims must have been at least at a military level where they could fight offensive wars. Is that what was happening in 9/11 or 7/7?

 

[shakil]

9/11 and 7/7 did happen in this universe and were terrorist outrages carried out by a bunch of fundamentalist renegades. What relevance has that got to the expansion of Islam centuries ago? If we accept that there were religious or ideological wars during the period of Islamic expansion then we would also have to accept that Muslims must have been at least at a military level where they could fight offensive wars. Is that what was happening in 9/11 or 7/7?

Why did Mohammad bin Qasim attack Sindh. The popular story to justify his actions is that he wanted to save the life of a women who was taken captive by some pirates in Sindh.

The important point is that waging a war needs pretext. US is waging war in Afghanistan because of the posited threat of more 9/11 like attacks. My whole post was about Jihad and how the concept of Jihad could even have posed serious threats to neighboring countries esp. Byzantine empire. The result: Crusades and bloody wars for territory. Palestine is the same "Falasteen" for which wars were fought since the dawn of Islam.

As for stating all this now (bottom up approach ), it was you who had to jump in when I was replying to golimaar. See my post where I replied to James about "double taxation" under Jizyah agreement

 

[Lalafied]

Sorry but the idea of an expansionist Islam today is ludicrous which is why it is pointless in trying to link it with the actual expansion of Islam centuries ago. Stick to one topic and stop trying to link current events to historical ones. Unless like HT and Youboy you seriously believe that a bunch of warring tribes in flip flops and turbans are about to patch up their differences and plant the flag of Islam in Washington.

The expansion relates to Islam as political authority and Inshallah, we are heading towards that time of history when Islam will be a superpower.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Seems like you never listened to the bbc radio link I posted. The whole post was about Afghanistan war and you quickly jumped to Iraq war for no reason.

You would do good to hear about the opinion of UK army general whose opinion has more weight than my opinion or yours.

The book, whose link I posted, is ~100 page long. It is a good book on the subject, written by a Muslim and goes through the point of view of all four fiqhs.

Rather than saying "I am all ears", listen to the youtube video I posted and read the book.

I don't have time to listen to your radio links or read books you recommenced, besides from what you have wrote I would rather stay away from your recommendations. Since you know the details why not write them here. At least explain why you think Mullah Omar whose 'army' had less weapons and men than some gangs was on the way to establishing a Caliphate.

 

[speed]

Gamal Al Banna, the brother of Hassan Al Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s. I suppose being a brother of a hardliner helps keep you alive, unlike Javed Ghamidi who holds the same views but had to run for his life.

I hope he writes more books and is able to sway the Sharia Laws towards being secular, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

again you are mixing 2 things the message the quran, and the muslims and there actions many hadiths contradict the quran yet many muslims still accept them so who is wrong the message or the person who wrote the hadith and the people who accept it?

the biggest reason why muslims are divided into many different sects is not because of the quran every muslim accepts the quran, but it is due to weak or made up hadiths which some sects follow but another sect may reject.

 

[Lalafied]

I don't have time to listen to your radio links or read books you recommenced, besides from what you have wrote I would rather stay away from your recommendations. Since you know the details why not write them here. At least explain why you think Mullah Omar whose 'army' had less weapons and men than some gangs was on the way to establishing a Caliphate.

brother, War on Islam is pretty much about suppressing the reestablishment of the Caliphate in the Muslim world as it would pose a threat to the Zionists & their global control.

 

[KingKhanWC]

brother, War on Islam is pretty much about suppressing the reestablishment of the Caliphate in the Muslim world as it would pose a threat to the Zionists & their global control.

Agree but my that doesn't mean Mullah Omar was on his way to setting up a Caliphate, this is my issue. As you know most scholars agree the next Caliphate will be under Imam Mahdi who will be an Arab not an Afghan.

 

[youboy]

I think you are the confused one here my friend.

Everytime you are saying something that is conflicting with your past statements.

Islam is a way of life. Everything you do should be according to Islam. Isn't that what we have been hearing here ?

So when you expand Islamic state by war, how are you spreading peace ? Can you explain please?

Okay, If I agree with this statement though I can ask why, still tell me by what means ? By WAR ?

So how is it peaceful ?

If one has to either work in army or pay for invading other countries to spread islamic STATE, then how is the contribution peaceful ?

Please explain !!!


Again, I haven't said any such thing. We are discussing about the need for different TAX system.

As per your view, the tax is not as per religion but depends on if you join the army or not to invade and spread islamic state.

So if an islamic state is ready to expand itself by war then it is not following its religion. Isn't it ? Remember defending is different than invading. You are talking about invading to spread.


Can you be sure ?

If someone's religion doesn't allow then why will he be forced to support financially ? Isn't it same thing ?

And this point is all your view and nothing to the debate. You are just assuming things here.


I think we have agreed on this point. So no point discussing.

If you join the army you don't pay, and if you don't you pay. Fair enough.

But like above, I said, you are now claiming something as per Islamic rule which is conflicting Islam. i.e. Invading other countries to spread the STATE (where as the religion asks for peace).

Again you are changing your point.

You said the army needs the service to spread Islamic STATE to nearby cities and countries. We are not discussing defence from invader.

I am challenging your view of spreading the state when calling oneself as follower of peaceful religion.

So this is not a protection tax like you said earlier ? Why non-muslims need to acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws. Every citizen should. Right? So others who do not pay are not accepting of subjection of the state and its laws?


In all the above points, I basically challenged you on one

You are supporting spreading Islamic state by army. On the other hand you claim islam to be peaceful religion. So either the state is not following Islam or Islam is not peaceful.

Which one is true ???

You have come up with many conclusion yourself.

From which statement of mine you came up with this conclusion that If Islamic state is to expand by war it is not following its religion.
What I said that "The rule of Allah has to be established in the land". And to establish that law war is the last resort.

Again from which statement of mine you came up with the conclusion that Jizya is not as per religion. Every law in a Muslim state is in accordance with the religion Islam. If it is conflicting then that law cannot be implemented. Expanding this law for Muslims doesn't make it conflicting with the law of Islam.
What I said that Jizya is an act of showing the loyalty to the state or the ruler. By paying jizya and knowing that it will go to fund the military as war is the extreme case a ruler or government need the service. The war can be to expand (as above is according to Islam) or to defend.
You didn't answer my question that give me any option other than that how a non-Muslim would show his loyalty to the ruler or government in most extreme case which is the war.


Yes I stand firm by my statement Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity.

Did I claim that Islam a peaceful religion or did I claim that Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity, and by establishing law of Allah in the land, peace can be brought to humanity.

It think there is a big difference in both the sentences.

So now lets see how Islam can bring peace to an individual. Would you like to live in a country or under a government which provides you the below

Gives you basic facilities and the availability of basic facilities doesn't depend on how much tax is collected.

Every citizen will get a land by the government to build a house. You don't have to go the bank for loan on interest if required and pay it for 20 years and 25 years, the government will provide you with interest free loan. And if you are unable to pay due to any reason the government can even write off the loan.

You get free education. You don't have to take student loan like in west or any kind of other loan to fund or pay university fees.

A country where you don't have to worry or opt for insurances or life insurances to secure the life of your family in case something happens to you or to secure your retirement.

Everyone will get justice instantly no Tareekh pe Tareekh and the justice will be equal for the rich and poor.

There will be no monopoly of business. Where a large multinational comes and take the business of all the small traders and make them go out of business.

If you want to start a business government will provide you interest free loan.

There will no landlords controlling over the farmers. In Islam any land which is open you can go and cultivate it, It will be yours. Nobody can hold a land more than 3 years without cultivating it. If it is the case the land is taken by the government.

There will be no slums in the your state. You don't have to worry about poverty level.

And the most important you will be free to practice your religion.

No burning of Masjids or Churches or Temples. The security of each and every citizen is the responsibility of the government.

There will be no inflation.

There will no interest based banking system.

And many more.

So what you think of a person living under such a government will be in peace or being oppressed.

This type of government was established earlier and can be established.

Does any other form of government give this kind of peace to an individual a common.

So I stand by my claim that establishing the law of Allah will bring peace to the humanity.

Also what you think of a non-Muslim financial contribution to the army in this cause which will bring peace to humanity?