[HaZeust]

Sharia Law. If you don't believe in Allah and the teachings within the Qur'an, feel free to look up how Sharia law dictates your treatment from its believers.

You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%.

Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.

[esalman]

Sharia law became mainstream, even in 20th century, as a direct result of the US supporting wahabism in Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil.

Ottomans even had favorable view of homosexuality, before Ibn Saud and his interpretation of Islam became a thing.

[za3faran]

I know what Shariah law is (incidentally, the word Shariah means "Law", that's like saying "law law" which is nonsensical). Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?

Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason - which many present day non-Muslim countries have the capital punishment for. Scholars have discussed this topic in detail, not every apostate has this applied to them.

[HaZeust]

>"incidentally, the word Shariah means "Law", that's like saying "law law" which is nonsensical"

I'm glad we could point out pedantic semantics - if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way". Nonetheless, "Sharia Law" is a term that means something in jargon and in colloquial, and it is understood to most (serious inquirers) as a mechanation of law, typically from a governing body, that is inspired and sourced by a mix of verses in the Qur'an, prophetic tradition, hadiths, and scholarly consensus between all aforementioned elements.

>"Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?"

At least try to be genuine, please:

Surah 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them."

Surah 9:5: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way."

The Jizya verse is all about sanctioning religious "freedom" and only even tolerating "People of the Book" outside Islam if they pay a special tax called a jizya.

And yes! To your point: "Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason", it is with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom - Western values are. Their beliefs are further predicated upon commands to treat People of The Book (Christians and Jews) with less-than-desirable behaviors, all of which I sourced above. We can talk about bans on places of worship and criminalizing proselytization outside of Islam if you're somehow not convinced?

But in any case, unless you want to play the excuse that Christians and Jews do from the other side of the aisle when they say that this was directed to a certain people at a certain time - which carries its own enormous pragmatic and theological flaws (and is often at great detriment to Muslims when logically exercised) - it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values. And this is just me appealing to the pragmatic, such conclusions follow logically what a pious Muslim's more-extreme beliefs are for religiously-tolerant cultures, and their beliefs towards the people that make them up.

[cholantesh]

Wait till you see what God asks of his followers in the Bible.

[HaZeust]

Unconvincing. Wait till you see the percentage of modern Christians that disregard and ignore calls and commands for violence present in the bible, compared to believers within the other 2 Abrahamic religions.

Western values separated themselves from several beliefs demanded by the Christianity religions that inspired them. They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material (homosexuality and sodomy, slavery, religious violence, working on the sabbath, forced assimilation, torture and wartime measures, textile production).

Shocking, right? Almost like it's possible...

[za3faran]

> compared to believers within the other 2 Abrahamic religions.

Do you really want me to cite what israel has been doing for the past 75+ years and justified it from their own books? What did milekowsky literally say in one of his recent speeches?

> slavery

Still exists, but it changed forms.

> religious violence

Also still exists, but is a bit more concealed

forced assimilation,

See: europe

> torture and wartime measures

American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day

[HaZeust]

>"Do you really want me to cite what israel has been doing for the past 75+ years and justified it from their own books? What did milekowsky literally say in one of his recent speeches?"

You're clearly well-versed enough in this site's UX/UI to follow comments across a thread, presumably you saw my comment conceding Israel as a problem state now, as well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912061

>"American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day"

Yeah, so are those from Islamic States. But American war crimes didn't include sanctioning rape for prisoners of war for its history, and had a lot more regulation and moral reservations for pillage and conquest. A pretty good start - hopefully it evolves from here.

[cholantesh]

Most 'modern' Christians are barely even aware of the content of the Bible, and most adherents of all three religions are not acting on those commands anyway.

>They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material

Ah yes, wars, revolutions, general strikes, all famously acts of self-governance.

[HaZeust]

You sure showed me with this 0-effort response, cadet!

[za3faran]

> if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way".

That's but one of its meanings. Arabic is a very rich language, and the word and its derivatives are used in the context of "canon".

As far as your citations, this has been responded to countless times [1]

Regarding Jizya, If you were being honest, you would know that (1) Muslims are reqired to pay more because of Zakat, (2) Jizya is only required from able males who can serve in the army, in exchange for them not serving. Women, children, elderly, and priests (regardless of age) are not required to pay the Jizya. You will find many occurrences in Islamic history where it was forgiven due to circumstances - read about cases involving the 2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab for example.

> with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom

The Quran (which you cited when you thought it served your incorrect claims), Hadiths, and classical Islamic scholarship all refute this claim. Not to mention reality - Christian/Syriac people that exist in Muslims majority lands are but one example that prove that Islam enforces freedom of belief. Jews exist in Iran[2][3] who were bombed by israel, but you won't find it in the news.I bet you have not come across these Hadith before [4][5][6]

> all of which I sourced above.

No you did not.

> We can talk about bans on places of worship

Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran.

> it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values.

This is one thing we agree on. Classical liberal western values are at odds with Islam. The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/rG0ivUR

[2] https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2041531958304403746

[3] https://x.com/BBN_Press/status/2047077899790962736

[4] https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6914

[5] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4047

[6] https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3052

[HaZeust]

>"That's but one of its meanings. Arabic is a very rich language, and the word and its derivatives are used in the context of "canon"."

So you can agree calling out someone for fair-read Arabic semantics is shallow, gratuitous and often grandstanding? Great! Look at us, stranger: Making progress.

>RE: Jiyza, Zakat

Zakat was almost never more than Jizya in practice. Zakat is also the act of charitable giving to the poor, Jizya is state-collection of funds - even during Rashidun Caliphate's times. It was a tax, with threats of state-sponsored violence when not complied with. Deals regarding Jizya were made as non-believing groups were conquered (if you believe this somehow helps your case) and didn't follow a uniform standard, but were typically on a MUST-PAY basis, unlike Zakat - which could be forgiven for impoverished persons and other circumstances.

>"[1]"

I haven't the time nor the inclination to debate clearly textualist passages in a religious text, when some religious scholar tries interpreting them "purposively" to make them more palatable to ANY audience, particularly modern ones. If you do, more power to you.

>"[2], [3]"

2's last sentence is fiercely at odds with 3's position - and these are single rabbi claims. I'm not sure what I'm looking at here?

>"No you did not."

Did you want your verses via Sunnah URL? Lol.

>"[4], [5]"

A Mu'ahid is a may-issue protection and there are plenty of believers and People of The Book that are not granted such protection, because it is an explicit and protected procedure - that requires ACTIVE action (covenant, treaty, or pledge). It is often a coerced agreement made with MUCH concessions required from the protected. And to add, its protection is not passively or implicitly granted, nor shall-issued. It is also not required of Islamic States to conscript, or to implement.

>"[6]"

Noble verse, not sure what it illuminates here though? That the Qur'an has the occasional good take?

>"Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran."

Cherry-picking. "What do you mean there are minority lynchings??? I see plenty of them alive and well, working in fields!"

>"This is one thing we agree on."

Well with any reading comprehension, you'll know my position that a pious Muslim's beliefs are incompatible with traditional Western values is the entire purpose of my position and my underlying justification for each and every comment I've left in this chain - that DIDN'T resort to personal attacks. So, I'm glad we agree?

>"The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies."

You said the same thing twice, and just made the one describing the ideology you agree with sound more mature and refined.

[za3faran]

> So you can agree calling out someone for fair-read Arabic semantics is shallow, gratuitous and often grandstanding?

It's not fair reading, but let's leave this for now.

> Zakat was almost never more than Jizya in practice

Incorrect.

> Zakat is also the act of charitable giving to the poor, Jizya is state-collection of funds

Incorrect. Zakat is required to be paid, it's not an optional act as you are trying to imply. The state has collected it, just like how Jizya was.

> with threats of state-sponsored violence when not complied with

"violence" like what? You mean just like how any current nation throws people in prison if they evade taxes?

> unlike Zakat - which could be forgiven for impoverished persons and other circumstances.

As I explained, Jizya is waived for women, children, priests, the elderly and the disabled. It was also waived if an able man volunteered to join the army in exchange.

> I haven't the time nor the inclination to debate clearly textualist passages in a religious text,

What do you call very clearly taking something out of context?

> I'm not sure what I'm looking at here?

You're looking at zionist crimes against Iranian jews.

> and there are plenty of believers and People of The Book that are not granted such protection , because it is an explicit and protected procedure - that requires ACTIVE action (covenant, treaty, or pledge).

You're speak as if you are certain of what you are saying, but I confidently say you are 100% incorrect. Remind us, what are your qualifications in this matter, or anything you claim to refute?

> Noble verse, not sure what it illuminates here though? That the Qur'an has the occasional good take?

It's not from the Quran. I think this is sufficient to prove my point - that you have no qualifications on this matter. I think we're done here.

[HaZeust]

"Incorrect [...] Zakat is required to be paid, it's not an optional act as you are trying to imply. The state has collected it, just like how Jizya was."

To pick my words more wisely: Yes, Zakat comes in the form a mandatory pillar of Islam under an Islamic state - often a tax, it is very rarely an "optional" charity. My point was more the framing between the two, and that Zakat is a financial obligation upon believers to share their wealth, while Jizya is a discriminatory tax on non-believers as a penalty for their refusal to accept Islam, paying for their "protection" from the state.

>"'violence' like what? You mean just like how any current nation throws people in prison if they evade taxes?"

Having a practice persist today isn't necessarily an argument that it's a good practice, or even a morally acceptable one (if you agree on this RE: tax, you'll find yourself agreeing with some prominient Western Enlightment thinkers, ironically). But, nonetheless, equating a religious tax to modern tax systems is a dishonest take. Modern tax regimes don't target you specifically for your refusal to convert to a state religion. The Jizya verse I mentioned earlier (though didn't cite: Surah 9:29) explicitly states non-Muslims must pay it "while they are disgraced, humiliated and belittled." It is not framed as a civil duty like most taxes; it is quite literally a religious-mandated humiliation ritual.

>"As I explained, Jizya is waived for women, children, priests, the elderly and the disabled. It was also waived if an able man volunteered to join the army in exchange."

The case remains, extorting the people of a minority group to fund an Islamic state - while politically and socially persecuting them - is morally reprenhensible.

>"What do you call very clearly taking something out of context?"

The oldest excuse in the book - and I already called this excuse out when I noted earlier that it's the exact same defense Christians use to wave away the violent commands in their own scriptures. If citing explicit, accepted verses and mainstream Sunni Tafsir is "taking things out of context", then the text is practically meaningless - and it doesn't sound like good faith in the material to me. The words are right there on the page.

>"You're looking at zionist crimes against Iranian jews."

I've already said Israel is a problem state. Doesn't change Islamic States can be, too.

>"You speak as if you are certain of what you are saying, but I confidently say you are 100% incorrect. Remind us, what are your qualifications in this matter[..]"

I don't need "qualifications" to engage in this conversation, besides understanding language. A Mu'ahid literally translates to "one who has a treaty/covenant". You cannot be a Mu'ahid without an active, explicit treaty with the Muslim state. Without that, traditional Islamic law classifies a non-believer as Harbi (at war).

>"It's not from the Quran."

Fair. I looked too quickly at your Sunnah.com links, wasn't familiar with their UI, and incorrectly referred to a Hadith as a Quranic verse. I apologize for calling it a Surah. It was a genuine slip on my part.

>"I think this is sufficient to prove my point - that you have no qualifications on this matter. I think we're done here."

Take the out if you need it. As I noted in my last comment, we already established that we agree on my foundational point: that pious Islamic beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with traditional Western values - and we should conduct ourselves accordingly..

Have a good one!