| "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! |
It's not optional, not even rarely. It's important to understand the system that you're arguing against.
> as a penalty for their refusal to accept Islam,
That's your words. As I said, it's not imposed non non-fighters (women, children, elderly, and priests, among others). Fighter aged men got waived for serving in the army.
> Having a practice persist today isn't necessarily an argument that it's a good practice, or even a morally acceptable one
Who defines morals? We've seen the supposed morality of the west, on full display now especially after the epestein fiasco.
> too convert to a state religion
That's beside the point. There are many other "discriminatory" practices in present day secular nation states if you're going down that route. Some of these are fundamental to how states are run.
> to fund an Islamic state
You just assumed that (1) funding is the main goal, and (2) Jizya is able to support the system, even though I explained it was much less than today's income + sales taxes, which as we see, are not able to support the usurious financial system. More claims without evidence.
> it's the exact same defense Christians use to wave away the violent commands in their own scriptures
Apples to oranges. You literally snipped the text without reading the text that came before or after it. This is disengenuous. The small image I posted literally cites the text before and after it, and you explicitly admitted that you refused to read it.
> The words are right there on the page.
Exacltly, and you refused to read them.
> Doesn't change Islamic States can be, too
But not because they're Islamic.
> I don't need "qualifications" to engage in this conversation, besides understanding language
Totally incorrect (and you also showed you didn't understand the language). Please go educate yourself on how Islamic Scholars deduce rules (e.g. Fiqh, etc.). Language is one aspect of a whole curriculum. Ironically, it is this way of thinking that gave rise to certain fringe groups I'm sure you're quite aware of, and not just in Islam.
> that pious Islamic beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with traditional Western values - and we should conduct ourselves accordingly.
Yes, and we maintain that is a good thing, very clearly so given where the world is heading especially these days.
> Have a good one!
You too.