Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

Your last sentence here makes all your other wall of text posts obsolete.

In Islam and all the other abrahamic religions there's so much stuff out there that you can justify literally anything you want to and find something to support it. As evidenced by all of history and these Isis idiots.

Interpretations are and will always be just that. So no, you haven't proven anything, since there's no authority that gives your word more validity than theirs.

so are you saying ISIS's interpretation should be treated as legitimate and not heretic?

 

[SoulPlaya]

I am just saying I provided text from Islamic text itself, hadith and Quran, you know the two things Muslims read most in terms of their religious knowledge? those who support apostasy cling on to ONE source of hadith, I provided at least 20 sources in there which goes against punishment for apostasy, but then again its up to people to chose. 1 hadith source or 20 Hadith & Quranic verses. Its really in the mind of men which they want to chose or chose to believe to fit thier notions of what islam is and should be. I mean in the end you can only tell people and you can't force them to change their view, thats the job of extremists not me, I am only countering the extremist view.

It doesn't really matter if there are 1 vs hundreds. It's about how authentic people BELIEVE that 1 is vs the hundreds. In the end, there are numerous countries where apostasy from Islam is a crime, and even punishable by death. This isn't some fringe belief that's debated. It's widespread and accepted.

 

[elrechazado]

Your last sentence here makes all your other wall of text posts obsolete.

In Islam and all the other abrahamic religions there's so much stuff out there that you can justify literally anything you want to and find something to support it. As evidenced by all of history and these Isis idiots.

Interpretations are and will always be just that. So no, you haven't proven anything, since there's no authority that gives your word more validity than theirs.

Yep. It's all no true Scotsman nonsense.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It doesn't really matter if there are 1 vs hundreds. It's about how authentic people BELIEVE that 1 is vs the hundreds. In the end, there are numerous countries where apostasy from Islam is a crime, and even punishable by death. This isn't some fringe belief that's debated. It's widespread and accepted.

and where Apostasy is a crime is not a legitimate belief. in the end instead of flicking away those who want to change apostasy is a crime belief, you should join forces in educating others who think apostasy is a crime by changing their view that it isnt. Dislike or hate for something is never going to solve anything, You have to change it from within and help those who want to change it, not disregard those who want to change it back to what it used to be or should be because you know its just another view.

 

[Siegcram]

so are you saying ISIS's interpretation should be treated as legitimate and not heretic?

No, I'm saying you can't say it's up to the individual what teachings and practices they draw from a particular religion and then turn to a certain group and say: "You're doing it wrong."

 

[SoulPlaya]

and where Apostasy is a crime is not a legitimate belief. in the end instead of flicking away those who want to change apostasy is a crime belief, you should join forces in educating others who think apostasy is a crime by changing their view that it isnt. Dislike or hate for something is never going to solve anything, You have to change it from within and help those who want to change it, not disregard those who want to change it back to what it used to be or should be because you know its just another view.

Once again, this isn't a matter of education. I'm from the middle east. What you want to do is nothing new. You're not coming up with some brilliant solution with your "let's educate them!" idea. It's frankly insulting to the people there to make this assumption.

It's been debated. It's been debated for centuries. In some countries, it continues to be debated, and one side lost, and lost a long time ago. Whatever sources you're pulling out have likely already been used and either debunked or ignored. There are also areas where it's not up for debate, but a group like ISIS (and there are many like it) aren't going to listen to your debate. They don't care. The only way to stop them is force. That's it.

 

[Suen]

No I'm saying you can't say it's up to the individual what teachings and practices they draw from a particular religion and then turn to a certain group and say: "You're doing it wrong."

They are comitting their crimes in a country where destruction of shrines is considered wrong. So let me cut it short and ask you guys what matters more: what ISIS considers to be right or what Iraq considers to be right? If it's the latter then tell me what relevance the authenticity of ISIS' actions has in this topic. If it's the former then I have nothing to tell you.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Once again, this isn't a matter of education. I'm from the middle east. What you want to do is nothing new. You're not coming up with some brilliant solution with your "let's educate them!" idea. It's frankly insulting to the people there to make this assumption.

It's been debated. It's been debated for centuries. In some countries, it continues to be debated, and one side lost, and lost a long time ago. Whatever sources you're pulling out have likely already been used and either debunked or ignored. There are also areas where it's not up for debate, but a group like ISIS (and there are many like it) aren't going to listen to your debate. They don't care. The only way to stop them is force. That's it.

and my argument is that you should stop them by using force as they are using force but there is a lot of elements around this group and society which go blindly to what people tell them without educating themselves. That is where educating people on all facets is required. then it is up to them if they want to accept that view or reject that view, then this education also needs to be provided to those who aren't muslim and have not read the Quran and act like ISIS view is legitimate because they believe it so it must be one of the interpretation instead of arguing against their view, that view is accepted as fact and any opposing view that counters the extremist view is labelled as no true scotsman just to end the discussion and move forward with ISIS view as legitimate. No one really knows why such people reject the moderate view as the primary view and view the ISIS view in equal footing with the moderate view and further legitimatizing the ISIS view, that is in their hearts but all moderates like me can do is ignore the argument that I am committing no true scotsman fallacy and educate those who are willing to help the moderates in countering the ISIS view.

 

[Omegasquash]

I'm not a magical thinking man, but I can tell you with full surety that I'd have serious problems defiling an ancient site in any way at all. I don't understand how anyone could just demolish a piece of history.

 

[elrechazado]

They are comitting their crimes in a country where destruction of shrines is considered wrong. So let me cut it short and ask you guys what matters more: what ISIS considers to be right or what Iraq considers to be right? If it's the latter then tell me what relevance the authenticity of ISIS' actions has in this topic. If it's the former then I have nothing to tell you.

What matters unfortunately is who has the power. Who cares about authenticity and other such useless concepts? They did what they did and do what they do. No amount of wishing or explaining will change that.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

They are comitting their crimes in a country where destruction of shrines is considered wrong. So let me cut it short and ask you guys what matters more: what ISIS considers to be right or what Iraq considers to be right? If it's the latter then tell me what relevance the authenticity of ISIS' actions has in this topic. If it's the former then I have nothing to tell you.

So every person in Iraq has been documented saying this wasn't right? I'm sure you can find plenty who would agree with ISIS.

 

[SoulPlaya]

and my argument is that you should stop them by using force as they are using force but there is a lot of elements around this group and society which go blindly to what people tell them without educating themselves. That is where educating people on all facets is required. then it is up to them if they want to accept that view or reject that view, then this education also needs to be provided to those who aren't muslim and have not read the Quran and act like ISIS view is legitimate because they believe it so it must be one of the interpretation instead of arguing against their view, that view is accepted as fact and any opposing view that counters the extremist view is labelled as no true scotsman just to end the discussion and move forward with ISIS view as legitimate.

Dude, the people in the ME aren't some uneducated inbreds who don't know what you're talking about. Many of these extremists are doctors, lawyers, etc. I knew you would focus on the "ignored", but it's been debated. These texts you're citing originated in these areas. They've heard them. They just don't believe. They just don't care. Education isn't going to solve a damn thing right now. Most Muslims are decent people who just want to lead their lives in peace. The ones that would kill someone due to apostasy aren't going to listen to some educational debate. Why? Because they've already heard it, and they still believe in killing. Those kinds of people have to be stopped with force, not some debate.

 

[Messofanego]

Messed up. I hate these people and hope they get what's coming to them in this life and the next.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Dude, the people in the ME aren't some uneducated inbreds who don't know what you're talking about. Many of these extremists are doctors, lawyers, etc. I knew you would focus on the "ignored", but it's been debated. These texts you're citing originated in these areas. They've heard them. They just don't believe. They just don't care.

educated people becomes terrorists too. I am not not talking of school education I am talking of religious education which requires not just reading but understanding your faith. How did the middle east go from a bastion of education to only education themselves and living on oil money? because they forgot what their own faith taught them. Faith education is separate from the education which leads you to become a doctor. Even if one person is moderated then that person won't go and join ISIS. its a domino affect which I think is achievable in removing the false notions which lead them to commit terrorism. Maybe the hardened still won't listen but that shouldnt stop me and you from educating those who are still on the cusp

 

[Siegcram]

They are comitting their crimes in a country where destruction of shrines is considered wrong. So let me cut it short and ask you guys what matters more: what ISIS considers to be right or what Iraq considers to be right? If it's the latter then tell me what relevance the authenticity of ISIS' actions has in this topic. If it's the former then I have nothing to tell you.

My point is that criticism on religious grounds is ineffective and worthless in this and almost all other cases.

These people need to be dealt with because the represent a danger to the socio-political situation of a whole region that isn't exactly stable to begin with and not because they interpret their religion in another way.

 

[elrechazado]

educated people becomes terrorists too. I am not not talking of school education I am talking of religious education which requires not just reading but understanding your faith. How did the middle east go from a bastion of education to only education themselves and living on oil money? because they forgot what their own faith taught them. Faith education is separate from the education which leads you to become a doctor.

It is really baffling that you don't understand this simple concept. Religion isn't mathematics. How many sects just of Islam and Christianity are there? Thousands. The fact that you think people could magically just come up with a "right answer" if only they interpreted things in your preferred way is just asinine. Thousands of years, thousands of sects. Millions of interpretations. Stop being naive.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It is really baffling that you don't understand this simple concept. Religion isn't mathematics. How many sects just of Islam and Christianity are there? Thousands. The fact that you think people could magically just come up with a "right answer" if only they interpreted things in your preferred way is just asinine. Thousands of years, thousands of sects. Millions of interpretations. Stop being naive.

if most interpretations go forth as moderate, that would be better than extremist interpretations of the few.

 

[SoulPlaya]

educated people becomes terrorists too. I am not not talking of school education I am talking of religious education which requires not just reading but understanding your faith. How did the middle east go from a bastion of education to only education themselves and living on oil money? because they forgot what their own faith taught them. Faith education is separate from the education which leads you to become a doctor.

The ME's original bastion of knowledge was the Byzantine Empire, and most of the subsequent empires were simply built off that.

There have always been extremists in Islamic culture and what kept them in check was either a strong power or they simply lacked the money and means to act on their beliefs. Now, that's changed. Many of the strong overlords have been toppled (Saddam, for instance), and these extremists have money and means (usually from oil money) to act on them. The idea that they don't get religious education is BS too. The ME is full of religious schools. They get the education. Once again, you're not coming up with anything new.

It's also, and I think you'll admit this, silly at this point to push for this solution. Groups like ISIS need to be stopped with force. And there are many groups like them. After they're stopped, then you can debate what to do afterwards.

 

[elrechazado]

if most interpretations go forth as moderate, that would be better than extremist interpretations of the few.

Let me know when you've defined moderate or extreme. Jeez dude stop digging and making ridiculous statement. Clearly you have no understanding. Post some more walls of text and ponder why this little problem isn't magically solved by your clearly correct interpretation.

Sigh

 

[Maninthemirror]

The ME's original bastion of knowledge was the Byzantine Empire, and most of the subsequent empires were simply built off that.

There have always been extremists in Islamic culture and what kept them in check was either a strong power or they simply lacked the money and means to act on their beliefs. Now, that's changed. Many of the strong overlords have been toppled (Saddam, for instance), and these extremists have money and means (usually from oil money) to act on them. The idea that they don't get religious education is BS too. The ME is full of religious schools. They get the education. Once again, you're not coming up with anything new.

It's also, and I think you'll admit this, silly at this point to push for this solution. Groups like ISIS need to be stopped with force. And there are many groups like them. After they're stopped, then you can debate what to do afterwards.

this is exactly what I am saying. deal with the militants militarily while at the same time educate and reeducate everyone who is not a militant on moderate views.

Let me know when you've defined moderate or extreme. Jeez dude stop digging and making ridiculous statement. Clearly you have no understanding. Post some more walls of text and ponder why this little problem isn't magically solved by your clearly correct interpretation.

Sigh

clearly. lol

 

[Maninthemirror]

A Muslim's response to ISIS demands

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/ramadan-message-isis_b_5611232.html

The terrorist organization ISIS has set a new low standard of barbarity and inhumanity. Their most recent act of terrorism is a demand that Christians either convert, pay the jizya, leave their homes, or be killed. Their destruction of an 1800-year-old church in Mosul is painful, condemnable without exception, and wholly in violation of every Qur'anic principle. In fact, the Qur'an 22:41 specifically commands Muslims to protect Churches from destruction.

Nothing in Islam or Prophet Muhammad's example supports ISIS's barbarity. The below modified excerpt from my book EXTREMIST addresses the issue of jizya and dhimmis directly -- and shows without question that ISIS's acts have nothing to do with Islam, and Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. Indeed, it is an insult to 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide to call IS as "Islamic State." The more accurate term is Ignorant Savages.

Let's start with dhimmi. Dhimmi is a historical term referring to non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state. The word literally means "one whose responsibility is taken" or "people with whom a covenant or compact has been made." Dhimmi describes citizens of a Muslim state afforded security over their persons, property, and religious practice in return for a tax (the jizya). Historically, when empires won battles and wars, common people were subjugated, looted, and forced to work as laborers and serve in the military. Islam did away with such practices by affording all non-Muslim subjects the special dhimmi status.

Regarding dhimmis Prophet Muhammad said, "If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made [i.e., a dhimmi], or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection."

Prophet Muhammad also made it clear that protecting the lives and honor of dhimmis was the responsibility of the Muslims, and failing in this regard would incur God's wrath: "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims, i.e. a dhimmi) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)." At the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammad had the upper hand against those who had persecuted him for more than two decades. He could have silenced his enemies forever. Instead, he turned to the Meccans and declared, "I say to you what the Prophet Joseph said to his brothers: 'No blame against you! You are free.'"

Even before the conquest of Mecca, the Charter of Medina set the precedent for the treatment of mua'ahids (dhimmis are those non-Muslim subjects who become subjects after a war. If there is no war and there is a negotiated settlement, then they are called mua'ahids). When Prophet Muhammad was popularly appointed Medina's ruler, he entered into a pact with the Jewish communities of Medina. Through this pact, he granted equal political rights to non-Muslims. They were ensured complete freedom of religion and practice.

After the Prophet Muhammad's demise, non-Muslim inhabitants of the fast-expanding Islamic empire enjoyed the same dignified treatment. When Hadhrat Umar, second khalifa of Prophet Muhammad, conquered Jerusalem, he entered into a pact with all inhabitants of the city, declaring:

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, most Beneficent. This is a covenant of peace granted by the slave of Allah, the commander of the faithful 'Umar to the people of Jerusalem. They are granted protection for their lives, their property, their churches, and their Crosses, in whatever condition they are. All of them are granted the same protection. No one will dwell in their churches, nor will they be destroyed and nothing will be reduced of their belongings. Nothing shall be taken from their Crosses or their property. There will be no compulsion on them regarding their religion, nor will any one of them be troubled.

A dhimmi assassinated Hadhrat Umar in 644 CE. Rather than lashing out against dhimmis, at his deathbed, Hadhrat Umar specifically ordered:

I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.

Next, I transition to ISIS's demands regarding jizya. The jizya tax was the only tax imposed on non-Muslims; it was typically lower than taxes on the Muslims of that state and was paid by fewer people. The term jizya comes from same Arabic root as jaza', which means "reward" and "compensation." So, according to Sharia or Islamic law, this money was returned to the minorities. The jizya tax, like other taxes, creates accountability on the part of the government to do right by its citizens. In Christian-ruled Sicily, for example, the Christian officials had such a tax for minorities -- and they too called it "jizya."

Thus, non-Muslims paid jizya as free citizens of the Muslim state in return for the protection of their civil and political liberties. Aside from this, Muslims were also taxed, and often at a rate heavier than the jizya. Additionally, Muslims were obligated to perform military service, from which all non-Muslims were exempt.

Jizya served as the sole citizen tax to assure protection from all foreign attacks. Thus, if protection could not be promised, then jizya was impermissible. In The Preaching of Islam, Thomas Arnold records a statement of the Muslim general Khalid bin Waleed: "In a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; 'If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not.'"

Abu Ubaida was a famous Muslim commander of Syria. When he entered the city of Hims, he made a pact with its non-Muslim inhabitants and collected the jizya as agreed. When the Muslims learned of a massive advance toward the city by the Roman emperor Heraclius, they felt they would not be able to protect its citizens. Consequently, Abu Ubaida ordered all the dues taken as jizya to be returned to the people of the city. He said to them, "We are not able to defend you anymore and now you have complete authority over your matters." Al-Azdi records Abu Ubaida's statement as follows:

We have returned your wealth back to you because we detest taking your wealth and then failing to protect your land. We are moving to another area and have called upon our brethren, and then we will fight our enemy. If Allah helps us defeat them we shall fulfill our covenant with you except that you yourselves do not like it then.

The response that the people of Hims gave to the Muslims further substantiates that as dhimmis they were not in any way oppressed but instead lovingly embraced:

Verily your rule and justice is dearer to us than the tyranny and oppression in which we used to live. May God again make you ruler over us and may God's curse be upon the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By the Lord, had it been they, they would have never returned us anything; instead they would have seized all they could from our possessions.

Blinded by their own egos, the leaders of ISIS ignore this beautiful history. Professor Bernard Lewis observes that dhimmis welcomed the change from Byzantine to Arab rule. They "found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines."

Moreover, the jizya was not forcefully collected. It was a tax paid willingly as a favor for the protection of the state. Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, second khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, notes:

The expression "with their own hand" is used here in a figurative sense, signifying (1) that Jizya should not be forcibly taken from the People of the Book but that they should pay it with their own hand i.e. they should agree to pay it willingly...; or (2) that they should pay it out of hand i.e. in ready money and not in the form of deferred payment; or (3) that they should pay it considering it as a favor from Muslims, the word, yad (hand) also meaning a favor.

Moreover, the Muslim state exempted from jizya those dhimmis who chose to serve in the military.

 

[Suen]

What matters unfortunately is who has the power. Who cares about authenticity and other such useless concepts? They did what they did and do what they do. No amount of wishing or explaining will change that.

Which is what I've been trying to say for a while.

So every person in Iraq has been documented saying this wasn't right? I'm sure you can find plenty who would agree with ISIS.

Hey genius, if plenty of Iraqis were in agreement with them then why don't you start explaining to me why most shrines in Iraq are still standing? After all, if plenty of people agreed with them you'd see significantly more shrines destroyed in Iraq the past ten years, heck even in the past decades. Do you mean to tell me that Iraqis are too stupid to figure out how blow up shrines? Surely someone must be able to do it when they visit them in thousands and millions on a monthly basis? Especially when they, being the locals themselves, have significantly easier access to the shrines than ISIS.

Some Americans want to bomb Middle East into oblivion, in fact it's safe to say that many people in the states have that mentality going back to 9/11 and even further back. Should we start saying that bombing regions to oblivion is a common mentality to have in the states? Or better, this is like reading about rape in some country, finding a bunch of people supporting rape in said country and then saying "hey look, someone got raped and some people support it, therefore this is an act supported by the natives". Childish.

Read what I said again. I said the practice is mostly foreign, meaning that, yes, there are some Iraqis who agree with it but no it isn't a practice that has any historic background in Iraq. If you knew anything of the country's history you'd know that similar attempts were done two centuries back in Iraq by foreign invaders (Wahhabis). They were trying to sack certain shrines and they failed since the natives protected them. Sacking shrines is not an act taught or supported in Iraqi culture or history which, based on your ridiculous post, you are absolutely fucking clueless about.

Do you even have relatives living there? Local Friends? Family? Have you even fucking been there before? Your post comes off as extremely stupid and insulting.

 

[Suen]

My point is that criticism on religious grounds is ineffective and worthless in this and almost all other cases.

These people need to be dealt with because the represent a danger to the socio-political situation of a whole region that isn't exactly stable to begin with and not because they interpret their religion in another way.

Then we're on agreement, which is exactly why I think it's pointless to have a debate about their interpretation in this thread. It doesn't matter how they interpretate things, they need to be dealt with, as I've said, as you've said, as SoulPlaya have said.

 

[speculawyer]

I am a bigot for explaining what IS asked from the Christians regarding the Jizya.

I need to stay out of these threads.

You are a bigot for trying to defend a tax on a person that depends on what religion they practice. (It's OK, it's only $80/year!)

 

[speculawyer]

so are you saying ISIS's interpretation should be treated as legitimate and not heretic?

It is an interpretation that exists in the world and is affecting the world. Whether it is "legitimate or heretic" is nothing but a matter of irrelevant personal opinion for each person. They think it is legitimate, you think it is heretic, and I think the entire religion is superstitious nonsense . . . but what they, you, or I personally think on that matter really doesn't fucking matter at all other than to ourselves. What matters is they exist, that is their interpretation, and the consequences of their interpretation is affecting the world beyond themselves and thus they are a problem for others.

 

[kobashi100]

You are a bigot for trying to defend a tax on a person that depends on what religion they practice. (It's OK, it's only $80/year!)

no i was clarifying the amount asked as none of the reporters even bothered to do so.

So in your eyes, the prophet (SAW), and the companions were all bigots as they all collected the Jizya.

 

[elrechazado]

So in your eyes, the prophet (SAW), and the companions were all bigots as they all collected the Jizya.

Yes.

 

[speculawyer]

no i was clarifying the amount asked as none of the reporters even bothered to do so.

No, your emphasis made it clear you were defending the practice. I think charging any taxes based on anyone's particular faith or lack of faith is inherently an unfair practice.

So in your eyes, the prophet (SAW), and the companions were all bigots as they all collected the Jizya.

Yes. Sexist, homophobic, and bigotry toward people with other faiths or no faith.

But he was a product of his time.

 

[Amir0x]

It is an interpretation that exists in the world and is affecting the world. Whether it is "legitimate or heretic" is nothing but a matter of irrelevant personal opinion for each person. They think it is legitimate, you think it is heretic, and I think the entire religion is superstitious nonsense . . . but what they, you, or I personally think on that matter really doesn't fucking matter at all other than to ourselves. What matters is they exist, that is their interpretation, and the consequences of their interpretation is affecting the world beyond themselves and thus they are a problem for others.

And until we find a way to navigate individuals 'interpretation' of these holy books in a sane manner, this will always happen. It'll always be a danger to rational minded individuals.

It's a shame.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Well I hope nations around Iraq help them or try to stop these assholes. Why would you let this threat keep spreading in your neighborhood?

Whatever the case, the US must stay the fuck out of these cases. Its a losing battle.

Here's what I think: if any foreign nation tries to stop ISIS, a significant portion of the Muslim world will think that ISIS was following a noble path and could have been awesome but was strangled in its cradle by outsiders. The Islamic State will be like the national incarnation of a martyr, promote a victim mentality in the Islamic world, and provide inspiration to Talibanization movements in many other countries.

I could obviously be horribly mistaken, but my feeling on the situation is that too much of the Muslim world supports ISIS, even if hesitantly, tacitly, and with a healthy dose of denial mixed in. A lot of smart people seem confident the Muslim world will overwhelmingly reject the Islamic State and it's only a short time until it collapses. I'm not so sure. The best thing might be for the state to continue to exist for the near future. That's the only way it will be truly discredited in the eyes of many Muslims.

Like I said, I'm totally open to the idea that I'm absolutely misreading the situation. I'm absolutely not confident about my viewpoint here. But that's how I feel at the moment.

 

[MacNille]

So in your eyes, the prophet (SAW), and the companions were all bigots as they all collected the Jizya.

Yes yes yes yes. It is an awful practice to force people of other religions (and who are weaker then you in that area) to give you money.

 

[kurisu1974]

So in your eyes, the prophet (SAW), and the companions were all bigots as they all collected the Jizya.

Yes. Because what is the justification?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Which is what I've been trying to say for a while.

Hey genius, if plenty of Iraqis were in agreement with them then why don't you start explaining to me why most shrines in Iraq are still standing? After all, if plenty of people agreed with them you'd see significantly more shrines destroyed in Iraq the past ten years, heck even in the past decades. Do you mean to tell me that Iraqis are too stupid to figure out how blow up shrines? Surely someone must be able to do it when they visit them in thousands and millions on a monthly basis? Especially when they, being the locals themselves, have significantly easier access to the shrines than ISIS.

Some Americans want to bomb Middle East into oblivion, in fact it's safe to say that many people in the states have that mentality going back to 9/11 and even further back. Should we start saying that bombing regions to oblivion is a common mentality to have in the states? Or better, this is like reading about rape in some country, finding a bunch of people supporting rape in said country and then saying "hey look, someone got raped and some people support it, therefore this is an act supported by the natives". Childish.

Read what I said again. I said the practice is mostly foreign, meaning that, yes, there are some Iraqis who agree with it but no it isn't a practice that has any historic background in Iraq. If you knew anything of the country's history you'd know that similar attempts were done two centuries back in Iraq by foreign invaders (Wahhabis). They were trying to sack certain shrines and they failed since the natives protected them. Sacking shrines is not an act taught or supported in Iraqi culture or history which, based on your ridiculous post, you are absolutely fucking clueless about.

Do you even have relatives living there? Local Friends? Family? Have you even fucking been there before? Your post comes off as extremely stupid and insulting.

Why are you so pissy? You asked what is basically a non-sensical question: "what's more important: what ISIS considers right or what Iraq considers right?" Since there Iraqis who support ISIS and agree with their actions, and since people interpret things however they wish based on self-serving beliefs, as the other poster was pointing out, then there is no "what Iraq considers right."

I'm not trying to defend ISIS, by the way; I hope that's obvious.

 

[RustyNails]

Yes. Because what is the justification?

The justification is Muslims are forced to pay 2.5% flat tax in a caliphate.

 

[elrechazado]

The justification is Muslims are forced to pay 2.5% flat tax in a caliphate.

is steve forbes the caliph?

 

[Suen]

Why are you so pissy? You asked what is basically a non-sensical question: "what's more important: what ISIS considers right or what Iraq considers right?" Since there Iraqis who support ISIS and agree with their actions, and since people interpret things however they wish based on self-serving beliefs, as the other poster was pointing out, then there is no "what Iraq considers right."

I'm not trying to defend ISIS, by the way; I hope that's obvious.

Jesus christ you aren't even aware of which Iraqis that allied themselves with ISIS or for what purpose. Let's skip that for a moment and ask ourselves this: if those Iraqis you mention agree on destroying shrines then why haven't they been doing it in the past? Heck let's just go back to June when ISIS arrived in full force: why didn't they blow up the mosque day one? Nothing has been preventing them from doing it; in fact the Iraqis you are talking about, which in this case happen to be the Maslawis, were the damn daily visitors of the shrines that were destroyed. Are you going to tell me that Maslawis ignored the existance of their own shrines for centuries and just decided to blow it up now when ISIS arrived? You don't realize how stupid it sounds? I'll also add that the notion you have of Sunni Iraqis aligning themselves with ISIS because they agree with them is incredibly naive.

Let's use your logic (and no I'm not trying to insult you): is rape wrong in Germany? By their laws, yes. By their culture, yes. Despite that rape occurs in Germany and I'm sure you have crazy idiots who would support rape there, every country has insane people in them. Now is it fair to say, because of these idiots, that there is no such thing as "Germany considers rape to be wrong"? Because if there is such a thing then you better start explaining why the same thought process does not apply to the above. You are using the existance of some terrorists of Iraqi origin that may agree on blowing up shrines to paint a broader picture of a "hey look, there is no such thing as "what Iraq thinks", they like to destroy shrines". It's laughable and more than that sad.

I'll clarify myself: people were discussing how truthful to Islam ISIS were being with their actions. I said it doesn't matter; destroying shrines isn't an Iraqi trait and it's against the laws there (and no, small criminal elements in the country doesn't change this fact as you've implied), the destruction is occuring in Iraq hence whatever validity ISIS' actions has doesn't matter one fucking bit. They need to be killed.

I'm not saying you're defending ISIS anywhere.

 

[kobashi100]

Yes yes yes yes. It is an awful practice to force people of other religions (and who are weaker then you in that area) to give you money.

so if it was a general poll tax it would be okay?

I get people dont like the idea of the Jizya, I really do as on paper it comes across as some punishment tax but it really isnt suppose to be that.

It is yearly tax which pays for state services. It is the only tax people pay, there is no income tax, no road tax etc etc.

Also it shouldnt be collected in a way to humiliate non muslims. If IS did it in a humiliating way then they were wrong and should seek advice and forgiveness.

The poor shouldnt pay it and women, priests are exempt from it.

Plus muslims also pay a tax but it is just called something else.

Also would you also argue that muslim women shouldnt be paying fines in france because they choose to wear a piece of cloth or is that okay?

 

[Suen]

If IS did it in a humiliating way then they were wrong and should seek advice and forgiveness.

Seek for advice and forgiveness :lol. At this point I'd almost be willing to buy you a ticket to Iraq myself and wait for the army to send a fighter jet towards you and your ISIS friends. You're unbelievable.

 

[speculawyer]

It is yearly tax which pays for state services. It is the only tax people pay, there is no income tax, no road tax etc etc.

So basically modern society would fall apart due to insufficient roads, bridges, courts, police, etc. I didn't realize that the goal was not just theocracy but literal demodernization.

The poor shouldnt pay it and women, priests are exempt from it.

Very sexist.


I think they should go ahead and establish this state just so the rest of us can watch it fall apart or become completely corrupt or whatever its sad fate will be.

Someone needs to write the Animal Farm for caliphates.

 

[SoulPlaya]

so if it was a general poll tax it would be okay?

I get people dont like the idea of the Jizya, I really do as on paper it comes across as some punishment tax but it really isnt suppose to be that.

It is yearly tax which pays for state services. It is the only tax people pay, there is no income tax, no road tax etc etc.

Also it shouldnt be collected in a way to humiliate non muslims. If IS did it in a humiliating way then they were wrong and should seek advice and forgiveness.

The poor shouldnt pay it and women, priests are exempt from it.

Plus muslims also pay a tax but it is just called something else.

Also would you also argue that muslim women shouldnt be paying fines in france because they choose to wear a piece of cloth or is that okay?

What services is ISIS providing? Iraqi's don't generally even pay any taxes, as oil pays for everything.

Wait a minute, why am I arguing with you?

Someone is actually defending this practice with this BS about services provided and what not. Taxation shouldn't be based on your religious affiliation. It's fucking 2014!

 

[m_shortpants]

I don't think jizya has any place in society today, but back then it was levied because Muslims paid 2.5% flat tax annually. Christians and Jews were not allowed to serve in the military either, but of course were offered protection. Keep in mind there was no sales tax or other general tax.

Again, I don't think there's any place for it in today's society, but those were the reasons.

Also, I can't believe there's actually someone here who defends ISIS lmao. GAF truly is diverse.

 

[kurisu1974]

The justification is Muslims are forced to pay 2.5% flat tax in a caliphate.

Do you know what I mean when I use the word justification? Or is it just regular mob practice, money for protection.

 

[boiled goose]

Christianity is not Judaism though. For some reason it's become the argument of choice on the internet that Christians are all just hyprocrites who don't even follow the teachings of the book they claim to be holy. But it ignores the very foundation of Christianity. Christians don't 'ignore' things that like - they are told they no longer apply to them. Christians are followers of Jesus - what did Jesus do when they went to stone the adulterous woman?

I'm not saying there are not extremist Christians. I'm also trying not to use the 'no true Scots' fallacy. But in order to avoid that fallacy, people go so far in the other direction and basically say the only requirement for one to be considered a Christian by society is self-proclimation. It's a pointless exercise. It's like me saying I'm an atheist and doing things in the name of atheism. Oh but I actually believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ. I agree there's variance on a lot of things in the Bible when it comes to Christian teaching - but there's plenty of overwhelmingly clear teaching in there. So it seems strange to try and pin things on Christianity when it's abundantly clear it goes against the teachings.

For what it's worth, the church is probably most likely to blame for this view. The Roman Catholics spent 1000 years not caring a bit about what Jesus said while they launched holy wars against as many pagans as they could, so I can probably forgive modern society for not fully understanding the teachings of Christianity.

No true scotsman not avoided.

Once logic is out the window, any interpretation is possible.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I don't think jizya has any place in society today, but back then it was levied because Muslims paid 2.5% flat tax annually. Christians and Jews were not allowed to serve in the military either, but of course were offered protection. Keep in mind there was no sales tax or other general tax.

Again, I don't think there's any place for it in today's society, but those were the reasons.

Also, I can't believe there's actually someone here who defends ISIS lmao. GAF truly is diverse.

This is true jizya only works in an Islamic society and there is no society which can be islamic these days

 

[m_shortpants]

Do you know what I mean when I use the word justification? Or is it just regular mob practice, money for protection.

Isn't that exactly what I do when my tax money goes to pay for the US military?

 

[kurisu1974]

Isn't that exactly what I do when my tax money goes to pay for the US military?

Will the US military knock on your door and burn down your house if you don't pay?

Do you pay a different tax than your neighbour because you're subscribed to a different belief system?

 

[Jakeh111]

The shit people do in the name of religion is depressing.

I think the people that run things dont believe in religion but use it as a means to gain power.

 

[Amir0x]

I think the people that run things dont believe in religion but use it as a means to gain power.

What's your basis for this thought?

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Someone's actually defending the ISIS?

Holy fucking shit.

 

[Amir0x]

Someone's actually defending the ISIS?

Holy fucking shit.

I'm not sure I see any posts defending ISIS.