An image of Mohammed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

Source? I've heard it varied and I've never heard of it being used in this day and age so please back up your statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

Source? I've heard it varied and I've never heard of it being used in this day and age so please back up your statement.

Apparently jizya (on non-Muslims) was often double zakat (on Muslims) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya). It's often described, as PP above described it, as protection money, allowing non-Muslims to practice their faiths without interference. It's mandated by the Quran.



Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
—Qur'an, [Quran 9:29]



Anybody know if ISIS is imposing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

Yes, this is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

But non-Muslims essentially can not be drafted into war and risk their life whereas Muslims will be and are expected to give up their life if necessary. I'd say paying that extra 7.5% is well worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

Source? I've heard it varied and I've never heard of it being used in this day and age so please back up your statement.

Apparently jizya (on non-Muslims) was often double zakat (on Muslims) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya). It's often described, as PP above described it, as protection money, allowing non-Muslims to practice their faiths without interference. It's mandated by the Quran.



Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
—Qur'an, [Quran 9:29]



Anybody know if ISIS is imposing it?

It would be fair if you publish a better translation and explain the Islamic history that accompanies this particular ayah. Can you please share that with us? I can, but since you are quoting this, I assume you will want to be the one to explain it better. Otherwise publishing this without any context of history and better translation makes Allah look like a tyrant, which, I'm sure, was not your intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.

The tax on non-Muslims is 10%.

Source? I've heard it varied and I've never heard of it being used in this day and age so please back up your statement.

Apparently jizya (on non-Muslims) was often double zakat (on Muslims) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya). It's often described, as PP above described it, as protection money, allowing non-Muslims to practice their faiths without interference. It's mandated by the Quran.



Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
—Qur'an, [Quran 9:29]



Anybody know if ISIS is imposing it?

It would be fair if you publish a better translation and explain the Islamic history that accompanies this particular ayah. Can you please share that with us? I can, but since you are quoting this, I assume you will want to be the one to explain it better. Otherwise publishing this without any context of history and better translation makes Allah look like a tyrant, which, I'm sure, was not your intent.

Ah, the heck with it, I'll do it for you. This article is from Answering Christianity and it explains this ayah quite well by comparing it to another ayah:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_62.htm
Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article

[b]Qur'an Contradiction:
Can They Disbelieve in the Last Day and be Safe?
By Sami Zaatari
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/last_day_fight.html


Answering-Islam author Sam Shamoun has written an article presenting what he feels to be a contradiction in the Noble Quran. Shamoun asserts (in green):


The Quran exhorted Muhammad and his followers to forgive those who did not believe in the days of Allah:

Say (O Muhammad SAW) to the believers to forgive those who (harm them and) hope not for the Days of Allah (i.e. His Recompense), that He may recompense people according to what they have earned (i.e. to punish these disbelievers, who harm the believers).
Whosoever does a good deed, it is for his ownself, and whosoever does evil, it is against (his ownself). Then to your Lord you will be made to return. S. 45:14-15 Hilali-Khan

In the immediate context it seems to be certain that by "the Days of Allah" the author meant the time when Allah will bring all mankind into judgment in order to repay them for what they have said and done. At the very least the last day is naturally included within this phrase since this happens to be one of Allah’s days.

He believes this is contradicted by:

But this is expressly contradicted by the following command to Muslims to fight any and every one who does not believe in this last day!

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. S. 9:29 Y. Ali

Note the glaring contradiction:
· Q. 45:14 commands Muslims to forgive those who deny the days of Allah, which naturally includes the last day.
· Q. 9:29 teaches the exact opposite of this by commanding Muslims to fight those who deny the last day until they pay the jizya as a sign of their humiliation and subjection.

So basically Sam's argument is that one verse says to forgive those who do not believe in the last day, while the other says to fight those people who deny the last day.

Let us now proceed to answer this supposed contradiction. We first start by posting the tafsir of Surah 45:14-15, one of the verses in question. Here is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir regarding this verse:

The Command to be Patient with the Harm of Idolators
Allah's saying;

(Say to the believers to forgive those who hope not for the Days of Allah,) means, let the believers forgive the disbelievers and endure the harm that they direct against them. In the beginning of Islam, Muslims were ordered to observe patience in the face of the oppression of the idolators and the People of the Scriptures so that their hearts may incline towards Islam. However, when the disbelievers persisted in stubbornness, Allah legislated for the believers to fight in Jihad. Statements of this meaning were collected from `Abdullah bin `Abbas and Qatadah. Mujahid said about Allah's statement,

(those who hope not for the Days of Allah,) "They do not appreciate Allah's favors.'' Allah said,

(that He may recompense people, according to what they have earned.) meaning, if the believers forgive the disbelievers in this life, Allah will still punish the disbelievers for their evil in the Hereafter. Allah's statement next,

(Whosoever does a good deed, it is for himself, and whosoever does evil, it is against (himself). Then to your Lord you will be made to return.) meaning, you will all return to Allah on the Day of Resurrection, when you and your actions will be displayed before Him. Then, He will recompense you for your deeds, good for good and evil for evil.

So as you can see, the basic explanation of this verse is that the Muslims can forgive pagans and atheists who disbelieve in the last day. However so, it is also made clear that Allah later on brought a new law which allowed Muslims to fight such people as the tafsir says. And this new law was revealed in Surah 9:29 which Shamoun quotes:

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. S. 9:29 Y. Ali

Allah eventually later on gave the Muslims permission to fight these type of people. Now is that a contradiction? No, it is not. The reason being is because you can still fight these people, but it does not mean they have to accept Islam, the condition is that they willingly pay the jizya tax. Once they pay the jizya tax they can continue to believe in their atheistic pagan beliefs, but it will be under an Islamic state. You can still forgive them by not forcing them into Islam, nor oppressing them or being bad to them because of their wrong beliefs, hence there is no contradiction.

The only reason you fight them is because you want God's rule to rule the planet, not atheistic nor pagan laws, so hence Muslim's were given the right to fight people until they believed in God, and if they did not, they would have to pay the jizya. Had you not forgiven them, then you would have killed them all since they did not believe in God and so on, yet Surah 9:29 does not tell you to kill them all, nor does it say to kill them if they still do not believe. Rather it says they must pay the jizya from now on if they dont believe, hence they are still forgiven since they are still allowed to live and go about their lives as they see fit under an Islamic state.

So hence Surah 45:14-15 still stands even with the revelation of Surah 9:29, in fact both verses stand one on one with each other, Surah 45:14-15 tells us that we should forgive atheists and pagans, Surah 9:29 now allows us to fight against them, but Surah 45:14-15 is still implemented because you are still forgiving them by allowing them to continue in their beliefs under you own law, only now they have to pay the jizya tax. So if there was a contradiction, then Surah 9:29 would have told us to kill them all unless they accepted Islam, however so it does not, it just tells us to make them willingly pay the jizya tax, hence they are still forgiven and allowed to live and believe in what they want. So no contradiction.

Now people might say isnt it unfair that they have to pay the jizya tax? Not really, the jizya tax is very cheap and affordable, and it grants the non-Muslim's many benefits, benefits which even the Muslims don’t get! For instance, the non-Muslims who are paying jizya in an Islamic state are not obliged to take part in any battle or war, unless they themselves choose to, the Muslims do not have this choice. Also if the Islamic state cannot grant protection the non-Muslims then the non-Muslims are not obliged to pay the jizya tax, since Muslims themselves must meet expectations for the jizya tax to be implemented. Secondly, society today has no problem in paying taxes to the government, so therefore they should have no problem in paying a tax in an Islamic state neither.

Finally, people might now say well isn’t Islam violent because Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not believe in God and so on. Not really, because fighting in this verse does not explicitly mean physical violence, there are many ways in which you fight against somebody that does not involve a physical aspect. You can fight someone with the tongue, using your wisdom and telling him about the truth, you are fighting against the lies that person is propagating and eventually with your tongue you will speak the truth and crush his lies leading him to the truth. So fighting does not have to only be physical.

So as we see, there is no contradiction, both verses still stand.

[Anonymous]

I have a lot of deeply held beliefs that other people, the media, etc. don't believe in, attack, or mock. It doesn't make me angry, in part because it's not surprising.

I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that Jesus is the son of God. I should be able to say those things without making someone angry or being accused of showing disrespect to someone else's beliefs. I have no desire to depict anyone's holy figure in an unflattering light but if you tell me I can't render an image at all, you overreach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot of deeply held beliefs that other people, the media, etc. don't believe in, attack, or mock. It doesn't make me angry, in part because it's not surprising.

I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that Jesus is the son of God. I should be able to say those things without making someone angry or being accused of showing disrespect to someone else's beliefs. I have no desire to depict anyone's holy figure in an unflattering light but if you tell me I can't render an image at all, you overreach.

you have all kinds of deep beliefs that other people do not believe in. You do have a right to render an image, but your right to depict someone elses holy figure gives away your other belief, and that is that you despise beliefs that are not your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot of deeply held beliefs that other people, the media, etc. don't believe in, attack, or mock. It doesn't make me angry, in part because it's not surprising.

I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that Jesus is the son of God. I should be able to say those things without making someone angry or being accused of showing disrespect to someone else's beliefs. I have no desire to depict anyone's holy figure in an unflattering light but if you tell me I can't render an image at all, you overreach.

you have all kinds of deep beliefs that other people do not believe in. You do have a right to render an image, but your right to depict someone elses holy figure gives away your other belief, and that is that you despise beliefs that are not your own.

I don't despise belief in figures I don't think exist. I do reject any suggestion that I must show those figures any level of respect. Politeness and kindness may cause me to do so but no one has any claim on my respect.

AND I would defend those who do despise holy figures and want to express it. I just don't share their hatred.

[Anonymous]

Oh - this one is going to get a lot of use from me on this board:

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot of deeply held beliefs that other people, the media, etc. don't believe in, attack, or mock. It doesn't make me angry, in part because it's not surprising.

I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that Jesus is the son of God. I should be able to say those things without making someone angry or being accused of showing disrespect to someone else's beliefs. I have no desire to depict anyone's holy figure in an unflattering light but if you tell me I can't render an image at all, you overreach.

you have all kinds of deep beliefs that other people do not believe in. You do have a right to render an image, but your right to depict someone elses holy figure gives away your other belief, and that is that you despise beliefs that are not your own.

I don't despise belief in figures I don't think exist. I do reject any suggestion that I must show those figures any level of respect. Politeness and kindness may cause me to do so but no one has any claim on my respect.

AND I would defend those who do despise holy figures and want to express it. I just don't share their hatred.

you do not share the hatred but agree with the cause?
do you not see the contradiction?
I have a belief that that we do not always need to be nice to earthly masters or fellow human beings, but believe we should always be nice to the gods. Of all things in the world, we should have the sense to not start a fight with those


I suppose we are very different. Perhaps you believe in one G-d and I have a more liberal view based on experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot of deeply held beliefs that other people, the media, etc. don't believe in, attack, or mock. It doesn't make me angry, in part because it's not surprising.

I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that Jesus is the son of God. I should be able to say those things without making someone angry or being accused of showing disrespect to someone else's beliefs. I have no desire to depict anyone's holy figure in an unflattering light but if you tell me I can't render an image at all, you overreach.

you have all kinds of deep beliefs that other people do not believe in. You do have a right to render an image, but your right to depict someone elses holy figure gives away your other belief, and that is that you despise beliefs that are not your own.

I don't despise belief in figures I don't think exist. I do reject any suggestion that I must show those figures any level of respect. Politeness and kindness may cause me to do so but no one has any claim on my respect.

AND I would defend those who do despise holy figures and want to express it. I just don't share their hatred.

do not share the hatred but agree with the cause?
do you not see the contradiction?
I have a belief that that we do not always need to be nice to earthly masters or fellow human beings, but believe we should always be nice to the gods. Of all things in the world, we should have the sense to not start a fight with those


I suppose we are very different. Perhaps you believe in one G-d and I have a more liberal view based on experience

You see a false contradiction. I share the cause of people being able to speak freely and harshly and even rudely against MY most precious ideas too. That's the classical liberal (not political liberal) Enlightrnment culture of America and it's one I endorse.

I don't believe in any gods. When I show respect for someone's holy figure I am showing respect for the person who believes, not for the entity they believe in. I don't put religious beliefs over other beliefs. I may respect somekne's strongly held religious or non-religious beliefs or I might not.

[Anonymous]

Guys.... It's not extremism. Muslims don't believe in images if any prophet be it Moses, Jesus, etc. the reason is because it distracts one from Worshipping God. It causes people to worship people. It also leaves the door open for racial descrimination because people tend to create images of people looking how they want them to look which makes races feel divided and excluded. Has nothing to do with extremism.

No true Muslim would ever tell you that. A lot of Muslims are cultural Muslims and really are quite ignorant of their own religion. They put out false info. Honestly ask a local cleric or look online on an Islamic site. You are always at risk for getting wrong info if you just ask someone who was born in a Muslim country. And I will reiterate that an image of Jesus or Abraham etc. Is just as offensive. It's not about Muhammad. It's all of Gods Prophets. Hope this helped.