Reply to If you or someone you know is anti-Islam, Why?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If you or someone you know is anti-Islam, Why?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous]Here are the differences between Jizya and Zakat, according to Wikipedia:

Zakat	
obligatory upon Muslims	
net worth of assets must exceed the Nisab (excess money for personal need) for Zakat to be obligatory	
only payable on assets continuously owned over one lunar year that are in excess of the Nisab	
the amount of Zakat paid is fixed and specified by Sharee'ah	
paid only by the owner of the assets himself/herself	
refusal to pay Zakat has no specific punishment by Sharee'ah law in life; punishment is delayed to the end time[35]	
should be paid seeking God's pleasure [Qur'an 30:39]

Jizya
obligatory upon Dhimmis
required even if the Dhimmi's wealth or property does not exceed Nisab
paid according to a contract, but usually paid yearly regardless of Nisab
the amount paid is not fixed or specified by Sharee'ah, but is at least one gold Dinar with no maximum amount [32][33]
paid by all able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power[34]
refusal to pay Jizya is considered a breach of The Dhimma contract; as a consequence the Dhimmi's blood (life) and assets would become permissible[36]
is a tax on non-Muslims.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

Once again, what Muslims *claim* about Islam is different from what is actually practiced around the world.  Jizya has often been used as an excuse to confiscate Christian and minority property in an unfair way.

Separating people into different groups under the law is, and always will be, a lousy idea.  Ever heard of "separate but equal?"  Segregation laws?  And guess what, people enforcing those laws always had some rationale that it was "fair" or "better for everyone."  This type of system invites inequality, discrimination, and worse.  This, by itself, should be enough to convince a person that Islam is not perfect.  No religion should be dictating laws.[/quote]

If you want to have a serious discussion about Islam, please refrain from quoting  Sheikh Wikipedia. The web is full of salafists, wahabists,fatwa lovers, islam bashers, ect. The most reliable and authentic sources of information about Islam is of course the  Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s Hadiths, that's what Muslims live by, not wikipedia. Islamic Figh (jurisprudence) is very complex, as the rules are not static. For every situation, the Fiqh can change depending on the person's specific circumstances~[/quote]
I[b]f you want to have a serious discussion, start with acknowledging that "salafists, wahhabists, fatwa lovers etc." have as much tafsir on their side, along with voluminous scholarship, as your peace-loving interpretation. [/b] Islam's stance on religious minorities is more progressive than Christianity, but the fact of the matter is that in Islamic state and in the Shariatic discourse, a Muslim and a non-Muslim are not equal. They are not. They differ in their rights and they differ in their privileges, which are decidedly on the side of the Muslims.  Sheikh Wikipedia may be a lousy source, but Umar's dhimma agreement is not, and and its language ain't at all pretty toward minorities.

Then, it is usually never mentioned that Islamic tolerance toward minorities applies to only two of them: Christians and Jews.  Everyone else is not included in the protected class. [/quote]

Well context dear, what a beautiful thing.  Islamophobes attempt to deceive people by quoting out of context and in a manner that suits their desires.Many people read the Quran without understanding the context. English translations of the Quran either give no context, or a limited context.Context has to do with four principles: literal meaning (what the words say), the historical setting , the events in which the words were used, who were the words addressed to and how those words were understood at that time, the grammatical structure  of the passage and synthesis, comparing it with other passages in the Quran for a fuller meaning. All of these things refer to context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kind of errors and misunderstandings. Sadly, taking passages out of context, giving some more importance than they deserved, and misinterpreting them for their own reasons was initiated by the Orientalists and built upon, not only by the Media but also, verses were and are used out of context even by Muslims to justify individual or group actions.[/quote]

so the actual text is not adequate and we need to understand "context".  Who then are the living breathing humans that define the "context"?   How do they do this?

I think a better context is the current context. It is easily validated and discussed.

Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Why is this?  Does this seem valid for the birthplace of such a great religion?

Because of that Christians generally only worship in secret within private homes.  Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are prohibited. These include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols, and others.   Why is this?  why is Islam the only religion that does this?  What is the context for this?

for details please refer to - http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm

"There is no legal recognition of, or protection under the law for, freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. The country is a monarchy and the King is both head of state and government. The legal system is based on the government's official interpretation of Shari'a (Islamic law). Sunni Islam is the official religion.
The Government confirmed that, as a matter of public policy, it guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious services. However, this right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law. Moreover, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited, and mutawwa'in (religious police) continued to conduct raids of private non-Muslim religious gatherings. Although the Government also confirmed its policy to protect the right to possess and use personal religious materials, it did not provide for this right in law, and the mutawwa'in sometimes confiscated the personal religious material of non-Muslims."

[/quote]

Seriously, if you can't comprehend the need of context as far as the Quran is concerned, this discussion is pointless as I will be wasting my time. I mean, this is Quran101, First, whenever a passage is quoted from the Quran the context should be determined.Then, is the verse specific or general? Does it refer to a specific time or is it timeless etc? If you don’t know, find out. Just reading  one verse one gets completely the wrong picture. This Book is not like a magazine, article, or blog. You can’t skim through the Quran to get its treasure.

Now, if you want to discuss Saudi Arabia or Saudi laws, maybe you need to open a new thread. I do not consider Saudi Laws to be reflective of Sharia nor do I look at Saudi Arabia as the beacon of Islam. Saudi Arabia is not a poster for justice, equality, freedom, or civil rights. Petrodollars, yeh that's what it's run by......[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics