Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
There isn't a single contradiction in the Quran. I know exactly the verses you are referring to, feel free to cite them and I will give you the story behind each. The Quran wasnt revealed over night but it was revealed in 23 years and verses were revealed according to what was going on at the time and there is a clear explanation of each verse of the Quran. If you want to learn the meaning of verses, you have to read what we call Tafseer of the Quran which will tell you when a verse was revealed, why it was revealed and what the meaning is

My husband - a Saudi Arab - and I refer to the line about Jews allegedly worshipping Ezra as a "big ole Quranic whoops." That's why Jews don't take the Quran seriously. If it could mess up that very basic tenet of Jewish monotheistic belief, what else did it misunderstand?

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

I don't like to debate other religions but since you noted this,the Qur’an does not say that all the Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God, but there was a sect of Jews which said that Ezra is the son of God. If you translate the Arabic verse there in the Quran then you will come to know that it is a claim of some Jews and not something which forms the core belief of Judaism. it is to be noted that almost all classical commentators of the Qur'an agree in that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused. According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn `Abbas - quoted by Tabari in his commentary on this verse, some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad saw, "How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our giblah* and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?"

Also interesting is Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali's comments on this issue:
Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117). (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihya' Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

You're engaging in theological acrobatics. I have read the purported answer to justify this verse, and they all appear to me no more than desperate efforts to explain something that is, in effect, a big ole whoops. The Quranic line is very simple. It says Christians call Christ the son of god (which is in fact a key tenet of Christian faith), and in the same line and the same grammatical construct, it alleges that Jews call Ezra a son of god (which is a whoops.)

What does it matter that somewhere in Arabia or Yemen there MAY have been a tiny sect of Jews who believed something atypical? The key tenets of Jewish faith have been well formed for centuries before Islam appeared on the scene; absolute, unwavering monotheism is a cornerstone of these beliefs. It is very curious, to say the least, that out all the millions of global Jewry, the Quran - a book for all ages that's correct about all things - chooses to focus on an (allegedly) tiny sect of Jews who worshipped Ezra (if it existed, it left no written trace of its life, certainly not in non-Muslim sources), when it should have been well aware of the fact that this belief - if it existed at all - is a deviation in Judaism. This line describes Christians correctly and it applies to all Christians. It wants to apply the same argument to Jews, but that's where the whoops comes in.

I don't consider "the silence of Jews" on the matter to mean anything. There are any number of reasons one keeps quiet: for political gain, to avoid conflict, to curry favor. How powerful were Muslims at the time? Would it have been advantageous to the Jews to argue with them or not? Why should the Jews care what someone else's scripture say? Is there evidence of Jews EVER objecting to anything the Quran said at the time?

The response you posted is so convoluted and rests on so many assumptions that one is reminded of a simple rule of logic: between a complex and a simple explanation, choose simple. The simple explanation is that whoever wrote that verse made a mistake. I find the answers unconvincing and therefore I consider this verse a Quranic whoops.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
There isn't a single contradiction in the Quran. I know exactly the verses you are referring to, feel free to cite them and I will give you the story behind each. The Quran wasnt revealed over night but it was revealed in 23 years and verses were revealed according to what was going on at the time and there is a clear explanation of each verse of the Quran. If you want to learn the meaning of verses, you have to read what we call Tafseer of the Quran which will tell you when a verse was revealed, why it was revealed and what the meaning is

My husband - a Saudi Arab - and I refer to the line about Jews allegedly worshipping Ezra as a "big ole Quranic whoops." That's why Jews don't take the Quran seriously. If it could mess up that very basic tenet of Jewish monotheistic belief, what else did it misunderstand?

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

I don't like to debate other religions but since you noted this,the Qur’an does not say that all the Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God, but there was a sect of Jews which said that Ezra is the son of God. If you translate the Arabic verse there in the Quran then you will come to know that it is a claim of some Jews and not something which forms the core belief of Judaism. it is to be noted that almost all classical commentators of the Qur'an agree in that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused. According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn `Abbas - quoted by Tabari in his commentary on this verse, some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad saw, "How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our giblah* and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?"

Also interesting is Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali's comments on this issue:
Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117). (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihya' Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I have lived in both Muslims and Non Muslim countries, I have never ever met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover her head, not one. .

If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries.

Ok, so if there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women, then the religion is to blame? How more narrow-minded can you be? The religion itself guarantees free will to each and every human being, this is a right that the Creator Himself bestowed upon His creation. The fact that societies and human beings do not follow this has nothing to do with Islam. Again Muslims are not perfect beings, they come in all shapes and forms like every other person on the planet!

I didn't say religion is to blame. You said you've never met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover. Your comment was about reality on the ground, not religion. I replied to you that a) clearly, you haven't met EVERY Muslim woman, and b) choosing to cover in a society that attaches costs to lack of covering is hardly free choice. We aren't discussing religion. We are discussing the experiences you have reported.

No, what you said was : "If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries" So, according to you, in every Muslim country there are social costs attached to non-covered women and their families? This is simply to be polite, not true! Of course I have not met every Muslim woman living on this planet, I don't have to meet each and every one to say that I have lived in a Muslim country and have not met a single one who was forced to cover. The narrative that you are trying to sell that Muslim women in Muslim countries cover due to the cost of not covering is wrong, insulting to the millions of Muslim women who freely choose to cover, and narrow minded to say the least!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
There isn't a single contradiction in the Quran. I know exactly the verses you are referring to, feel free to cite them and I will give you the story behind each. The Quran wasnt revealed over night but it was revealed in 23 years and verses were revealed according to what was going on at the time and there is a clear explanation of each verse of the Quran. If you want to learn the meaning of verses, you have to read what we call Tafseer of the Quran which will tell you when a verse was revealed, why it was revealed and what the meaning is

My husband - a Saudi Arab - and I refer to the line about Jews allegedly worshipping Ezra as a "big ole Quranic whoops." That's why Jews don't take the Quran seriously. If it could mess up that very basic tenet of Jewish monotheistic belief, what else did it misunderstand?

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

Also interesting is Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali's comments on this issue:
Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117). (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihya' Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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~

If 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. 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.

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.

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."

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I have lived in both Muslims and Non Muslim countries, I have never ever met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover her head, not one. .

If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries.

Ok, so if there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women, then the religion is to blame? How more narrow-minded can you be? The religion itself guarantees free will to each and every human being, this is a right that the Creator Himself bestowed upon His creation. The fact that societies and human beings do not follow this has nothing to do with Islam. Again Muslims are not perfect beings, they come in all shapes and forms like every other person on the planet!

I didn't say religion is to blame. You said you've never met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover. Your comment was about reality on the ground, not religion. I replied to you that a) clearly, you haven't met EVERY Muslim woman, and b) choosing to cover in a society that attaches costs to lack of covering is hardly free choice. We aren't discussing religion. We are discussing the experiences you have reported.

Anonymous wrote:Women are treated like property in Saudia Arabia.

This really is unbelievable. It is like something out of the middle ages.

In April 2010, a new, optional ID card for women was issued which allows them to travel in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The cards include GPS tracking, fingerprints and features that make them difficult to forge. Women do not need male permission to apply for the card, but do need it to travel abroad.

Saudi Arabia is currently the only country in the world where women are forbidden to drive motor vehicles. The motoring ban is not in statute law, but is an "informal" religious fatwa imposed by conservative Muslim clerics in order to maintain the country's tradition of gender segregation. In 1990, when 47 Saudi women drove cars through the streets of Riyadh in protest against the ban, protestors were punished. "All the drivers, and their husbands, were barred from foreign travel for a year. Those women who had government jobs were fired. And from hundreds of mosque pulpits, they were denounced by name as immoral women out to destroy Saudi society.

Women are allowed to fly aircraft, though they must be chauffeured to the airport.

Muslima wrote:
There isn't a single contradiction in the Quran. I know exactly the verses you are referring to, feel free to cite them and I will give you the story behind each. The Quran wasnt revealed over night but it was revealed in 23 years and verses were revealed according to what was going on at the time and there is a clear explanation of each verse of the Quran. If you want to learn the meaning of verses, you have to read what we call Tafseer of the Quran which will tell you when a verse was revealed, why it was revealed and what the meaning is

Muslima wrote:
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.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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~

If 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. 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.

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.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I have lived in both Muslims and Non Muslim countries, I have never ever met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover her head, not one. .

If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries.

Ok, so if there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women, then the religion is to blame? How more narrow-minded can you be? The religion itself guarantees free will to each and every human being, this is a right that the Creator Himself bestowed upon His creation. The fact that societies and human beings do not follow this has nothing to do with Islam. Again Muslims are not perfect beings, they come in all shapes and forms like every other person on the planet!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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~

If 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. 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I have lived in both Muslims and Non Muslim countries, I have never ever met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover her head, not one. .

If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries.