Anonymous
09/09/2014 10:50
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:2:39, we know that Muslima is the person who ousts after midnight. That, or if you're not Muslima, you never sleep.
I generally function on four to five hrs of sleep. Again, I am not Muslima. So what if I were though? Makes zero diff who I am. But ask Jeff if I am Muslima again. I think he said no before.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 10:38
Subject: Re:Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:
Why do you focus exclusively on Islam and Muslims?
Because that's what this thread is about. I'm not the poster you're arguing with, but here's something that you are clearly after, and something I feel completely comfortable saying:
Christianity and Judaism, and many other religions are as bad as Islam. If all of the world's religions and holy books burned in a bonfire tomorrow, I'd throw a big party the day after.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 10:36
Subject: Re:Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:
Because as Muslima and I have tried to tell you over and over and over again which you simply can't seem to comprehend is that pre Islamic Arabia was a hedonistic, uncivilized, and brutal society. It necessitated Allah send a messenger to warn people. Tribal culture and patriarchal traditions were pervasive, womens and childrens rights were trampled, there was deception in trade, abusive usury, etc..It is extremely difficult to bring such people to an enlightened state of mind. Islam has accomplished a lot but traditions and cultural mindset are very deeply entrenched.
Islam did not lift Arabs up from their tribal darkness. On the contrary, Arabs have co-opted Islam and developed the body of Islamic law anchored in their tribal practices and beliefs. Quranic values and Arab values are at odds.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 09:19
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Thank you, OP, for this new format of having a single topic per thread. That makes it possible to address Islam's position on individual issues -- and Christianity's position on the same issues -- in a much clearer format. Great idea.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 09:11
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:Churches
Regarding churches, `Umar ibn-al-Khattâb wrote that any church which was built after the coming of Islam should be destroyed, and he forbade any new church to be built. He also commanded that the exterior of a church should not be such as to attract attention, and if any cross is displayed outside the church it should be broken over the head of the owner of the church.
`Urwa ibn-Muhammad used to destroy churches in Sanâ`a.[3] This is the position of all Muslim scholars.
`Umar ibn-`Abdal`azîz was particularly severe about this. He ordered that in Islamic territory no synagogue or church should be left, whether old ones or new. Al-Hasan al-Basrî held the same opinion when he said: "It is a sunna to destroy the churches which are in old or new cities, and to prevent the people under dhimma to rebuild what fell into ruins."
Al-Istakhrî said: "If they want to plaster the outside of the walls, they should be prevented, but not the inside. Their churches may not be higher than the buildings of the Muslims. According to one opinion they may be of equal height, but according to another opinion they may not be."
For a non-Christian example, smashing the Buddhas at Bamiyan was sanctioned by the Taliban theocracy.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 08:30
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:
Jizya amount has never been fixed to a percentage. It has always been up to the rulers of a particular community. Thus, the claim that it is less that zakat (fixed at 2.5%) is nonsense.
For those of you fixated on the amount, read the rest of the line "so that they consider themselves subdued." Jizya is the symbol of submission to the Islamic state. Not alliance, not friendship, not affection. Submission.
I should also point out that rulers throughout history have differed on much humiliation they wanted to express toward their non-Muslim citizens. The Ottoman empire has traditionally been very tolerant of non-Muslims, for instance.
I'm not the PP who wrote about jizya and zakat above. But it seems pretty clear that the tax paid by non-Muslims (Jizya) was often greater than the tax paid by Muslims (zakat, a 2.5% tax). For example, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya) says there's some debate on this, but
"Other scholars[61][62][63] claim the tax rates and amounts were fixed and strictly implemented. The rate of jizya and Kharaj tax, head tax and land tax respectively, exceeded 20% for all non-Muslims, and payable by new moon. In the western Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Christians and Jews of Egypt and Morocco, these taxes were often graded into three levels with minimum rate being 20% of all estimated assets and any sales.[64] The highest rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the Islamic empire.[65] In the eastern Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Hindus and Jains, the tax structure were similar, with non-Muslims paying jizya and Kharaj tax rate at least twice the zakat tax rate paid by Muslims. The discriminatory and high tax rates led to mass civil protests of 1679 in India, these protests were crushed by Aurangzeb.[55][66]"
ISIS is now imposing jizya (poll tax) on non-Muslims in Mosul: http://wwrn.org/articles/42778/. The poll tax of $250 seems pretty crushing in Mosul's devasted economy where few businesses are operating.
Jizya seems like a pretty significant economic advantage Muslims have over non-Muslims.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 08:14
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Thanks, PP!
Anonymous
09/09/2014 07:49
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Churches
Regarding churches, `Umar ibn-al-Khattâb wrote that any church which was built after the coming of Islam should be destroyed, and he forbade any new church to be built. He also commanded that the exterior of a church should not be such as to attract attention, and if any cross is displayed outside the church it should be broken over the head of the owner of the church.
`Urwa ibn-Muhammad used to destroy churches in Sanâ`a.[3] This is the position of all Muslim scholars.
`Umar ibn-`Abdal`azîz was particularly severe about this. He ordered that in Islamic territory no synagogue or church should be left, whether old ones or new. Al-Hasan al-Basrî held the same opinion when he said: "It is a sunna to destroy the churches which are in old or new cities, and to prevent the people under dhimma to rebuild what fell into ruins."
Al-Istakhrî said: "If they want to plaster the outside of the walls, they should be prevented, but not the inside. Their churches may not be higher than the buildings of the Muslims. According to one opinion they may be of equal height, but according to another opinion they may not be."
Regarding churches, `Umar ibn-al-Khattâb wrote that any church which was built after the coming of Islam should be destroyed, and he forbade any new church to be built. He also commanded that the exterior of a church should not be such as to attract attention, and if any cross is displayed outside the church it should be broken over the head of the owner of the church.
`Urwa ibn-Muhammad used to destroy churches in Sanâ`a.[3] This is the position of all Muslim scholars.
`Umar ibn-`Abdal`azîz was particularly severe about this. He ordered that in Islamic territory no synagogue or church should be left, whether old ones or new. Al-Hasan al-Basrî held the same opinion when he said: "It is a sunna to destroy the churches which are in old or new cities, and to prevent the people under dhimma to rebuild what fell into ruins."
Al-Istakhrî said: "If they want to plaster the outside of the walls, they should be prevented, but not the inside. Their churches may not be higher than the buildings of the Muslims. According to one opinion they may be of equal height, but according to another opinion they may not be."
Anonymous
09/09/2014 07:47
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Here's more, too lazy to post:
http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/views/views21.htm
The following chapter of at-Turtûshî represents the severest and most fanatical of Muslim position regarding Christians.— Although no Muslim country of our time recognizes the dhimma system as part of its laws or constitutions; theoretically all citizens are equal, the 1935 editor of at-Turtûshî expressed this wish in a footnote to this chapter.[2]
The Covenant of `Umar
`Abdarrahmân b. Ghunm said: We wrote to `Umar b. al-Khattâb at the time when he made a settlement with the Christian people of Syria:
In the name of God the merciful and kind. This is a letter from the Christians of such and such a city to the Commander of the Faithful. When you took holy possession of us, we asked you for a guarantee of safety (amân) for ourselves, our children, our property, and the people of our community (milla). We agreed to the following conditions:
We will not build in our cities or in their neighbourhood any new monastery, church, monk's cell, or hermitage.
We will not restore such buildings which fall into ruin, neither by night nor by day, especially when they are surrounded by Muslim compounds.
We will keep our doors open to people passing by and to travellers; moreover, we will give food and lodging for three days to Muslims who stop at our places.
We will not harbor a spy in our churches or houses.
We will not hide from the Muslims any plot to hurt them.
We will not teach our children the Qur'ân.
We will not display our religion, or invite anyone to join it.
We will not prevent any of our relatives from joining Islam if he wishes.
We will respect Muslims, and give them our seats if they wish to sit down.
We will not in any way imitate their way of dressing, such as wearing a cap (qalaswa = Hausa hula), a turban, or sandals, or parting the hair.
We will not speak as they do, or use their surnames [like "Abû-Tâlib"].
We will not use saddles in riding.
We will not wear swords, or possess or carry any arms.
We will not use Arabic letters on our signet rings.
We will not sell alcoholic drinks.
We will clip our hair from covering our foreheads.
We will keep to the same dress wherever we are, and will wear a belt.
We will not display our crosses or books in any way in the roadways or markets of the Muslims.
We will play the nâqûs [a wooden percussion instrument] only very lightly in our churches.
We will in no way read the lessons loudly in our churches when Muslims are about.
We will not have processions on Palm Sunday and Easter.
We will not pray loudly while bringing our dead to the grave.
We will not at all display processional lights in the roadways or markets of the Muslims.
We will not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We will not take possession of any slave who belongs to a Muslim through the division of war booty.
We will not have places where we can look down into Muslim houses...
"We bind ourselves and our community to these stipulations. In return for them we receive a guarantee of safety. If we should contravene any of the stipulations which we accepted from you and made ourselves responsible for, we shall no longer enjoy this dhimma pact, and we shall be liable to be treated as rebels and seditious people."
`Umar wrote back to `Abdarrahmân b. Ghunm, saying, "Ratify what they requested, but add the following two stipulations which I impose on them in addition to what they took upon themselves:
They may not buy anyone captured by the Muslims.
If any of then deliberately strikes a Muslim he has broken the pact."
How the tolerated classes are to ride
Nâfi` related from Sâlim, a client of `Umar b. al-Khattâb, that `Umar wrote to the Christians of Syria, saying that they should stop using stirrups, but should ride sitting sideways between the pack-bags (= mangala). They should also dress differently from the Muslims, so that they may be recognized.
It is also related that the Banû-Taghlib [an Arab tribe] visited `Umar b. `Abdal`azîz and said, "O Commander of the Faithful, we are Arabs; tell us what you require." `Umar asked: "Are you Christians?" They answered, "We are Christians." He told them, "Call for a barber," and they did so. He had the barber clip short the hair hanging over their forehead, and cut off a strip of their robes to make a belt for them to wear, and commanded them not to ride sitting an saddles, but only on packbags, sitting sideways.
http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/views/views21.htm
The following chapter of at-Turtûshî represents the severest and most fanatical of Muslim position regarding Christians.— Although no Muslim country of our time recognizes the dhimma system as part of its laws or constitutions; theoretically all citizens are equal, the 1935 editor of at-Turtûshî expressed this wish in a footnote to this chapter.[2]
The Covenant of `Umar
`Abdarrahmân b. Ghunm said: We wrote to `Umar b. al-Khattâb at the time when he made a settlement with the Christian people of Syria:
In the name of God the merciful and kind. This is a letter from the Christians of such and such a city to the Commander of the Faithful. When you took holy possession of us, we asked you for a guarantee of safety (amân) for ourselves, our children, our property, and the people of our community (milla). We agreed to the following conditions:
We will not build in our cities or in their neighbourhood any new monastery, church, monk's cell, or hermitage.
We will not restore such buildings which fall into ruin, neither by night nor by day, especially when they are surrounded by Muslim compounds.
We will keep our doors open to people passing by and to travellers; moreover, we will give food and lodging for three days to Muslims who stop at our places.
We will not harbor a spy in our churches or houses.
We will not hide from the Muslims any plot to hurt them.
We will not teach our children the Qur'ân.
We will not display our religion, or invite anyone to join it.
We will not prevent any of our relatives from joining Islam if he wishes.
We will respect Muslims, and give them our seats if they wish to sit down.
We will not in any way imitate their way of dressing, such as wearing a cap (qalaswa = Hausa hula), a turban, or sandals, or parting the hair.
We will not speak as they do, or use their surnames [like "Abû-Tâlib"].
We will not use saddles in riding.
We will not wear swords, or possess or carry any arms.
We will not use Arabic letters on our signet rings.
We will not sell alcoholic drinks.
We will clip our hair from covering our foreheads.
We will keep to the same dress wherever we are, and will wear a belt.
We will not display our crosses or books in any way in the roadways or markets of the Muslims.
We will play the nâqûs [a wooden percussion instrument] only very lightly in our churches.
We will in no way read the lessons loudly in our churches when Muslims are about.
We will not have processions on Palm Sunday and Easter.
We will not pray loudly while bringing our dead to the grave.
We will not at all display processional lights in the roadways or markets of the Muslims.
We will not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We will not take possession of any slave who belongs to a Muslim through the division of war booty.
We will not have places where we can look down into Muslim houses...
"We bind ourselves and our community to these stipulations. In return for them we receive a guarantee of safety. If we should contravene any of the stipulations which we accepted from you and made ourselves responsible for, we shall no longer enjoy this dhimma pact, and we shall be liable to be treated as rebels and seditious people."
`Umar wrote back to `Abdarrahmân b. Ghunm, saying, "Ratify what they requested, but add the following two stipulations which I impose on them in addition to what they took upon themselves:
They may not buy anyone captured by the Muslims.
If any of then deliberately strikes a Muslim he has broken the pact."
How the tolerated classes are to ride
Nâfi` related from Sâlim, a client of `Umar b. al-Khattâb, that `Umar wrote to the Christians of Syria, saying that they should stop using stirrups, but should ride sitting sideways between the pack-bags (= mangala). They should also dress differently from the Muslims, so that they may be recognized.
It is also related that the Banû-Taghlib [an Arab tribe] visited `Umar b. `Abdal`azîz and said, "O Commander of the Faithful, we are Arabs; tell us what you require." `Umar asked: "Are you Christians?" They answered, "We are Christians." He told them, "Call for a barber," and they did so. He had the barber clip short the hair hanging over their forehead, and cut off a strip of their robes to make a belt for them to wear, and commanded them not to ride sitting an saddles, but only on packbags, sitting sideways.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 07:43
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, if Jizya is less than the zakat for muslims, and it exempts nonMuslims from military service yet still entitles them to the same protection, I would think nonMuslims have it a bit easier. Nothing oppressive in that.
Being treated as a second class citizen IS oppressive, and no one would claim that in an Islamic state, the status of Muslims is equal to that of non-Muslims. Islamic states very clearly and unapologetically privilege one over the other.
Please list the privileges Muslim citizens have over nonMuslim citizens in an Islamic State.
For one, an unconditional transfer of custody of children to the Muslim spouse in case of divorce. And considering that only men could marry non-Muslims in a Muslim state, and that divorce is incredibly easy for Muslim men, I'd say that's a clear privilege a Muslim has over a non-Muslim.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 05:51
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, if Jizya is less than the zakat for muslims, and it exempts nonMuslims from military service yet still entitles them to the same protection, I would think nonMuslims have it a bit easier. Nothing oppressive in that.
Being treated as a second class citizen IS oppressive, and no one would claim that in an Islamic state, the status of Muslims is equal to that of non-Muslims. Islamic states very clearly and unapologetically privilege one over the other.
Please list the privileges Muslim citizens have over nonMuslim citizens in an Islamic State.
+1.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 04:43
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
2:39, we know that Muslima is the person who ousts after midnight. That, or if you're not Muslima, you never sleep.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 02:39
Subject: Re:Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:While you may not be able to verbally force conversion, you use plenty of other tactics:
1. Jizya- tax-- Are we getting that verse wrong from the Quran too?
In Islam Jizya may not be imposed on women, children the disabled, the elderly or the poor YET the Islamic State MUst provide shelter, protection to nonMuslims in exchange and they may NOT compel nonMuslims to military duty. How is this oppressive? Remember that Muslim countries don't really impose Jizya anymore.
2. Witholding of jobs-- ask the Christian and Hindu families in Pakistan about this.
Are you kidding me? Have you visited Pakistan? I have. My uncle's father was brutally murdered by Hindus and had to flee to Pakistan during the war. Have you visited India? I have. In fact my father lived there for a while. Muslims are still intensely discriminated in jobs despite their qualifications. You like to speak with great authority. You have illusions of grandeur about your understanding of the world and Islam. I do question, however, how many Muslims you personally know, how many scholars or Imams you have personally spoken to, and how many Muslim countries you have visited for an extended period of time or lived in. You have such a big ego that you can't possibly imagine being wrong about anything on the subject of Islam. But here you are, wrong again. You would learn more with a dose of humility.
3. "Love Jihad"-- Google it- it's rampant in England and India.
4. Destruction of other religious places of worship. -- plenty to choose from.
Yes. And historically, only Muslims destroyed other people's places of worship. Are you joking?!
5. The Almighty Sword.-- An Islamic tradition--
-Ask the MILLIONS of Sikhs and Hindus killed during partition.
-The Hindus in Kashmir forced to flee or convert or die.- Read up on the ethnic cleansing and forced exit of over 400,000 Kashmiri Hindu Pundits. Many whom still, 20 years later, still live in refugee camps.
You have a lot of nerve bringing up people who were killed during this partition because I don't think you even knew ONE person who died. I did. I have family members that were directly impacted by this partition. So get off your high horse and try living there to understand what it was truly like for Muslims also.
-The Hindus and Christians still being persecuted today in Pakistan.
Sorry but Pakistan is one of the most corrupt Muslim countries. It's not a role model for true Islam.
- The current persecution in Burma, forcing Hindus to flee and seek refugee status elsewhere, including here in the U.S.
-The GENOCIDE in Bangladesh. --http://www.genocidebangladesh.org
-The beheading of Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur for not converting by Aurangzeb during his bloody mission to convert all of India to Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Tegh_Bahadurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Tegh_Bahadur
But they're not TRUE Muslims right? No one is truly compelling anyone to convert right? They have no idea whatsoever about the religion they claim to practice. And they've had no idea for 1000s of years either it seems. They keep making the same mistakes, over and over and over…
But remember, you don't put much relevance in what PEOPLE do, right? Isn't that what you said to Jeff? You want scriptural proof, which was amply provided. Then when I provided scriptural proof, you changed your mind, shifted, and sought evidence of what the Muslim population does.
Why is it taking so long for such huge numbers of Muslims to get it right?? Why is it taking so long for such huge numbers of Muslims to stop behaving with such violence all.over.the.world?? Across cultures and countries?
Because as Muslima and I have tried to tell you over and over and over again which you simply can't seem to comprehend is that pre Islamic Arabia was a hedonistic, uncivilized, and brutal society. It necessitated Allah send a messenger to warn people. Tribal culture and patriarchal traditions were pervasive, womens and childrens rights were trampled, there was deception in trade, abusive usury, etc..It is extremely difficult to bring such people to an enlightened state of mind. Islam has accomplished a lot but traditions and cultural mindset are very deeply entrenched.
Why do you focus exclusively on Islam and Muslims? The treatment of native American Indians was tantamount to genocide. What was the Indian Removal Act about? The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was enacted in the late 1800's. What about the genocide of Bosnian Muslims at the hands of Serbs in 1995? Have you ever even known a Bosnian refugee? I was young during that time but my family and I helped many. Do you even know about the Uigher Muslims in China and how they are treated? Do you even know one person who's Uigher from that area that can speak of the mistreatment at the hands of the Chinese government? I do. What about the Palestinian people and the oppression they live under? Do you even know any Palestinian Muslims? I do. So do me a favor…it's time for you to sit down. STOP VILIFYING ISLAM.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 02:05
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, if Jizya is less than the zakat for muslims, and it exempts nonMuslims from military service yet still entitles them to the same protection, I would think nonMuslims have it a bit easier. Nothing oppressive in that.
Being treated as a second class citizen IS oppressive, and no one would claim that in an Islamic state, the status of Muslims is equal to that of non-Muslims. Islamic states very clearly and unapologetically privilege one over the other.
Please list the privileges Muslim citizens have over nonMuslim citizens in an Islamic State.
Anonymous
09/09/2014 01:54
Subject: Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
There are other people responding besides me, the OP.
Frankly, if Jizya is less than the zakat for muslims, and it exempts nonMuslims from military service yet still entitles them to the same protection, I would think nonMuslims have it a bit easier. Nothing oppressive in that.
Jizya amount has never been fixed to a percentage. It has always been up to the rulers of a particular community. Thus, the claim that it is less that zakat (fixed at 2.5%) is nonsense.
The Quran is not always explicit on details but if you study the meaning, you get a better appreciation for it's overall message. Jizya was only for able bodied men. Jizya could not be imposed on women, children, disabled people, the elderly, or the poor. As such, would it be in accordance with Islam if it permitted Jizya to exploit people's financial situation?
For those of you fixated on the amount, read the rest of the line "so that they consider themselves subdued." Jizya is the symbol of submission to the Islamic state. Not alliance, not friendship, not affection. Submission.
This is one of the most common criticisms of the Jizya. Here is the literal translation from Arabic:
"Jizya" is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter. "Jizya" is a derived term in the form of "ficla" from "Mujazã" which is the noun "compensation", meaning "a sum of money given in return for protection". Ibn Al-Mutaraz said: "It is derived from "’idjzã" or "substitute" or "sufficiency" because it suffices as a substitute for the "dhimmi's[2] embracement of Islam"
So the submission translation refers to the fact that payment of Jizya symbolizes that nonMuslims not only acknowledge, but accept and submit to the rule of the Islamic State. In exchange, they can practice their own faith freely and the State must protect them in times of war.