GeoffP said:
And should Christians and Jews then adopt the same injunction against muslims?
I'm all for self-defense, of course, but what constitutes an "attack"? A few weeks ago, it was a free press. Before that, it was the presence of infidel feet on Saudi Arabian soil. Should the West now treat islam and muslims as islamic nations treat us? Do you consider that to be fair or just?
If any country invades a country for no reason and and with no provocation or on the basis of lies (US attack on iraq, Afghanistan), then they should be subject to tough action form the side of the UN and the rest of the world, but instead the Muslim world was pressured through fear of attack to not resist.
GeoffP said:
Ah. So we should, indeed then, take harsh punitive measures against all muslims - you know, apply the rules of religious intolerance fairly. Treat muslims in the West as non-muslims are treated in the ME. After all, our countries are being invaded by Saudi imams and terrorists. Why should we hold ourselves to a higher standard than other civilizations? Doesn't that smack of cultural imperialism?
Your ignorance and deciet have no bounds. You are using a response concerning the right to fight back against injustice and occupation to show that America should persecute peaceful Muslims living in America who include such professions as doctors, and normal people like simple taxi cab drivers, store owners, who don't do any harm to anyone. Indeed, if terrorists enter any country, they should be subject to arrest, however they have to be charged with evidence first. Your country is hardly being invaded from imams. You are saying Muslims are trying to culturally control the West, that's ridiculous. If anything, it is the West which is invading and controlling the Middle East.
GeoffP said:
Oh? The Shi'ites want the Americans to stay. They aren't committing acts of terrorism. It's their country, too. They like having a government that represents them more equitably and they often seem They want more American protection, not less. You talk as if the Sunnis refer to all muslims. And how about women in Afghanistan? It's also their country. Do they want the Americans - and the civil rights they've installed - to just go away? And how about those who just want human rights and no sharia?
Some of the Shiat political parties do want the Americans to stay. Most of them agents paid by the Americans to listen to their orders. But many parties, especially popular leaders like Imam Muqtada as Sadr want America to leave and are fighting day and night for that to happen. The Sunni Muslims as a whole were made weak so that America could exploit the new Shiat leadership. Sunni Muslims have been attacked, massacred, and jailed in mass numbers. The attacks on cities like Fallujah make this clear, where the Americans used phosperous against enemy soldiers and civilians (like they did in Vietname). Infact the American army spokesman asked if they are worried about civilian deaths, said there are no civilians in Fallujah. Even though a large number of the killed were women, elderly, and children. The Iraqi people will likely never forget Fallujah for generations, and especially for the victims and family it will be a source of understandable hatred against the Americans.
GeoffP said:
Then why did you say that those who attacked islam were jealous of its "one god"?
Why did you automatically assume that I was refering to Christians?
GeoffP said:
That's right on par with my claims: homosexuality is not accepted. What happens, then to homosexuals in the islamic world? I have yet to debate with a single muslim who will say what happens. Why is that?
I just did. Exile or death. That is the law supported by the majority view of the Islamic World and even the minority Christian and Pagan groups in Muslim countries. It's also part of the culture. Unlike the Western view, we deem it as unacceptable, unhuman, disgusting, and we want it to be banned from our communities.
GeoffP said:
Seems I was bang on. The only novel aspect was the claim above that there's no such thing as a dhimmi ("protected person", which is laughable given the oppressive restrictions on such a person) because no islamic state exists. So then non-muslims are not "protected" in islamic countries today? Hardly surprising.
As a matter of fact, in many Muslim countries, the state builds churches and temples for minorities, offers minority scholarships in universities, and often reserves seats in parliament strictly for minorities. An Islamic state does not exist, and when a religious party wins, usually Western countries invade and change the governments (for example Algeria and Afghanistan) or put social, financial pressure on them (Iran, recently Hamas in Palestine).
GeoffP said:
Some of this is actually insulting: they are "not allowed" to practice adultery. Really? Wow, what a setback for a religion that already condemns it as sinful. Other things that Christians are allowed to do, for example, under dhimmitude is marry their cousins, as I recall. One of the major purposes of this legislation appears to be to demean other religions.
The purpose is to ensure protection of minorities' rights and also to enforce Islam as the dominant religion in the public. That is why it is the law of the 'Islamic' state to perserve the character of the state, but at the same time protect minorities' rights.
GeoffP said:
I note further that you admit that dhimmis must pay jizya - which is usually considerably higher than zakaat (the muslim tax) and which, unlike zakaat, is mandatory, not optional.
First of all, the zakat is the
obligatory tax which is collected from Muslims. It is a set 2.5% of all income earned for those above poverty. The tax is given to the poor, hence why it is referred to as the poor tax. The Jizya is a military exemption tax is obligatory on all non-Muslims. Considering this law has not been instituted for 200 years, because of European dominance, it is quite hard to give the exact rate of Jizya. The Jizya historically has had different rates, I don't know of where you have read it was usually higher. These are not the only taxes charged by the government, these are only the religious taxes. The other taxes depended on the state and were much larger than these two and subject to all citizens of the state, except the women, children, elderly, and the poor.
GeoffP said:
This one is laughable: "the Islamic state builds temples, churches for the Dhimmi...from the Jizya." Uh huh. I don't imagine that went on too much, frankly. Isn't that money supposed to go to the war effort in place of fighting? And you're telling me they built synagogues and churches out of it.
Indeed, the Jizya was used for the policies of the government which could include war, but they were particularly used for the non-Muslims' affairs.
GeoffP said:
No insulting of religious figures...does this law apply to muslims as well? Dubious, mon ami. I've yet to hear of a muslim ever charged with blasphemy against Christians or Jews in islamic nations, to say nothing of the kind of bile emitted on TV, radio or in mosques in the ME.
Have you ever heard a Muslim insult a religious figure of another religion? It's not very common because we respect other people's religious beliefs. Disagreement is allowed, however insulting and ridiculing is illegal in the Islamic State.
GeoffP said:
But Mohammed also said that the greatest kind of jihad was that where arms are taken up. Fact.
I agree. The greatest jihad is where one fights for the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden, those who cry under the oppression of tyrants and unjust armies. Indeed, war for justice and to help a people is a blessed act. So are many other things like prayer, fasting, charity to other people, feeding the poor, protecting a weak person from harm, as well as many other types of jihad.
GeoffP said:
But your responses were insufficient, unless you can dispel Q 4:11 and 4:34, among others.
Surat An-Noor
4:11. "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah. and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise."
The Islamic law of inheritance is stated here. Men have more of a right to wealth than women, because they have monetary obligations to their families. Islamic tradition sets the man in charge of his wife, his children, his parents, and all his poor relatives. Women's wealth is preserved for them only, while their male relatives are in charge of their living expenses. Hence, Islamic law shows its justice again.
4:34. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."
4:35. "If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things."
Men are given more strangth to men to earn livelihood and be protectors of the whole family. Women should guard the husband's property in his absence and well as remain chaste. Adive regarding if a husband suspects cheating from a wife. First, Tell them not to do anything like that or cause any suspicion of it. If they don't listen, then don't sleep with them at night. If they still don't listen, you allowed to beat with a piece of cloth. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught us that if you believe a wife is committing adultery or seeing a man without telling you and you wish to beat her, do not hit her with anything but a cotton cloth. So that it doesn't hurt or cause bleeding, but it shows her that you are angery with her. If she doesn't heed any of these, then a husband is allowed to take the case to an Islamic court, where if she is found guilty, the wife and the man she was cheating with will be executed. However the Quran says, it is preferable to settle the matter without going to court between the two families, the husbands and the wife's.
Islamic law has no tolerance for adultery, and the break up of the family unit which is a fundamental part of the strength of Islam and its values in a household. The West allows consentual adultery, however the West also has a major problem with illegitimate children and break up of families. Such a thing is regrettable and this law has prevented this from happening in the Muslim world. I would also like to add that most families in the Muslim world are strong and close, many have large families with 5 to 7 children and many children live with their own elderly grandparents. In Islamic culture, one's main duty after his personal family is to his extended family.
To show Allah's mercy and love, the next verse is:
4:36. "Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious.
GeoffP said:
You may believe that if you choose. It doesn't effect me.
Allah give you Mercy. Peace.
Not so from theirs.