Tax / Jizyah

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15172
Printed Date: 27 April 2024 at 1:55pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Tax / Jizyah

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Subject: Tax / Jizyah
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 11:15am

Akhe Abdullah wrote:

[Natassia]Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax.
[Akhe Abdullah]Living in the U.S,Dont pay your taxes and see what happens to you.You wont get death but they will make your life unbarable.

The jizyah tax was only for young non-Mulsim men who refused to serve in the military while living under Islamic rule. They were being protected by the military so if they refused to serve, and they had that right, they were taxed.

Unlike the military draft which has been used in the United States and other predominantly Christian countries for centuries, where the young men do not get a choice, they serve or go to prison. Or mandatory service which is used in Israel and other "Christian" countries, where upon your 18th birthday you are automatically expected to report for duty. Failure to do so results in prison or sometimes worse.

I don't understand why Christians always point to the jizyah as something so horrible. Which system is more fair? The option to opt out and pay a tax or forced military service or prison? Let's see, forced to kill or prison, forced to kill or prison.... hmmmmmmmm

I am pretty sure if the U.S. gave the option to pay a tax instead of forced military service during times of war millions of young people would happily do so.

As for threatening death, it wasn't Muslims torturing all those people during the Inquisitions, the witch hunts, etc... The Quran clearly states there is no compulsion in religion, you can't force someone to believe in God. They either do or they don't.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Replies:

Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 12:06pm

I am pretty sure if the U.S. gave the option to pay a tax instead of forced military service during times of war millions of young people would happily do so.

Shasta, the draft in the US was dropped after the Vietnam War in 1973. What we have had since then is an all volunteer military. The military member voluntarily enlist. At age 18 they are required to enroll with the military in the event of an all out war.....then they would bring back the draft and these men could be drafted. Actually, young men and women are enlisting in great numbers in the military. Here are the statistics:

The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the FY 2006 recruiting year.

Active duty recruiting. All services have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006.

Active duty retention. Overall, the active duty services exceeded retention goals across the board. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded fiscal 2006 retention goals in every category. The Navy retained in high numbers at the outset of the year, but a focus on physical fitness test performance led to an increase in disqualification among first-term sailors.

Reserve forces recruiting. Two of six Reserve components met or exceeded their accession goals for fiscal 2006, while two other Reserve components, the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard were close to making their end of year goals. Although the Army Reserve fell short of its annual accession goal, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command achieved 99+percent of its annual recruiting goal.

Componant	Accessions	Goal	Percent
Army	80,635	80,000	101
Navy	36,679	36,656	100
Marine Corps	32,337	32,301	100
Air Force	30,889	30,750	100
Army National Guard	69,042	70,000	99
Army Reserve	34,379	36,032	95
Navy Reserve	9,722	11,180	87
Marine Corps Reserve	8,056	8,024	100
Air National Guard	9,138	9,380	97
Air Force Reserve	6,989	6,607	106

It seems apparent that these young folks are willingly joining the US military. There is no draft, but they realize they have an opportunity for obtaining an education, housing, health care, etc., etc. Many members have studied and received college educations while serving in the armed forces. The number of military who are re-enlisting are increasing as well. I hope this offers an explanation showing our young people are in no way forced to join the service.

Best regards,

Patty

-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 12:41pm

Asalaam Alaikum,

Interesting Akhe, as a woman we did not have to worry about that. The Amish opts out but they do not go to college etc.

I am not in favor or war or anything, but certainly there are some men who are not very well suited to the military.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 12:56pm

As Salamu Alaikum, Hayfa.We'll after reverting to Al Islam at 19 in prison(former N.O.I). I had experienced boot-camp(prison boot camp)it was operated by ex-millitary sergents, leutinants ect and prison gaurds.They used the same tactics of breaking a man down so he can be submissive to their commands.I didnt like it but it was either 90 days of that or 5 more yrs.They make you shave it's was humiliating.

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 7:40pm

"It seems apparent that these young folks are willingly joining the US military. There is no draft, but they realize they have an opportunity for obtaining an education, housing, health care, etc., etc. Many members have studied and received college educations while serving in the armed forces. The number of military who are re-enlisting are increasing as well. I hope this offers an explanation showing our young people are in no way forced to join the service."

Yes, since the economy crashed the military has been recruiting more, but even they admit they are recruiting "low quality" recruits:

Military Recruiting 2007: Army Misses Benchmarks by Greater Margin

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/militaryrecruiting2007 - http://www.nationalpriorities.org/militaryrecruiting2007

And while there is currently not a "draft" the stop loss policy is a draft by default. The only difference being that it penalizes those who have already been unfortunate enough to have to serve in the war zone.

"Secretary of Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates - Robert Gates , as one of his first acts in his position, penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers....The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army - United States Army states that enlisted soldiers facing stop-loss can now voluntarily separate by request, under provision 3-12, but only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days stabilization time (time allowed to "out-process" from the military) can they apply.

"Despite Secretary Gates's order, by April 2008 use of stop-loss had increased by 43%.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy#cite_note-DoD_Data-8 - [9]} Soldiers affected by stop-loss were then serving, on average, an extra 6.6 months, and sergeants through sergeants first class made up 45% of these soldiers. From 2002 through April 2008, 58,300 soldiers were affected by stop-loss, or about 1% of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard troops.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy#cite_note-9 - [10] "}

And men are still required to sign up for the Selective Service or face jail time:

"All U.S. male citizens and male aliens are currently required to sign up for the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. As of 2004, females are not required to register, but there has been some controversy on this subject. If someone fails to register for the Selective Service they can be sent to jail."

http://www.sss.gov/regist%20information.htm - http://www.sss.gov/regist%20information.htm

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 4:54am

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

Akhe Abdullah wrote:

[Natassia]Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax. [Akhe Abdullah]Living in the U.S,Dont pay your taxes and see what happens to you.You wont get death but they will make your life unbarable.

I don't understand why Christians always point to the jizyah as something so horrible. Which system is more fair? The option to opt out and pay a tax or forced military service or prison?

In addition,

I also dont understand why 'Jizyah' tax is something bad and how can it be used against Islam?

Is not the public supposed to pay tax to the government?

Non-muslims seem to think that under shariah, non-muslims are bieng levied with an extra/unfair tax. Which is NOT true, and is SO NOT the case!

Reality is - under shariah, non-muslims end up PAYING LESSER taxes than the Muslims, and end up with FEWER financial responsibilities than the Muslims.

How?

Under complusory financial obligations : Muslims HAVE TO pay Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana. The percentage/amount depends on the amount of wealth the muslim owns. So they end up contributing more to the social welfare fund.

Apart from these "taxes" (if that is the correct term)- the Islamic system is such, that on certain Islamic events, Muslims HAVE TO contribute to the society. For example, Eid-ul-Azha, in which the wealthier
have to buy and slaughter an animal (goat/sheep/camel/cow etc) and distribute the meat among the less-affluent.

Apart from the above compulsory financial obligations. Muslims are supposed to make voluntary contributions as well, known as 'Sadaqah'. (which Allah Himself says in the Qur'an, is a 'Loan to Allah', which He will repay us many folds. SubhanAllah)

Muslims are even supposed to contribute in times of Jihaad (war), both financially and in terms of life. This becomes a fard-e-kifayah when the situation occurs, i.e. becomes obligatory on the community to perform.

Nonmuslims are EXEMPTED from all the above financial responsibilities. . . . .

Since they do not believe in Islam, they are not at all obliged to follow its tenets. Which is why, the ONLY taxes they pay are either Jizyah (which is in turn used ON THEIR OWN welfare & protection) . . . OR anyother secular form of tax, which the government may levy (Which btw, Muslims have to pay as well. Since secular taxes are levied on everyone regardless of religion)

Nonmuslim problems with Jizyah are again a simple, stereotypical result of ignorance towards Islam - and illogical hatred/fear.

-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 6:48am

Truth about the jizya...

From the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Quran 9:29 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Allah said, until they pay the Jizyah, if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission, in defeat and subservience, and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled.

Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, "Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley." This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.

From the Tanw�r al-Miqb�s min Tafs�r Ibn �Abb�s

[Quran 9:29] Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture, the Jews and Christians, as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor in the bliss of Paradise, and forbid not, in the Torah, that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, do not submit themselves to Allah through confession of Allah's divine Oneness, until they pay the tribute readily, standing: from hand to hand, being brought low, abased.

Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 7:42am

Chrysalis wrote:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Jizyah - http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Jizyah
How?

Under complusory financial obligations : Muslims HAVE TO pay Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana. The percentage/amount depends on the amount of wealth the muslim owns. So they end up contributing more to the social welfare fund.
I thought zakat was the same 2.5% for ALL after a certain income had been reached which actually is a fair way for all.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/Zakat/ - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/Zakat/

Apart from these "taxes" (if that is the correct term)- the Islamic system is such, that on certain Islamic events, Muslims HAVE TO contribute to the society. For example, Eid-ul-Azha, in which the wealthier
have to buy and slaughter an animal (goat/sheep/camel/cow etc) and distribute the meat among the less-affluent.

Yes, understand this.

Apart from the above compulsory financial obligations. Muslims are supposed to make voluntary contributions as well, known as 'Sadaqah'. (which Allah Himself says in the Qur'an, is a 'Loan to Allah', which He will repay us many folds. SubhanAllah)
Yes, this is clear enough. But just to explain that Christians make voluntary contributions at their churches, so it's not like they are lacking withholding money. Churches also give food, clothing etc to the needy .

In the Old Testament it is clear about 10% tithing, which was obligatory and some Christian religions still practice this today.

Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God�s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the ^a http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/28/gen/28/22a - tenth unto thee.

Leviticus 27:30 And all the ^a http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/27/lev/27/30a - tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord�s: it is holy unto the Lord.

31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the ^a http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/27/lev/27/32a - rod , the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.

33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Deut 26:

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.showChapter/bibleBook/5/sChap/26/sVerse/12/sVerseID/5579/suppressParentLayout/true/opt/comm/RTD/CGG/version/KJV/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/5579/eVerseID/5579 - 26:12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.showChapter/bibleBook/5/sChap/26/sVerse/12/sVerseID/5579/suppressParentLayout/true/opt/comm/RTD/CGG/version/KJV/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/5580/eVerseID/5580 - 26:13 Then thou shalt say before the LORD thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.showChapter/bibleBook/5/sChap/26/sVerse/12/sVerseID/5579/suppressParentLayout/true/opt/comm/RTD/CGG/version/KJV/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/5581/eVerseID/5581 - 26:14 I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead: but I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, and have done according to all that thou hast commanded me.

Muslims are even supposed to contribute in times of Jihaad (war), both financially and in terms of life. This becomes a fard-e-kifayah when the situation occurs, i.e. becomes obligatory on the community to perform.

Nonmuslims are EXEMPTED from all the above financial responsibilities. . . . .

Since they do not believe in Islam, they are not at all obliged to follow its tenets. Which is why, the ONLY taxes they pay are either Jizyah (which is in turn used ON THEIR OWN welfare & protection) . . . OR anyother secular form of tax, which the government may levy (Which btw, Muslims have to pay as well. Since secular taxes are levied on everyone regardless of religion)

I am not convinced that muslims pay all the correct amount of governemnt taxes, especially in Pakistan where many try to evade this form of tax.

Nonmuslim problems with Jizyah are again a simple, stereotypical result of ignorance towards Islam - and illogical hatred/fear.

Perhaps it can be explained in more detail so I can understand the above comments. Many thanks.

-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 9:44am

Since they do not believe in Islam, they are not at all obliged to follow its tenets. Which is why, the ONLY taxes they pay are either Jizyah (which is in turn used ON THEIR OWN welfare & protection) . . . OR anyother secular form of tax, which the government may levy (Which btw, Muslims have to pay as well. Since secular taxes are levied on everyone regardless of religion) I am not convinced that muslims pay all the correct amount of governemnt taxes, especially in Pakistan where many try to evade this form of tax.

Martha, this is a separate issue from whether taxes are levied. I would guess many people all over the world try to avoid taxes.. this is separate then the requirements. All people in US or Britain or many places, pay taxes on items, transactions etc.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 10:45am

It looks like the moderators won't even let me post from the Tafsir Ibn Kathir or Tafsir Ibn Abbas...but I'm going to try again.

From the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said, until they pay the Jizyah, if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission, in defeat and subservience, and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, "Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley." This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.

Tanw�r al-Miqb�s min Tafs�r Ibn �Abb�s

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture the Jews and Christians as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor in the bliss of Paradise, and forbid not in the Torah that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth do not submit themselves to Allah through confession of Allah's divine Oneness, until they pay the tribute readily standing: from hand to hand, being brought low abased.

Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 10:48am

Hayfa wrote:

Since they do not believe in Islam, they are not at all obliged to follow its tenets. Which is why, the ONLY taxes they pay are either Jizyah (which is in turn used ON THEIR OWN welfare & protection) . . . OR anyother secular form of tax, which the government may levy (Which btw, Muslims have to pay as well. Since secular taxes are levied on everyone regardless of religion) I am not convinced that muslims pay all the correct amount of governemnt taxes, especially in Pakistan where many try to evade this form of tax.

Martha, this is a separate issue from whether taxes are levied. I would guess many people all over the world try to avoid taxes.. this is separate then the requirements. All people in US or Britain or many places, pay taxes on items, transactions etc.

Salaam Hayfa,

Chrysalis noted that all muslims have to pay the government taxes, and I picked up on it thats all. It is true that people everywhere will avoid to pay them but doesn't mean it is right to do so. To justify none payment of their own tax because others don't is a cop out and morally we have a duty, especially as muslims, to do so. Well, that would make sense to me anyway.

-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 31 July 2009 at 7:31pm

yes but I think that you are bringing up a separate issue. She was bringing up that in addition to zakat and other donations required by Islam, Muslims also pay taxes levied against all people.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 02 August 2009 at 8:06am

martha wrote:

This one needs to be explained more to me. I researched it, but I do nt understand.

I'm surprised you are referring to wikiIslam Martha. I clicked the link - the tone of that site alone leaks with bias!

An example - 'nonmuslims are forced to pay jizyah' . . . arent all taxpayers in a way 'forced' to pay Tax? if they dont, are they not prosecuted? So why twist things?

Even wi ki -I s lam begrudgingly mentions that Jizyah is in turn for Legal protection/security.

I dont know why/what you didnt understand... the part about Muslims paying more? Thought it was clear enough:

How? Under complusory financial obligations : Muslims HAVE TO (by law) pay Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana. The percentage/amount depends on the amount of wealth the muslim owns. So they end up contributing more to the social welfare fund. - Nonmuslims BY LAW, dont have to pay any of it.

I thought zakat was the same 2.5% for ALL after a certain income had been reached which actually is a fair way for all.

Correct. Thankyou for the clarification/correction.

Yes, this is clear enough. But just to explain that Christians make voluntary contributions at their churches, so it's not like they are lacking withholding money. Churches also give food, clothing etc to the needy [/Quote

Correct. Not to undermine Christian charity - they are quiet good at it. I'm just saying that Muslims have to by law, make compulsory contributions as well as voluntary ones. Christians are really not required to make any complusory contRibutions. Giving food/clothing etc is good. Everybody does that. Where Muslims differ is that they have to make periodic payments/charity. The Islamic economic system ensures that EVERY Muslim contribute in a wholesome, all encompassing manner. (which includes, food, clothing, money etc)

In the Old Testament it is clear about 10% tithing, which was obligatory and some Christian religions still practice this today.
Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God�s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the [ unto thee. ]Leviticus 27:30 And all the [ of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, [
1 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the

33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

34 These are the commandments, which the <SPAN =smallcaps]Lord</SPAN] commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

I am sure other people make charity too. No arguments there.

However - there is a major difference, because there is no such thing as a Christian Economic System, which enforces such laws. - even if one speaks theoratically. It is not enforced by any country, or people. Christians themselves dont follow it because most of them like to think the old testament is for the children of israel - i.e. the Jews, and not for them.

The Zakat system is more enforced/practised around the world, and implemented, than the tithing system of the testament. I dont even know if Jews practise it today.

I am not convinced that muslims pay all the correct amount of governemnt taxes, especially in Pakistan where many try to evade this form of tax.

Hayfa nicely explained this already. Also, I dont know how this proves that Jizyah is bad. Tax evaders exist everywhere.

[Quote] Me: Nonmuslim problems with Jizyah are again a simple, stereotypical result of ignorance towards Islam - and illogical hatred/fear.

Martha: Perhaps it can be explained in more detail so I can understand the above comments. Many thanks.

I mean - some people simply have a problem with Islamic tenets EVEN if they are clearly not bad, and are actually benefitting the society as a whole. They will automatically assume - oh, it must be bad. Reason-bieng, thier lack of knowledge about Islam. And preconcieved notions.

They will not say/think, Hey, we as nonmuslims dont have to partake in many of the extra financial obligations that fellow muslim citizens have to...we just pay Jizya - in RETURN for legal/physical protection & welfare for our own ppl. . . . they will turn a blind eye to all that and say: unfairr! we are bieng taxed because we are non-muslims!

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 02 August 2009 at 4:43pm

Chrysalis wrote:

An example - 'nonmuslims are forced to pay jizyah' . . . arent all taxpayers in a way 'forced' to pay Tax? if they dont, are they not prosecuted? So why twist things?

But these are taxes levied upon a people simply for their faith. They are not permitted to bear arms, form militias, and protect themselves. No, what happens is the Islamic ruling authority acts like a mafia syndicate and forces the people of the Book to pay for "protection."

For those bringing up the required tithing amounts in the Torah--this was mandatory for the Israelites. It was not something Gentiles were beholden to...since Gentiles were not under the covenant of circumcision. Gentiles are considered to be beholden to the Noahide laws.

Whether some Christian churches choose to encourage their congregations to pay a 10% tithe or not is up to them; however, it is not mandatory and no one is punished for not doing it.

If the zakat system truly was being enforced and put into practice, then why are so many Islamic countries in poverty (other than the ones simply dripping with oil, of course)?

Jizyah is bad because of WHY it is levied. It is a prejudicial tax levied upon a second-class. Didn't you read what I posted from the Tafsir Ibn Kathir?

Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 2:25am

http://www.guidetosalvation.com/Website/jizya.htm -

Refuting Allegations Against 9:29 (Jizya Tax)

Chapter 9, verse 29 of the Qur'an reads:

"Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit."

It's important to note that the Arabic word that is translated to tax is "jizya", which means 'payment in return'. Muslims pay what is called Zakah, which every adult that is mentally stable, and financially able is required to pay to certain groups of people as outlined in the Qur'an chapter 9 verse 60:

"Alms are meant only for the poor, the needy, those who administer them, those whose hearts need winning over, to free slaves and help those in debt, for God's cause, and for travelers in need. This is ordained by God; God is all knowing and wise."

People of the Book living in Muslim territories were required to pay jizya. As stated above, jizya means 'payment in return'. What they're getting in return is protection by the Muslim state along with all the benefits and exemptions from military service. They were also exempt from paying the Muslim tax (zakah). This jizya tax was only required of able-bodied men that have attained puberty, and exempted monks. This tax was ridiculously low (one dinar per year.)

So basically it was a situation where the state protected the Jews and Christians, gave them all the benefits, didn't make them risk their lives as the Muslims did, and didn't require them to pay the zakah tax, which is 2.5% of total savings, jewelry and property at the end of the year. Three quick points:

1. If a Muslim country came under attack , Muslims were required to defend it. Christians and Jews didn't need to ever raise a sword, but were still protected because their payment of jizya earned them the protection of the Muslims.

2. While Muslims were required to pay 2.5% of their savings, jewelry, and property, Christians and Jews were not required to pay jizya on property, livestock, crops or produce, and only paid at all if they could afford it. Who do you think has the more difficult burden?

3. It comes down to this. Muslims pay the higher Zakah tax and are required to defend their country (including Jews and Christians.) Jews and Christians paid a lower tax and didn't need to ever fight.

So the jizya tax wasn't a penalty or meant as punishment, it was a tax that helped run the state. If we refuse to pay taxes in the U.S., we end up in prison. The argument that everyone has to pay the same tax could be made, but again, the tax on Christians and Jew was low, and not required of those that couldn't afford it. And everyone was taxed. Muslims with any decent or semi-decent amount of savings were required to pay much more than Christians and Jews. Some countries today execute tax evaders (China). How can Christians and Jews demand all the rights of Muslims, plus protection without ever needed to step into a battlefield for nothing in return, while Muslims that do fight to defend the country, including Christians and Jews are required to pay zakah, which in most cases is much higher than jizya anyway?

The Romans at the time levied high taxes trying to support their military conquests. The following is from: http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempire7.html - http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempire7.html

"There is no simple explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but several interconnected elements provide some answers. The demands of the military and the growing bureaucracy forced the government to seek more income. When the elite avoided taxes, the burden fell on the peasantry, who had barely enough to feed themselves and no surplus to pay taxes. When farmers fled the land, incomes declined still further and manpower shortages forced the military to hire German mercenaries."

Unlike the Roman Government, the Muslim states protected the poor, women, children, and monks while exempting them from having to pay the jizya tax. Christian and Jews were also given equal rights, and allowed to practice their religion. Also, they were allowed to build houses of worship, and their monks were tax exempt. That is tolerance.

The following comes from Wikipedia:

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph - Caliph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab - Umar the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian - Zoroastrian Persians were given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book - People of the Book status, and jizya was levied on them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian - Christian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab - Arab tribes in the north of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Peninsula - Arabian Peninsula refused to pay jizya, but agreed to pay double the amount, and calling it sadaqa, a word meaning "alms" or "charity". According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi - Yusuf al-Qaradawi the name change was done for the benefit of the Christian tribesmen, "out of consideration for their feelings". http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=64354 - [11] Fred Donner, however, in The Early Islamic Conquests, states that the difference between sadaqa and jizya is that the former was levied on nomads, whereas the latter was levied on settled non-Muslims. Donner sees sadaqa as being indicative of the lower status of nomadic tribes, so much so that that Christian tribesmen preferred to pay the jizya. Jabala b. al-Ayham of the B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids - Ghassan is reported asked Umar "Will you levy sadaqa from me as you would from the [ordinary] bedouin (al-'arab)?" Umar acceded to collecting jizya from him instead, as he did from other Christians. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/donner.html - [12]

Sir Thomas Arnold, an early 20th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalist - orientalist , gives an example of a Christian Arab tribe which avoided paying the jizya altogether by fighting alongside Muslim armies "such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty". http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=64354 - [13]

In his message to the people of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hirah - Al-Hirah , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_bin_Walid - Khalid bin Walid is recorded as saying (in reference to the jizya), "When a person is too old to work or suffers a handicap, or when he falls into poverty, he is free from the dues of the poll tax; his sustenance is provided by the Muslim Exchequer." http://www.ummah.org.uk/what-is-islam/war/war6.htm - [14] A letter attributed to Khalid bin Walid said that "This is a letter of Khalid ibn al-Waleed to Saluba ibn Nastuna and his people; I agreed with you on al-jezyah and protection. As long as we protect you we have the right in al-jezyah, otherwise we have none.� http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4429 - [15]

According to Muslim accounts of Umar, in his time some payers of the jizya were compensated if they had not been cared for properly. The accounts vary, but describe his meeting an old Jew begging, and assisting him; according to one version:

Umar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". Holding him by the hand, he led him to his own house, and preparing food with his own hands fed him and issued orders to the treasurer of the Bait-al-mal that that old man and all others like him, should be regularly doled out a daily allowance which should suffice for them and their dependents. http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=176 - [16]

If Jizya is unfair on anyone, it would be the Muslims. They were, after all, required to pay higher taxes, and protect those that paid Jizya. Still, you never hear them complain, because that is what God ordered.

-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 6:23am

Natassia: do you happen to pay taxes?? See what happens when if you don't.. lol

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 10:52am

Hayfa wrote:

Natassia: do you happen to pay taxes?? See what happens when if you don't.. lol

I am taxed based on my income level and how many dependents I claim (along with other economic factors such as owning a home, medical payments, etc.)

I am NOT taxed based on my religious convictions.

My husband and I have the right to bear arms and defend our homes and our communities. All men over the age of 18 are required to sign up for the Selective Service (whether they are atheist, pagan, Christian, Muslim, etc.)

My taxes go to pay for services that apply to the entire country such as Medicare, Medicaid, police stations, fire stations, public schools, etc. Those taxes don't just go to a particular religious group to benefit those people. I am treated just like my Muslim neighbor--no better, no worse in the eyes of the law...which is how it should be.

-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 1:10pm

Natassia wrote:

Chrysalis wrote:

An example - 'nonmuslims are forced to pay jizyah' . . . arent all taxpayers in a way 'forced' to pay Tax? if they dont, are they not prosecuted? So why twist things?

But these are taxes levied upon a people simply for their faith. They are not permitted to bear arms, form militias, and protect themselves. No, what happens is the Islamic ruling authority acts like a mafia syndicate and forces the people of the Book to pay for "protection."

Christians and Jews were not forbidden to take up arms. They were given the choice. If they chose not to fight, then they had to pay the tax. Something which does not exist in any government today.

But I get your meaning. I'm forced to pay taxes for protection: the police and the military. In fact, I would be forced to pay taxes even if I was actively serving in the military.

For those bringing up the required tithing amounts in the Torah--this was mandatory for the Israelites. It was not something Gentiles were beholden to...since Gentiles were not under the covenant of circumcision. Gentiles are considered to be beholden to the Noahide laws.

But Jesus told his followers to follow the Laws of Moses. Are you making a distinction between those who follow Jesus and the gentiles who claim to be Christians?

Whether some Christian churches choose to encourage their congregations to pay a 10% tithe or not is up to them; however, it is not mandatory and no one is punished for not doing it.

I think you are right about that. Look at all of those church leaders who have 12 homes and private jets. They don't even have to pay income taxes. Must be nice... I wonder what Jesus would think? Wait, we already know don't we:

Matthew 19:²³Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

If the zakat system truly was being enforced and put into practice, then why are so many Islamic countries in poverty (other than the ones simply dripping with oil, of course)?

Well, since so many countries are poor, 2.5 % of nothing is nothing....

Jizyah is bad because of WHY it is levied. It is a prejudicial tax levied upon a second-class. Didn't you read what I posted from the Tafsir Ibn Kathir?

Churches and other Christian groups are exempt from paying taxes in the U.S. Isn't that prejudicial? Aren't I a citizen of this country with the same rights? Aren't these organizations receiving the same benefits, protection, use of public facilities as I am? Aren't they under the same obligations as citizens as I am?

There are two very large churches within 2 miles of where I live. Every Sunday for 4 hours 10 local police officers are dispatched to these churches directing traffic. My taxes are paying for this, the churches aren't even paying any taxes. How is this fair in any way, shape, or form?

Now I'm wondering why it's legal for people to gamble in churches but not elsewhere? Running gaming halls is illegal where I live, but the churches have lotteries and bingo every week. Isn't it prejudicial against those who wish to gamble to be barred by the law from doing so, yet churches are exempt. Not only exempt, but they don't have to pay taxes on the proceeds. Besides, didn't Jesus chase the gamers and money lenders out of the temples? Wait, that must not apply to the gentiles....

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 6:50pm

@ Shasta's Aunt

You wrote: Christians and Jews were not forbidden to take up arms. They were given the choice. If they chose not to fight, then they had to pay the tax. Something which does not exist in any government today.

But I get your meaning. I'm forced to pay taxes for protection: the police and the military. In fact, I would be forced to pay taxes even if I was actively serving in the military.

But are Christians and Jews allowed to protect themselves from Muslims by forming their own militias? Americans, for example, under the U.S. Constitution, may bear arms and form militias and even overthrow the government if its leaders (Congressmen, President, etc.) are violating the U.S. Constitution.

Also, if a Christian or a Jew chose to be a conscientious objector rather than fight in the Islamic army, why should they be taxed for it?

Are Christians and Jews, under shariah law, allowed to bear arms in their own homes and use them against an intruder (whether they be a Muslim or not?) Are Christians and Jews allowed to protect themselves from injustices committed by Islamic leaders? Are they allowed to fight back?

You wrote: But Jesus told his followers to follow the Laws of Moses. Are you making a distinction between those who follow Jesus and the gentiles who claim to be Christians?

You know, I always wonder why people get so hung up on the Mosaic Law. Jesus fulfilled it. He brought it to completion, and has ushered in the new covenant. He certainly give many commands to his followers, and he told them that if they truly loved him then they would obey him. I wonder if you can pick out what those commands are.

In Jesus Christ, there is no Gentile or Jew, female or male, slave or free.

You wrote: I think you are right about that. Look at all of those church leaders who have 12 homes and private jets. They don't even have to pay income taxes. Must be nice... I wonder what Jesus would think? Wait, we already know don't we:

Matthew 19:²³Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

With God, all things are possible.

You wrote: Well, since so many countries are poor, 2.5 % of nothing is nothing....

Ah ah ah....Now wait a minute. I thought there was only ONE Islamic Ummah. So, if you've got several oil-rich Islamic nations full of wealthy Muslims (not to mention all the wealthy Muslims in Western countries), then where is all their 2.5% going?

You wrote: Churches and other Christian groups are exempt from paying taxes in the U.S. Isn't that prejudicial? Aren't I a citizen of this country with the same rights? Aren't these organizations receiving the same benefits, protection, use of public facilities as I am? Aren't they under the same obligations as citizens as I am?

Not all churches and Christian groups have http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html - Your taxes pay to keep the roads safe. If you caused a car accident while driving to work one day, my taxes would be going to help pay for the police officers and fire & rescue who would be dispatched to save your life as well as protect the lives of others. My taxes would be going to pay for the investigation into the cause of the crash, and if you are on Medicare or Medicaid, then my taxes will also go to pay for your medical care.

You wrote: Now I'm wondering why it's legal for people to gamble in churches but not elsewhere? Running gaming halls is illegal where I live, but the churches have lotteries and bingo every week. Isn't it prejudicial against those who wish to gamble to be barred by the law from doing so, yet churches are exempt. Not only exempt, but they don't have to pay taxes on the proceeds. Besides, didn't Jesus chase the gamers and money lenders out of the temples? Wait, that must not apply to the gentiles....

Bingo and lotteries being held for charitable causes probably don't qualify as "gambling." Plenty of town fire halls hold bingo meetings that are not affiliated with religion. Really, perhaps you should research the tax code.

What angered Jesus was the fact that people were turning the Temple into a marketplace and a den of thieves. Are some churches "marketplaces" and "dens of thieves"? Oh, most definitely. But that doesn't mean that the theology of Christianity is incorrect or that it promotes greed.

But, you've sidetracked with illegitimate tu quoque claims. The problem I have is not with taxes. The problem I have is with PREJUDICIAL taxes. Why should I have to pay a certain tax simply because of my religious beliefs? Why should I be treated like a second-class citizen?

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 8:35pm

"I am NOT taxed based on my religious convictions."

But churches, religious groups and religious leaders are exempt from being taxed based on their religious convictions and affiliations. Therefore by default you, I, and everyone not belonging to the clergy are being taxed merely because we are not a part of the clergy or a religious organization.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 August 2009 at 5:19am

Yes - I'm responding to this despite the fact that members pointed out this is off-topic. This should have been pointed out when Natassia brought up Jizyah in the first place. And well, thats how internet 'threads' work.

Natassia wrote:

But these are taxes levied upon a people simply for their faith.� They are not permitted to bear arms, form militias, and protect themselves .� No, what happens is the Islamic ruling authority acts like a mafia syndicate and forces the people of the Book to pay for "protection."

I'm sorry this just doesn't make sense. I dont think ANY government allows ANY segment of its public to form small militias, and take up arms. That does not make a stable/peaceful society.

FYI "Taking up arms" does not mean simply mean owning a gun - it means to 'wage war', "prepare to fight" etc.
So there is a big diff b/w just owning a weapon/gun/sword versus 'taking up arms'.

EVEN MUSLIM individuals will be hindered by the govt from forming small militias of thier own, and 'taking up arms'
on thier own, without any formal warfare .

Flip the coin. Do you think ANY non-muslim govt would allow muslims to 'take up arms' on thier soil? would they
allow militias to be formed? No sensible govt/authority would allow that.

The 'taking up arms' rule is a standard for all.

As for 'dont allow nonmuslims to protect themselves' - thats baloney. Under Shariah, a nonmuslim has as much right to individually defend him/herself from danger, as a muslim. They have the legal right to go to court, and sue a muslim for any harm.

They are just not allowed to 'take up arms' against fellow citizens or revolt against the givernment, or side/fight for the enemy nations of thier govt. Something which was VERY COMMON in older times, hence this law was put into place. The nonmuslims, during times of war, would side with the other nonmuslim armies against the ruling muslim govt.

This rule does not apply to weapons that are used for safety/personal defence/hunting etc.

Whether some Christian churches choose to encourage their congregations to pay a 10% tithe or not is up to them; however, it is not mandatory and no one is punished for not doing it.

I'm sorry, but 'Jizyah' is not a 'religous' tax.
'Zakat' , 'Fitrana' , 'Ushr' - these are 'religous taxes'. BECAUSE you HAVE TO pay Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana, when you enter the folds of Islam, and it is mandatory on you by law. If anything, the MUSLIMS are bieng 'taxed' based on thier religious beliefs.

Non-Muslims on the other hand, are EXEMPTED from the above stated type of RELIGIOUS taxes. Had Islamic law believed in 'forcing' & 'punishing' its nonmuslim citizens, it would have herded nonmuslims in the same flock, and would have made Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana mandatory on them. It would not have been unfair either, 'one law for all' - but Islam went the extra mile to be just & fair , in order to respect their 'lack of belief'. i.e. why should you have to do what we do, if you don't believe in it. Unfortunately however, the ostrich hole is much much cozier for some.

That doesnt mean you dont pay ANY taxes . . . you pay your fair share.

-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 August 2009 at 6:21am

I am continuing the discussion Natassia started in another Thread. This is an oft discussed issue, and one that non-muslims usually have a problem with.

Also, if a Christian or a Jew chose to be a conscientious objector rather than fight in the Islamic army, why should they be taxed for it?

The Islamic way of dealing with warfare and its religous minorities is FAR MORE just and fair than any other policy today.

Your feelings as a non-muslim are respected, especially because it is possible that the (Islamic) army may very well be fighting people of your faith during war. E.g SUPPOSE you are a Jew, and your country is at war with Israel - you are EXEMPTED from fighting against your brothers/sisters in faith.

Muslims are not extended the same courtesy when it comes to warfare on their own brethren (in modern-day societies. See: war on terror). People will label you an outsider, an alien and will question your loyalty/patriotism for your country. Islam on the other hand, doesnt put you in that situation, and doesnt make you 'choose'. It accepts this natural affiliation, and thus makes room for it. We dont say 'Either you are with us, or you are against us' when it comes to war. We say, you are welcome to stay out of it, and sit by the sidelines.

And yet, people will ignore that generosity, and whine about Jizyah. The same Jizyah which will be used in protecting the nonmuslim families from attacks by an invading army/threat. It will be the muslims in the army laying thier lives for thier protection against any threat against them.

You are exempted from serving in the army, you are not required to contribute to the Jihad fund, the least you can do is pay a substantially lesser amount called Jizyah, which will in turn be USED on your own people in cases and situations of war, or whenever you need the army's help, lives and aide in cases of natural disasters. . . . . .

The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:

� This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that �the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.�

Are Christians and Jews, under shariah law, allowed to bear arms in their own homes and use them against an intruder (whether they be a Muslim or not?)

If ANY citizen, including Muslims perform an injustice upon another - they are liable under Shariah law. If a christian or jew has been harmed by a muslim - that muslim can be charged, held accountable and punished. There are numerous instances from history. So yes, nonmuslims have a right to defend themselves.

Even the muslim army is responsible for defending and protecting them:

In his covenant with the people of certain cities near Al-Haira, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, may Allah be pleased with him, recorded: �If we are able to protect you, we deserve the collection of jizyah; otherwise, we shall not offer you protection.�

The seriousness with which the Muslims took their covenants with the non-Muslims is well illustrated by the following incident. During the reign of the second caliph, `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the Roman emperor Heraclius raised a huge army to repel the Muslim forces. It was thus incumbent upon the Muslims to concentrate their efforts on the battle. When the commander of Muslims, Abu �Ubaydah (may Allah be pleased with him) heard this news, he wrote to his officials in all conquered cities in Syria and ordered them to return the jizyah which had been levied in those cities. He also addressed the public saying; �We are returning your money because we know that the enemy has gathered troops. By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us. We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allah helps us to rout the enemy.�

Thus, a huge amount was taken form the state treasury and returned to the Christians. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed, �May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property.�

The jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state�s military forces, it was exempted from the jizyah. Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty.

When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from jizyah in view of their military services.

Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians, who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were exempted form the kharaj.

As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. The jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, which carried water to Constantinople, nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, as just compensation for their services to the state. However, Egyptian Muslim peasants exempted from military service was still required to pay the jizyah.�

Excerpts taken from Islamonline.net

-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 06 August 2009 at 8:57am

As Salamu Alaikum,Chrysalis.good job [:)JazakAllah Kheiran for starting a new topic,incase she missed it on the other one.
[Originally posted by Natassia]

But these are taxes levied upon a people simply for their faith. They are not permitted to bear arms, form militias, and protect themselves . No, what happens is the Islamic ruling authority acts like a mafia syndicate and forces the people of the Book to pay for "protection Do the 'mafia' return protection money. [IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" />That's not tax that's extortion

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 6:44am

The Jizyah � A Tax on Non-Muslims?\| Prepared by the research committee of IslamToday.net \|
Allah says: �They pay the jizyah by hand in a condition of submission.� [from S�rah al-Tawbah: 29] This is the verse that establishes the jizyah � a tax that is paid by non-Muslims who live as citizens in the Muslim state. There is considerable confusion among people as to what the jizyah is all about and why only non-Muslims have to pay it. This article seeks to address the nature of the jizyah, the reasons for it, and the rationale behind it. Looking at the Phrase: Some people feel that the words �in a condition of submission� mean that the jizyah is some sort of punishment or humiliation for the non-Muslim citizens. This is a misreading of the verse and a common misunderstanding held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The words in Arabic are: �yu`t� al-jizyata `an yadin wa hum s�ghir�n�. �yu`t� al-jizyata� = they pay the jizyah �`an yadin� = roughly translated: from hand to hand. The word �yad� in Arabic is often used to mean power or ability. Essentially, it means here that what they have to pay is something that is within their capacity to pay. �wa hum s�ghir�n� = �in a condition of submission� The phrase �wa hum s�ghir�n� is an adverbial clause. It is specifically a �h�l� � a part of speech that refers to the circumstances of the subject or object of the verb while the action of the verb is taking place. The particle �wa� here is called �w�w al-h�l�. In Arabic grammar, this is a particle that turns the full sentence that comes after it into an adverbial clause depicting the circumstance of the action. The word s�ghir means �meek� or �subdued�. What this means is that the non-Muslim citizens of the state are subordinate to the state and not in an act of opposition or rebellion against it. This means that these non-Muslims are paying the tax that is due upon them in a framework of obedience to, and recognition of, the state wherein they are full citizens. The Nature of Jizyah Non-Muslims live in the Muslim state as citizens under a contractual agreement (dhimmah) whereby they pay the jizyah, a fixed annual levy, in lieu of two things: 1. Jizyah is paid in lieu of exemption from military service. Non-Muslim citizens receive the protection of the state, whereby they are allowed to live in peace and security, without being obliged to engage in any military service. The Muslims, by contrast, are required to engage in military service when they are called upon to do so. Historically, at times when the Muslim government could not afford protection from enemies to the non-Muslims living in the outlying regions of the Muslim state, this levy was returned to them. 2. Jizyah is paid in lieu of exmption from paying zak�h. In spite of the fact that, as citizens, they have full rights to receive assistance from the public treasury and to benefit from public services and public works, non-Muslims are exempt from paying zak�h. By contrast, Muslims in the Muslim state must pay zak�h to the public treasury. Each of these two forms of taxation has economic advantages and disadvantages for those who have to pay it, which we can ascertain by making a comparison between them. First, we must understand that neither jizyah nor zak�h is a tax on income. Jizyah is a head tax levied as a fixed sum upon each taxable individual. Zak�h is a tax on savings, levied upon the money that is kept in savings by a Muslim. The jizyah is paid annually as a fixed sum of money levied upon each free, adult male citizen. No jizyah is paid by or on behalf of a child, a woman, or a slave. A poor man who cannot afford to pay the jizyah is also exempt. It can be a graduated tax, whereby the very poor pay nothing, the lower class pays little, the middle-class pays more, and the wealthy pay the most. However, each grade is still a fixed limit. We can contrast this with zak�h. The zak�h on monetary wealth is 2.5% of all savings retained for a year. A Muslim who has little or no savings will pay little or no Zak�h, regardless of how well-off he or she might otherwise be. (No Muslim who possesses savings is exempt, not even a child.) However, a Muslim who possesses considerable savings has a very heavy annual tax burden, many times in excess of the jizyah that any non-Muslim citizen would have to pay, and regardless of the Muslim�s annual income. From a purely economic perspective, the zak�h tax is economically favorable to someone who possesses little or no savings. Such a person will either pay nothing or very little, even if that person is affluent in his or her daily means. By contrast � and from the same purely economic perspective � zak�h is disadvantageous to a person who possesses a considerable amount of monetary wealth or is trying to amass investment capital over time. From the same perspective, the jizyah is disadvantageous to people of low income, since they have to pay the flat tax regardless of whether or not they enjoy a surplus. It is economically advantageous to those who have large capital savings or who are seeking to amass investment capital. This has, throughout history, provided non-Muslim citizens in the Muslim state with an economic advantage in business. They could amass huge amounts of investment capital as individuals or through corporations, all of which was tax-exempt. This is one reason why throughout Muslim history � and without exception � every Muslim country that had a Christian or Jewish community also had a very robust Christian or Jewish business sector. They were always the leaders in business and trade. We must keep in mind that it is Allah�s wisdom that He conferred this system of taxation upon the people. One possible aspect of the wisdom in this system is that, in this way, non-Muslims could always find prosperity in the Muslim state, even when they were in the minority, and therfore would be content and feel loyalty to their country. Also, in reality, there is no disadvantage to the Muslims for having to pay zak�h on their savings, since zak�h is an act of worship whereby the Muslim purifies his or her wealth � which is a gift and a trust from Allah. In doing so, the Muslim attains Allah�s pleasure and receives increase in both this world and the Hereafter from whence he or she cannot fathom. There is also the inestimable satisfaction of doing a good deed that is absent from the payment of other forms of taxation. The Rights of non-Muslim Citizens The non-Muslims who pay the jizyah � as well as those non-Muslim citizens who are exempt from paying it for whatever reason � are all full citizens of the Muslim country. Their rights, their lives, their property, and their honor are inviolable. They have the right to employment, education, and to freely engage in commerce. They can, and historically often did, hold high-level government posts. They cannot, however, hold a government post that would put them in charge of the religious affairs of the Muslims. For instance, a non-Muslim cannot be Minister of Islamic Endowments in charge of the mosques. Non-Muslim citizens have the right to practice their religion among themselves as they like without molestation, provided they do not call Muslims to it. They have the right to have civil courts under their own religious jurisdiction to handle affairs such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and disputes among themselves. However, they must abide by the criminal code of the Muslims, except in a few matters. They are allowed to engage in those matters deemed lawful in their religion that are unlawful in Islam, like the consumption of pork and alcohol, provided they keep this among themselves and do not make it accessible to the Muslim population. The jizyah goes into the same public treasury that zak�h funds, import taxes, and land levies go into. Very poor non-Muslims are exempted from paying this tax. Instead, as citizens they are just as eligible as Muslim citizens to receive welfare payments from the public treasury. Also, the salaries of non-Muslim government officials and employees � as well as the maintenance of public services like the non-Muslim religious courts that are exclusively for the benefit of the non-Muslims � are paid out of the same treasury. Conclusions The jizyah and zak�h are two taxation schemes for citizens in the Muslim state. It is only fair that both groups of citizens pay into the state treasury, since both have equal access to state welfare, government services, and public works. The Muslims pay zak�h upon their savings as an act of worship, to purify their wealth. Likewise, military service in the Muslim state is seen as a religious duty when the state summons the person to serve. Non-Muslims are therefore exempt from military service for this reason. Likewise, instead of having to pay the religious tax of zak�h, they have to pay a fixed tax that is purely a civil duty and not tied in with any religious conviction. And Allah knows best.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 6:53am

The above is a great explanation of jizyah. It should be noted that if jizyah were indeed a "punishment" or a "religious tax" then ALL non-Muslims would have to pay: women, children, the poor, not just men who choose not to fight. Being a woman or poor does not make you less of a non-Muslim.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 3:14am

Thank you Shasta's Aunt.

It is amazing how some things, reactions are based on linguistics.. like the word or words 'in condition of submission." Often we have similar ideas or actions but the phrasing or words are different. English is actually one of the most complex languages. If you put the wrong word in for something the context or meaning comes out wrong. As a teacher of English to nonEnglish speakers this is the hardest concepts to teach.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 4:34pm

Hayfa wrote:

Thank you Shasta's Aunt.

It is amazing how some things, reactions are based on linguistics.. like the word or words 'in condition of submission." Often we have similar ideas or actions but the phrasing or words are different. English is actually one of the most complex languages. If you put the wrong word in for something the context or meaning comes out wrong. As a teacher of English to nonEnglish speakers this is the hardest concepts to teach.

You're welcome. Though I'm sure the jizyah will rise up again....

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 4:45pm

"But, you've sidetracked with illegitimate tu quoque claims. The problem I have is not with taxes. The problem I have is with PREJUDICIAL taxes. Why should I have to pay a certain tax simply because of my religious beliefs? Why should I be treated like a second-class citizen?"

Considering the fact that this started out on a thread titled: Is Jesus God or not, and someone posted:

"That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax."

Talk about sidetracking.....

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 7:25pm

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

Considering the fact that this started out on a thread titled: Is Jesus God or not, and someone posted:

"That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax."

Talk about sidetracking.....

Original statement that I made a response to:

I think that kind of Law is too barbaric, too cruel, too harsh, too ruthless for my understanding. As a mother, I would try my best to protect my beloved children from any kind of harm even if it will affect me physically. Much more so is God AlMighty. He has the Power, The Will, The Means to bring up His Beloved Prophet to Him, saving him from humiliation in the hands of evil people.

Here lies the contradiction of the understanding of the Power of God. Leaving your beloved servant being cruelly tortured, mercilessly crucified in the hands of the Romans and the Jews does not depict a Powerful God to me. I would say, this kind of understanding of God is inferior.

That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax.

This was not meant as a sidetrack. The person said that God should have saved his prophet from a humiliating death. If God really is Almighty, He would have been reaching down and taking matters into His own hands.

Christians really believe that God is Almighty. Therefore, they do not feel it necessary to do God's work such as forcing conversion by threats of execution or a jizyah tax and second-class status.

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 7:31pm

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"I am NOT taxed based on my religious convictions."

Wrong. Certain organizations are exempt from being taxed if they qualify for tax-exemption. Being a religious group does not automatically imply tax-exemption.

There are many non-religious groups who are tax-exempt, and there are many non-Christian religious groups who are tax-exempt. Please review the Federal tax code for tax-exemption requirements.

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 8:27pm

@ Chrysalis

You wrote: I'm responding to this despite the fact that members pointed out this is off-topic. This should have been pointed out when Natassia brought up Jizyah in the first place. And well, thats how internet 'threads' work.

I didn't bring up jizyah in order to discuss Islamic tax code. If you notice, I was bringing up forced conversions by threat of execution or a jizyah tax. A Muslim then posted a response regarding bewilderment at non-Muslim dislike for the jizyah and the thread went from there. I was certainly not trying to divert the topic by any means.

You wrote: I'm sorry this just doesn't make sense. I dont think ANY government allows ANY segment of its public to form small militias, and take up arms. That does not make a stable/peaceful society.

FYI "Taking up arms" does not mean simply mean owning a gun - it means to 'wage war', "prepare to fight" etc.
So there is a big diff b/w just owning a weapon/gun/sword versus 'taking up arms'.

EVEN MUSLIM individuals will be hindered by the govt from forming small militias of thier own, and 'taking up arms'
on thier own, without any formal warfare .

Flip the coin. Do you think ANY non-muslim govt would allow muslims to 'take up arms' on thier soil? would they
allow militias to be formed? No sensible govt/authority would allow that.

Actually, they've been doing it on U.S. soil for quite some time. There are Muslim groups who get together and practice organized weapons tactics on private land in America. I'm surprised you are unaware of this fact.

I suppose you've never heard of the Bill of Rights?

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You wrote: The 'taking up arms' rule is a standard for all.

As for 'dont allow nonmuslims to protect themselves' - thats baloney. Under Shariah, a nonmuslim has as much right to individually defend him/herself from danger, as a muslim. They have the legal right to go to court, and sue a muslim for any harm.

They are just not allowed to 'take up arms' against fellow citizens or revolt against the givernment, or side/fight for the enemy nations of thier govt. Something which was VERY COMMON in older times, hence this law was put into place. The nonmuslims, during times of war, would side with the other nonmuslim armies against the ruling muslim govt.

This rule does not apply to weapons that are used for safety/personal defence/hunting etc.

At what point did Muhammad make it mandatory that a court-of-law determine if someone may be executed? Or are you simply reinterpreting laws from 1400 years ago and trying to apply it to modern times and modern standards? If I recall, Muhammad never used a court system for Ka'b al-Ashraf.

I had a hard time finding an Islamic website that would post Ibn Timiyya's, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's or Imam al-Shafii's statements regarding penalties if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim. F.A. Klein reiterates their statements, however, when he writes in his book The religion of Isl�m: A Muslim is not to be killed for an unbeliever.

I did come across this from the Tafsir al-Jalalayn for Quran 4:92:

It is not for a believer to slay a believer, in other words, no such slaying should result at his hands, except by mistake, killing him by mistake, unintentionally. He who slays a believer by mistake, when he meant to strike some other thing, as in the case of hunting or [shooting at] trees, but then happens to strike him with what in most cases would not kill, then let him set free, let him emancipate, a believing slave (raqaba denotes nasama, �a person�), an obligation on him, and blood-money is to be submitted, to be paid, to his family, that is, the slain person�s inheritors, unless they remit it as a charity, to him by waiving [their claim to] it. In the Sunna this [blood-money] is explained as being equivalent to one hundred camels: twenty pregnant, twenty female sucklings, twenty male sucklings, twenty mature ones and twenty young ones [not more than five years old]; and [the Sunna stipulates] that it is incumbent upon the killer�s clan, namely, his paternal relations [and not other relatives]. They share this [burden of the blood-money] over three years; the rich among them pays half a dinar, while the one of moderate means [pays] a quarter of a dinar each year; if they still cannot meet this, then it can be taken from the treasury, and if this is not possible, then from the killer himself. If he, the slain, belongs to a people at enmity, at war, with you and is a believer, then the setting free of a believing slave, is incumbent upon the slayer, as a redemption, but no bloodmoney is to be paid to his family, since they are at war [with you]. If he, the slain, belongs to a people between whom and you there is a covenant, a treaty, as is the case with the Protected People (ahl al-dhimma), then the blood-money, for him, must be paid to his family, and it constitutes a third of the blood-money for a believer, if the slain be a Jew or a Christian, and two thirds of a tenth of it, if he be a Magian; and the setting free of a believing slave, is incumbent upon the slayer. But if he has not the wherewithal, for [setting free] a slave, failing to find one, or the means to obtain one, then the fasting of two successive months, is incumbent upon him as a redemption: here God does not mention the transition to [an alternative to fasting which is] giving food [to the needy], as in the case of [repudiating one�s wife by] zihār, something which al-Shāfi�ī advocates in the more correct of two opinions of his; a relenting from God (tawbatan, �relenting�, is the verbal noun, and is in the accusative because of the implied verb).

Not only is the Islamic tax code prejudicial, but so is its penal code.

You wrote: I'm sorry, but 'Jizyah' is not a 'religous' tax.
'Zakat' , 'Fitrana' , 'Ushr' - these are 'religous taxes'. BECAUSE you HAVE TO pay Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana, when you enter the folds of Islam, and it is mandatory on you by law. If anything, the MUSLIMS are bieng 'taxed' based on thier religious beliefs.

Non-Muslims on the other hand, are EXEMPTED from the above stated type of RELIGIOUS taxes. Had Islamic law believed in 'forcing' & 'punishing' its nonmuslim citizens, it would have herded nonmuslims in the same flock, and would have made Zakat, Ushr, Fitrana mandatory on them. It would not have been unfair either, 'one law for all' - but Islam went the extra mile to be just & fair , in order to respect their 'lack of belief'. i.e. why should you have to do what we do, if you don't believe in it. Unfortunately however, the ostrich hole is much much cozier for some.

That doesnt mean you dont pay ANY taxes . . . you pay your fair share.

Everything you listed are religious taxes. You pay some if you are a Muslim, you pay another if you are not. I have an issue with anything being forced upon someone simply for their religious beliefs.

Many times the dhimmi were required to do more than just pay a tax. If you recall, the Jews of Khaibar were forced into submission and threatened with exile. They begged to remain in their homes in exchange for 50% of their production. Eventually, after the death of Muhammad, one of the Muslim rulers (I forget which one now) expelled the Jews from Khaibar. They weren't even allowed to live in their original homes.

And the dhimmi were allowed to practice their religious beliefs subject to restrictions, the entire point of it was to provide material proof of the dhimmis' subjugation under Islamic rule. It was a tax simply to abase the dhimmi.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Legal_and_social_status :

In his classic treatise on the principles of Islamic governance, the 11th-century http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Shafii - scholar http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Al-Mawardi - divided the conditions attached to ��dhimma�� on top of the requirement to pay tribute into compulsory and desirable. The compulsory conditions included prohibitions on blasphemy against Islam, entering into sexual relations or marriage with a Muslim woman, proselytizing among Muslims, and assisting the enemies of Islam. The desirable conditions included a requirement to wear distinctive apparel, a prohibition to visibly display religious symbols, wine, or pork, ringing church bells, or loudly praying, a requirement to bury dead bodies unobtrusively, and finally, a prohibition on riding horses or camels, but not donkeys. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-mawardi161-41 - The latter restrictions were largely symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-42 - In reality, the nature of the conditions imposed clearly point to an interest in safety. For example:

- A Dhimmi was not allowed to build anything higher than a couple of stories high. It was common knowledge at this time that higher ground holds the advantage in a battle or war.

- A Dhimmi could use donkeys rather than horses or camels. This is because a horse or camel, at that time, is the equivalent of a tank today and creates an advantage in warfare. Allowing Dhimmis to use a donkey ensured that they were able to continue transporting things and to avoid hindering their ability to earn income.

Friedmann holds that the principle that "Islam is exalted, and nothing is exalted above it" (as http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Bukhari - puts it) had many practical effects on the relationship between Muslims and unbelievers in Muslim lands. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-43 - According to Lewis, it would have been a theological and logical absurdity for traditional Islamic societies to give the "same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it." http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-44 - The treatment of dhimmis, including the enforcement of restrictions placed on them, varied over time and space, depending on both the goodwill of the ruler and the historical circumstances. The "dhimma" was the most oppressive in http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Morocco - , where Jews were subjected to what http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Norman_Stillman - called "ritualized degradation", http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-45 - as well as in http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Yemen - and http://www.islamicity.com/wiki/Persia - . http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-46 - The periods when Islamic states were strong generally coincided with more relaxed attitude towards dhimmis; however, treatment of non-Muslims usually became harsher when Islam was weak and in decline. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-Lewis_p32-29 - - HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-stillman109-47"[48] Over time, the treatment of dhimmis tended to develop in cycles, such that periods of when restrictions imposed on dhimmis were relaxed were immediately followed by the periods of pious reaction when such restrictions came to be enforced again. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l%20cite_note-48 - See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Humiliation_of_dhimmis

Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 11:29pm

Martha: Please don't consider Pakistan as an ideal till it is free from the neo colonial conditions, where a thief has been installed as the Prez,,,

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.

Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 11:53pm

I am just wondering why is Jizyah a matter of concern when the Khalafa is no more and most Muslim lands are under EU/US boots?
The world has moved on and let's find a country that has the standing to do Jizyah levy first!

Btw the talk of taxes the rich American kids don't go to fight America's wars but look what their parents end up paying...1.5% of top earning families paid more than 50% of the taxes...

How about this killer Jizyah on the rich in the US and Obama is asking to raise it even higher...At least the moneyed folks of the time had draft killed after the Vietnam fiasco...remember then the smart draft dodger Clinton who ended up becoming the Prez Wink

after all....
This is reality to talk about than centuries old civil defense tax(Jizyah) in place of executions of the enemy's males like the Spain/US did to the Moors & Indians or sending them to the concentration camps like the Japanese during WWII...

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 9:01am

Sign,

I was reading a really good book called "The Lies They Taught you in School."

One point was that rich folks opposed the Vietnam War. When they were the LAST to oppose the war. It was not them being drafted and sent to kill people and die for an unclear reason.

I guess since the poor pay the taxes they get drafted first. Many of them were not able to run to college and hide.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 2:18pm

"The jizyah tax was only for young non-Mulsim men who refused to serve in the military while living under Islamic rule."

Are you sure? Because in the Ummayad dynasty families had to pay taxes and nothing was said about serving in the military

Jews from poor communities paid a low rate of jizya http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_11083.html - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_11083.html

I believe Maimondes wrote something to the effect of this special tax http://books.google.com/books?id=3zUU8TzqewUC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=maimonides+and+jizyah+tax&source=bl&ots=21xvE43Ix3&sig=05HzWpwSYxbiOB5hL61y9tmrg3s&hl=en&ei=qI2ASo-KOYTWtgPkg6zvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false - http://books.google.com/books?id=3zUU8TzqewUC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=maimonides+and+jizyah+tax&source=bl&ots=21xvE43Ix3&sig=05HzWpwSYxbiOB5hL61y9tmrg3s&hl=en&ei=qI2ASo-KOYTWtgPkg6zvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 3:34pm

PattyaMainer wrote:

The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the FY 2006 recruiting year.

Active duty recruiting. All services have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006.

Componant	Accessions	Goal	Percent
Army	80,635	80,000	101
Navy	36,679	36,656	100
Marine Corps	32,337	32,301	100
Air Force	30,889	30,750	100
Army National Guard	69,042	70,000	99
Army Reserve	34,379	36,032	95
Navy Reserve	9,722	11,180	87
Marine Corps Reserve	8,056	8,024	100
Air National Guard	9,138	9,380	97
Air Force Reserve	6,989	6,607	106

Best regards,

Patty

What is the point in posting old stats ? Your explanation is dated...
The young people who are joining most of them are illegal Latins dumb enough to gamble for the US citizenship...
DON'T HIDE UNDER SOME ROCK IN MAINE AND READ THIS TIME'S REPORT....

Why Are Army Recruiters Killing Themselves?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889152,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889152,00.html
THEY CAN'T MAKE THE QUOTA OF JUST 2 RECRUITS A MONTH.... Cry

AND WHEN THE EVIL CAN'T FIND WILLING RECRUITS THEY BUY SERVICES OF THE HIRED CONTRACT KILLERS FROM BLACK WATER NOW KNOWN AS (Xe= executioners for the cross)

EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS REPORT AND STOP EXPLAINING THE PROS AND CONS OF JYZYAH PLEASE...AND DON'T MISS OUT THE THE PICTURES ATTACHED TO SEE THE REALITY OF THE SURVIVORS' GRIEF...

Blackwater (Xe): Killing their critics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwrl6TBrFAE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ealternet%2Eorg%2Fworld%2F141763%2Fexplosive%5Fallegations%253A%5Fblackwater%5Ffounder%5Fimplicated%5Fin%5Fmurder%5F%2F&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwrl6TBrFAE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ealternet%2Eorg%2Fworld%2F141763%2Fexplosive%5Fallegations%253A%5Fblackwater%5Ffounder%5Fimplicated%5Fin%5Fmurder%5F%2F&feature=player_embedded

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 3:40pm

Natassia wrote:

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"But, you've sidetracked with illegitimate tu quoque claims. The problem I have is not with taxes. The problem I have is with PREJUDICIAL taxes. Why should I have to pay a certain tax simply because of my religious beliefs? Why should I be treated like a second-class citizen?"

Considering the fact that this started out on a thread titled: Is Jesus God or not, and someone posted:

"That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax."

Talk about sidetracking.....

Original statement that I made a response to:

I think that kind of Law is too barbaric, too cruel, too harsh, too ruthless for my understanding. As a mother, I would try my best to protect my beloved children from any kind of harm even if it will affect me physically. Much more so is God AlMighty. He has the Power, The Will, The Means to bring up His Beloved Prophet to Him, saving him from humiliation in the hands of evil people.

Here lies the contradiction of the understanding of the Power of God. Leaving your beloved servant being cruelly tortured, mercilessly crucified in the hands of the Romans and the Jews does not depict a Powerful God to me. I would say, this kind of understanding of God is inferior.

That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax.

This was not meant as a sidetrack. The person said that God should have saved his prophet from a humiliating death. If God really is Almighty, He would have been reaching down and taking matters into His own hands.

Christians really believe that God is Almighty. Therefore, they do not feel it necessary to do God's work such as forcing conversion by threats of execution or a jizyah tax and second-class status.

Yes, I can see how the torture and crucifixion of Jesus equates to the jizyah tax. thanks for clearing that up....

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 3:44pm

"The jizyah tax was only for young non-Mulsim men who refused to serve in the military while living under Islamic rule."

Are you sure? Because in the Ummayad dynasty families had to pay taxes and nothing was said about serving in the military"

Yes, I'm sure.

Those exempt from paying the jizyah:

- Women and children are excused absolutely

- Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich

- Needy and mad-men

- Day laborers, servants or wageworkers

- A chronically ill-man even if he is rich

- Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories

- If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.

- If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax. (See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Umm� pp. 172-1)

Are you holding the religion of Islam responsible for what an individual ruler decides to do? I can speak only to what Islam allows, not what individuals in power choose. Islam has strict guidelines regarding the collection of jizyah. Rulers choose to ignore these at the risk of their own punishment on the Day of Judgement.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 3:57pm

"I didn't bring up jizyah in order to discuss Islamic tax code. If you notice, I was bringing up forced conversions by threat of execution or a jizyah tax. A Muslim then posted a response regarding bewilderment at non-Muslim dislike for the jizyah and the thread went from there. I was certainly not trying to divert the topic by any means."

Yeah Chrysalis, what's wrong with you! Don't you see the connection here:

Originally posted by Natassia

"Original statement that I made a response to:

"I think that kind of Law is too barbaric, too cruel, too harsh, too ruthless for my understanding. As a mother, I would try my best to protect my beloved children from any kind of harm even if it will affect me physically. Much more so is God AlMighty. He has the Power, The Will, The Means to bring up His Beloved Prophet to Him, saving him from humiliation in the hands of evil people.

Here lies the contradiction of the understanding of the Power of God. Leaving your beloved servant being cruelly tortured, mercilessly crucified in the hands of the Romans and the Jews does not depict a Powerful God to me. I would say, this kind of understanding of God is inferior."

That's okay. You can believe what you want. Christians aren't going to threaten you with execution or a jizyah tax."

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 4:00pm

"See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Humiliation_of_dhimmis"

Humiliation of dhimmis? And we're supposed to take this seriously?

Here, let's look at some serious religious based humiliation:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/05/18/us-religious-humiliation-muslim-detainees-widespread - U.S.: Religious Humiliation of Muslim Detainees Widespread

May 18, 2005

If the U.S. government wants to repair the public relations damage caused by its mistreatment of detainees, it needs to investigate those who ordered or condoned this abuse, not attack those who have reported on it.

Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch.

U.S. interrogators have repeatedly sought to offend the religious beliefs of Muslim detainees as part of their interrogation strategy, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch said that the dispute over the retracted allegations in Newsweek that U.S. interrogators had desecrated a Koran at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, has overshadowed the fact that religious humiliation of detainees at Guant�namo and elsewhere has been widespread.

�In detention centers around the world, the United States has been humiliating Muslim prisoners by offending their religious beliefs,� said Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch.

On December 2, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners at Guant�namo, which included �removal of all comfort items (including religious items),� �forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc.),� and �removal of clothing.� Each of these practices is considered offensive to many Muslims. These techniques were later applied in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

The purpose of these techniques, Human Rights Watch said, is to inflict humiliation on detainees, which is strictly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Several former detainees have said that U.S. interrogators disrespected the Koran. Three Britons released from Guant�namo http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Guantanamo_composite_statement_FINAL.pdf - have alleged that the Koran was kicked and thrown in the toilet. A former Russian detainee, Aryat Vahitov, has reportedly made the same claim. A former Kuwaiti detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, has said that the throwing of a Koran on the floor led to a hunger strike at Guant�namo that ended only after a senior officer expressed regret over the camp's loudspeaker. Human Rights Watch also interviewed detainees who described a protest at a U.S. detention site at Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan in early 2002 that was set off by a guard�s alleged desecration of the Koran.

Erik Saar, a former Army translator at Guant�namo, has described a female interrogator wiping a detainee with what the prisoner was made to believe was menstrual blood.

U.S. personnel have also used dogs as part of the interrogation process, which�in addition to inducing fear�many Muslims consider to be unclean. In December 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved �using detainees� individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress� at Guant�namo. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the top U.S. commander in Iraq, authorized Abu Ghraib interrogators in September 2003 to �exploit Arab fear of dogs. � The interrogators then used dogs on detainees in a manner that was captured in the Abu Ghraib photographs.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to the �serious consequences� and �lasting damage� to the U.S. image, called on Newsweek to �help repair some of the damage� that was done by its report. But Human Rights Watch said that it was U.S. policies that had inflicted the greatest amount of damage.

Newsweek was not to blame for the damage inflicted in the riots, Human Rights Watch said.

�The damage in the riots was directly caused by violent protestors and poorly disciplined Afghan police and troops, not by Newsweek�s editors,� said Brody.

Human Rights Watch noted that the Newsweek story would not have resonated had it not been for the United States� extensive abuse of Muslim detainees.

�If the U.S. government wants to repair the public relations damage caused by its mistreatment of detainees, it needs to investigate those who ordered or condoned this abuse, not attack those who have reported on it,� said Brody.

Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum requirements for the treatment of persons in armed conflicts, requires detainees to be treated humanely without adverse distinction based on religion or faith. Outrages upon personal dignity are prohibited, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 4:08pm

New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge
Abu Ghraib Detainees' Statements Describe Sexual Humiliation And Savage Beatings

By Scott Higham and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 21, 2004; Page A01

Previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq describe in raw detail abuse that goes well beyond what has been made public, adding allegations of prisoners being ridden like animals, sexually fondled by female soldiers and forced to retrieve their food from toilets.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3885/0/0/%2a/d;216192392;1-0;0;38637913;2321-160/600;32435891/32453767/1;;~okv=;dc_slot=2865;;~aopt=0/ff/280074/ff;~fdr=187967043;0-0;1;7112856;2321-160/600;24770581/24788434/1;;~okv=;dir=defensenode;dir=business;dir=industries;dir=defense;page=article;A=2;D=4;C=2;C=11;E=HGABC;~aopt=6/1/ff/1;~fdr=216226397;0-0;0;16726208;2321-160/600;32443775/32461651/1;;~okv=;dc_slot=2865;;~aopt=2/ff/280074/ff;~sscs=%3fhttp://experience.irobot.com/trendy_AE -

The fresh allegations of prison abuse are contained in statements taken from 13 detainees shortly after a soldier reported the incidents to military investigators in mid-January. The detainees said they were savagely beaten and repeatedly humiliated sexually by American soldiers working on the night shift at Tier 1A in Abu Ghraib during the holy month of Ramadan, according to copies of the statements obtained by The Washington Post.

The statements provide the most detailed picture yet of what took place on the cellblock. Some of the detainees described being abused as punishment or discipline after they were caught fighting or with a prohibited item. Some said they were pressed to denounce Islam or were force-fed pork and liquor. Many provided graphic details of how they were sexually humiliated and assaulted, threatened with rape, and forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers.

"They forced us to walk like dogs on our hands and knees," said Hiadar Sabar Abed Miktub al-Aboodi, detainee No. 13077. "And we had to bark like a dog, and if we didn't do that they started hitting us hard on our face and chest with no mercy. After that, they took us to our cells, took the mattresses out and dropped water on the floor and they made us sleep on our stomachs on the floor with the bags on our head and they took pictures of everything."

The prisoners also provided accounts of how some of the now-famous photographs were staged, including the pyramid of hooded, naked prisoners. Eight of the detainees identified by name one particular soldier at the center of the abuse investigation, Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr., a member of the 372nd Military Police Company from Cresaptown, Md. Five others described abuse at the hands of a solider who matches Graner's description.

"They said we will make you wish to die and it will not happen," said Ameen Saeed Al-Sheik, detainee No. 151362. "They stripped me naked. One of them told me he would rape me. He drew a picture of a woman to my back and makes me stand in shameful position holding my buttocks."

The Pentagon is investigating the allegations, a spokesman said last night.

"There are a number of lines of inquiry that are being taken with respect to allegations of abuse of detainees in U.S. custody," Bryan Whitman said. "There is still more to know and to be learned and new things to be discovered."

Threats of Death and Assault

The disclosures come from a new cache of documents, photographs and videos obtained by The Post that are part of evidence assembled by Army investigators putting together criminal cases against soldiers at Abu Ghraib. So far, seven MPs have been charged with brutalizing detainees at the prison, and one pleaded guilty Wednesday.

The sworn statements, taken in Baghdad between Jan. 16 and Jan. 21, span 65 pages. Each statement begins with a handwritten account in Arabic that is signed by the detainee, followed by a typewritten translation by U.S. military contractors. The shortest statement is a single paragraph; the longest exceeds two single-spaced typewritten pages.

While military investigators interviewed the detainees separately, many of them recalled the same event or pattern of events and procedures in Tier 1A -- a block reserved for prisoners who were thought to possess intelligence that could help thwart the insurgency in Iraq, find Saddam Hussein or locate weapons of mass destruction. Military intelligence officers took over the cellblock last October and were using MPs to help "set the conditions" for interrogations, according to an investigative report complied by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba. Several MPs have since said in statements and through their attorneys that they were roughing up detainees at the direction of U.S. military intelligence officers.

Most of the detainees said in the statements that they were stripped upon their arrival to Tier 1A, forced to wear women's underwear, and repeatedly humiliated in front of one another and American soldiers. They also described beatings and threats of death and sexual assault if they did not cooperate with U.S. interrogators.

Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, detainee No. 151108, told investigators that when he first arrived at Abu Ghraib last year, he was forced to strip, put on a hood and wear rose-colored panties with flowers on them. "Most of the days I was wearing nothing else," he said in his statement.

Hilas also said he witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy at the prison. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but Hilas said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Hilas said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures.

javascript:void%280%29 -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html?referrer=email - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html?referrer=email

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 4:20pm

The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

New Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos

released February 15, 2006 by Australia's Special Broadcasting Service TV

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 - http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

WARNING! Some pictures are graphic!!!!

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 4:24pm

Kinda makes paying taxes not so humiliating.....

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 8:22am

@ Shasta's Aunt

I already explained the meaning of my statement:

Christians really believe that God is Almighty. Therefore, they do not feel it necessary to do God's work such as forcing conversion by threats of execution or a jizyah tax and second-class status.

***

Also, all of that copy-pasting you did to show persecution of Muslims?

An exercise in logical fallacy:

Ad hominem tu quoque

Red herring

(Please research those.)

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 3:00pm

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

The jizyah tax was only for young non-Mulsim men who refused to serve in the military while living under Islamic rule. They were being protected by the military so if they refused to serve, and they had that right, they were taxed.

I am pretty sure if the U.S. gave the option to pay a tax instead of forced military service during times of war millions of young people would happily do so.

I provided Islamic sources (Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Tanw�r al-Miqb�s min Tafs�r Ibn �Abb�s) proving that the Jizya is meant to be a tax of humiliation upon a group of people purely for their differences in religious beliefs.

And I find it interesting that you use the phrase "predominately Christian country" when the United States has a strict policy of separation of Church and State. Please review the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The military draft in America has not been used since the Vietnam War. The purpose of the draft is to protect American interests. It is not to propogate any particular religion or wipe out any particular religion.

And a forced tax does not protect a nation.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn for Quran 9:29

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam � from among of those who (min, �from�, explains [the previous] alladhīna, �those who�) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (�an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, �compliantly�, or �by their own hands�, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an for Quran 9:29

Fight with those from among the people of the Book, who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day; http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote27sym - ^{who do not make unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote28sym - ^{and do not adopt the Right way as their way. (Fight with them) until they pay Jizyah with their own hands and are humbled. http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote29sym - ^{http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote27anc - Though the people of the Book professed to believe in Allah and the Hereafter, in fact they believed in neither. For only that person really believes in Allah who acknowledges Him as the only One God and the only One Lord, and does not associate with Him any other, whatsoever, in His Being, in His characteristics, in His rights and in His powers and authority. But according to this definition of shirk both the Christians and the Jews were guilty of shirk as has been made plain in the verses that follow: therefore their profession of belief in Allah was meaningless. Likewise they did not really believe in the Hereafter, in spite of the fact that they believed in Resurrection. For it is not enough: one must also believe that on that Day absolute justice will be done on the basis of one's belief and actions. One should also believe that no ransom and no expiation and no 'spiritual' relationships with any 'saint' shall be of any avail on that Day. It is absolutely meaningless to believe in the Hereafter without this. And the Jews and the Christians had polluted their faiths because they believed that such things would protect them against justice on that Day.}}}

http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote28anc - The second reason why Jihad should be waged against them is that they did not adopt the Law sent down by Allah through His Messenger.

http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote29anc - This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.' They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. Jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of "..... they Pay jizyah with their own hands," that is, "with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the Believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth. "

At first this Command applied only to the Jews and the Christians. Then the Holy Prophet himself extended it to the Zoroastrians also. After his death, his Companions unanimously applied this rule to all the non-Muslim nations outside Arabia.

This is jizyah " of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the Way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic State offers them protection, if they agree to live as its Zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.

As regards the question, "What do the non-Muslims get in return for Jizyah " it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic State allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 18 August 2009 at 1:06am

Also, all of that copy-pasting you did to show persecution of Muslims?

An exercise in logical fallacy:

Ad hominem tu quoque

Red herring

I understand what a red herring is. I've been watching you throw them out all over the Forum. You're very good at it, but I recognise a ringer when I read one.

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 18 August 2009 at 2:56pm

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

I understand what a red herring is. I've been watching you throw them out all over the Forum. You're very good at it, but I recognise a ringer when I read one.

A ringer?

When have I been dishonest?

Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 3:29am

your whole being here is dishonest.. lol

you have lo interest in actually learning about Islam... just attack attack attack.

that red herring... fishy smell that it is...lol

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 5:28am

Hayfa wrote:

your whole being here is dishonest.. lol

you have lo interest in actually learning about Islam... just attack attack attack.

that red herring... fishy smell that it is...lol

More misuse of vocabulary.

Why am I not surprised?

Tell me...how have I attacked you?

Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 9:07am

Hayfa wrote:

your whole being here is dishonest.. lol

you have lo interest in actually learning about Islam... just attack attack attack.

that red herring... fishy smell that it is...lol

I thought Christians were supposed to be fishers of men, not men with fish......

-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt