Support NeoGAF

[RoadHazard]

Disgusting evil animals. I'm not religious, but I truly hope there is a hell so these murderers can burn there for eternity. And before that happens I hope their deaths are slow and painful.

 

[segasonic]

Weird how it's so uncommon for violent crazies to latch onto atheism or secular philosophies. Where are all the stories about people being executed by godless bigots?

Long time ago...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

 

[Terra Firma]

I can't think of any Christian Roman Empire that Christianized both the Germanic and Nordic pagans, as well as the Roman and Greek pagans.

The proof is evident in the fact that nations that governed under any semblance of Christian law cannot show any continuous non-Christian community existing within them, which continues to practice its own, non-Christian religion, whereas religious minorities continue to exist, even in rather sizable amounts in areas that were governed by Muslim caliphates.

There are ancient churches that still hold mass. Ancient temples that still function today. But nothing similar exists in Europe. Every pagan movement in Europe is a revivalist movement.

The legitimate caliphates of the past enforced jizya which is what IS are doing. You seem to think it's a good thing to impose a tax on a minority, to demonstrate their subjugation, because of their religion. I think that's why people regard it as subhuman.

I think it is a fair idea when there is no expectation of military service from someone to then contribute in some manner. As I said, non-Muslims could exempt themselves from jizya if they joined the military; those that were physically unable to join the military, such as the sick or the elderly, were exempt by default. Muslims had no way of being exempt from military service beside disability or poverty or old age or some other extreme reason.

Jizya even worked AGAINST Islamic propagation, where some rulers preferred non-Muslims to remain non-Muslims so that they can continue to earn jizya. Jizya went straight to the state and the ruler, whereas mandatory zakat (the tax on Muslims) went straight to the poor, bypassing the ruler.

 

[funkypie]

Another week another massacre committed in the name of Islam. The prophet would be proud.

 

[RoadHazard]

I think it is a fair idea when there is no expectation of military service from someone to then contribute in some manner. As I said, non-Muslims could exempt themselves from jizya if they joined the military; those that were physically unable to join the military, such as the sick or the elderly, were exempt by default. Muslims had no way of being exempt from military service beside disability or poverty or old age or some other extreme reason.

Jizya even worked AGAINST Islamic propagation, where some rulers preferred non-Muslims to remain non-Muslims so that they can continue to earn jizya. Jizya went straight to the state and the ruler, whereas mandatory zakat (the tax on Muslims) went straight to the poor, bypassing the ruler.

What the fuck? Do you actually think it's fair to demand that non-Muslims pay an additional tax just because they're not Muslim? Your excuses are bullshit, and you're a fucking idiot.

(Unless I'm misunderstanding you, in which case I apologize.)

 

[Terra Firma]

What the fuck? Do you actually think it's fair to demand that non-Muslims pay an additional tax just because they're not Muslim? Your excuses are bullshit, and you're a fucking idiot.

(Unless I'm misunderstanding you, in which case I apologize.)

What "additional tax"? Muslims had the zakat tax, non-Muslims had the jizya tax. Muslims had no way to get an exemption besides poverty. Non-Muslims were exempt if they were women, elderly, ill, poor, or members of the army. And Muslims were, by default, conscript members of the army.

Are citizens and non-citizens in a country treated equally? Similarly, non-Muslims were non-citizens, because to be a citizen, you had to be a Muslim, with Muslim beliefs and morality. We are also not talking about a democracy, where only those with wealth have upward mobility, and where a neo-Nazi's vote counts the same as a multicultural community advocate. We're talking about a bona fide theocracy, where the laws of the land are based on a particular religion. A caliphate is a theocracy. Its laws are derived from shari'ah. Shari'ah is what also allows non-Muslims to practice their own laws and it is shari'ah that prevents forcing itself upon non-Muslims.

Furthermore, here's some shocking truth: over time, even the term "Muslim" became relevant to cultural aspects, rather than those of beliefs. There were those who were called "Muslim" and enjoyed the same privileges as well as restrictions as Muslims, but did not actually believe in Islam. There were people who spoke against core Islamic beliefs, something that they could have been crucified over in Europe or elsewhere, yet were not discounted as being "Muslim" in the sense of citizenship. Read up on Muhammad al-Razi. He stated and wrote many heretical beliefs, but he did not pay jizya, neither was he killed.

 

[Stereogatari]

Jizya was literally just a tax that Muslims didn't have to pay because they were conscripted to the army. It's not right, but it's not as wrong as people are suggesting.

 

[RoadHazard]

Are citizens and non-citizens in a country treated equally? Similarly, non-Muslims were non-citizens, because to be a citizen, you had to be a Muslim, with Muslim beliefs and morality. We are also not talking about a democracy, where only those with wealth have upward mobility, and where a neo-Nazi's vote counts the same as a multicultural community advocate. We're talking about a bona fide theocracy, where the laws of the land are based on a particular religion. A caliphate is a theocracy. Its laws are derived from shari'ah. Shari'ah is what also allows non-Muslims to practice their own laws and it is shari'ah that prevents forcing itself upon non-Muslims.

And that makes it "fair" how, exactly? Still complete BS IMO.

 

[Ashes]

Of course like silencing criticism by trying to throw critics into the same camp as racists.

Some critics are racist. It depends on how wide you wield your generalisations, doesn't it?

But I am clearly not enlightening you; and you're just annoying me. Ha ha.

So I'll leave you to it.

 

[michaelius]

Seriously. People need to chill the fuck out on their religion. Everyone needs ask themselves "What if I am wrong?"
Be a good person and perhaps the creator (if one exists) will pardon you no matter what religion.

Why do you guys blame religions in this context ?

It's always members of one specific faith in news like this.

I haven't heard of any fanatical buddhists doing terror attacks.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

And that makes it "fair" how, exactly? Still complete BS IMO.

It is a complete BS and discriminatory policy.

 

[Ashes]

And that makes it "fair" how, exactly? Still complete BS IMO.

Not to step on your toes, but both Muslims and non-muslims paid tax. Muslims paid zakat to the public treasury. Non-muslims didn't pay zakat, instead they paid jizyah.

 

[Duji]

I think it is a fair idea when there is no expectation of military service from someone to then contribute in some manner. As I said, non-Muslims could exempt themselves from jizya if they joined the military; those that were physically unable to join the military, such as the sick or the elderly, were exempt by default. Muslims had no way of being exempt from military service beside disability or poverty or old age or some other extreme reason.

Jizya even worked AGAINST Islamic propagation, where some rulers preferred non-Muslims to remain non-Muslims so that they can continue to earn jizya. Jizya went straight to the state and the ruler, whereas mandatory zakat (the tax on Muslims) went straight to the poor, bypassing the ruler.

Splitting up society into MUSLIM and NON-MUSLIM is a terrible idea and a textbook example of religious discrimination. The state should NEVER have any business whatsoever into which God someone chooses to worship.

 

[RoadHazard]

Why do you guys blame religions in this context ?

It's always members of one specific faith in news like this.

I haven't heard of any fanatical buddhists doing terror attacks.

Religion is a big problem overall, and Islam is the worst of them by far. Now, most Muslims are good, peaceful people, of course, but the atrocities committed in the name of Islam simply have no equal in any other religion these days. It's the root of so much evil.

 

[Ashes]

Economic Taxation source:

http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-412-3390.htm


This is very off topic though.

 

[neorej]

Has there ever been a better reason to kill thousands just because you don't share an imaginary friend in the sky?

 

[Duji]

Not to step on your toes, but both Muslims and non-muslims paid tax. Muslims paid zakat to the public treasury. Non-muslims didn't pay zakat, instead they paid jizyah.

The Zakat tax rate is usually around 2.5%. There have been times in history where Jizya was enforced at over 10%, at times up to 50%. The two aren't the same.

 

[Ashes]

Religion is a big problem overall, and Islam is the worst of them by far. Now, most Muslims are good, peaceful people, of course, but the atrocities committed in the name of Islam simply have no equal in any other religion these days. It's the root of so much evil.

These things don't exist in a vacuum.
Religion is, to my mind, the worst explanation. Almost always a cultural local reaction to political or economical turmoil.

 

[RoadHazard]

These things don't exist in a vacuum.
Religion is, to my mind, the worst explanation. Almost always a cultural local reaction to political or economical turmoil.

You're partly right, of course, but when these evil vermin slaughter innocent people in the name of Allah I'm sure as hell not gonna give Islam a free pass.

 

[Avtomat]

Religion is a big problem overall, and Islam is the worst of them by far. Now, most Muslims are good, peaceful people, of course, but the atrocities committed in the name of Islam simply have no equal in any other religion these days. It's the root of so much evil.

Needs to pointed out that Christianity and other religions have had their own share of crazies throughout the ages. Bloody mary, the Spanish inquisition etc. Heck someone mentioned Buddhists not committing massacres there have been incidents in Burma if I recall.

I think the nutters currently propagating their madness in the name of Islam can be better explained by the geopolitical, cultural and historical context within which they are operating.

 

[RoadHazard]

Needs to pointed out that Christianity and other religions have had their own share of crazies throughout the ages. Bloody mary, the Spanish inquisition etc. Heck someone mentioned Buddhists not committing massacres there have been incidents in Burma if I recall.

I think the nutters currently propagating their madness in the name of Islam can be better explained by the geopolitical, cultural and historical context within which they are operating.

Yeah, I know people have done terrible things in the name of other religions as well. As I said, I think religion was and is a big problem overall, but Islam is undoubtedly the worst currently.

 

[Frodo]

Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to this world.

Sickening. Your gods must be happy.

 

[Kenshin001]

I think it is a fair idea when there is no expectation of military service from someone to then contribute in some manner. As I said, non-Muslims could exempt themselves from jizya if they joined the military; those that were physically unable to join the military, such as the sick or the elderly, were exempt by default. Muslims had no way of being exempt from military service beside disability or poverty or old age or some other extreme reason.

Jizya even worked AGAINST Islamic propagation, where some rulers preferred non-Muslims to remain non-Muslims so that they can continue to earn jizya. Jizya went straight to the state and the ruler, whereas mandatory zakat (the tax on Muslims) went straight to the poor, bypassing the ruler.

If they joined the military. You mean they avoided being conscripted. The Muslims were fighting and killing non Muslims in violent bloody conquests so what was a Christian supposed to do. The whole point of the jizya was to demonstrate servility to Muslim rule. It was a form of extortion with the threat of non payment imprisonment and the enslavement of the household.

Jizya didn't work against Islamic propagation since it helped sponsor Muslim conquest.

 

[Ashes]

The Zakat tax rate is usually around 2.5%. There have been times in history where Jizya was enforced at over 10%, at times up to 50%. The two aren't the same.

I don't think you are contradicting me. You are just saying some caliphates in history charged more for jizya. Maybe at times of war? I don't know. Maybe they were cruel and tyrannical and unfair.

But arguing that non-muslims paid a tax and not explaining that it was in lieu of Muslims paying a religious tax is somewhat unfair and not representative of the wider context - the bigger picture if you will.

 

[Kysen]

Funny how many in this thread blame religion, when clearly its the same suspects over and over again. When was the last time you heard Buddhists running the same test on innocents?

 

[Terra Firma]

Splitting up society into MUSLIM and NON-MUSLIM is a terrible idea and a textbook example of religious discrimination. The state should NEVER have any business whatsoever into which God someone chooses to worship.

What is so difficult to understand? A caliphate is a THEOCRACY, not a DEMOCRACY. Divisions are based upon being born into a religion or converting into it (belief), rather than place of birth or naturalization.

And your second statement does not follow your first. The state does not enforce worship of one god or another. Many times, the state would discourage conversions so that it would get a cut. The jizya went to the state for its own expenditures. The zakat went to the poor directly. It is forbidden in Islam to give zakat to someone who lives above the shari'ah level of poverty; if someone does so, he or she will not be fulfilling their obligation of zakat. The jizya was mandatory to pay ONLY if it was put in place; for example, there is not a single Muslim country in the world now that has jizya as a requirement of its non-Muslim residents/citizens.

The zakat is mandatory to pay and in some Muslim countries, it is automatically deducted annually from a person's salary.

All the while, regular taxation such as sales tax, etc. do not exist in Islam.

An example is that of interest. Interest and banking based on it is explicitly forbidden in Islam, but not forbidden in Judaism. Many Jews were wealthy due to running banks and providing financial services in the Muslim world, but Muslims could not do something similar. Jews were free to do something that was forbidden to Muslims.

Another example is that of alcohol. Muslims were forbidden from buying, selling, producing, even transporting alcohol. Of course that doesn't mean that all followed that law, similar to how a lot of people violate marijuana laws in the states, but majority did. No such restriction was placed on non-Muslims. There are even non-Muslim owned breweries in conservative Muslim countries like Pakistan.

If they joined the military. You mean they avoided being conscripted. The Muslims were fighting and killing non Muslims in violent bloody conquests so what was a Christian supposed to do. The whole point of the jizya was to demonstrate servility to Muslim rule. It was a form of extortion with the threat of non payment imprisonment and the enslavement of the household.

Jizya didn't work against Islamic propagation since it helped sponsor Muslim conquest.

Majority of the time, Muslims were NOT engaged in warfare against non-Muslims. In those times that they were, jizyah was a means of using the funds of the enemy's own citizenry against the enemy. And it's not like Muslims were allowed to avoid conscription, either, because avoiding conscription led to imprisonment, whereas abandoning in the middle of a battle entailed death.

Jizya did not really sponsor Muslim conquests. Majority of the sponsorship came from spoils of war and Muslims themselves donating sadaqah. Muslims were commanded to put not just their lives, but also their wealth on the line in times of war. Also, most of the time, the non-Muslim subjects lived in peacetime. Generations of non-Muslims saw no conflict while living under Muslim rule, but they were not told to or forced to convert because they kept filling the coffers of the state.

 

[Stereogatari]

Funny how many in this thread blame religion, when clearly its the same suspects over and over again. When was the last time you heard Buddhists running the same test on innocents?

Quite recently actually:
BBC News- Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

 

[Kysen]

Quite recently actually:
BBC News- Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

Says nothing about testing muslims.

 

[knicks]

Wasn't Bill Maher getting accused of being full of shit for saying that this was the only religion where certain (minor number) of followers murder others for not following it too, and having other beliefs?

I'm not sure if I remember correctly, maybe he said something different, but I recall people getting upset that he said that.

 

[Ashes]

You're partly right, of course, but when these evil vermin slaughter innocent people in the name of Allah I'm sure as hell not gonna give Islam a free pass.

Believe me - nobody is, or has or will do.

On a separate issue, I don't even think these are Muslims. Because of how Muslim schools of thoughts work, and not because I don't like them or don't agree with their revised commentaries.

Same as boko haram who slaughter children. Come on, at what point do we go: okay these aren't Muslims. Not just extremist Muslims, but a bastardisation so warped, it is just not an authentic expression of the faith.

 

[Stereogatari]

Says nothing about testing muslims.

You're right, it appears Buddhists like to kill no questions asked.

So what are we to conclude here. That Islamic doctrine promotes testing non-Muslims and then killing them if they get that test wrong?

Believe me - nobody is, or has or will do.

On a separate issue, I don't even think these are Muslims. Because of how Muslim schools of thoughts work, and not because I don't like them or don't agree with their revised commentaries.

Same as boko haram who slaughter children. Come on, at what point do we go: okay these aren't Muslims. Not just extremist Muslims, but a bastardisation so warped, it is just not an authentic expression of the faith.

Whether a person is Muslim or not has no definitive answer. It's tied to ethnicity. If you're from a Muslim majority ethnic group chances are you will grow up identifying as Muslim, whether you practice or not.

 

[Kysen]

but a bastardisation so warped, it is just not an authentic expression of the faith.

Who gets to decide which is authentic?

 

[Stereogatari]

Who gets to decide which is authentic?

I personally judge it based off the cultural norms of the Muslim world.

 

[Duji]

I don't think you are contradicting me. You are just saying some caliphates in history charged more for jizya. Maybe at times of war? I don't know. Maybe they were cruel and tyrannical and unfair.

But arguing that non-muslims paid a tax and not explaining that it was in lieu of Muslims paying a religious tax is somewhat unfair and not representative of the wider context - the bigger picture if you will.

The bigger picture is that one's God of choice alone determines their rights and place in society. Problems are guaranteed to arise as soon as you start diving society into arbitrary categories. It's an inherently broken system, and it's no wonder why the people who defend it are almost exclusively Muslim. At the end of the day you know it's categorically unfair, but it doesn't matter because "My God knows best." There is literally nothing we can say to convince you or any other Muslim/religious person who falls back to that cop out.

What's funny is the "fundamentalists" aka Wahhabis acknowledge this and don't even bother arguing. "Who cares what any of us have to say about jizya/jihad/apostasy/slavery when Allah knows best?" Why not be honest like them? I actually admire their honesty.

 

[BadWolf]

Disgusting.

People will still go ahead and defend but there is no denying that there is one specific religion that is at the cause of such acts these days. At some point, people just have to look the truth in the eyes.

Don't know if it attracts crazies or encourages them and I honestly don't care. Don't care about any excuses or explanations. Go ahead and try spewing these explanations to the families of the 28 individuals that were killed.

All that matters is that innocent ppl are dying and suffering regularly these days thanks to this garbage. That is unacceptable.

 

[Duji]

What is so difficult to understand? A caliphate is a THEOCRACY, not a DEMOCRACY. Divisions are based upon being born into a religion or converting into it (belief), rather than place of birth or naturalization.

It's not difficult to understand at all. Theocracies are terrible: they needlessly divide human beings into arbitrary categories and inevitably proceed to discriminate. Anyone who defends the idea should be ashamed of themselves. That's my point.

And your second statement does not follow your first. The state does not enforce worship of one god or another. Many times, the state would discourage conversions so that it would get a cut. The jizya went to the state for its own expenditures. The zakat went to the poor directly. It is forbidden in Islam to give zakat to someone who lives above the shari'ah level of poverty; if someone does so, he or she will not be fulfilling their obligation of zakat. The jizya was mandatory to pay ONLY if it was put in place; for example, there is not a single Muslim country in the world now that has jizya as a requirement of its non-Muslim residents/citizens.

I neither implied nor used the word "enforce." I said they have no BUSINESS in the religious beliefs of individuals. The state shouldn't have a RIGHT to know which religion a citizen practices in the first place.

 

[Guileless]

I think the nutters currently propagating their madness in the name of Islam can be better explained by the geopolitical, cultural and historical context within which they are operating.

What about the nutters from free and open societies who voluntarily leave to join ISIS? No shortage of them. Sam Harris says more Muslims have joined ISIS than the UK military.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Jizya was literally just a tax that Muslims didn't have to pay because they were conscripted to the army. It's not right, but it's not as wrong as people are suggesting.

So what about all the Christian families who had their kids taken away to fight in the Jannisaries corps ?

 

[Ashes]

Who gets to decide which is authentic?

Well, since I uttered the opinion, in this case, I am. You are free to do so too.

Boko Haram literally means 'western education is forbidden.' It was founded in 2002 I believe, and emerged out of ethnic militancy; some people talk about links to APC in that country. I don't know enough on that issue.

But anyway, they branch off wahabism, veering off course, into salafist jihadi group territories.

I don't think they are a legitimate sect, in the form, they are in now, and I'd go further, and say they were not, when they formed too. Because they break fundamental laws in Islam ( like on very very basic levels), and don't really have any rulings other than their militant views. Things you need to form even disagreeable schools of thought.

 

[Amir0x]

Disgusting.

People will still go ahead and defend but there is no denying that there is one specific religion that is at the cause of such acts these days. At some point, people just have to look the truth in the eyes.

Brutal Christian extremists massacre Muslim communities in Central Afrika
Children targets of brutal torturous/murderous witch hunt by Evangelical Christians in Nigeria
Both Christians and Muslims attack and counter attack in waves of massacres, leaving over 2,400 dead in Yelwa massacre. Christians raped muslim children

Many religions do this shit, some in higher frequencies than others. Religion is basically poison.

 

[Kenshin001]

Majority of the time, Muslims were NOT engaged in warfare against non-Muslims. In those times that they were, jizyah was a means of using the funds of the enemy's own citizenry against the enemy. And it's not like Muslims were allowed to avoid conscription, either, because avoiding conscription led to imprisonment, whereas abandoning in the middle of a battle entailed death.

Jizya did not really sponsor Muslim conquests. Majority of the sponsorship came from spoils of war and Muslims themselves donating sadaqah. Muslims were commanded to put not just their lives, but also their wealth on the line in times of war. Also, most of the time, the non-Muslim subjects lived in peacetime. Generations of non-Muslims saw no conflict while living under Muslim rule, but they were not told to or forced to convert because they kept filling the coffers of the state.

When were Muslims not fighting non Muslims? Ever since Muhammad to this very day it has never stopped. And lol at jizyah was a means of using the funds of the enemy's own citizenry against the enemy. People living under Muslim subjugation suddenly become the enemy when convenient. It was a discriminatory tax and does not exist anymore because in the modern day no one would stand for it. I can't believe some Muslims still try to justify it.

 

[BadWolf]

Many religions do this shit, some in higher frequencies than others. Religion is basically poison.

Fully agreed.

 

[Ashes]

The bigger picture is that one's God of choice alone determines their rights and place in society. Problems are guaranteed to arise as soon as you start diving society into arbitrary categories. It's an inherently broken system, and it's no wonder why the people who defend it are almost exclusively Muslim. At the end of the day you know it's categorically unfair, but it doesn't matter because "My God knows best." There is literally nothing we can say to convince you or any other Muslim/religious person who falls back to that cop out.

What's funny is the "fundamentalists" aka Wahhabis acknowledge this and don't even bother arguing. "Who cares what any of us have to say about jizya/jihad/apostasy/slavery when Allah knows best?" Why not be honest like them? I actually admire their honesty.

I'm defending jizyah? No. Don't attribute that to me.

I think a secular democracy is the fairest political system we have. Perhaps I am biased in that I happen to live in one, but I still hold that opinion.

 

[Dali]

How did they know they weren't Muslim. Was there a test? Like complete the following phrase "la laha..."

 

[Kozak]

I honestly feel ashamed that my heritage is associated with Islam and that the next question I receive after revealing my nationality is if I am Muslim.

I can't fathom how anyone can defend a set of rules put together in a time where there was little to no humanity.

 

[Duji]

I'm defending jizyah? No. Don't attribute that to me.

I think a secular democracy is the fairest political system we have. Perhaps I am biased in that I happen to live in one, but I still hold that opinion.

Well that's good to hear. Forgive me for not understanding why a Muslim wouldn't think a caliphate is the best legal system available. If you're not confident in God's legal/political recommendations then why even bother listening to anything else he says? Religious moderates will never cease to confuse me.

 

[Lum1n3s]

Sad to hear that people take things to such an extreme, RIP people !

 

[Ashes]

Well that's good to hear. Forgive me for not understanding why a Muslim wouldn't think a caliphate is the best legal system available. If you're not confident in God's legal/political recommendations then why even bother listening to anything else he says? Religious moderates will never cease to confuse me.

God recommended a caliphate? If anything the god in the Quran recommended shura.

I do recommend a reading of why the caliphate was abolished. But I have a feeling you already know this.

 

[Duji]

God recommended a caliphate? If anything the god in the Quran recommended shura.

I do recommend a reading of why the caliphate was abolished. But I have a feeling you already know this.

Maybe we can't attribute it to God directly, but let's be honest with ourselves here: if Muhammad had to choose between secular democracy and religious theocracy, which would he choose? Everyone knows the answer to this question.

 

[Ashes]

Maybe we can't attribute it to God directly, but let's be honest with ourselves here: if Muhammad had to choose between secular democracy and religious theocracy, which would he choose? Everyone knows the answer to this question.

That's unfair considering he didn't really know about secular democracy.
He did say we are all equal in his last sermon.

an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab... except by piety and good action.

Edit: which is a separate point I know, but refers to a point made earlier.