I have read your response very carefully and tried to analyse your thoughts. I at outset I would like to mention that I am not at all interested to challenge the knowledge and intelligence of anyone including you. I am not interested to comments on the quotes, misquotes, interpretation and misinterpretation of any religious (or so called holly) books. I am not at all interested to annoy also anyone because the time, the biggest ruler of the universe would decide his or her fate. I have read many posting, many quotes, misquotes, interpretations and misinterpretations of many reader, are from different religion (started by so called prophets or otherwise) and with different ideologies. From example, one of the readers of Muslim community has justified that Jihad is absolutely correct and it must be carried on, he even compared the court judgement of, like death sentence and killing of enemies in war field with the killings of Jihad. I can never think such an illogical advocacy from other community people, when I asked what would be the consequence if everyone starts executing own judgement and if someone gives verdict against you that an insane person has no right to exist in this world or at least India, then what would be your reaction, I could not get any reply. One gentleman had been challenging that what he had quoted, all are directly from Quran and Hadith, and there is no scope for denial. Other people have quoted different interpretations from different books of different religion but it is almost certain that they have spent lots of time, and have carried lots of research, and are quite intelligent also, but the authenticity of all those are difficult to examine and hardly carry any relevance in the present context and which affects our day-to-day life. Your have also tried to explain some definition which definitely has its relevance, but simultaneously twisted and misinterpreted in accordance to your own wishes and own benefit, and tried to justify judiciously. I am least interested to exhibit my wisdom, rather interested for such matters which are affecting the life of majorities (not religious), exploitation of resources by certain of segment of people etc., encouraging group criminality like terrorism and related activities, anti-country activities etc.
Now I reply to your queries:
You comments:
Society is Group of People of particular land at a particular time in history. whereas RELIGION has been the IDEOLOGY which that believed in and practised to evolve into a custom and habits then culture and in a larger frame of time it is called a CIVILISATION.
My reply:
I do agree with your classical definition and would like to reply you that invasion of Arab culture (not Muslim religion, as religion is nothing to do with the culture, as the culture is based on the geographic location,
I have read your response very carefully and tried to analyse your thoughts. I at outset I would like to mention that I am not at all interested to challenge the knowledge and intelligence of anyone including you. I am not interested to comments on the quotes, misquotes, interpretation and misinterpretation of any religious (or so called holly) books. I am not at all interested to annoy also anyone because the time, the biggest ruler of the universe would decide his or her fate. I have read many posting, many quotes, misquotes, interpretations and misinterpretations of many reader, are from different religion (started by so called prophets or otherwise) and with different ideologies. From example, one of the readers of Muslim community has justified that Jihad is absolutely correct and it must be carried on, he even compared the court judgement of, like death sentence and killing of enemies in war field with the killings of Jihad. I can never think such an illogical advocacy from other community people, when I asked what would be the consequence if everyone starts executing own judgement and if someone gives verdict against you that an insane person has no right to exist in this world or at least India, then what would be your reaction, I could not get any reply. One gentleman had been challenging that what he had quoted, all are directly from Quran and Hadith, and there is no scope for denial. Other people have quoted different interpretations from different books of different religion but it is almost certain that they have spent lots of time, and have carried lots of research, and are quite intelligent also, but the authenticity of all those are difficult to examine and hardly carry any relevance in the present context and which affects our day-to-day life. Your have also tried to explain some definition which definitely has its relevance, but simultaneously twisted and misinterpreted in accordance to your own wishes and own benefit, and tried to justify judiciously. I am least interested to exhibit my wisdom, rather interested for such matters which are affecting the life of majorities (not religious), exploitation of resources by certain of segment of people etc., encouraging group criminality like terrorism and related activities, anti-country activities etc.
Now I reply to your queries:
You comments:
Society is Group of People of particular land at a particular time in history. whereas RELIGION has been the IDEOLOGY which that believed in and practised to evolve into a custom and habits then culture and in a larger frame of time it is called a CIVILISATION.
My reply:
I do agree with your classical definition and would like to reply you that invasion of Arab culture (not Muslim religion, as religion is nothing to do with the culture, as the culture is based on the geographic location,
1. Non-believers are called Dhimmis in Muslim States. The Non-Muslims have to pay levy, tax or Jizya.
2. The Non-Muslims Young Man who are eligible to pay not serving in the Army. The Old, Woman, children exempted.
3. This is not paid as bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the Army.
4. The Muslim Government responsible for their protection by all means from crusading armies, tribal or communal warfare.
5. The special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat 2.5 percent.
6. All eligible Muslims have to pay zakat 2.5 percent.
7. All Muslims and Dhimmis have to pay Zakat on Farming 10 percent if the production is more than the Nisab(fixed amount decided by the Economist) or the person is eligible.
8. The Zakat is must for Muslims also some western writer miss-informed. Our First Caliph Abu Baker Siddiq R.A. Said if any body is not giving Zakat take by anyway if its war. So-called journalists scream that the Jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the Zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.
Note: Jizya is paid not to join or serve in the army. Jizya was collected from the eligible young man who did not want to join army. If join the army then there is no jizya and he will get all arms to protect his country. You DT's how can I teach you.
RE:How Can I Teach to this DT's ( Dog Tails )
by Yerra Burra on Mar 25, 2007 09:48 AM Permalink
Stop repeating this nonsense. Jizya and Aurangazeb were horrible. Keep your faith to yourself. Don't try to muddy the truth with irrelevant blabberings. Don't keep saying people are ignorant. Why should people waste their time learning about some barbaric religion which had/has nothing to teach to the advanced civilization in India? Prove your love of peace by your behaviour not by blabbering about peace.
RE:How Can I Teach to this DT's ( Dog Tails )
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 12:24 AM Permalink
1. you say non-muslims who don't want to serve the army have to pay jiziya, what about muslims who don't want to serve in the army,why was jiziya not imposed on them ?
2. Its not taken in lieu of zakat, its imposed on non-muslims toi humiliate and subjugate the as is clear from the sura below.
Sura 9:29
------------------
stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi %u2014 religious judge %u2014 of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).
Ibn Kathir on Sura 9:29,
---------------------
writes that dhimmis must be:
disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated.[107]
Muhammad (Sahih Muslim 26:5389), Hasan al-Kafrawi, an 18th century scholar
"if you [Muslims] encounter one of them [dhimmis] on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot".[120]
Sahih Muslim
-------------
Book 19, Number 4294 states that Muhammad commanded his military leaders to demand jizya from non-Muslims if they refused to accept Islam, and to fight them if they refused to pay.
Al-Muwatta
--------------
Book 17, Number 17.24.46 states that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz relieved those who converted to Islam from paying jizya. It also gives the sunnah on those who must pay jizya, principally non-Muslim males who have reached puberty, rather than zakat, as zakat is for the purpose of purifying Muslims, whereas jizya is for the purpose of humbling non-Muslims. It also outlines the additional jizya travelling traders must pay, and the rationale for that.
Al-Zamakhshari
----------------
, a Mutazili author of one of the standard commentaries on the Quran,[21] said that "the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."[21]
Al-Mawardi (the famous Shafii jurist of Baghdad)
-------------------------------------------------
, stated in al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance) that jizya is paid by the enemy in return for peace, a
RE:How Can I Teach to this DT's ( Dog Tails )
by Jallipalli Suresh on Mar 26, 2007 05:52 PM Permalink
Then If India decides to ask Jizya to be paid by non-army muslims then are u ready to pay........
Mr Francois Gautier is a great disciple ( Chela ) of SRI SRI RAVI SHANKER and he is one of the Gopis of his Ashram. Secondly He took 8 year physical education from female priests of Sri Aurobindo Asharam. He Wrote many books on Hindutva. Simply he is Mouth Piece of RSS GANGS GOONS. Go read about. He is the person Constantly advocating caste system. He is the person fabricated that Upper Caster and Brahamans are Rickshaw Pullers. Mr Francois Gautier is making all mess and spreading hatred. You accept it. The case will be solved.
RE:You People Accept that Francois Gautier is RSS GANGS GOONS Mouth Piece and Bogus writer
by bharatiya on Mar 26, 2007 03:53 PM Permalink
BehenC$%d Mike Gandi is upto his anti-india tricks again!
1. Non-believers are called Dhimmis in Muslim States. The Non-Muslims have to pay levy, tax or Jizya.
2. The Non-Muslims Young Man who are eligible to pay not serving in the Army. The Old, Woman, children exempted.
3. This is not paid as bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the Army.
4. The Muslim Government responsible for their protection by all means from crusading armies, tribal or communal warfare.
5. The special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat 2.5 percent.
6. All eligible Muslims have to pay zakat 2.5 percent.
7. All Muslims and Dhimmis have to pay Zakat on Farming 10 percent if the production is more than the Nisab(fixed amount decided by the Economist) or the person is eligible.
8. The Zakat is must for Muslims also some western writer miss-informed. Our First Caliph Abu Baker Siddiq R.A. Said if any body is not giving Zakat take by anyway if its war. So-called journalists scream that the Jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the Zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.
RE:Wada Pav - You put lies - I put the What is the Truth - One day you will die with the diary of Gol-worker
by wada pav on Mar 25, 2007 01:42 AM Permalink
what is the source of the information u provided ?
RE:Wada Pav - You put lies - I put the What is the Truth - One day you will die with the diary of Gol-worker
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 25, 2007 12:23 PM Permalink
I request you to read translation and commentary of the Quran, where these verses of Jizya discussed. I will request you to read Quran with Tafseer. You are allowed. There is no restrictions. You can ask any Muslim to provide you the same.
RE:RE:Wada Pav - You put lies - I put the What is the Truth - One day you will die with the diary of Gol-worker
by wada pav on Mar 25, 2007 01:04 PM Permalink
What about the verses i quoted, are they fake ? or is their meaning different ?
Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country.
That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country.
This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens.
For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens.
If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab).
They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums.
None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.
Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned.
RE:
by wada pav on Mar 25, 2007 01:06 PM Permalink
"...That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country.."
what bullshit, defend the country against whom ? muslims themselves were the invaders.
if hindus wanted to defend the country would they join mughal army, they would rather join maratha, rajput or sikh army, because they were the true defenders.
