Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Mujahidah]

Edit: Mujahidah and Kabumba’s answers are different, which is interesting, nothing proven, just an odd observation.

Out of curiosity, and I'm not meaning this to be accusatory, what do you take from that observation?

[Lower Nubia]

Wow, now that’s I’ve been shown the truth, I guess I’ll deny history. The issue of course is what I term for Christian interpretation as the ‘Evangelical effect’, “that’s not how you interpret it! The people of history merely added man made traditions and corruptions to the text, the [insert religious text here] clearly shows this tradition to be false as shown here [add this religious text verses].” The problem of course is that Islam did expand mainly through conquest and Jizya, (which is not necessarily forced conversion, but it definitely is an easy factor to convert) though It can be happily pointed out that many besieged cities had a convert or die event, though not exclusively across all conquests, thus, making either Caliphs contradictory or your interpretation off or twisted, and history points to a very clear answer.

The issue with the Medievil conversions is that (and I agree they were contemptible) Christianity had spread for 300 years after Christ without state support. Islam has the exact opposite, it only expanded for the first 300 years under state support. Using another faiths stupidity doesn’t get Islam off the hook. The discussion is Islam, not Frankish kings. If I could use another groups expansion as the gauge of the limits or irrelevancy of the spread of Islam I could happily turn to the increase in Atheists in communist China, or the 1.1 billion Hindus living today, but what does this prove other than marking yourself on other accomplishments, hardly the Muhammed gauge described by Islam no?

Ultimately I responded to the question beyond an “Allah blessed his people” line of thinking and answered the question: Islam spread mainly, not exclusively, through conquest and Jizya during its juvenile development stages.

Edit: Mujahidah and Kabumba’s answers are different, which is interesting, nothing proven, just an odd observation.

Again, jizya is not the only reasons Al-Islam expanded.

So it is, at least, a reason, also what are these additional reasons, more forceful than Jizya or conquest for conversion? Conversions along trade roads? Don't deny it, but its no coincidence that Islams population centers, and the traditionally conquered territory, are largely the same.

It's not even the main reason.

Hmmmm. Muslim peasant, converts because of missionary, or reduced tax... I know which one he really picked .

Also, not all non-Muslims were forced into Al-Islam, that depends on the Muslim leader.

Not all? So in Islams expansion, some were. Depends on the Muslim leader? As in the Caliph? If the Caliph is voted in by the Muslim community, and then does these things without condemnation, that sets a precedent. Maybe it was a 'vassal' of the Caliph, but if they weren't condemned by the Caliph, that also sets a precedent for its acceptability.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Hmmmm. Muslim peasant, converts because of missionary, or reduced tax... I know which one he really picked .

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

[Lower Nubia]

However, Lower Nubia is also right - people did have Islam forced upon them, whether the Quran allowed it or not.

Nubia rather misrepresented how things operated. The Jizyah was not intended as a forced conversion. Did such things happen? Sure. They were wrong. However they are neither condoned by my faith, nor are they a part of it, as was implied.

Really? Did I say it forced conversion? or that it was the cause of conversions? If I legally am allowed to repeatedly take bricks out of your house as long as you don't like the colour green that is definitely coercive and manipulative and an incentive to change colours. What do you mean, not intended? That a tacit admission that it was? which was all I was illustrating. At the end of the day, what is Jizyah for? A clear and obvious motive is to give a reason to convert. What happens if you don't pay it? Are their consequences, hidden behind the tax, maybe a jail sentence? A shaming? What? Its simply obvious that it is coercive. Which is all I allegedly said it did effectively to the non-Muslims under the states sway, shame you misrepresent me!

Edit: Mujahidah and Kabumba’s answers are different, which is interesting, nothing proven, just an odd observation.

Out of curiosity, and I'm not meaning this to be accusatory, what do you take from that observation?

Potentially... that your interpretations are as valid as anyone else, which is to say, not at all. Why trust one Quranic verse, when I can pick one that is equally juxtaposed to it. The history of Islam clearly illustrates an Islam which is not practiced today, and it was clearly more forceful
and less egalitarian than people like to admit.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Al-Islam is the same as it was 1400 yrs ago. It is Muslims who have changed. Also, jizyah is not supposed to be oppressive.

[Lower Nubia]

Hmmmm. Muslim peasant, converts because of missionary, or reduced tax... I know which one he really picked .

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

One immediate issue with this is that, for example, Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money? Another is that it clearly has been a reason given among the populace across history to convert, if it was as simple as Jizya=Zakat, why is this the case? The issue is also the confusion, Jizyah isn't just a tax, but a status, a dishonourable status vested to the person by the state, simply placing a fiscal aspect to it is deliberate obfuscation. Why does Islam get to discern direct fiscal laws for people outside of itself? And if why, then why does Jizyah exist? Zakat is given to new converts, as well as removing the status involved with the Jizyah, and additional Islamic privileges. Zakat is also given for charitable purposes (including new converts, curiously), while the Jizyah serves the state. I'm sure there are many historically given differences, but to assume Jizyah=Zakat is a simplification on histories examples.

[Proctopeo]

Al-Islam is the same as it was 1400 yrs ago. It is Muslims who have changed. Also, jizyah is not supposed to be oppressive.

I'm not sure that the underlined is a good thing.

[Batu Berlayar]

Al-Islam is the same as it was 1400 yrs ago. It is Muslims who have changed.

Semantics. Literally nobody sees the Platonic form of Islam floating on nothingness. I think it's a major problem that many Muslims are unable to discuss the development of their faith by the past adherents - which indeed happened - because Islam is supposed to be unchanging for over a millennia. Ditto for discussions on historical aspects of Islamic state.

That being said, I'm currently focusing my attention on the Ottomans, but I'm looking for an explanation as to why Islam was so popular so quickly, way before.

It's not particularly quick - the expansion of political Islamic state did not go hand-in-hand with Islamic conversion of the populace within. While it's true that the Umayyads were concerned by the rapidity of conquered populace's conversion of Islam (as it threatens their source of income) so much that they installed a sort-of ethnocentric institutions, even during the Abbasids Muslims are still a minority in the House of Islam.

It is perhaps under the rule of the Abbasids, who were more religiously intolerant (but racially tolerant) than the Umayyads and implemented various modes of ritual discrimination on top of heavy taxation that Islam experienced ever-rapid growth that continues until the Middle East is associated with Islam.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

One immediate issue with this is that, for example, Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money? Another is that it clearly has been a reason given among the populace across history to convert, if it was as simple as Jizya=Zakat, why is this the case? The issue is also the confusion, Jizyah isn't just a tax, but a status, a dishonourable status vested to the person by the state, simply placing a fiscal aspect to it is deliberate obfuscation. Why does Islam get to discern direct fiscal laws for people outside of itself? And if why, then why does Jizyah exist? Zakat is given to new converts, as well as removing the status involved with the Jizyah, and additional Islamic privileges. Zakat is also given for charitable purposes (including new converts, curiously), while the Jizyah serves the state. I'm sure there are many historically given differences, but to assume Jizyah=Zakat is a simplification on histories examples.

Erm. Your example makes no sense because no country in the world enforces jizyah in the modern day. The last one to do so was like the Ottomans.

[Genivaria]

Hmmmm. Muslim peasant, converts because of missionary, or reduced tax... I know which one he really picked .

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

If Zakat and Jizya are the same then why the need for different labels?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

If Zakat and Jizya are the same then why the need for different labels?

Not saying that they're the same. They're two different taxes on two different groups that serve two different purposes. But if a non-Muslim converts simply to escape jizya, they still have to pay the zakat which nullifies the whole "reduced tax" thing.

[Genivaria]

One immediate issue with this is that, for example, Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money? Another is that it clearly has been a reason given among the populace across history to convert, if it was as simple as Jizya=Zakat, why is this the case? The issue is also the confusion, Jizyah isn't just a tax, but a status, a dishonourable status vested to the person by the state, simply placing a fiscal aspect to it is deliberate obfuscation. Why does Islam get to discern direct fiscal laws for people outside of itself? And if why, then why does Jizyah exist? Zakat is given to new converts, as well as removing the status involved with the Jizyah, and additional Islamic privileges. Zakat is also given for charitable purposes (including new converts, curiously), while the Jizyah serves the state. I'm sure there are many historically given differences, but to assume Jizyah=Zakat is a simplification on histories examples.

Erm. Your example makes no sense because no country in the world enforces jizyah in the modern day. The last one to do so was like the Ottomans.

How does that dispute what he said?

[Genivaria]

If Zakat and Jizya are the same then why the need for different labels?

Not saying that they're the same. They're two different taxes on two different groups that serve two different purposes. But if a non-Muslim converts simply to escape jizya, they still have to pay the zakat which nullifies the whole "reduced tax" thing.

Who pays more? The Muslim or the Kafir?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Not saying that they're the same. They're two different taxes on two different groups that serve two different purposes. But if a non-Muslim converts simply to escape jizya, they still have to pay the zakat which nullifies the whole "reduced tax" thing.

Who pays more? The Muslim or the Kafir?

Depends. There is no set amount for either.

Erm. Your example makes no sense because no country in the world enforces jizyah in the modern day. The last one to do so was like the Ottomans.

How does that dispute what he said?

The whole "Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money". That wouldn't correlate to a jizyah tax on them due to there being no jizyah tax.

[Genivaria]

Who pays more? The Muslim or the Kafir?

Depends. There is no set amount for either.

How does that dispute what he said?

The whole "Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money". That wouldn't correlate to a jizyah tax on them due to there being no jizyah tax.

It would if their ancestors paid that same tax, it's similar to the legacy of segregation in the US.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Depends. There is no set amount for either.


The whole "Christian populations are among the poorest populations of Muslim countries, but why if they are asked the same money". That wouldn't correlate to a jizyah tax on them due to there being no jizyah tax.

It would if their ancestors paid that same tax, it's similar to the legacy of segregation in the US.

That is true. However, jizyah has not been paid in Iran since 1884, Algeria and Tunisia since the 1800s, Morocco since 1910, and the Ottoman Empire since 1856.

[Mike the Progressive]

I went out with this Arab redditor chick a week ago. Lets just say the pics she posts and the things we did were not halal.

That is all.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

I went out with this Arab redditor chick a week ago. Lets just say the pics she posts and the things we did were not halal.

That is all.

Litty.

[Mujahidah]

Arab redditor chick

There is a woman of that description that is rather noteworthy, and I doubt she'd react well to people lying about their conquests.

[Mike the Progressive]

Arab redditor chick

There is a woman of that description that is rather noteworthy, and I doubt she'd react well to people lying about their conquests.

If you're thinking about who I think you are alas, no, she was not nearly as hot. Like not even close. Maybe someday. I'm always optimistic and positive in my abilities.

[Genivaria]

There is a woman of that description that is rather noteworthy, and I doubt she'd react well to people lying about their conquests.

If you're thinking about who I think you are alas, no, she was not nearly as hot. Like not even close. Maybe someday. I'm always optimistic and positive in my abilities.

Um, who are ya'll talking about?

[Reikoku]

I went out with this Arab redditor chick a week ago. Lets just say the pics she posts and the things we did were not halal.

That is all.

L - l - like holding hands?

[El Hamidah]

But he would still then also have to pay the zakat tax...

If Zakat and Jizya are the same then why the need for different labels?

because the people paying jizyah aren't Muslim. That's the only difference theoretically.

[Mike the Progressive]

I went out with this Arab redditor chick a week ago. Lets just say the pics she posts and the things we did were not halal.

That is all.

L - l - like holding hands?

And doing coloring books together.

[El Hamidah]

L - l - like holding hands?

And doing coloring books together.