Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Salus Maior]

Muslims have an obligation to the state as well (especially if we're talking about an Islamic state), therefore they should pay both the Jizya and the Zakah to fulfill both obligations by your logic.

Jizyah is a state obligation on non-Muslims, not Muslims. We pay zakah, y'all pay jizyah. Besides, us paying zakah is fulfilling both state and religious obligation at once.

Why make them separate?

It is more just to simply have one tax for the state obligation that applies to everyone, and religious obligation being handled by the community in question (because remember, Christians and Jews also have religious obligations to give charity and tithe). Because, keeping them separate invites abuse (which is historically evident) because then one tax can be more heavily levied than another if the government decides it wants to screw over a certain group, like non-Muslims.

And I don't believe in the revelation of the Qur'an. So why should I accept its demand that I pay a different tax than Muslims? Or any rule that it sets for non-Muslims? I don't believe in its authority.

Congratulations, you now know how gay people feel when you use the Bible to attack same sex marriage.

I'm fine with homosexual couples outside the Church.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Jizyah is a state obligation on non-Muslims, not Muslims. We pay zakah, y'all pay jizyah. Besides, us paying zakah is fulfilling both state and religious obligation at once.

Why make them separate?

It is more just to simply have one tax for the state obligation that applies to everyone, and religious obligation being handled by the community in question (because remember, Christians and Jews also have religious obligations to give charity and tithe). Because, keeping them separate invites abuse (which is historically evident) because then one tax can be more heavily levied than another if the government decides it wants to screw over a certain group, like non-Muslims.

I feel like there's a clue in your question/comment here. Like you said, Christians and Jews have a religious obligation to pay tithe to their church/synagogue, so it may be that Allah SWT separated jizyah from zakah as to allow Christians and Jews to fulfill their state obligation - jizyah - and their religious obligation - tithes. With this in mind it'd make sense for jizyah to be of a lower amount than zakah so as go not overburden the non-Muslims.

Keep in mind this my own thinking on the subject and not a scholarly view, so take this with a grain of salt.

[Salus Maior]

Why make them separate?

It is more just to simply have one tax for the state obligation that applies to everyone, and religious obligation being handled by the community in question (because remember, Christians and Jews also have religious obligations to give charity and tithe). Because, keeping them separate invites abuse (which is historically evident) because then one tax can be more heavily levied than another if the government decides it wants to screw over a certain group, like non-Muslims.

I feel like there's a clue in your question/comment here. Like you said, Christians and Jews have a religious obligation to pay tithe to their church/synagogue, so it may be that Allah SWT separated jizyah from zakah as to allow Christians and Jews to fulfill their state obligation - jizyah - and their religious obligation - tithes. With this in mind it'd make sense for jizyah to be of a lower amount than zakah so as go not overburden the non-Muslims.

Keep in mind this my own thinking on the subject and not a scholarly view, so take this with a grain of salt.

But that's the problem here, Jizya historically was often weighed heavier than Zakat. And failure to pay Jizya was punished far harder than failure to pay Zakat.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I feel like there's a clue in your question/comment here. Like you said, Christians and Jews have a religious obligation to pay tithe to their church/synagogue, so it may be that Allah SWT separated jizyah from zakah as to allow Christians and Jews to fulfill their state obligation - jizyah - and their religious obligation - tithes. With this in mind it'd make sense for jizyah to be of a lower amount than zakah so as go not overburden the non-Muslims.

Keep in mind this my own thinking on the subject and not a scholarly view, so take this with a grain of salt.

But that's the problem here, Jizya historically was often weighed heavier than Zakat. And failure to pay Jizya was punished far harder than failure to pay Zakat.

Ok. We're not talking about history.

[Salus Maior]

So apparently, given that I believe in Ahmadiyya, I asked an Imam about Jizya and he says it's only applicable to those who fight against Muslims and are defeated. The reason I asked that is because hadith says when the Messiah comes back, he will abolish jizya.

As for those who peacefully accept Muslim rule, jizya isnt applicable. This is because in Ahmadiyya, the Messiah has come.

If that is the case, you cannot legitimately levy Jizya on successive generations of people you've conquered by that logic. Because only one generation fought against them. The children aren't responsible for the sins of the father.

Not that fighting against a conquering horde is sinful, of course.

[Salus Maior]

But that's the problem here, Jizya historically was often weighed heavier than Zakat. And failure to pay Jizya was punished far harder than failure to pay Zakat.

Ok. We're not talking about history.

Sure, we're talking about Theology, the concept of it. But history is the reality of it and its practice and it is relevant (and it is equally relevant what the groups that were affected by Jizya say, like the Copts of Egypt, who are strongly against the practice being revived).

And if Jizya were to be applied again, unaltered, the same would happen again because you cannot possibly guarantee that every Islamic ruler would be just and good.

Therefore, if you really cared about the welfare of other religious groups, you would make it so that it were far less likely they would be abused in the long run. So Jizya, and separate taxes in general would have to be abolished and the playing field evened so that one cannot levy heavier burdens on one community over another. That's the only way to guarantee that it wouldn't be abused.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Ok. We're not talking about history.

Sure, we're talking about Theology, the concept of it. But history is the reality of it and its practice and it is relevant (and it is equally relevant what the groups that were affected by Jizya say, like the Copts of Egypt, who are strongly against the practice being revived).

Except in Islamic theology we don't use history as a reference point as to how to practice our Deen. We only use the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

And if Jizya were to be applied again, unaltered, the same would happen again because you cannot possibly guarantee that every Islamic ruler would be just and good.

Well duh. Humans are gonna screw up somewhere down the line.

Therefore, if you really cared about the welfare of other religious groups, you would make it so that it were far less likely they would be abused in the long run. So Jizya, and separate taxes in general would have to be abolished and the playing field evened so that one cannot levy heavier burdens on one community over another. That's the only way to guarantee that it wouldn't be abused.

By this logic let's abolish all taxes. The government's gonna use it in an unjust manner at some point, so to curb this corruption taxes should be done away with.

See how this is bad logic? Everything that's supposed to be used in a goodly manner has the potential to be used for evil manners. That's not a reason to not do something.

[Salus Maior]

Except in Islamic theology we don't use history as a reference point as to how to practice our Deen. We only use the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

Well duh. Humans are gonna screw up somewhere down the line.

By this logic let's abolish all taxes. The government's gonna use it in an unjust manner at some point, so to curb this corruption taxes should be done away with.

See how this is bad logic? Everything that's supposed to be used in a goodly manner has the potential to be used for evil manners. That's not a reason to not do something.

But you do use history as a reference point when it comes to things like political and national policy. And this is honestly one of my biggest beefs with Islam; that it conflates the secular and political with the theological and doctrinal. It elevates worldly things to places that they do not belong, to the realm of the sacred, and people suffer as a result.

Well duh. Humans are gonna screw up somewhere down the line.

And I think we can both agree that we, as men of faith that care about justice, should do what we can to make sure that when they mess up, they won't mess up in such a way that they spread suffering to innocent people, families, and children. God wouldn't want them to suffer because of the evils of tyrants.

By this logic let's abolish all taxes. The government's gonna use it in an unjust manner at some point, so to curb this corruption taxes should be done away with.

See how this is bad logic? Everything that's supposed to be used in a goodly manner has the potential to be used for evil manners. That's not a reason to not do something.

Again, I pay taxes, and I agree that taxes are necessary. However, it should not be structured in such a way that one group can be made to pay more than another based on what they believe, or their race, minority status, etc.

If there were only one tax, that of state obligation, that applied to everyone, the government could not unfairly levy taxes based on a specific group. And if they did attempt to unfairly levy that one tax, everyone in the country would be ticked off and call out the government.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But you do use history as a reference point when it comes to things like political and national policy.

Not in Al-Islam you don't. Unless a certain topic literally isn't talked about, and using qiyaas doesn't get a sound ruling, then I guess that's ok.

And this is honestly one of my biggest beefs with Islam; that it conflates the secular and political with the theological and doctrinal. It elevates worldly things to places that they do not belong, to the realm of the sacred, and people suffer as a result.

In Al-Islam, everything we do will be accounted for in Yawmil-Qiyaamah (Day of Judgement), hence why even every little thing can either bring us closer to or further away from Allah SWT. We literally have teachings on how to put on our socks and shoes. If even that is dictated, then you know for sure that governance will be dictated. Which brings up another thing: The Khalifah is supposed to rule according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. That's not possible if the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah don't teach us how to rule. On top of the fact that there are criminal punishments (lashes, amputation, execution for example), those cannot be enacted unless we have an Islamic government. So yes, Islamically speaking, politics is a part of Al-Islam.

And I think we can both agree that we, as men of faith that care about justice, should do what we can to make sure that when they mess up, they won't mess up in such a way that they spread suffering to innocent people, families, and children. God wouldn't want them to suffer because of the evils of tyrants.

Correct.

Again, I pay taxes, and I agree that taxes are necessary. However, it should not be structured in such a way that one group can be made to pay more than another based on what they believe, or their race, minority status, etc.

Again, correct. I agree with you.

If there were only one tax, that of state obligation, that applied to everyone, the government could not unfairly levy taxes based on a specific group. And if they did attempt to unfairly levy that one tax, everyone in the country would be ticked off and call out the government.

Same thing can happen with different tax codes. Another reason why dhimmi governments can be formed: to check the power of the Islamic national government.

[A m e n r i a]

Hey, guys, I just thought I'd bring this up. At what point do you think someone is beyond redemption? I know God is all-forgiving, but to what extent do you think that applies to the worst of the worst? If you want, you can provide doctrine, though personal opinions are more than welcome.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Hey, guys, I just thought I'd bring this up. At what point do you think someone is beyond redemption? I know God is all-forgiving, but to what extent do you think that applies to the worst of the worst? If you want, you can provide doctrine, though personal opinions are more than welcome.

According to your religion, stop me if I'm wrong, anyone who dies not believing in your faith.

[A m e n r i a]

Hey, guys, I just thought I'd bring this up. At what point do you think someone is beyond redemption? I know God is all-forgiving, but to what extent do you think that applies to the worst of the worst? If you want, you can provide doctrine, though personal opinions are more than welcome.

According to your religion, stop me if I'm wrong, anyone who dies not believing in your faith.

That brings the question of people who lived in places and times without a prophet near them. Think Brazilians or Native Americans at the time of Solomon. Sure, he was a Muslim prophet appointed to his community, but what about others far beyond? Of course, we can go on further, but this isn't my point. I was more talking about living people who did horrible things and had horrible intentions.

[North German Realm]

According to your religion, stop me if I'm wrong, anyone who dies not believing in your faith.

That brings the question of people who lived in places and times without a prophet near them. Think Brazilians or Native Americans at the time of Solomon. Sure, he was a Muslim prophet appointed to his community, but what about others far beyond? Of course, we can go on further, but this isn't my point. I was more talking about living people who did horrible things and had horrible intentions.

Going by the doctrine, they are not really considered "irredeemable", because -as you said- they had no access to "the word", as it is. Anyway, going off a tangent but what you're describing -in your religion- is generally called 'Ashab-i-nar' (اصحاب نار) [people of the fire]. The description of the People of the Fire is pretty defined in Islam.

[Jolthig]

Here's a pretty interesting revelation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding the lineage of his son, Sharif. I strongly believe in the truthfulness of this revelation as I have seen the blessings contained in this revelation for myself in the person of Caliph Mirza Masroor Ahmad:

May 28, 1907
During the illness of Sharif Ahmad, I received these
revelations about him:
Translation: (1) [Arabic] Allah has granted
him life contrary to expectation.
(2) [Arabic] Allah has appointed him as a
leader contrary to expectation.1160
(3) [Arabic] Do you not recognise the All-
Powerful. (This revelation refers to his
mother.)
(4) [Arabic] Your purpose will be achieved.
(5) [Arabic] Allah is the Best Guardian and He
is the Most Merciful of all who show mercy.
[Badr, vol. 6, no. 22, May 30, 1907, p. 4 and
al-Hakam, vol. 11, no. 19, May 31 1907, p. 3]

Commenting on these revelations, Caliph Mirza Tahir Ahmad said in a sermon on December 12, 2019:

Note by Syed Abdul Hayee: Hadrat Khalifatul-Masih IVrht made the
following comments on the Promised Messiah’sas revelations
and in his Friday sermon on December 12, 1997:
I want to tell you that there were certain revelations of the
Promised Messiahas which were applied to Hadrat Mirza
Sharif Ahmadra. I am the only person—there might possibly
be others—who always believed that these revelations are
really about his son Mirza Mansur Ahmad. As happened
during the time of the Holy Prophet, may peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him, there are sometimes
prophecies about someone, but they are fulfilled in his son.
As I will explain to you, there is no doubt that these
revelations were about the son of Mirza Sharif Ahmad and
were destined to be fulfilled in him.
The revelations are about Sharif Ahmad, during his illness
(in 1907) it was revealed: ‘Allah has granted
him life contrary to expectation.’
Then it was revealed: ‘Allah has appointed
him as a leader contrary to expectation.’ That is, it could not
be expected that he would be appointed as Amir for such a
long period. means that he would be appointed as
Amir, that is, one who holds authority.
Another revelation which says (Here comes the
King) also proves the same. In explaining this revelation the
Promised Messiahas says ‘He would be made a Qadi, that is,
one who renders verdicts’…. Hadrat Mirza Sharif Ahmadra
did not live very long—he was the youngest to die among his
brothers. To say that he lived long contrary to expectations
may be a wishful expression, but not a statement of facts as
they unfolded. He was never appointed as Amir…. That is the
reason why I always considered these two revelations to refer
to Hadrat Mirza Mansur Ahmad. His life is a witness to that.
He suffered several heart attacks, and every time the doctors
were despaired of his survival. But he recovered contrary to
expectations, to the amazement of the doctors.… Thus the
revelation definitely applies to him.
Moreover, the revelation . I have calculated
the time of his appointment as Amir. He was first appointed as
Amir during the time of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih IIIrht. No one
was appointed as Amir during the 52 years of the Khilafat of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih IIra, as Mirza Mansur Ahmad was
during the Khilafat of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih IIIrht and me.
He was appointed as Amir forty-five times. During the present
period of my migration, he served as Amir for fourteen years
continuously. That is contrary to expectation. No one could
imagine that anyone could serve as Amir for so long during
the life of a Khalifah. The office of the Local Amir of the
headquarters is normally held by the Khalifah himself. When
he is present the Local President runs the day to day affairs,
but the Khalifah holds the office of the Local Amir. Thus, for
all practical purposes, he took my seat, in accordance with my
directive, and handled all affairs with great courage.
About the revelation the Promised Messiahas says:
The other person said: He has yet to be a Qadi. This was the
voice heard along with the revelation. The Promised
Messiahas said: Qadi is he who upholds the truth and refutes
falsehood. This characteristic was present in Mirza Mansur
Ahmad in an unusual way. I have hardly seen any one so
bold as him in refuting falsehood.
Here I am reminded of another revelation. In a vision the
Promised Messiahas said to Mirza Sharif Ahmadra:
(Now be seated in my seat and I shall go).
Obviously, this was not fulfilled in Mirza Sharif
Ahmadra…. It was fulfilled in Mirza Mansur Ahmad. I am at
this time the vicegerent of the Promised Messiahas and Mirza
Sharif is not among us. The office of Amir, which I held,
was held by Mirza Mansur Ahmad and exactly fulfilled the
words:
He certainly had a status that is manifested by the
revelations of the Promised Messiahas. History has
demonstrated that he was a blessed personage whom had the
status of the spiritual son of the Promised Messiahas
.
Whatever the Promised Messiahas saw about his son was
fulfilled in the son of that son. Now that I have appointed
Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the son of Mirza Mansur Ahmad, as
the Nazir A‘la and Local Amir, I thought of the revelation
as if the Promised Messiahas was saying
that once again now. All these matters assure us that the soul
of Mirza Mansur Ahmad was a noble soul. He was a brave
man—a drawn sword to support Khilafat.… Now I ask the
entire Jama‘at to pray for Mirza Mansur Ahmad, and
thereafter, for Mirza Masroor Ahmad, that Allah the Almighty may make him a true heir. The subject of
may be truly fulfilled in him and Allah the
Almighty may always guard and assist him.
[al-Fadl International, London, January 30-February 5, 1998.]*

Note by Munawar Ahmed Saeed: Later, on April 22, 2003, Allah
the Almighty elevated Hadrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad to the august
office of Khalifatul Masih. In this way, the prophecy
was fulfilled once again. Alhamdolillah.

Sorry about the structure of the text, I have little time right now to get it in place but also excited about posting this on here. Since I've met Masroor personally and spoke with him at a meeting on May 5, 2017, and prayed with him around that time (again praying with him around October 15-16, 2018), this is why I believe this revelation makes Ahmadiyya the True Islam.

The majority of humanity do not know what spiritual treasures they're missing out on. Alhamdulilah, we ahmadis have access to these treasures. Zizou, and those who are open minded, these are all for you guys.

And of course, for those who reject Ahmadiyya.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Hey, guys, I just thought I'd bring this up. At what point do you think someone is beyond redemption? I know God is all-forgiving, but to what extent do you think that applies to the worst of the worst? If you want, you can provide doctrine, though personal opinions are more than welcome.

Well shirk is an unforgivable sin, but even then Allah SWT will forgive that if you don't die upon shirk (or kufr).

We shouldn't be worrying about this anways, what we should be focusing on is how to be the best slaves we can be to Allah SWT.

[Jolthig]

Hey, guys, I just thought I'd bring this up. At what point do you think someone is beyond redemption? I know God is all-forgiving, but to what extent do you think that applies to the worst of the worst? If you want, you can provide doctrine, though personal opinions are more than welcome.

When they malign Allah's messengers and seek to persecute his followers after being warned many times not to. Really anybody who outright evil and doesn't stop their malice.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Y'know something IDT doesn't talk about is what goes on in the Ummah, and we really should. So herehere's some stuff that's happened in our Ummah:
1: MuHammad Mursi died recently (inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raaji'aoon). If you don't know who he is, here you go
2: Protests in Sudan have death tolls rising over 100 (if you're wondering why I'm typing this in blue, here you go)
Well, that's all I can think of that's been hitting the headlines recently, if y'all have more, provide them and discuss.

[Jolthig]

Y'know something IDT doesn't talk about is what goes on in the Ummah, and we really should. So herehere's some stuff that's happened in our Ummah:
1: MuHammad Mursi died recently (inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raaji'aoon). If you don't know who he is, here you go
2: Protests in Sudan have death tolls rising over 100 (if you're wondering why I'm typing this in blue, here you go)
Well, that's all I can think of that's been hitting the headlines recently, if y'all have more, provide them and discuss.

Well, Germany will have a Jalsa of its Ahmadiyya community soon.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If anyone hasn't joined my discord you probs should. I really need more slactivity in my server.

[Jolthig]

If anyone hasn't joined my discord you probs should. I really need more slactivity in my server.

Sorry I haven't been active on it.

I'll pop in here and there.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why would rape be a logical step? I just said:

Rape is punishable by 100 lashes in this case.

If it is illegal for her to refuse him sex then why is it wrong for him to take it by force?

Because Allah SWT said this, Prophet Muhammad SAWS said this, and the scholars said this:
http://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewF ... px?ID=6033
https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=971
https://abuaminaelias.com/marital-rape- ... lamic-law/

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

The huge problem (coming from a muslim himself) is that there are a lot of interpretations. And everyone believes in there own version. My family is to me pretty liberal when it comes to Islam. We dont eat pork, my dad drinks beer, but many people do not drink alcohol. Why? Because it says in the Koran this is said:

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. (Al-Quran 4:43)

To some this means that yes, you can drink as long as you dont get drunk. But to others, they see this more conservatively, like for example, no drinks at all. When it comes to pork, it says the following:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) God has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is most-Forgiving, most-Merciful.

Not much to argue about, so, no pork. But there are probably a tiny minority that does eat pork, I can be wrong.

https://legacy.quran.com/33/36
We can't just interpret the Holy Qur'an however we want to. Also you shouldn't be revealing your dad's sin.

[Imbalistan]

The huge problem (coming from a muslim himself) is that there are a lot of interpretations. And everyone believes in there own version. My family is to me pretty liberal when it comes to Islam. We dont eat pork, my dad drinks beer, but many people do not drink alcohol. Why? Because it says in the Koran this is said:



To some this means that yes, you can drink as long as you dont get drunk. But to others, they see this more conservatively, like for example, no drinks at all. When it comes to pork, it says the following:



Not much to argue about, so, no pork. But there are probably a tiny minority that does eat pork, I can be wrong.

https://legacy.quran.com/33/36
We can't just interpret the Holy Qur'an however we want to. Also you shouldn't be revealing your dad's sin.

My dad is sinning? I dont think so.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://legacy.quran.com/33/36
We can't just interpret the Holy Qur'an however we want to. Also you shouldn't be revealing your dad's sin.

My dad is sinning? I dont think so.

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
https://legacy.quran.com/5/90
https://legacy.quran.com/5/91
https://sunnah.com/nasai/51/160

[Imbalistan]

My dad is sinning? I dont think so.

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
https://legacy.quran.com/5/90
https://legacy.quran.com/5/91
https://sunnah.com/nasai/51/160

Buck it says in the Koran "Dont get drunk.". And my father has never in his life gotten drunk. He lived in Saudi Arabia for 10+ years, so yeah, no drinks. Nothing.