NationStates

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Jolthig wrote:UMN and Salus have both been put on my ignore now, and perhaps another day, I'll come and discuss Jizya with those who are level-headed. But for now, I will keep away from this thread until I feel the time is right. Peace!

I find it very strange how you can think demanding that people be financially penalized for refusing to convert to your religion is civil discourse.

To be fair, you might have gone a bit too far in a few places. I doubt you'd be okay with someone calling Christianity "satanic ideals."

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That depends on how high or low jizyah is set. Afaik there is no set amount for jizyah.

But most of the time, jizya would demand more right? Otherwise there'd be no point in having two separste tax codes. That's incentivizing people to convert to Islam through the state.

I'm talking about jizyah according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. As far as I know from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no set amount on jizyah.

This is the closest thing I've found to a set amount for jizyah.
Here's another:
https://sunnah.com/urn/2056500
This one is business jizyah:
https://sunnah.com/urn/406240
Also, credit to Jolthig for sending me this Hadith:

Narrated `Amr bin Maimun:

`Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, "I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability."

Sahih Bukhari 3052

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Turbofolkia wrote:I mean, it's only ever been implemented historically.

Yet again not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about implementing it according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, not according to history.

If there's no set value of jizyah in Qur'an or direct traditions from the Prophet then how could you claim that jizya is non-discriminatory and intended purely as zakah substitute for non-Muslims? What we know is later fiscal practices from Muslim polities, which involved a complex tax package that couldn't be simplified to "the jizyah", including 'ushr, kharaj, rizq, etc, which did tend to incentivize conversion. Now, if you're familiar with your sources as opposed to just googling them randomly, one of them attests to the practice being discriminatory: ʿUmar ibn Abd al-Aziz the Umayyad caliph levied zakah from Muslim merchants at 2.5% and imposed tax ('ushr) on the merchandise of non-Muslim traders, both local (dhimmī) and foreign (harbī) at the rate of 10%.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That's not how Al-Islam works here. We Muslims pay zakah, y'all non-Muslims pay jizyah. And that's it.

If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

Salus Maior wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That's not how Al-Islam works here. We Muslims pay zakah, y'all non-Muslims pay jizyah. And that's it.

If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

If it's meant to be equal, there's no point to it.

If it's meant to be heavier on dhimmi, it's coercive.

If it's meant to be heavier on Muslims, it's self-punishing.

There's no way to win, really. It's like the "Separate but equal" arguments of pro-segregation type. It's just empty lies to put a thin sheen over a brutal system.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

If it's meant to be equal, there's no point to it.

If it's meant to be heavier on dhimmi, it's coercive.

If it's meant to be heavier on Muslims, it's self-punishing.

There's no way to win, really. It's like the "Separate but equal" arguments of pro-segregation type. It's just empty lies to put a thin sheen over a brutal system.

Well, I know it's supposed to be coercive. Amin's just trying to make it seem "palatable" so that we'll somehow be ok with living under Islamic government or the idea of it anyway.

Oddly enough my opinion hasn't changed.

Salus Maior wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That's not how Al-Islam works here. We Muslims pay zakah, y'all non-Muslims pay jizyah. And that's it.

If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

Because zakah is a religious obligation of almsgiving for Muslims, while jizyah is arguably a later development when Islam took an expansionist turn in order to address non-Muslims resident in Islamic territories as well as expanding the fiscal capacity of the Muslim state.

It's possible to assume a hypothetical where Muslims and non-Muslims are taxed equally under the same rate with parallel system. But this isn't the case historically, nor it is mandated by tradition of the Prophet or the Qur'an, which clearly regarded jizya as a sort of head tax.

Salus Maior wrote:Well, I know it's supposed to be coercive. Amin's just trying to make it seem "palatable" so that we'll somehow be ok with living under Islamic government or the idea of it anyway.

Oddly enough my opinion hasn't changed.

I'm just agreeing with you that it's a weak riposte.

Darussalam wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

Because zakah is a religious obligation of almsgiving for Muslims, while jizyah is arguably a later development when Islam took an expansionist turn in order to address non-Muslims resident in Islamic territories as well as expanding the fiscal capacity of the Muslim state.

It's possible to assume a hypothetical where Muslims and non-Muslims are taxed equally under the same rate with parallel system. But this isn't the case historically, nor it is mandated by tradition of the Prophet or the Qur'an, which clearly regarded jizya as a sort of head tax.

That's more of a distinction, but, like Hana said, the whole thing is still predicated on the idea that Muslims have all the political power and Christians are in an unequal relationship with the state.

Darussalam wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Yet again not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about implementing it according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, not according to history.

If there's no set value of jizyah in Qur'an or direct traditions from the Prophet then how could you claim that jizya is non-discriminatory and intended purely as zakah substitute for non-Muslims?

See my above post.

Darussalam wrote:What we know is later fiscal practices from Muslim polities, which involved a complex tax package that couldn't be simplified to "the jizyah", including 'ushr, kharaj, rizq, etc, which did tend to incentivize conversion. Now, if you're familiar with your sources as opposed to just googling them randomly, one of them attests to the practice being discriminatory: ʿUmar ibn Abd al-Aziz the Umayyad caliph levied zakah from Muslim merchants at 2.5% and imposed tax ('ushr) on the merchandise of non-Muslim traders, both local (dhimmī) and foreign (harbī) at the rate of 10%.

Again, I'm not talking about any of this.

Salus Maior wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That's not how Al-Islam works here. We Muslims pay zakah, y'all non-Muslims pay jizyah. And that's it.

If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

Because that's how Al-Islam works.

Salus Maior wrote:Well, I know it's supposed to be coercive

No it's not.

Personally I'd set jizyah at the modern equivalent of the sum of 4 dinars and forty dirhams. I'm going by this

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
If it's equal, or meant to be equal, why have separate taxes?

If it's meant to be equal, there's no point to it.

If it's meant to be heavier on dhimmi, it's coercive.

If it's meant to be heavier on Muslims, it's self-punishing.

There's no way to win, really. It's like the "Separate but equal" arguments of pro-segregation type. It's just empty lies to put a thin sheen over a brutal system.

And thus Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Nakena wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:If it's meant to be equal, there's no point to it.

If it's meant to be heavier on dhimmi, it's coercive.

If it's meant to be heavier on Muslims, it's self-punishing.

There's no way to win, really. It's like the "Separate but equal" arguments of pro-segregation type. It's just empty lies to put a thin sheen over a brutal system.

And thus Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Well yeah. The primary objective of most -if not all- practicing Muslims living in the West is the dismantling of its liberal democratic order for this very reason.

Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Either option would be something. I mean the latter would probably be a lot worse than the former, especially as an independent Puerto Rico would require a lot of time before stabilizing into a functioning independent state -time that it doesn't have, given the crisis it is in right now, but either option would be a good option. However, the status quo (which effectively demotes it to a colony in the modern age) is not likely to change anytime soon.

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

I lowkey support independence. That way Puerto Rico can save itself from being part of America and write its own path. However they should start of on the right foot. Idk if it's doing ok after the hurricane and the massive debt.

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Well I support self determination for Puerto Rico.
The thing is the majority of Puerto Rico has not voted for statehood. And only a tiny minority actually wants independence.

So it is tricky.
I would prefer the join as a state though.

Also we need to reform our minimum wage and set it to 45% the median wage of the area. It is to low for places like New York but too high for places like Puerto Rico.

On size fits all minimum wage does not work well.

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Mostly this, we have a couple of small holdings that shouldn't really be states, but PR should either be star 51 or independent.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Because that's how Al-Islam works.

Why is that the case?

Nakena wrote:
And thus Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy.

I disagree. Fundamentalist interpretations are incompatible with liberal democracy, but fundamentalist interpretations of most religions are incompatible with liberal democracy. There are plenty of modern Muslims who are ardent supporters of our rights and freedoms as Westerners.

Salus Maior wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Because that's how Al-Islam works.

Why is that the case?

Because someone said so 1400 years ago. And it can never be changed, also because he said so 1400 years ago.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Mostly this, we have a couple of small holdings that shouldn't really be states, but PR should either be star 51 or independent.

TBH, you could probably annex most of those small holdings into already-existing states. America's Caribbean holdings could all be annexed into Puerto Rico if it was granted statehood, for example.

North German Realm wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Mostly this, we have a couple of small holdings that shouldn't really be states, but PR should either be star 51 or independent.

TBH, you could probably annex most of those small holdings into already-existing states. America's Caribbean holdings could all be annexed into Puerto Rico if it was granted statehood, for example.

Where does American Samoa go?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Joohan wrote:Has anyone else realized that " Islamic slavery " is this thread's new " Rome " ? If you are just randomly checking in, there is a 50% chance that this is what y'all are talking about.

I'm pretty sick of it. What do y'all think of Puerto Rican Independence?

My opinion is all or nothing. Either you are a fully fledged state, equal in duties and privileges to this union and we'll the islands problems together - or you're independent, no more of our help, you're affairs are your own.

Mostly this, we have a couple of small holdings that shouldn't really be states, but PR should either be star 51 or independent.

Though if Guam, the Marianas, Samoa, and the Compact of Free Association (COFA) formed a single, very decentralized state it would be big enough.

I am not sure what to do with the Virgin Islands, though perhaps the could also form a decentralized state with other Caribbean Islands, but those other islands have no formal association with the US.
They could join Puerto Rico, but culturally have much more in common with places like the Barbados than Puerto Rico.