Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Non-Muslim’

Religion - Islam - Jizya - Spitting WaterIntroduction:
This fortunately (or unfortunately… I’m not sure which) turned from being a reply to something worthy of its own post. I would suggest reading the original post and the reply from MustafaHoward before proceeding.

A Muslim gentleman (MustafaHoward) took exception to my recent post concerning the Islamic idea of Jizya (taxes on non-Muslims by Muslim states) and how some Muslim clerics today say that western welfare and social programs are a form of jizya.

This is basically a detailed reply to his objections and his attempts to “educate” me concerning the verses in the Qur’an that were quoted and interpreted by me in the original posting.

First Second & Third:
First an apology for not being completely clear in my original post. Please understand that I was not always trying to translate or quote the Qur’an. I was trying to give my interpretation of the verse from what I had read. Anything in “quotes” was taken from a translation of the Qur’an. Anything not was my interpretation. In hindsight I see that was not apparent so I apologize for that lack of clarity. MustafaHoward did not see this and that is my fault.

Still, I suspect MustafaHoward would disagree even with my interpretation (not translation) so the point is minor. It could even be argued that the words I chose in my interpretation were wrong or misleading… They’re not… (see below)

Quote - Frankness - Disraeli, BenjaminSecond, an apology for my frankness. I’ve never been one to beat around the bush and this posting and response has me riled up a bit. 🙂 If your sensitivities require excessive tact and pretending that certain things are true when they obviously are not (as is done the Main Stream Media and leftist apologist when breaching the subject of Islam and terrorism); then I would suggest reading and commenting elsewhere.

Third, comments and dissenting views are welcome and even encouraged; but they obviously will not go unchallenged. Past posts are proof of that. So here we go…


Jizya (Confounding the Definition of a Duck):
>> Jizya: not something to worry about. There’s no one attempting to collect jizya from you, is there?

Concept - Its a Duck - Islamic DuckWow… condescending right off the bat! Impressive… but I don’t bully that easy… I would suggest another tactic.

Ummm… Actually… in the post… that’s pretty well EXACTLY what I’m saying is happening. “Islamic clerics (of both terrorists and “moderate” variety) have identified western social programs as a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of.”

Let me be clear. I’m not the one who came up with the idea of welfare being a form of Jizya. Muslim clerics are the ones espousing and preaching the idea to their followers. I am simply relaying the information and commenting on the moral and social implications.

Unfortunately, as is one of the main complaints of the original post; not only is someone “attempting to collect” a form of jizya from me (and all taxpayers by proxy of the government); they are actually succeeding due to the ineptness of the Massachusetts and Federal government. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are proof and examples of this.

So your (MustafaHoward’s) original assumption is wrong… isn’t it?

Your approach in refuting my original post seems to be to shoot the messenger and then muddle the debate. You simply pretended that I defined this (welfare and social programs) as jizya and then you proceed telling me that this doesn’t fit the definition as defined by the Qur’an.

Do you refute or denounce the idea (jizya through western welfare) as espoused by Muslim clerics? Nope. Do you offer that it’s a minority interpretation and offer evidence and/or quotes from clerics who say the opposite? Nope.

Instead you choose to give me a text book “traditional” definition of jizya and say that since what is happening doesn’t fit the letter of the law from the Qur’an so… we can’t call it jizya… despite your guys (Muslim clerics) being the ones who dreamt this stuff up. Granted, crazy people dream this kind of stuff up all the time, and it’s harmless as long as nobody acts on it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here.

In essence, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, your guys say it’s a duck. You have a book that also mentions something about bills and feathers that don’t quite fit so your position is for me to even mention the duck is wrong and slanderous. … It’s a duck!


Qur’an 3:28 (Friends or Protectors)
>> You mistranslated Qur’an 3:28: it doesn’t say friends, it says protectors. It doesn’t say false pretenses: it says “unless you are afraid of their threat”.

Religion - Islam - Non-Believer as FriendI think I interpreted and understand the verse just fine. It DOES say “friend” (in three of the six translations on Quran.com).

Here’s the list:
Sahih International: “allies”
Muhsin Khan: “Auliya” (supporters helpers, etc.)
Pickthall: “friends”
Yusuf Ali: “friends or helpers”
Shakir: “friends
Dr. Ghali: “constant patrons”

It doesn’t say protectors in any of them. The closest any translation comes is using the word “patron”.

You are correct in that it doesn’t say “false pretenses”. These are my words, my interpretation of the verse. And, I stick by them. Personally I think the false pretenses aspect here is self-evident, but I will explain it. (see below)

For the benefits of those following this post, Here is what each of the six translations on Quran.com actually say for (3:38) concerning when a Muslim can ally or befriend himself with a non-Muslim:

Sahih International: “except when taking precaution against them in prudence.”
Muhsin Khan: “except if you indeed fear a danger from them.”
Pickthall: “unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.”
Yusuf Ali: “except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.”
Shakir: “but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully”
Dr. Ghali: “excepting that you may protect yourselves against them (in manner) of protection.”

I stick by my interpretation because someone who takes a “friend” or “ally” or “patron” because he fears them and wants to keep a close eye on them is NOT REALLY being a “friend” or “ally” or “patron”. He is simply pretending to be and hopes to fool the other person into believing he is genuine. Another phrase one might use to accurately describe this behavior is … acting under “false pretenses”. And this (acting under false pretenses) is the only exception Allah makes for having this type of relationship with a non-believer. On the plus side subjugation seems OK though…

So you are incorrect concerning “protector” and correct concerning the idea of fear of danger (which doesn’t affect the negative connotation of the verse at all).

So looking at the entire verse one more time…

Qur’an 3:28 (Sahih International)(Numbers are added by TL to associate the portion of the verse with the TL interpretation below)
(1)Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. (2)And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , (3)except when taking precaution against them in prudence. (4)And Allah warns you of Himself, (5)and to Allah is the [final] destination.

  1. If you are a Muslim, never take a non-Muslim as a friend or ally.
  2. If you do this Allah will not help you in any way.
  3. Allah allows an exception to this rule in that you may ally or “befriend” a non-Muslim if you fear them and want to take prudent precautions.
  4. But when you do this remember and fear Allah and his possible punishment.
  5. Allah is the end-all be-all…

Quote - Fake Friend

>> The Muslims of Madina were not the betrayers of their agreements: it was the non-Muslims, mostly some of the Israelites and hardened pagans.

So you say… Them dam Jews and pagans you say…


Qur’an 2:225 (Unintentional, Idle, and Vain Oaths)
>> Qur’an 2:225 It doesn’t say “breaking your oaths”. It says “mistakenly spoken”. Otherwise, there is required penitence and expiation of fasting for breaking promises.

Religion - Islam - Oath on QuranAgain, “breaking your oaths” is my analysis/interpretation, not a quote. So no… those exact words do not appear in this verse of the Qur’an. But strangely enough… neither do yours (“mistakenly spoken”), though you seem to be trying to quote the Qur’an.

Here is what the Quran (2:225) in all six translations on Quran.com actually says:
Sahih International & Muhsin Khan & Pickthall: (All use unintentional): Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.
Yusuf Ali: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
Shakir: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
Dr. Ghali: Allah will not take you to task for idleness in your oaths, but He will take you to task for whatever your hearts have earned; and Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Forbearing.

You say there is “otherwise” a “penitence” and I’m sure that’s considered a big part of Islam. But I just don’t see it here. I see a lot of pardoning and justifying… “does not impose blame”, “will not call you to account for”, “will not take you to task for”.

    The requirements for this lack of accounting:

  1. Your oath (word) was thoughtless, unintentional, vain or idle… AND
  2. Your heart (intentions) were good towards Islam and Allah. Sure you will be held into “account” if your heart isn’t doing what Allah wants; but what doesn’t fit that bill? (I assume penitence is mentioned somewhere else because it’s not here.)

Thus my original interpretation of “Allah will not hold you to account for breaking your oaths as long as your intention (faithfulness to Allah and Islam) is good.” is right on the money.


Qur’an 66:2 (PO-TAY-TOE… PO-TAH-TOE)
>> Qur’an 66:2 : It doesn’t say dissolution. It says absolution, which again, is that a penitence and expiation are required.

Concept - Pronounce - PotatoeOK, let’s try again.

Sahih International: Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths.
Muhsin Khan: Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths.
Pickthall: Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector.
Yusuf Ali: Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)
Shakir: Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths
Dr. Ghali: Allah has already ordained for you (The believers) the lawful absolution of your oaths.

Well, much better! At least this time they (the various translations) agreed with you two out of the six times; but still less than “dissolution” which got three votes. Not that it matters. Whichever word is used doesn’t change the meaning that much. Both imply the breaking of the oath, absolution just also implies a little more guilt, blame and penalty free.

dissolution: the undoing or breaking of a bond, tie, union, partnership

absolution: act of absolving; a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligations, or penalties

>> In Islam, anyone who dissolves his oaths is known publicly as a liar, and he/she will be reputed as such in this life and punished in the next.

So you say… this verse sure doesn’t say that. It says pretty plainly states that Allah dissolves, absolves, and expires the oaths of Muslims.

Even if “absolution” requires some “penitence” (that’s not really mentioned here); the idea of freeing the Muslim from his oaths is clearly there. All penitence really does is equate it to a parking ticket. Double parked? Break you oaths to non-believers? Make sure you pay that fine! But honestly… I don’t even think it goes that far.

So again, I completely stand by my interpretation of this verse. I’ll let those who read this exchange decide for themselves.

>> So, it’s not a habit of practicing Muslims.

I cannot say… I sincerely hope you are right.


Qur’an 3:54 (A Concession)
>> Qur’an 3:54 – “And they (Israelites and Romans) plotted (to kill Jesus), and Allah also plotted, and Allah is the best of those who plot.” Arabic is huge… (“makar” never used to describe Almighty PLAN…) But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Religion - Islam - Islamic JesusLet me concede a point on this one. The verse 3:54 here does fall within the context of Islamic Jesus being a disciple (I hope I used the right word) of Allah (as told by Muhammad). Saying that verse 54 is the Jews and Romans plotting against Islamic Jesus seems a bit dyslexic (when looking at the “context”) to one who is not learned enough in Arabic I suppose; but then I grant, so is the interpretation of Allah being a great deceiver.

Looking at context… (Qur’an 3:50-56) In the previous verses Islamic Jesus is chastising the apostles/disciples for not believing properly in Allah and them (his disciples) then properly submitting and declaring and groveling etc… Then comes verse 54 and all the scheming that implicitly refers to Jews and Romans… Then I think it’s Islamic Jesus telling the disciples how Allah told Islamic Jesus he will purify him and make those who follow him superior to those who disbelieve (yet another message of superiority and subjugation of non-believers)…

Religion - Islam - Jesus is the Slave of AllahJust for my Christian brethren out there who don’t really know how the Qur’an depicts Jesus and the disciples, here is but a taste (Sahih International):

3:52-53 – But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah?” The disciples said,” We are supporters for Allah. We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]. (53) Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger Jesus, so register us among the witnesses [to truth].”

Can you just imagine Peter (the mouth of the apostles) saying such a thing!?

Anyway, back to the concession…

I concede this (Allah the deceiver) may be a loose and incorrect interpretation of this verse. It is no more plausible than the Jews, Romans, Jesus, and Allah all plotting and Allah being the best at it…

>> Arabic is huge

[Puzzled look] … It has more words than other languages? If so, is this a point of pride or something?

>> We would never use the word “makar” in describing the plots of evil people in the same meaning as the Divine Ordainment of the Almighty whose PLAN encompasses all events.

Are you saying that “makar” is or isn’t used here? If it’s not… I would concede the point. But I’m suspicious that you didn’t tell us what word was used.

Or are you saying “makar” means something different depending who it refers to? (The second argument would bring us back to confounding the definition of another duck.) I would expect if Arabic is so huge then another word with the proper meaning could have been found.

But OK… I’ll have to take your word for it and will try to extend that courtesy. I don’t have the time or inclination for that much research.

>> But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Contextual, I just looked at. (see above)

So are you saying I’m never really going to understand Islam unless I study and learn Arabic? And by extension am not qualified to form an opinion or comment on the teachings of the Qur’an unless I learn Arabic first?

That’s convenient. It’s equivalent to saying don’t think for yourself, let me tell you what’s in there and what to think about it. I grant that many religious leaders seek that type of obedience. But it’s a quest for control and power… not truth.


Slandering al-Fakhr al-Razi
>> Your “translation” of al-Fakhr al-Razi’s statement seems a slander.

Religion - Islam - Fakhruddin RaziOK… so provide the non-slandered “translation”. A link… some text… would be just fine.

Tell me what in the text is wrong? Which ideas are not his? The concept that the Muslims should spare the lives of non-Muslims as if it’s their natural position in the world? The idea that non-believers must subjugate themselves with humiliation and servility (a common theme in Islam)?

You yourself say non-Muslims should be “allowed” liberties (assuming a lower status) which says to me you believe Muslims have the authority (via Allah and Islam) to grant (or not if you choose) this liberty. This is not too far off from these quoted statements by Fakhruddin Razi.

I will also add that this concept is the very antithesis of American founding principles; that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that’s another post entirely.

For the record “my translation” and slander of al-Fakhr al-Razi is not mine. I found this exact translation in several places. One of which can be found in Wikipedia article on the jizya. Wikipedia quotes the source as “al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din (1981). “(9:29)”. Tafsir al-Kabir. Dar Al-fiker.”

Religion - Islam - Muslim Hissy FitI can’t imagine the “translation” is that far off since it is found in the Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is all that accurate, but it strikes me as an organization very susceptible to political correctness. I suspect that any mistranslation or misquote within the article would have resulted in Muslim hissy-fits by now and thus capitulation by Wikipedia. Perhaps, MustafaHoward, you might want to direct this complaint to Wikipedia. I suspect they would be much more responsive to bullying via political correctness than I am.

Back to the actual words of al-Fakhr al-Razi. I assume this is his interpretation of Qur’an 9:29 which says (Sahih International) “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Ahhhhh…. it sounds so much more reasonable when you get it straight from the source…

>> Muslims are taxed in Islam. Americans are taxed in America. People are taxed everywhere. Jizya is a tax, not an “extortion”.

Government - IRS - TaxesAmericans taxed in America is a straw man argument and nothing to do with this debate. IF America taxed Muslims differently from others, it would be… but that’s not the case.

Muslim nations taxing via Islam. It’s their business… and again a straw man argument.

Where jizya IS relevant to this post is that Muslim clerics have declared western welfare and social programs a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of; and certain recent Muslim terrorists have indeed done that. You and I seem agree that this is an inaccurate interpretation of the Qur’an definition and purpose of the jizya. Yet you attack the messenger (me) as if I had come up with the idea. It’s your guys who are espousing this crap; but you don’t address that. You just muddle the issue by droning on the “traditional” definition of a duck (jizya).

Admittedly, I did call jizya “Islamic sanctioned extortion of subjugated peoples”. And… I stand by that. MustafaHoward tells me it’s not extortion based on the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an. My response is that the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an has rarely (if ever) been practiced. The words in the Qur’an just give religious, legal, and conscientious cover to the extorter.

In practice jizya is like a Chicago shake down where a business buys insurance (also called protection) from the mob. This is to ensure their establishment doesn’t burn to the ground. The guys selling the protection are the ones who will burn it to the ground if the businessman (enjoying the liberty and protection) doesn’t pay; and all parties involved know that. Jizya works on the same concept. The only difference… words in a book that pretend otherwise.

>> Again, they were allowed their liberties and enjoyed the protections of the Muslims.

Religion - Islam - Jizya - SubjugateI just love your use of the word “allowed” here… [groveling]… oh thank you, thank you, thank you for this privilege…

As for the “traditional” idea of a non-Muslim receiving/enjoying “protection” (from outside aggressors) from Muslim “benefactors” (state or people)? That would assume they manage to somehow survive their Muslim “benefactors” in the first place. The very concept would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the life and death struggles these people must endure.

I have never seen any evidence of either liberties or protections. The actions of Muslim nations around the world today and their persecution of non-Muslims speak louder than anything positive that might be found in the Qur’an. And the inaction of “moderate” Muslims to right these wrongs speaks even louder.

Carrying the logic just a little further, if it (protection) doesn’t really exists today despite all the claims otherwise, who in their right mind would believe it ever existed?

Political - Liberal - Coexist

>> In fact, the earliest Muslims and those who followed enjoyed peaceful coexistence with those of other religions.

Obviously I’m skeptical to put it mildly. Statements like this are just politically correct propaganda to promote the false idea of the “religion of peace”.

But give it try. Give me an unbiased (non-Muslim, first-hand preferably) account of the “peaceful coexistence” and “protection” enjoyed by other religions living in a Muslim nation.

>> So, what has changed? I’ll leave that for you to either research on your own, or you can ask my opinion if you like.

[Huge belly laugh!] Nothing! [More laughing] 1400 Years! And NOTHING has changed! Your original premise that things were ever substantially any different than today is… wrong!

The “traditional” practice of jizya, the enjoyment of merciful rights and protection, the peaceful coexistence, the singing of “We Are the World”… NEVER EXISTED! And the whole idea that it did is, again, nothing but propaganda from Islamist and their useful idiots.

Just one example of this… we (the United States) have had to deal with this crap off and on, off and on for our entire history. Beginning with the Barbary Wars in the late 17 and early 1800s we were afforded the honor of paying ransom and tribute (also known as extortion) as our ships were plundered and our citizens killed and enslaved by Muslims. Of course the payments were never enough; and as required in dealing with any bully and/or tyrant we eventually just had to build a big enough navy to kick their collective asses to get it to stop.

200+ years ago? Today? What has changed? Not a dam thing!

History - Thomas Jefferson - Barbary Pirates

Your opinion? Is based on a false premise that things were ever different from today. But please suit yourself if you feel the need to share it. Since I approved your original comment it should post just fine.

>> I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with the 2 mis-guided men who committed the multiple murder in Boston. They have gone now to meet their Maker, Who will deal with them most appropriately.

Really glad to hear those words! Got any actions to back them up…?

But at least on the words we agree! Though not (of course) on the Maker they will meet.

>> And if you don’t like Islam, there is no compulsion in Religion.

Oh how I wish that were true! But no… We don’t agree. That (non-compulsion) generally applies for pretty well every other religion I know of… except Islam. My impression of Islam is that Muhammad and/or Allah pretty well DO consider it compulsory; as do many of Islam’s followers. Spread Islam by word or sword… Convert or die… (or at least subjugate and pay jizya for a time).

Religion - Islam - Allah or the BladeQuran (9:5) (Sahih International)
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [as in those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to you Christians reading this] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, (meaning convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes) let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Wow… thanks Allah]

Non-Compulsory my ass. I guess when you consider death as a valid option mercifully afforded the un-believer then sure… you can stick with the non-compulsory argument.

Sure some Muslims don’t take it that far and that’s great. I guess we should be grateful even. But enough do take it that far that we still (after centuries) have the radical Islamic problems we have today. And instead of cleaning up their mess in their own house (faith)… “moderate” Muslims STILL leave it for us infidels to deal with.

>> What I would ask is that you show respect to Muslim human beings and our Holy Books by not mistranslating them.

Concept - Respect - EarnedNO man, nor holy book, is entitled to my respect. EVERY man and his beliefs (espoused in holy books) ARE entitled to opportunities to EARN that respect. And I freely and gladly extend that courtesy.

Islam, Muslims? How many opportunities do you need before you clean up the radical mess in your own house (faith)? How many of our people (non-Muslims) must pay the price for the anarchy in your religion before YOU deal with it? Every courtesy has been extended AND we’re still waiting! Respect!? Do us a favor! Don’t just expect it. Don’t just demand it! Do something to Earn it!

Even more than the sound of guns, and bombs, and crashing jets; the inaction from “moderate” Muslims is deafening!

Again, please try and forgive my bluntness; but I’m really sick of this crap! And those who should be fixing the problem are sitting on their hands; and sometimes, SOMETIMES, gather the courage to utter WORDS like “I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with… [Fill in Muslim atrocity Here].

And as for my “mistranslating”; I’ve presented my case stating that I believe my track record is just fine in that regard. I’ll let those who read this blog decide for themselves.

>> Take Care.

Thank You… You too.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »