Auggie wrote on May 23
rd, 2018 at 8:04pm:
If we look at how Muslim-majority government have traditionally imposed the jizya, it's been an additional levy on top of any existing tax they have to pay. It's designed to separate them from the broader Muslim-majority. It is discriminatory in practice.
Can you cite any actual examples of this 'double tax'?
No I can’t. I made the claim hoping I was was right. I simply guessed wrong, it seems.
polite_gandalf wrote on May 22
nd, 2018 at 3:47pm:
In this Islamic state of yours,
Lets not get carried away please. I never advocated an "Islamic state" - personally I find the idea antithetical to the spirit of the Quran. In my opinion the Quran was merely referring to a scenario in which a war in which the muslims were attacked was concluded, and the muslim army prevailed. Obviously there has to be some temporary arrangement in place whereby the victors ensure that the subdued remain a non-threat to the muslim community, and to ensure a lasting peace. Not dissimilar to how the Allies occupied the subdued nations of Japan and Germany for a period, but later handed control back when they were no longer a threat. Think of the jizya as some combination of assurance fee + reparations for initiating hostilities.
Thats more convincing than the whole taxation business. Why didn’t you say in the first place?i I had my guesses that the jizya was a kind of ‘war reparations’
In short, the Quran's advise on the conduct of war and how to deal with the conquered is good universal advise, and incidentally not dissimilar to current international treaties and agreements on those issues, for any nation who faces hostility - muslim or non-muslim.