gandalf wrote Reply #205 - Yesterday at 5:49pm:

Quote:


The jizyah is described in the Qurʾān as a tax that is imposed on a certain erring faction from among the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb; non-Muslim groups such as Christians and Jews recognized in the Qurʾān as possessing a divine scripture) who violate their own religious and ethical principles (9:29).

In return for payment of the jizyah, non-Muslim populations—specifically Jews and Christians—were granted protection of life and property and the right to practice their religion. Under this policy they were called dhimmīs (protected people).

qur'an 9.29: 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.

Jizyah a special tax on non muslims who were called dhimmis.

Preached by muhammad in the qur'an.

Yet it didn't exist till after his death?

Are you saying he preached it but didn't practice it gandi?

moses wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 3:28pm:


The Jizya was imposed by Muhammad as war reparations after a battle. The verse which reveals the Jizya is in this context.

Think about it. If you go to war and defeat your enemy, wouldn't you ask for war reparations? God knows the Allies did this in both WW1 and WW2.

The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.

Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no?

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:


Sorry, old boy, I'm British. Your Paki game is a cunning ruse to have us banned.

So I'm curious. Rather than a second class of Jizzya taxpaying citizens, what's your solution for those who flew here?

Ban them. Kill them. Cesterete them?

And if they grew here:

Paki them.

Quote:


Here you go Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2018 at 6:00pm:


You have also been claiming that Muhammad cannot be used as an example of Dhimmitude.

Quote:


Did Muhammad violate this constitution when he publicly threatened to slaughter the Jews if they did not convert to Islam?

How long did it take after this constition until the area was ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims?

Quote:


Do you think he did?

Quote:


I have been making arguments similar to what you describe for years Gandalf.

Quote:


The arguments I actually made are not mutually exclusive. Only your misrepresentations of them. You are the only one here promoting collective punishment of mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. Once you let go of your racist mindless collective stereotype, both arguments make sense.

Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans?

Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body?

When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die?

When Muslims say that Dhimmitude is against oppression, do they really mean only for those non-Muslims in a position to negotiate some rights for themselves, and only for so long as Muslims choose to honour their agreement? Should we take this behaviour as indicative of the broader approach that Muslims have to respecting human rights?

Do you think I am being unfair by cherry picking Muhammad's campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing rather than focus on all the nice things he did?

How does the banning of pagans (and all non-Muslims) from their own Mecca for pagan ritual, and then the broader hejaz region, including Medina where they were supposedly protected by that constitution, fit in with your BS about pagans having rights?

How do Muhammad's campaigns to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan monuments and shrines fit in with your lies about pagans having rights?

And what about "tough titties, off with their heads"? Would you trust someone who said this about people they later insisted had rights?

After Muhammad concocted this constitution that supposedly granted the citizens of Medina freedom of religion, how long was it until he threatened the Jews of Medina with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam?

How long was it until he followed through with his threats and committed genocide?

How long was it until Muslims started blaming the Jews for their own demise with mindless collectives of treacherous Jews memes?

How long was it until pagans were banned from their own shrine in Mecca?

How long was it until pagans were banned from the city of Mecca?

How long was it until pagans were banned from the region of Hejaz, including Medina?

How long was it until Muhammad was launching raids to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan monuments and shrines?

How do you expect people to take you seriously when you claim Muhammad granted non-Muslims basic human rights such as freedom of religion?

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 1:14pm:


Thats debatable. On the one hand you said this:

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:


- before, and therefore irrespective of anything that happened vis the Banu Qurayza actions during the battle of the trench.

And yet, the rest of the time you've been churning out pages and pages defending the loyal conduct of the Qurayza, insisting no treaty had been broken, claiming that there wasn't even any treaty with the Qurayza to break, that the Qurayza actually helped Muhammad during the siege, thus refuting the idea that they betrayed him.

So basically you argue 1. foul play! the Banu Qurayza did nothing disloyal to Muhammad, and therefore so unfair they got executed for treason, while at the same time 2. Such heroes that they turned against Hitler on steroids - and so "unfortunate they failed". Clearly two conflicting arguments.

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:


Shure I am.

You?

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:



Frank,

On K.



I always think of K, as trying to impersonate a believer.

e.g.
Here on OzPol, he is always sidestepping a direct question,     if the answer to that direct question could be 'too revealing' of his true character and true motives.

[sorta like Auggie too,    only 10 x more devious than Auggie.]



And K is succeeding in his impersonation, in my eyes.