Why fight America's war?

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan
I have provided evidence. If you would only read the posts...

The system of government I speak of is not unequal

I read all the posts. There was no evidence. Only you saying that unequal tax amounts were fair.

Did you not read my subsequent posts after I posted the first one in which I incorrectly stated that Jizyah is higher than Zakat? I have repeatedly stated that while Muslims pay Zakat, the non-Muslims pay Jizyah. Equal but distributed in a different way. The Islamic government, in its discretion can also charge higher taxes from both Muslims and non-Muslims. Additionally, the non-Muslims can choose whether to enter into the contract of paying Jizyah or not. This is the concept of Jizyah is a nut-shell.

I read those. Here's my problem. You stated that Jizyah and Zakat are sperate but equal. So that would imply the monetary amount is equal. You're reasoning goes further to say that the reason they are different instead of just using one tax is because Mulsims are paying for religous services that non-muslims are not but are offseting that additional costs through military service. So the value of their military service is offseting the fact they get a few more services than the non-muslims get. I still don't agree with all this but I can see where you would make a case that this tax is equal. However, after all this you go further to say that Jizyah is something that non-muslims go into negotiations with the muslim government to determine. If, they're negotiating it, how can it have the same monetary amount as the Zakat? That would mean that as the non-muslims determine the Jizyah, the zakat would have to be adjusted to keep it equal.

 

[Sultan]

How would the respective rights of men and women under Islamic rule compare to those granted under a "Western" system (lets say the US for this example)?

Different. If you would like a synopsis on the rights of women, please let me know.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: hatim
So back to the original question.

"Why should muslim coutried help USA in IRAQ when the USA has never helped them in times of need?"

Are you saying that the US has never helped out any Muslim countries or people?

well yes. Past 15 years never. I think their motives are Isreal and OIL. (for iuvading)...

Funny part is u accepted that every country has the right to say something and do someting else. You, are being miinformed by your president then. Your justice to hell then!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sultan

How would the respective rights of men and women under Islamic rule compare to those granted under a "Western" system (lets say the US for this example)?

Different. If you would like a synopsis on the rights of women, please let me know.

Shoot.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Sultan

How would the respective rights of men and women under Islamic rule compare to those granted under a "Western" system (lets say the US for this example)?

Different. If you would like a synopsis on the rights of women, please let me know.

Shoot.

A few rights (in a truely Islamic society):

1. The right and duty to obtain education.
2. The right to have their own independent property.
3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.
5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.
6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
8. The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him. (pls note that God deeply frowns upon divorce as a solution unless there is hardly any other alternative but it does not mean that men have more right to divorce their wives than women do.)
9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
11. custody of their children after divorce.
12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them
and more...

Pretty basic rights, dont you think? The remarkable thing is that when they were enforced by religion, none of these rights existed in the Arab world, or anywhere in the world for that matter.

I can provide you with Quranic and Hadith references if you so require. But it would take some time to compile them. Some of them I can quote:

40:40:
Whoever does right, whether male or female, (all) such will enter the garden

3:195
Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him will We give a new life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to their actions

Some exemptions (emphasizing equal but different):

- Fasting when they are pregnant or nursing or menstruating,

- Praying when menstruating or bleeding after childbirth, and

- The obligation to attend congregational prayers in the mosque on Fridays.

- They are not obliged to take part as soldiers in the defence of Islam, although they are not forbidden to do so.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

It is not discriminatory. I dont need to check it anywhere. It is not archaic, and not outdated, and not inferior.

It clearly is discriminatory. It discriminates between those of Muslim beliefs and those of non-Muslim beliefs. Clearly discriminatory. Any discriminatory tax system is inferior.

And yes, it is outdated and archaic. A discriminatory system that has its foundations and purpose during tribal times. Clearly outdated as it is no longer needed.

It is not discriminatory
It is not archaic
It is not outdated
It is not inferior

It is all four. Perhaps you should look up discriminatory in the dictionary.

If it is discriminatory, then it is archaic outdated and inferior.

Perhaps your bigot like view is clouding the dictionary in front of you.

It is not discriminatory
It is not archaic
It is not outdated
It is not inferior

It is discriminatory
It is archaic
It is outdated
It is inferior

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan
I have provided evidence. If you would only read the posts...

The system of government I speak of is not unequal

I read all the posts. There was no evidence. Only you saying that unequal tax amounts were fair.

Did you not read my subsequent posts after I posted the first one in which I incorrectly stated that Jizyah is higher than Zakat? I have repeatedly stated that while Muslims pay Zakat, the non-Muslims pay Jizyah. Equal but distributed in a different way. The Islamic government, in its discretion can also charge higher taxes from both Muslims and non-Muslims. Additionally, the non-Muslims can choose whether to enter into the contract of paying Jizyah or not. This is the concept of Jizyah is a nut-shell.

Even if it's equal pay, it is discriminatory in nature.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: alchemize
What I don't understand is why they are arguing about the *tax system*???

Geez, you want to surface all the obscene discriminatory brutality, just start talking about women's rights in islam.

Well I'm arguing that because he has clearly stated the terms of it and declared his support for it. It is clearly discriminatory.

How would anyone feel in the US if all non-Muslims pay a 'charity tax' and all Muslims have to pay a tax that is basically saying that they are different. That would obviously be discriminatory.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan
I have provided evidence. If you would only read the posts...

The system of government I speak of is not unequal

I read all the posts. There was no evidence. Only you saying that unequal tax amounts were fair.

Did you not read my subsequent posts after I posted the first one in which I incorrectly stated that Jizyah is higher than Zakat? I have repeatedly stated that while Muslims pay Zakat, the non-Muslims pay Jizyah. Equal but distributed in a different way. The Islamic government, in its discretion can also charge higher taxes from both Muslims and non-Muslims. Additionally, the non-Muslims can choose whether to enter into the contract of paying Jizyah or not. This is the concept of Jizyah is a nut-shell.

I read those. Here's my problem. You stated that Jizyah and Zakat are sperate but equal. So that would imply the monetary amount is equal. You're reasoning goes further to say that the reason they are different instead of just using one tax is because Mulsims are paying for religous services that non-muslims are not but are offseting that additional costs through military service. So the value of their military service is offseting the fact they get a few more services than the non-muslims get. I still don't agree with all this but I can see where you would make a case that this tax is equal. However, after all this you go further to say that Jizyah is something that non-muslims go into negotiations with the muslim government to determine. If, they're negotiating it, how can it have the same monetary amount as the Zakat? That would mean that as the non-muslims determine the Jizyah, the zakat would have to be adjusted to keep it equal.

huh? No, I think I didnt convey myself properly.

Zakat goes to the poor, sort of like Social Security. Jizyah goes to strengthen the military, building infrastructure, however the Islamic government chooses. Zakat 'can' also go to the same sources, albeit if it directly or indirectly is uplifting the poor and the needy - say making a hospital in a remote, poor area.

Muslims are not exempt from military service if the government so calls them to participate. If they wish to be exempt, they can pay the Jizyah amount. The grant of exemption is to the discretion of the government. Exemption is given for a valid cause, not just because "Hey, I dont want to die." Non-Muslims are exempt from military service. If they do choose to participate in military service and have paid Jizyah, the amount is returned to them. If they have not paid Jizyah, and participate in military service, good for them, good for the government.

When the contract is signed, the government can ask the non-Muslims that such and such fund is needed for providing military resources, if stretched, to you and 2.5% wont cut it. If you can afford so, cool, our lives are for your protection. On the contrary, the non-Muslims can say we have so and so funds, we cannot pay 2.5%, but we need protection from neighboring tribes, etc. If you agree, cool. If the government cannot provide protection, at any cost, no Jizyah is taken. Thats the small explanation of the term negotiation that I used. Rate of Zakat is fixed. Additional taxes may be imposed if necessary for support of the army, nation building, etc. Whether the Zakat money goes to the government of not, it is upto each Muslim individual to pay 2.5% of their income/wealth (conditions and guidelines apply) as alms to the poor. The provision of a system to collect Zakat should be implemented by the government. If none exists, Muslims still need to pay Zakat, whether under an Islamic government or not.

There is no hard and fast rule to Jizyah. On paper, it is 2.5%. Since in present times, you are not in segregated communities, the flat rate of 2.5% would be valid. Or whatever rate the government sets.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

It is not discriminatory. I dont need to check it anywhere. It is not archaic, and not outdated, and not inferior.

It clearly is discriminatory. It discriminates between those of Muslim beliefs and those of non-Muslim beliefs. Clearly discriminatory. Any discriminatory tax system is inferior.

And yes, it is outdated and archaic. A discriminatory system that has its foundations and purpose during tribal times. Clearly outdated as it is no longer needed.

It is not discriminatory
It is not archaic
It is not outdated
It is not inferior

It is all four. Perhaps you should look up discriminatory in the dictionary.

If it is discriminatory, then it is archaic outdated and inferior.

Perhaps your bigot like view is clouding the dictionary in front of you.

It is not discriminatory
It is not archaic
It is not outdated
It is not inferior

It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot[/quote]

Keep lying to yourself if it helps you sleep better at nights.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

You are right, the correct term would be uncivilized.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sultan
Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

You are right, the correct term would be uncivilized.

your saying it doesnt make me uncivilized either

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

Keep lying to yourself if it helps you sleep better at nights.[/quote]

I dont need to lie, and I sleep fine

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan
I have provided evidence. If you would only read the posts...

The system of government I speak of is not unequal

I read all the posts. There was no evidence. Only you saying that unequal tax amounts were fair.

Did you not read my subsequent posts after I posted the first one in which I incorrectly stated that Jizyah is higher than Zakat? I have repeatedly stated that while Muslims pay Zakat, the non-Muslims pay Jizyah. Equal but distributed in a different way. The Islamic government, in its discretion can also charge higher taxes from both Muslims and non-Muslims. Additionally, the non-Muslims can choose whether to enter into the contract of paying Jizyah or not. This is the concept of Jizyah is a nut-shell.

I read those. Here's my problem. You stated that Jizyah and Zakat are sperate but equal. So that would imply the monetary amount is equal. You're reasoning goes further to say that the reason they are different instead of just using one tax is because Mulsims are paying for religous services that non-muslims are not but are offseting that additional costs through military service. So the value of their military service is offseting the fact they get a few more services than the non-muslims get. I still don't agree with all this but I can see where you would make a case that this tax is equal. However, after all this you go further to say that Jizyah is something that non-muslims go into negotiations with the muslim government to determine. If, they're negotiating it, how can it have the same monetary amount as the Zakat? That would mean that as the non-muslims determine the Jizyah, the zakat would have to be adjusted to keep it equal.

huh? No, I think I didnt convey myself properly.

Zakat goes to the poor, sort of like Social Security. Jizyah goes to strengthen the military, building infrastructure, however the Islamic government chooses. Zakat 'can' also go to the same sources, albeit if it directly or indirectly is uplifting the poor and the needy - say making a hospital in a remote, poor area.

Muslims are not exempt from military service if the government so calls them to participate. If they wish to be exempt, they can pay the Jizyah amount. The grant of exemption is to the discretion of the government. Exemption is given for a valid cause, not just because "Hey, I dont want to die." Non-Muslims are exempt from military service. If they do choose to participate in military service and have paid Jizyah, the amount is returned to them. If they have not paid Jizyah, and participate in military service, good for them, good for the government.

When the contract is signed, the government can ask the non-Muslims that such and such fund is needed for providing military resources, if stretched, to you and 2.5% wont cut it. If you can afford so, cool, our lives are for your protection. On the contrary, the non-Muslims can say we have so and so funds, we cannot pay 2.5%, but we need protection from neighboring tribes, etc. If you agree, cool. If the government cannot provide protection, at any cost, no Jizyah is taken. Thats the small explanation of the term negotiation that I used. Rate of Zakat is fixed. Whether the money goes to the government of not, it is upto each Muslim individual to pay 2.5% of their income/wealth (conditions and guidelines apply) as alms to the poor. The provision of a system to collect Zakat should be implemented by the government. If none exists, Muslims still need to pay Zakat, whether under an Islamic government or not.

There is no hard and fast rule to Jizyah. On paper, it is 2.5%. Since in present times, you are not in segregated communities, the flat rate of 2.5% would be valid. Or whatever rate the government sets.

So basically, everyone pays for the military or spends time in the military. Only Mulsims pay for "Social Security" but again I would assume only muslims qualify for receiving these alms to the poor? Why is this divided tax system even necessary? Why couldn't everyone just pay Zakat. And then have Jizyah optional with the military as the alternative?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sultan
Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

You are right, the correct term would be uncivilized.

your saying it doesnt make me uncivilized either

No you living it and supporting it does.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Sultan

How would the respective rights of men and women under Islamic rule compare to those granted under a "Western" system (lets say the US for this example)?

Different. If you would like a synopsis on the rights of women, please let me know.

Shoot.

A few rights (in a truely Islamic society):

1. The right and duty to obtain education.
2. The right to have their own independent property.
3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.
5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.
6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
8. The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him. (pls note that God deeply frowns upon divorce as a solution unless there is hardly any other alternative but it does not mean that men have more right to divorce their wives than women do.)
9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
11. custody of their children after divorce.
12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them
and more...

Pretty basic rights, dont you think? The remarkable thing is that when they were enforced by religion, none of these rights existed in the Arab world, or anywhere in the world for that matter.

I can provide you with Quranic and Hadith references if you so require. But it would take some time to compile them. Some of them I can quote:

40:40:
Whoever does right, whether male or female, (all) such will enter the garden

3:195
Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him will We give a new life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to their actions

Some exemptions (emphasizing equal but different):

- Fasting when they are pregnant or nursing or menstruating,

- Praying when menstruating or bleeding after childbirth, and

- The obligation to attend congregational prayers in the mosque on Fridays.

- They are not obliged to take part as soldiers in the defence of Islam, although they are not forbidden to do so.

Your true Islamic state has about the same chances of existing today as a true Communist state, basically none.

Most Western nations currently have all the rights you listed and more.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

Keep lying to yourself if it helps you sleep better at nights.

I dont need to lie, and I sleep fine[/quote]

It's sad if you sleep fine without lying to yourself. That means that you're even more hopeless than before. How can you let yourself be so blinded as to support discrimination?

 

[CanOWorms]

I support a return of a caste system society in the style of the old-time Indian or Japanese society ones. It's not discriminatory at all! They are separate, but equal, like jizyah!

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

I read those. Here's my problem. You stated that Jizyah and Zakat are sperate but equal. So that would imply the monetary amount is equal. You're reasoning goes further to say that the reason they are different instead of just using one tax is because Mulsims are paying for religous services that non-muslims are not but are offseting that additional costs through military service. So the value of their military service is offseting the fact they get a few more services than the non-muslims get. I still don't agree with all this but I can see where you would make a case that this tax is equal. However, after all this you go further to say that Jizyah is something that non-muslims go into negotiations with the muslim government to determine. If, they're negotiating it, how can it have the same monetary amount as the Zakat? That would mean that as the non-muslims determine the Jizyah, the zakat would have to be adjusted to keep it equal.

huh? No, I think I didnt convey myself properly.

Zakat goes to the poor, sort of like Social Security. Jizyah goes to strengthen the military, building infrastructure, however the Islamic government chooses. Zakat 'can' also go to the same sources, albeit if it directly or indirectly is uplifting the poor and the needy - say making a hospital in a remote, poor area.

Muslims are not exempt from military service if the government so calls them to participate. If they wish to be exempt, they can pay the Jizyah amount. The grant of exemption is to the discretion of the government. Exemption is given for a valid cause, not just because "Hey, I dont want to die." Non-Muslims are exempt from military service. If they do choose to participate in military service and have paid Jizyah, the amount is returned to them. If they have not paid Jizyah, and participate in military service, good for them, good for the government.

When the contract is signed, the government can ask the non-Muslims that such and such fund is needed for providing military resources, if stretched, to you and 2.5% wont cut it. If you can afford so, cool, our lives are for your protection. On the contrary, the non-Muslims can say we have so and so funds, we cannot pay 2.5%, but we need protection from neighboring tribes, etc. If you agree, cool. If the government cannot provide protection, at any cost, no Jizyah is taken. Thats the small explanation of the term negotiation that I used. Rate of Zakat is fixed. Whether the money goes to the government of not, it is upto each Muslim individual to pay 2.5% of their income/wealth (conditions and guidelines apply) as alms to the poor. The provision of a system to collect Zakat should be implemented by the government. If none exists, Muslims still need to pay Zakat, whether under an Islamic government or not.

There is no hard and fast rule to Jizyah. On paper, it is 2.5%. Since in present times, you are not in segregated communities, the flat rate of 2.5% would be valid. Or whatever rate the government sets.

So basically, everyone pays for the military or spends time in the military. Only Mulsims pay for "Social Security" but again I would assume only muslims qualify for receiving these alms to the poor? Why is this divided tax system even necessary? Why couldn't everyone just pay Zakat. And then have Jizyah optional with the military as the alternative?

If the call for military services comes, yes. The "Social Security" cannot be distributed to the non-Muslims. The non-Muslims can receive service from the infrastructure set up using Zakat funds. This divided tax system is necessary because Zakat is obligatory on all Muslims, whether under an Islamic government or not. To be fair to the populace of an Islamic nation, the non-Muslims are also to contribute to the nation. Zakat is a pillar of Islam. If you are not a follower of the Islamic faith, it would be wrong to expect you to pay Zakat. I dont think you would like to be forced to pay an Islamic religious obligation. They are many "optional" systems in place, such as Sadaqah, Ushr, etc.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

Keep lying to yourself if it helps you sleep better at nights.

I dont need to lie, and I sleep fine

It's sad if you sleep fine without lying to yourself. That means that you're even more hopeless than before. How can you let yourself be so blinded as to support discrimination?[/quote]

I am not blinded, and I do not support discrimination

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

I read those. Here's my problem. You stated that Jizyah and Zakat are sperate but equal. So that would imply the monetary amount is equal. You're reasoning goes further to say that the reason they are different instead of just using one tax is because Mulsims are paying for religous services that non-muslims are not but are offseting that additional costs through military service. So the value of their military service is offseting the fact they get a few more services than the non-muslims get. I still don't agree with all this but I can see where you would make a case that this tax is equal. However, after all this you go further to say that Jizyah is something that non-muslims go into negotiations with the muslim government to determine. If, they're negotiating it, how can it have the same monetary amount as the Zakat? That would mean that as the non-muslims determine the Jizyah, the zakat would have to be adjusted to keep it equal.

huh? No, I think I didnt convey myself properly.

Zakat goes to the poor, sort of like Social Security. Jizyah goes to strengthen the military, building infrastructure, however the Islamic government chooses. Zakat 'can' also go to the same sources, albeit if it directly or indirectly is uplifting the poor and the needy - say making a hospital in a remote, poor area.

Muslims are not exempt from military service if the government so calls them to participate. If they wish to be exempt, they can pay the Jizyah amount. The grant of exemption is to the discretion of the government. Exemption is given for a valid cause, not just because "Hey, I dont want to die." Non-Muslims are exempt from military service. If they do choose to participate in military service and have paid Jizyah, the amount is returned to them. If they have not paid Jizyah, and participate in military service, good for them, good for the government.

When the contract is signed, the government can ask the non-Muslims that such and such fund is needed for providing military resources, if stretched, to you and 2.5% wont cut it. If you can afford so, cool, our lives are for your protection. On the contrary, the non-Muslims can say we have so and so funds, we cannot pay 2.5%, but we need protection from neighboring tribes, etc. If you agree, cool. If the government cannot provide protection, at any cost, no Jizyah is taken. Thats the small explanation of the term negotiation that I used. Rate of Zakat is fixed. Whether the money goes to the government of not, it is upto each Muslim individual to pay 2.5% of their income/wealth (conditions and guidelines apply) as alms to the poor. The provision of a system to collect Zakat should be implemented by the government. If none exists, Muslims still need to pay Zakat, whether under an Islamic government or not.

There is no hard and fast rule to Jizyah. On paper, it is 2.5%. Since in present times, you are not in segregated communities, the flat rate of 2.5% would be valid. Or whatever rate the government sets.

So basically, everyone pays for the military or spends time in the military. Only Mulsims pay for "Social Security" but again I would assume only muslims qualify for receiving these alms to the poor? Why is this divided tax system even necessary? Why couldn't everyone just pay Zakat. And then have Jizyah optional with the military as the alternative?

If the call for military services comes, yes. The "Social Security" cannot be distributed to the non-Muslims. The non-Muslims can receive service from the infrastructure set up using Zakat funds. This divided tax system is necessary because Zakat is obligatory on all Muslims, whether under an Islamic government or not. To be fair to the populace of an Islamic nation, the non-Muslims are also to contribute to the nation. Zakat is a pillar of Islam. If you are not a follower of the Islamic faith, it would be wrong to expect you to pay Zakat. I dont think you would like to be forced to pay an Islamic religious obligation. They are many "optional" systems in place, such as Sadaqah, Ushr, etc.

Why would it be wrong for us to pay Zakat. Its not being used for religous purposes. Its being used to help the poor.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: K1052

Your true Islamic state has about the same chances of existing today as a true Communist state, basically none.

That doesnt mean that women dont have equivalent rights in Islam.

Most Western nations currently have all the rights you listed and more.

As I said, its a synopsis. They formulated the rights I listed some 1000 years later after the religion had listed them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
It is discriminatory No its not
It is archaic No its not
It is outdated No its not
It is inferior No its not

Sorry, but you can't change the definition of discriminatory just to hide your bigot beliefs.

Sorry, but your saying it doesnt make it discriminatory nor does it make me a bigot

Keep lying to yourself if it helps you sleep better at nights.

I dont need to lie, and I sleep fine

It's sad if you sleep fine without lying to yourself. That means that you're even more hopeless than before. How can you let yourself be so blinded as to support discrimination?

I am not blinded, and I do not support discrimination[/quote]


:roll:

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Sultan

If the call for military services comes, yes. The "Social Security" cannot be distributed to the non-Muslims. The non-Muslims can receive service from the infrastructure set up using Zakat funds. This divided tax system is necessary because Zakat is obligatory on all Muslims, whether under an Islamic government or not. To be fair to the populace of an Islamic nation, the non-Muslims are also to contribute to the nation. Zakat is a pillar of Islam. If you are not a follower of the Islamic faith, it would be wrong to expect you to pay Zakat. I dont think you would like to be forced to pay an Islamic religious obligation. They are many "optional" systems in place, such as Sadaqah, Ushr, etc.

Why would it be wrong for us to pay Zakat. Its not being used for religous purposes. Its being used to help the poor.

Zakat is an obligation, like Tauheed (belief in Oneness of God), Prayer, Fasting and Pilgrimage. These five are the pillars of Islam. If you would like to participate in the Islamic faith, more power to you. Jizyah is for those who did not wish to participate in the Islamic faith. If you wish to give money to help the poor, there is Sadaqah, Ushr, etc.