Ask a Muslim, Part II

[Salah-Al-Din]

My opinion of you just dropped significantly. Noam Chomsky is a anti-semitic bigot with sympathies towards Holocaust deniers; he regularly compares the Israeli government with Hitler and the Nazi's and defends Holocaust deniers. Chomsky is scum.

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

I do not think that your opinion of me was very high to begin with. Having said that, you *do* realize that Noam Chomksy is himself Jewish? Do you not find it a bit strange that you would accuse him of being anti-Jewish when he himself is Jewish?

As for comparing the Israeli government to Hitler and the Nazi's, please read the links that I provided above, and you will see that the analogy is not far off since the two were very much allied. Albert Einstein, another genius like Noam Chomsky, also likened the Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin and his party to Nazism and fascism. The letter signed by Albert Einstein was published in the New York Times on December 4, 1948 and read as follows:

" Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

" The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

"Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

"The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future...

"The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a 'Leader State' is the goal...

"The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."

Signed by Albert Einstein; New York Times, December 4, 1948.

So you see, it's not at all strange to compare Israeli Prime Ministers to Nazis as did Albert Einstein when describing an Israeli Prime Minister and his entire party which actually were the founding fathers of Israel. Do you think that Einstein was anti-Semitic for saying that?

Anyways, I find it disconcerting that you would levy such a heavy charge against Noam Chomsky and call him Anti-Semitic. Can you prove such slander against him? It's especially hard to believe considering the fact that he's Jewish himself. You *do* realize that being Anti-Israeli or Anti-Zionist does *not* make one Anti-Semitic? Pro-Israelis try to liken the two only so that they can stamp out any possible criticism of Israel.

And by the way, just so you know, U.N. Resolution 3379 declared "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination".

Take care.

 

[Trajan12]

And by the way, just so you know, U.N. Resolution 3379 declared "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination".

Ahem!

I don't think I ever asked this. But as we know Islam is a fast growing religion. In America particularly among African Americans. Do you feel that ultimately Islam is going to be better for blacks than Christianity?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I'm going to switch gears to a little more political issue and ask

"Why do you think the plight of the Palestinian people has recieved such attention from the Muslim community as compared to the Uyghurs"

You're pan-islamic map indicates that Xinjiang should be part of the muslim world, and in relative size it dwarf's the region of Israel and Palestine (1,660,000 Square Kilometers compare to a mere 22,000 Square kilometers) is more populous even including Israel's Jewish and Christian population (19,630,000 people versus 7,100,000). But most importantly is the striking disparities in the difference of Human rights. Say what you want about Israel, but China is a nation which ruthlessly uses violent means to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs, is an oppressive autocracy, and which is attempting to culturally annihilate the Uyghur people.

What I'm getting at is I have a hard time stomaching the apparent double standard amongst Islamic governments to the plight of Palestinian Muslims as compared to Uyghur Muslims, why governments like Iran refuses to recognize Israel but willingly form extremely close ties to China. Perhaps you can help shed some light on this?

Hello, Brother.

There are many "trouble spots" in the world in which Muslims are being occupied by a foreign military presence. They are all important causes of concern for Muslims, but the priority is given to Palestine. This does not mean that other places are not important, just that Palestine takes precedence.

Take care.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Requesting an answer to post #19, which seems to have gone unnoticed. Or was it I who did not notice the answer?

Questions:
What are the proper names for the categories summed up as as "ordered, encouraged, neutral, discouraged, forbidden" in our religion textbook?
Are there more than five categories?
Where would "men with long hair" (me) fall?

Is it my fate to be continually beneath notice, also in #47 and in this one, 104?
Also, picture in this post if you want an exact value of "long hair". I tried to look like a superhero for the sake of a joke in that picture.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Ahem!

Hello, Brother.

Yes, I am very well aware of that. But the resolution stuck for sixteen years and was only revoked after heavy pressure from the United States which bullied other countries to vote that way, as mentioned in the article you cited: "Under pressure from the administration of President George H.W. Bush in the United States, the UN passed the resolution." This is the so-called democracy of the West in which states can be bullied into voting the way America wants to. Whatever the case, the fact remains that for 16 years the resolution was intact.

I don't think I ever asked this. But as we know Islam is a fast growing religion. In America particularly among African Americans. Do you feel that ultimately Islam is going to be better for blacks than Christianity?

I think Islam is better for everybody.

But yes, I think most black Muslims seem to like Islam because it has really fixed a lot of problems prevalent in the black community. My black friends say that Islam has the solutions for black people, and that Christianity is too "lenient". Islam takes a very harsh stance on fornication, adultery, drugs, alcohol, lewdness, etc...my black friends say that Islam really reforms those blacks who are stuck in the inner city ghetto sub-culture. Today, about 40% of Muslims in America are black.

Take care, brother.

 

[Elrohir]

I do not think that your opinion of me was very high to begin with. Having said that, you *do* realize that Noam Chomksy is himself Jewish? Do you not find it a bit strange that you would accuse him of being anti-Jewish when he himself is Jewish?

My opinion of you was rather high when these threads started but has been dropping slowly ever since. The Chomsky thing just made the drop more pronounced.

Of course I know Chomsky is ethnically Jewish. So what? Are you saying it's not possible to be both Jewish and anti-semitic? It's possible to be born of a certain heritage, but reject and hate your own people or culture. His being Jewish makes his anti-semitism stranger, but doesn't mean that he can't be anti-semitic.

As for comparing the Israeli government to Hitler and the Nazi's, please read the links that I provided above, and you will see that the analogy is not far off since the two were very much allied. Albert Einstein, another genius like Noam Chomsky, also likened the Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin and his party to Nazism and fascism. The letter signed by Albert Einstein was published in the New York Times on December 4, 1948 and read as follows:
.......
So you see, it's not at all strange to compare Israeli Prime Ministers to Nazis as did Albert Einstein when describing an Israeli Prime Minister and his entire party which actually were the founding fathers of Israel. Do you think that Einstein was anti-Semitic for saying that?

You've made several logical mistakes here. First of all, just because Albert Einstein was a genius when it comes to mathematics or physics doesn't mean he is a genius when it comes to politics. What you just did was an appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy. Your second mistake was saying that this "Freedom" party as the "founding fathers of Israel". This party started off very small with only 14 seats, and got only 11% of the vote. Even if we accept that they were fascists, which you haven't proven, that would hardly make the Israeli government of 1949 or today fascist as they made up only a small part of the government.

Anyways, I find it disconcerting that you would levy such a heavy charge against Noam Chomsky and call him Anti-Semitic. Can you prove such slander against him? It's especially hard to believe considering the fact that he's Jewish himself. You *do* realize that being Anti-Israeli or Anti-Zionist does *not* make one Anti-Semitic? Pro-Israelis try to liken the two only so that they can stamp out any possible criticism of Israel.

I can show that he defended a Holocaust denier, (Even going so far as to write the introduction to his book) and that he supports Hezbollah and Hamas, which are recognized as terrorist organizations by many governments, including our own. I find it odd that so many Muslims (Such as yourself) admire the man - he is a staunch atheist and a sort of anarchist, hardly the sort of person I would think you all would admire. I suppose mutual hatred or mutual entities such as the USG and Israel do provide some solidarity, but it's truly odd seeing atheistic socialists and radical Muslims in bed (Metaphorically) together.

 

[Masquerouge]

I can show that he defended a Holocaust denier, (Even going so far as to write the introduction to his book) .

Well that's not exactly correct. What he did was support Faurisson against people who thought Faurisson should be silenced (using French laws that forbid people to deny the Holocaust), because he felt freedom of speech was at stake here.
All along Chomsky made it very clear he was defending Freedom of Speech, and not Faurisson's claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair

Chomsky wrote:

Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

So I think you're off-base here

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Erik.

I apologize. I did not mean to ignore your posts! I sometimes answer posts in a haphazard manner, and--trust me--I was getting around to answering your post, Allah Willing!

Given texts such as the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the 4th century, when do you believe that the Testament texts became corrupted?

We believe that the New Testament was corrupted starting with St. Paul, properly known as Saul. Before his supposed conversion, he was a Rabbi who was reknowned for being a persecutor of the followers of Jesus (as). We believe that St. Paul is the founder of modern day Christianity. According to Muslims, after he failed to cause enough damage by overt attacks against the followers of Jesus (as), he pretended to convert and he did so in order to corrupt the faith from within by forming a deviant sect, mixing paganism with Christianity and claiming that Jesus (as) was the Divine Son of God. It was in this manner that he destroyed the monothiestic nature of Christianity by inventing the Divinity of Christ. Tertullian eventually formalized this into the Trinity concept.

The Muslims blame St. Paul for everything. He is called the Apostle of the Gentiles by the Christians, but we call him the Apostle of the Pagans. He never even saw Prophet Jesus (as), unlike the *real* apostles who did. Instead, he claimed to have a "vision" of Jesus (as) but we reject this as false. It was he who--according to the Muslims--corrupted the texts and he is indeed one of the most prolific contributors to what we now have of the New Testament. It was Saint Paul who nullified the God's Laws, forged the books, called to polythiesm, etc. He alllied himself with the Romans, the avowed enemies of Prophet Jesus (as). In this way, the very ENEMIES of Prophet Jesus (as) were successful in hijacking the faith, all in his name.

"Pauline Christianity" is an expression which has been used, by those critical of Catholic, Orthodox and traditonal Protestant Christianity, to describe what is regarded as a distortion of the original teachings of Jesus due to the influence of Paul of Tarsus (otherwise St. Paul).

"The expression came into use first amongst critical scholars who noted the different strands of thought within Early Christianity, wherein Paul was a powerful influence...the form of the faith found in the writings of Paul is radically different from that that found elsewhere in the New Testament, but also that his influence came to predominate. Reference is also made to the large number of non-canonical texts, some of which have been discovered during the last hundred years, and which show the many movements and strands of thought emanating from Jesus's life and teaching or which may be contemporary with them, some of which can be contrasted with Paul's thought."

After Prophet Jesus’s time (as), there came to be two sects of Christians: those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and those who followed the Disciples of Jesus (as). In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Disciples. We believe that St. Paul and his sect were deviant and it is they who began the campaign to distort and corrupt the Bible.

what is the Islamic version of the story of Jesus

We do not believe that Prophet Jesus (as) was crucified. Rather, we believe that when he was put to the stake that Allah loved him too much to allow for that and so Jesus (as) was ascended to the Heavens and saved. We believe that Prophet Jesus (as) will return to this earth near the End of Times.

Did Jesus, according to Islamic tradition, do any or all of the following: create food, heal the sick, raise the dead from tombs, turn water into wine, drive unclean spirits out, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, send a guiding spirit to men?

Like many other prophets before him, Prophet Jesus (as) did show many miracles to the people in order to support his mission, prove his truthfulness and emphasise his apostleship. However, the key point is that he (as) carried out these miracles ONLY due to the Help of Allah Almighty, and without Allah, Prophet Jesus (as) would not be able to move even one atom.

Some of the miracles carried out by Prophet Jesus (as) with the Grace of Allah included curing intractable illnesses (such as a man with leprosy and giving sight to a blind man). He (s) also prayed to Allah that Allah would bring back to life a dead person and this wish was granted by Allah. Prophet Jesus (as) prayed to Allah to give food and sustenance from the Heavens and this miracle was granted, and the people ate without limit.

So yes, we believe in these miracles, but unlike the Christians, we do not believe that Prophet Jesus (as) did these miracles out of his own power or might but rather that he (as) did them only through the Grace of Allah and that all power rests with Allah.

All the Christians I know would say that Jesus was a Jew, too. Talking about Moses is unclear, partly due to the multiple (ethnic/religious/cultural/habitational) definitions of "Jew".

We do not agree that he was Jew. The Jews are the ones who killed him. However, we believe that Prophet Jesus (as) was the last of the Prophets to the Children of Israel, although the Children of Israel would kill him like they did many past prophets, and thus Allah would revoke His Favors upon them.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Questions:
What are the proper names for the categories summed up as as "ordered, encouraged, neutral, discouraged, forbidden" in our religion textbook?
Are there more than five categories?

Hello, Brother.

There are five categories, which include the following:

Wajib ---> obligatory
Mustahabb ---> highly recommended
Mubah ---> permissible, neither encouraged nor discouraged
Makrouh ---> strongly discouraged, even deplorable
Haram ---> strictly forbidden

Where would "men with long hair" (me) fall?

LOL, nice picture, brother.

Well, it is Haram (forbidden) for a man to have such long hair as yours for three reasons:

(1) It would be feminine and not befitting a man.
(2) It would be imitating foolish people.
(3) That hairstyle is associated with immoral people.

I hope you don't take offense! Just stating the Islamic Law on the question about men with excessively long hair like yours! You asked, so I'm telling you truthfully. Obviously such a ruling would only be for Muslims! Again, I really apologize and I do not mean you to take offense. This question was asked by some Muslim who wanted to grow his hair out like that, and this was the fatwa he was given.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

My opinion of you was rather high when these threads started but has been dropping slowly ever since. The Chomsky thing just made the drop more pronounced.

That's OK, brother. I do not seek your approval but rather the approval of Allah is sufficient for me.

Allah says in the Quran:

"If they then run away, We have not sent you as a warden over them. Your duty is but to preach...And so, exhort them (to believe)! Your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe..." (Quran)

Of course I know Chomsky is ethnically Jewish. So what? Are you saying it's not possible to be both Jewish and anti-semitic? It's possible to be born of a certain heritage, but reject and hate your own people or culture. His being Jewish makes his anti-semitism stranger, but doesn't mean that he can't be anti-semitic.

While it is *possible*, it is highly unlikely--and upon further investigation you will find that Noam Chomsky is not Anti-Jewish at all, but rather only Anti-Zionist. You choose to slander people by a process of association that is unfair.

You've made several logical mistakes here. First of all, just because Albert Einstein was a genius when it comes to mathematics or physics doesn't mean he is a genius when it comes to politics. What you just did was an appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy.

Good sir, it is actually you who are displaying a lack of logical reasoning, failing to understand your adversary's argument. I never brought up the example of Albert Einstein to establish the position of Israel. On the contrary, I brought up the example of Albert Einstein to point out that he too likened Zionists to Nazis, which leads to the main point of my argument which is: is Albert Einstein also then an Anti-Semite?

Your second mistake was saying that this "Freedom" party as the "founding fathers of Israel". This party started off very small with only 14 seats, and got only 11% of the vote. Even if we accept that they were fascists, which you haven't proven, that would hardly make the Israeli government of 1949 or today fascist as they made up only a small part of the government.

You are quoting random facts. Menachem Begin was the Prime Minister of Israel and part of the Likud Party. Therefore, it is proven that the government of Israel was run by people similar to "Nazis" in the words of Albert Einstein.

I can show that he defended a Holocaust denier, (Even going so far as to write the introduction to his book) and that he supports Hezbollah and Hamas, which are recognized as terrorist organizations by many governments, including our own. I find it odd that so many Muslims (Such as yourself) admire the man - he is a staunch atheist and a sort of anarchist, hardly the sort of person I would think you all would admire. I suppose mutual hatred or mutual entities such as the USG and Israel do provide some solidarity, but it's truly odd seeing atheistic socialists and radical Muslims in bed (Metaphorically) together.

Please show me ONE solid proof of evidence that he is Anti-Semite. So far you have failed to do this. You claim that he has hatred, or that I have hatred. Let us see your proof. Please show me the proof that Albert Einstein was Anti-Jewish. Please show some solid proof. You have not done this so far at all. Instead, you have taken isolated quotes out of context and then made assumptions based upon those.

Noam Chomsky is a Jew. You hate him. You must therefore be Anti-Semitic.

That is your style of argumentation.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Have you been to Mecca?

Yes, twice. All Praise is due to Allah.

 

[CCA]

The American Right dislike Chomsky because of his political leanings and his exposition of the blatant media bias all across the American Media( no not just Fox News )

 

[Bill3000]

That's OK, brother. I do not seek your approval but rather the approval of Allah is sufficient for me.

Are you forgetting the purpose of this thread?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello again!

I have another question. What is the opinion of the orthodoxy regarding the jaziya or jizyah (the tax imposed on non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands)? Is it permissible, or is it forbidden?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

The Jizya is mentioned in both the Quran and Prophetic Sayings. Therefore, it is impossible for a Muslim to deny it or claim it is forbidden.

So what is the Jizya?

Muslim men living in the Lands of Islam are obligated by a Shariah government to fight Jihad in self-defense of the Lands of Islam. Muslim men are thus drafted in the army and if they fail to comply, they are to be punished severely. On the other hand, Non-Muslim men are not obligated to serve in the military. Because this obligation is waived, they are instead obliged to pay a tax which is used to pay for the upkeep of the army for the defense of the very land that they live on. This tax is called Jizya. In exchange for the Jizya, the Non-Muslim becomes a Dhimmi (Protected Person) and the Muslim armies must protect such a person with their life and blood.

A very important point is that the Jizya was taken ONLY from able-bodied men, not from women or children or old men. The Jizya was only taken from men who were of military age. But even then, the Prophet's Disciple Khalid bin Waleed (ra) said: "When a person is too old to work or suffers a handicap, or when he falls into poverty, he is free from the dues of the Jizya; his sustenance is provided by the Muslim Exchequer."

Let's take the example of America in which you have citizens and permanent residents. Imagine that the citizens were obliged to join the army in defense of the nation, but the permanent residents were exempted from that since the war might be against their native country. Would it not be understandable then for the permanent residents to instead pay a reasonable tax in lieu of giving military service? This tax would be used to bolster the defense of the nation.

Therefore, the Jizya that was taken from Non-Muslims was used for the defense of the Non-Muslims by the Muslim armies. It was "protection money" making the Non-Muslims a "protected people."

However, it should be noted that the Muslims were religiously obligated to pay a tax as well, which the Non-Muslims did NOT. In fact, there were THREE taxes that Non-Muslims were exempted from, including the Zakat, the Khums, and the money used for the Baitul Mal. These taxes on Muslims were HEAVIER than the Jizya paid by Non-Muslims.

Therefore, the tax on Non-Muslims was not meant to overburden them or inconvience them. Instead, it was just a minimum amount used to pay for the cost of defending them. Had it been an unfair tax used to oppress them, then surely it would have been greater than the taxes paid by the Muslims.

You might ask why on earth would the Muslims tax their own people more? The answer is that charity in Islam is considered a profitable business, because each dollar given is paid back tenfold in Paradise. Therefore, the taxes on Muslims were for their own benefit.

Again, BOTH Muslims and Non-Muslims had their own taxes, both of which would be enforced strictly by the state. The Muslim leader declared: "For if he was a Muslim his Islam would compel him to pay me what is due to me, and if he was a Christian, the Muslim official would compel him to pay me what is due to me." (Saheeh Bukhari, Volumn 009, Book 088, Hadith Number 208)

So both had taxes, enforcable by law.

It should be noted that a Non-Muslim cannot possibly complain about the Jizya because it cannot compare to the Khums tax on Muslims in which they had to pay 20% of whatever they gained during that time period, as Allah says in the Quran:

“Know that whatever of a thing you acquire, a fifth of it is...for the near relative, and the orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…” (Quran, 8:41)

Meanwhile, the non-Muslims had to only pay a pittance compared to that, which was called the Jizya. They were excused from all the taxes of the Muslims. It was a *mercy* to them. The Islamaphobes, on the other hand, have attempted to spread a true lie in order to further a claim that is bending the truth completely. The Jizya was *nothing* compared to the fact that the Muslims had to pay three taxes: one was the Zakat which was 2.5% of their total wealth, 20% of everything they acquired for the Khums, and tax for the Baitul Mal.

Oftentimes it is Christians who criticize the Muslims for enacting Jizya. And yet, they themselves took "Jizya" from the Non-Christians in the lands ruled by them. Read any book on the Crusades and you will find this. I suggest A. Maalouf's book on the Crusades, or even Karen Armstrong's book "Holy War". *In fact*, when the Shia Fatimids were overthrown by Saladin (ra), a sect of the Shia led by Rashid Al-Din ("the old man") sought to convert to Christianity in order to avoid the religious tax enforced by the Franj on non-Christian infidels.

"By promising to convert, 'the old man' hoped, among other things, that his flock would be exempted from the tribute, which only non-Christians had to pay. The Templars, who did not take their financial interests lightly, [refused]..." (p.173, A. Malouf, "Les Croisades vues par les Arabes")

If the Christians want to condemn the Muslims for this, then they should first condemn themselves.

If permitted, then to what percentage of the non-believer's income?

We read in this Islamic Tradition, the following:

"The Prophetic Way is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty [i.e. military age]. The people of dhimma (the Protected People) and the magians (i.e. pagans) do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock...they do not have to pay anything on their property except the jizya...People of the Book and magians do not have to pay any zakat on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops. The Prophetic Way still continues like that. They remain in the religion they were in, and they continue to do what they used to do." (Malik Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.24.46)

So the Muslims had to pay a tax on all their property and assets, whereas the non-Muslims did not. Muslims were so heavily taxed and their wealth given to the poor because this is the way of the Muslims, to spend little on themselves and give the rest to the poor and in charity.

EDIT: As to how much the Jizya is, the general guideline was given by the Second Caliph as follows who was advising his successor:

"I recommend him [my successor] to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (Non-Muslim protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities." (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475)

As for the exact amount, it is a 10% tax. The Second Caliph, Umar bin Khattab (ra), took a tenth and this is narrated in the Prophetic Sayings as follows: Tithes for the People of Dhimma: "Umar ibn al Khattab used to take a tenth" (Imam Malik's Muwatta, Book 17, 49)

Compare this with what the Muslims had to pay which was the Khums (20% tax) and the Zakat (2.5%) as well as an arbitrary extra amount for the Baitul Mal.

The fact that the tax is only 10% completely negates the idea that the tax was harsh. In fact, it was very reasonable if not excessively lenient.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Are you forgetting the purpose of this thread?

Hello, Brother.

The purpose of this thread is to clear up misconceptions about Islam and perhaps thereby build bridges. This does not mean necessarily seeking approval, especially if that would require changing my faith to conform to the ways of those who oppose Islam.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

You'd prefer to live in a society where such apostasy is stoned to death? I understand that stoning is not permitted if the government is not Islamic; but if the government is Islamic, then such would be the punishment, no?

How can a good man: want to move society to a state where Muslim apostates are stoned AND knowingly bring children into the world, knowing that there's a decent chance that they'll be stoned?

Hello, Brother.

This is based on a misunderstanding when people say that the penalty for apostasy is death in Islam.

There are two forms of apostasy: Minor and Major Apostasy.

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, the leading scholar of our times, says:

"(Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, (1) an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and (2) an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land."

The harmless apostasy is Minor Apostasy and the harmful apostasy is Major Apostasy. It is only the latter in which the penalty is death.

In the time of the Prophet (s), there were a group of Muslims who would continually threaten to become apostates and fight Islam with the enemies of Allah. And yet these Muslims had taken a Baya'ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of the Prophet (s) to take him as their leader and to protect in the defense of Medinah (the Islamic capitol). This was a legal and binding oath to the Republic of Medinah, taken by Muslims and Jews. And yet, when the Non-Muslim pagans came to attack Medinah, these people rescinded on their pledge of loyalty, and became apostates by aiding the enemies in fighting the Prophet (s). It should be noted that fighting the Prophet (s) is considered automatic disbelief and apostasy in Islam. It is *these* apostates that are to be punished by death. Aiding non-Muslims in killing Muslims is considered Major Apostasy and high treason, punishable by death. For example, if Iraq were an Islamic country and it were attacked by Non-Muslims, then any Iraqi Muslim who aided the Non-Muslims in fighting the Muslims would be considered an apostate and guilty of high treason punishable by death.

However, the type of apostasy which most people think about nowadays with secular societies has nothing to do with treason against the state or fighting. Instead, this is the Minor Apostasy, in which a person loses faith in Islam and simply abandons it, but does not harm Muslims; he does not call to fight Islam and he does not wage war against the Prophet (s) and his followers. This type is *not* to be punished by death.

Evidence for this differentiation (between Major and Minor Apostasy) comes from the fact that Prophet Muhammad (s) did not put to death one group of apostates who did not fight the Muslims, but he did have another group of apostates executed because that group had fought the Muslims.

Shaikh Al-Qaradawi says, citing Shaikh Ibn Tamiyyah (considered the Shaikh of Islam):

"(Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the repentance of a group of apostates, and he ordered that another group of apostates, who had committed other harmful acts to Islam and the Muslims, be killed."

For example, after one battle, Maqis ibn Subabah was executed for commiting Major Apostasy; he had rescinded his oath and aided in killing a Muslim.

One of the Prophet's Companions (Anas) said to the Second Caliph: "O Commander of the Believers, they are people who turned apostate and joined the polytheists (in battle), and thus they were killed in the battle."

Notice how apostasy and waging war are grouped together; this may seem strange nowadays but back then religion was considered part of state loyalty. People who believed in Islam defended the Prophet (s) and Medinah, whereas those who disbelieved in it would oftentimes fight Islam and the fledgling State of Medinah. When a group of Muslims would become apostates, usually they did so after enticements from the enemy camps and bribes to defect. Therefore, their denunciations of Islam would always come with a declaration of war.

The Prophet (s) said: "The blood of a Muslim--who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah--is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer (i.e. adultery), someone killed in retaliation for killing another (i.e. murder), or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community (i.e. treason)."

The Prophet (s) said with clarification:

"The blood of a Muslim--who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle--cannot be shed except in three cases: a married person who commits adultery (he is to be stoned), and a man who went out (i.e. apostated) fighting against God and his Messenger (he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land), and a man who murders another person (he is to be killed on account of it)."

So we see that the emphasis is that they not only apostate but they fight against the Muslims (i.e. high treason). This is based on the following verse in the Quran:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might to make mischief in the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (Quran, 5:33)

This is the punishment in the Quran for high treason and fighting the Muslims, which is considered Major Apostasy.

But if a person simply abandons Islam and does not wage war, then he is to be left alone. In this next Prophetic Saying, a man who took Baya'ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of the Prophet (s) and declared himself a Muslim, tells the Prophet (s) that he wants to break that oath.

Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina).

The Prophet (s) did not order that this man be executed, because he simply abandoned Islam but did not fight it. This is Minor Apostasy. In this case, the Muslims are not to kill him but to advise him to repent and return to the folds of Islam.

Allah says that there are some who "believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back." (Quran, 3:72)

And Allah says:

"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth — Allah will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way." (Quran, 4:137)

Jamal Badawi comments on this verse:

"It is important to note in the above verse that if the Qur'an prescribes capital punishment for apostasy, then the apostate should be killed after the first instance of apostasy. As such there would be no opportunity to 'again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth.' In spite of these acts of repeated apostasy, no capital punishment is prescribed for them."

The Shaikh of Al-Azhar University, Abdul-Majeed Subh, says:

"No Punishment, If No Harm...There is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation."

There is no compulsion or coercion in religion, as Allah says:

"And say: 'The truth is from your Lord,' so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (Quran, 18:29)

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)

"And so (O Prophet): admonish them; your task is only to admonish. You cannot compel them (to believe.)" (quran, 88:21-22)

"If they surrender (to God), then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then behold, your duty is no more than to deliver the message." (Quran, 3:20)

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Also, I would be interested in Knowing what a Muslim wedding ceremony is like, or if there is any transcending Islamic ceremony.

Hello, Brother.

The requirements for a Muslim wedding are very minimal. It simply requires two witnesses who witness the man asking the woman if she will marry him three times, and the woman replying in the affirmative three times. And a maybe a couple other minor requirements such as dower. But basically, that's it.

However, this requirement is usually incorporated into the cultural ceremony of whatever culture you belong to. Therefore, Arabs have a separate style of wedding than Pakistanis. The Shariah (Islamic Law) does not usually prohibit such cultural practises, and so each culture and region of the Islamic world has its own marriage ceremonies in which they of course incorporate the minimum requirement (the triple proposal, dower, etc.).

It should be noted that many Muslims have wrongfully abandoned the Prophet's recommendations which were to have a simple wedding as opposed to extravagant wedding ceremonies that waste money.

Take care.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thanks!
It seems that 'harms the nation' would be a phrase that could be squirmed around (as is evident, since there are those who want to kill apostates). For example, a vocal apostate could be considered to be 'harming the nation'.

Regardless, it seems that your interpretation is not that. I already understand that you'd denounce persecuting such apostates for multiple reasons.

So ... to loop it around to those poor fellows facing the whippings. A person could easily claim to not be Muslim anymore in order to avoid those punishments? (Punishments solely reserved for Muslims?)

 

[Warman17]

Hello, Brother.

Hello, I'm sorry if I seem to be loading questions like "Is America evil" but when you see masses of people chant "death to America" I think it's valid.

The proper term is Mujahideen (holy warriors). A Mujahideen is one who adheres to the above guidelines, namely that he only fights ARMED enemy combatants on the battlefield and does NOT harm civilians.

In such a case, yes I would very much look upto such people. They are considered one of the highest groups of people in Islam. Anyone who risks his life in such a noble manner is considered very noble and praise-worthy.

I was not asking about Mujahadeen, I meant Jihadi in the western sense. The people who call for war and destruction of the west. The masses who chant "Death to America, Death to the West!"

Yes, I do. I believe that the US was at war with Islam much before September the 11th. The US was at war with Islam much before that. I believe that America fears a Pan-Islamic state from arising in the land, as this would threaten its hegemony, and America has been laboring hard to prevent the rise of such a Pan-Islamic state, installing puppet governments, squashing Islamic movements, supporting Israel, and destroying Muslim countries, all part of a long-term plan to circumvent a Pan-Islamic state.

Since you consider the United States at war with Islam, would you call for it's destruction? For the removal of it's administration? Should every Muslim in America rise up and attack government and military installations?

Basically I'm trying to ask this. If the United States is at war with Islam, is Islam then at war with the United States. There are many (including myself) who do not think Islam is waging war on America and the west. But if it is the Islamic opinion that the US is waging war on it, why then do we continue to try to deny Islam is at war with us?

Which also leads me to another question:
Should the west consider itself at war with Islam?

No, I believe it is an illegitimate state on occupied and usurped territory.

Would you agree to Israel as a nation as per the 1948 UN partition, or is the state of Israel by itself an impossibility. Most of the land in the 1948 partition given to jews for the creation of Israel were areas which held a majority Jewish population (which had bought the land legally through Ottoman and British governments).

Yes.

Once again why does Israel accept Muslims and not consider itself at war with Islam, but Islam considers Israel at war with it? I could understand if you said Israel was at war with the Palastinian people, but all of Islam?

Definitely. In fact, I really like Jews who are not Zionists. In fact, I support many Jews, such as the Jews for Justice and orthodox Jews who shun the state of Israel, such as Jews Against Zionism. I am also a BIG fan of Noam Chomsky, who is a professor at MIT and one of the most outspoken critics of Israel.

People mistakenly confuse being anti-Zionist with being anti-Semitic. This is a deception by the Zionists in order to make rebuking them impossible by stamping everyone as anti-Semitic.

I have Jewish friends. Muslims do not believe in hating groups of people but only individuals who do wrong. Therefore, like any other group of people, if the Jews are good people, then we like them. If they are bad people, then we don't like them. Same is the case with every other group of people, including fellow Muslims.

I like Jews who are not Zionists. I do not like Zionists, regardless of if they are Jewish or Christian.

Allah Himself says that they are good Jews and bad Jews. Allah says in the Quran:

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil; and they hasten in good works; and (verily) they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those who are righteous." (Quran, 3:113-115)

And this is repeated in verse 3:199 in which Allah says that "there are certainly among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians)" who will recieve "reward from their Lord." (Quran, 3:199)

I also understand there is a difference between anti-zionist and anti-jewish. But once again when you see the masses put all jews and all Zionists on the same pboat, it is a question that has to be asked of a self-described enlightened Muslim.

What kind of conspiracy? I suspect you are talking about the role of Zionists in the Holocaust? Well, that is not really a conspiracy at all, but rather established fact.

By Zionist COnsipiracy I mean as per the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That Zionists (or some sort of high-echelon of Jews) somehow plot events, control media, control banks, etc. That America is a puppet of a greater Zionist threat, the usual propaganda.

I do not think that your opinion of me was very high to begin with. Having said that, you *do* realize that Noam Chomksy is himself Jewish? Do you not find it a bit strange that you would accuse him of being anti-Jewish when he himself is Jewish?

Theres always people who hate the group they belong to. Theres been known nazis, neo-naxis, and KKK members who turned out to be Jewish (an they themselves knew this). See the "can a Jew be an anti-semite" thread for more of my opinion.


I'd rather not argue with you, thats not the purpose, but simply to see where you stand and how you draw your conclusions. For example I could have argued on your statement about how you think Israel is colonial construct, but I'd rather learn why you think that.

I would also like you to know why I'd rather ask you questions about Israel, America, jihad, etc because I have recently seen this video (the full version): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=obsession&hl=en

it's about radical Islam which you describe as terrorists and are sinners in the eyes of Islam. But then you say things like the US is at war with Islam, which begs the question: is just radical Islam at war with the west?


Also I would like you to watch the video (its only 12 minutes. the full version is like 45 minutes) and tell me your thoughts and opinions on it: how accurate is it, if you agree with it, etc. They interview Muslims (a martyr's daughter and a former PLo terroist, and a couple others)

Which also makes me ask another question (which might be answered in your resposne to the video):

Should children be raised like this?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

You say that the Christian and Jewish faiths have been corrupted by man, but that Islam has not been, that it is pure. What is it that makes Islam pure and the other abrahamic religions not? After all, Mohammed was a man, just as John, or Mark, or Moses were, could he not have made the same humanly mistakes in interpreting what God told him? I know you don't mean this to be a discussion thread, and I apologize if that's what this appears to be attempting; I'm just curious to get other people's points of view on this, including a man of your faith.

Hello, Brother.

Firstly, you have stated that Prophet Moses (as), Prophet John (as), Prophet Jesus (as), etc. were humans. (Well, you didn't mention Jesus [as].) Based on this, I can see that you think that I think that these men made mistakes when delivering the message and that *this* is the reason that the Faiths of Judaism and Christianity have become corrupted.

This is not true at all. I believe that all of the Prophets delivered the Message of God successfully and perfectly without flaw. The ORIGINAL Torah sent through Prophet Moses (as) was flawless and written by Allah Almighty Himself. The ORIGINAL Bible sent through Prophet Jesus (as) was flawless and written by Allah Almighty Himself. It was only much afterwards that deviants who claimed to be their followers would pervert the faith by tampering the Word of God.

We believe that the Quran was free from tampering because Allah promised to protect it Himself. Allah says in the Quran:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Reminder (the Quran); and We will assuredly guard it from corruption.” (Quran, 15:9)

This is a Divine Promise of Allah Almighty. The Quran is the final word of God, the Prophet (s) is the seal of the prophets, and Islam is the perfected religion. Therefore, Allah will protect it from corruption and preserve the Quran.

There is no other book in the world that has been memorized cover-to-cover like the Quran has been. Allah commanded that a group of Muslims always memorize the Quran and become Hufaaz (people who have memorized every single word of the Quran). Indeed, each generation of Muslims have had these Hufaaz, starting at the time of the Prophet's life in which there were twenty-two total people who memorized EVERY single letter of the Quran. Today, there are thousands of Hufaaz worldwide, making it the most memorized book in history and in the world today. These people are considered Allah's instruments to preserve the Quran word for word. There have been so many memorizers of the Quran from the outset that it made it impossible for any corruption in the text.

Take care, Brother.