Taj: Many things in Islam are by the (de)fault of Allah

Submitted by Plato (India), May 25, 2008 at 07:41

Taj in reply to your post:

>>You are claiming that there is not one country ruled by Islamic principles after 1400 years of Islam and nearly 50 Muslims majority countries in existence. Does this not throw up the ‘the question why muslim country majority countries are unable to throw up governments that rule by Islamic principles.'

Not in my mind. Christianity is a world majority religion, yet no country is ruled by its principles. In fact there isn't any country ruled by any religious principle, so...nothing new in this regard, and hence no question, at least in my mind...<<

Unlike Islam Christianity has given up any pretensions to being a manual for all human activities. Islam legislates (or at least the interpreters say it does in all matters human, including government, it being the final arbiter in all matters). So when you say that no country is ruled by any religious principle, this includes Islam which claims to have legislated for all important human affairs (which should include government) i.e. Islam despite 1400 years and 50 nations in existence there are no Islamic governments (were there ever?)

>>And you are entirely wrong about Islam requiring any of the conditions you mention except faith in Allah. Let me show you why.

Outside of the absurdity of arguing about Islam with someone with less knowledge of the religion, your points regarding justice, despots, fairness, etc were all poorly made:<<

When then are you indulging in this absurdity? Oh, you have put yourself outside that absurdity.

>>1. Islam does not discriminate based on gender. God-given punishment is considered justice, by default<<

Very convenient. Any punishment god chooses, however brutal by human standards, is justice by default. You say considered, I suspect you mean by Islam. Equally by default Allah telling women they are a degree below men should also be accepted. The Allah of the Brahmans considering the untouchables several degrees below them should also be accepted by default.

>>2. your mention of the hadith says nothing about dictators<<

this is what the hadith said: ‘‘Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, ………., and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.".

Given this chain of authority, ultimately it makes Allah the dictator.

>>3. There's more to the executions than you either know or are revealing...in contrast, there were plenty of individuals given forgiveness, such as the person who poisoned him and one who plotted his murder by ambush, ones who slew and canabalized a family member, and so on<<

The prophet gave authority to kill any Jew who fell into the hands of a Muslim. Ibn Ishaq, Page 369 of Guillaum's translation. What kind of forgiveness do you expect him to dispense?

As to the person who poisoned him, Zainab al Harith, the prophet would have found it embarrassing to kill her after hearing her reason for poisoning. The prophet had told his fellow diners, ‘This bone tells me that it is poisoned.' Zaynab's answer: ‘I said to myself if he is a king I shall ease myself of him and if he is a prophet he will be informed (of what I had done).'

>>4. Yes, inheritance is based on economic fairness...perhaps the contemporary propensity to leave women to fend for themselves and actually have to seek child support, etc, makes these examples hard to fathom...it should not be lost that, for example, Muslims have had more women rulers, than say, the West has...<<

Since Allah has decreed women inherit half as that of men it is by default economically fair as you have pointed out in the case of crime and punishment.

Everyone of them was in the nature of an inheritance (except the former Turkish PM Tanzu Ciller). Benazir, Hasina Wazed, Begum Zia. And do a count of the number of Prime ministers in the west, I counted seventeen.

>>5. 3:110 has nothing to do with politics or political fairness. The jizya tax was posed as equitable to the zakat tax paid by Muslism, and being exempt from the army didn't mean being barred...<<

What I found about jiziya on the internet:

There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity'. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.

The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.–

Sufi saint Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), letter #163

There is more at this site:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/04/08/the-dhimmi-dhimmitude/

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".