People only know about Islam & Muslims because of what they see in the news

[Empire]

Muslims had to serve in the army + pay Zakat
Non-Muslims didn't have to serve in army or pay Zakat, just pay Jizya
I don't see what is so complicated......

So zakat isn't mandatory, basically you don't have to pay it. (which means they do not have to do it).
And is the military enrollment a draft or is that "if you want to" as well/???
-------------------------------------------

Non-muslims get taxed while muslims do not. Pretty simple enough there though.

[vaporak10]

Yes, it was a draft. Also, in older Muslim kingdoms, Muslims HAD to pay Zakat, even though that was against the teachings that Zakat should be from oneself. Whatever the case, during the time of Jizya
Muslims: Army + Zakat
Non-Muslims: Jizya

[Empire]

Yes, it was a draft. Also, in older Muslim kingdoms, Muslims HAD to pay Zakat, even though that was against the teachings that Zakat should be from oneself. Whatever the case, during the time of Jizya
Muslims: Army + Zakat
Non-Muslims: Jizya

I see nothing about draft into an army.

Wouldn't that promote an extreme amount of violence for a religion to draft an army? I don't understand how you thought that would help your case here.....
-------------------------------------

Also my point on the taxes for religion is pretty much proved as being wrong (on both ends) so yeah, done there.
-point was: your taxing people based on a certain religious status. Either way it is wrong, and especially when it is different for both sides.

[dizzyeasy]

Guyz Islam is Peacful.

[vaporak10]

I see nothing about draft into an army.

Wouldn't that promote an extreme amount of violence for a religion to draft an army? I don't understand how you thought that would help your case here.....
-------------------------------------

Also my point on the taxes for religion is pretty much proved as being wrong (on both ends) so yeah, done there.
-point was: your taxing people based on a certain religious status. Either way it is wrong, and especially when it is different for both sides.

In Islam itself, there is no drafting or forced Zakat.
But in the old Islamic nations, there were.
Just like in Israel for example. Drafts are there. They are primarily a Jewish country with Jewish and secular customs.
About the taxes based on religion, if you think that is wrong, that is your opinion.
I'm not saying it should be instituted into modern society, I'm saying it worked in the past.

[Empire]

In Islam itself, there is no drafting or forced Zakat.
But in the old Islamic nations, there were.
Just like in Israel for example. Drafts are there. They are primarily a Jewish country with Jewish and secular customs.
About the taxes based on religion, if you think that is wrong, that is your opinion.
I'm not saying it should be instituted into modern society, I'm saying it worked in the past.

:/ your basically telling me : yes its wrong but no it should not exist still even though it does.

So yeah......done here.

[vaporak10]

:/ your basically telling me : yes its wrong but no it should not exist still even though it does.

So yeah......done here.

No, what I want to say is that in today's world and its context, it would not work as fine as it did in the world before. Context, opinions and rules change as time passes. What seems illogical to us was not illogical, say 500 years ago. So to call that "wrong" is highly ignorant.

Thats all.

[Empire]

No, what I want to say is that in today's world and its context, it would not work as fine as it did in the world before. Context, opinions and rules change as time passes. What seems illogical to us was not illogical, say 500 years ago. So to call that "wrong" is highly ignorant.

Thats all.

Yes. but still in use today is the issue which it still is. So calling it wrong in the present is the point and it has been made with an astounding effort on your part to prove it right of all things.

[vaporak10]

Yes. but still in use today is the issue which it still is. So calling it wrong in the present is the point and it has been made with an astounding effort on your part to prove it right of all things.

? I hardly see any country issuing a mandatory draft, compulsory Zakat and Jizya policies. You are arguing about nothing.
You started this by wondering what the Jizya was.
I told you what it was in its historical context.
What more do you need?

[Empire]

? I hardly see any country issuing a mandatory draft, compulsory Zakat and Jizya policies. You are arguing about nothing.
You started this by wondering what the Jizya was.
I told you what it was in its historical context.
What more do you need?

:/

This is kinda the hypocrisy i see in most muslim debates: point out all christianity things wrong(which in any case idgaf).

Then when pointed out muslims own historical faults(which believe me, there are a lot), its "so whats the problem?"
------------------------------------------------

You see most muslims attack christianity. A debate through distraction. Which would work except no one here gives a fuck either way and everyone can kinda agree that Jesus wasn't a total dick like muhammed. But then it ends up that again, islam is proven wrong to some extent.


Which in most cases ends up like the mormons. Cover it up when the internet and mass media arive. Which is cool i guess, at least they aren't being fucking retards anymore.(lol black people and mormons). But in the other case its also more depressing since in the end people just kinda dismiss there religion promotes this at its core.

:/ Its kinda like how muhammed had 13 wives and muslims aren't allowed to.

[vaporak10]

:/

This is kinda the hypocrisy i see in most muslim debates: point out all christianity things wrong(which in any case idgaf).

Then when pointed out muslims own historical faults(which believe me, there are a lot), its "so whats the problem?"
------------------------------------------------

You see most muslims attack christianity. A debate through distraction. Which would work except no one here gives a fuck either way and everyone can kinda agree that Jesus wasn't a total dick like muhammed. But then it ends up that again, islam is proven wrong to some extent.


Which in most cases ends up like the mormons. Cover it up when the internet and mass media arive. Which is cool i guess, at least they aren't being fucking retards anymore.(lol black people and mormons). But in the other case its also more depressing since in the end people just kinda dismiss there religion promotes this at its core.

:/ Its kinda like how muhammed had 13 wives and muslims aren't allowed to.

Notice how I didn't attack any other religion? Because unlike people like you, I do not speak about things I do not know about. I can explain to you why Muhammad had 13 wives, but in the end I will just be wasting my time. I can also explain how Islam does not promote violence, but the close-mind quality is quite prevalent in Islamophobes, so again, I will get no benefit in doing that either.

[Empire]

Notice how I didn't attack any other religion? Because unlike people like you, I do not speak about things I do not know about. I can explain to you why Muhammad had 13 wives, but in the end I will just be wasting my time. I can also explain how Islam does not promote violence, but the close-mind quality is quite prevalent in Islamophobes, so again, I will get no benefit in doing that either.

Ooooh yeah i understand why he had 13. But it being morally right or even by islams standards it is not.

Again, islam promoting violence is unquestionable. Once a religious leader/creator enters into the military realm its not even a challenge there.
-------------------

*talking about close minded, while you argue 13 wives and war is ok? the irony?

[vaporak10]

I'm close minded?
You need to have historical context, cultural reasoning and be able to comprehend how life was different 1400 fucking years ago and in the situation everything was 1400 years ago.
Not just say

Ooooh yeah i understand why he had 13

If you want to debate seriously, can you at least do that for me?

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Read the title of this article Norway gunman sane says new psychiatric probe - Yahoo! News UK
The title says Norway Gunman even though he used a bomb and killed 77 people. Tell me why it didnt say Norway terrorist?
That is proof the media is biased against Islam. Whenever a terrorist attack happens by a "muslim" the title of articles always says Islamic terrorists.
You cannot learn about Islam by hearing about it on the news reading anti Islam websites or bad things people have done and call themselves muslim.
There is only one way to learn what Islam is and that is to read the Quran from beginning to end. And I know 99% of haters of Islam havent even read it.

Right and you have proof that Breivik was never labeled a terrorist? You watched every single western news channel just to see if they used the word terrorist?
I doubt it. He is a terrorist, he's been labeled one multiple times by multiple news organizations.Race card fail.
By the way I've read the Quran.Ignorance card fail.

[Empire]

I'm close minded?
You need to have historical context, cultural reasoning and be able to comprehend how life was different 1400 fucking years ago and in the situation everything was 1400 years ago.
Not just say

If you want to debate seriously, can you at least do that for me?

Well you see there is this thing called morals, ethics, and basic human goodness.

Its actually timeless believe it or not. No matter what time period you are at, I'm sure any by any religious standards(especially one SO peaceful), that war is bad/sinful.
--------------------------------------

Point being: Its hard to believe a religion where the creator disobeyed his own rules.