Limits of Multiculturalism

Re: # 147

O Genius,

Let us know what Dashameshwar borrowed from Isalm apart from an oppostion to Idol worship.

Maybe the Shivala or the Vichitra Natak or the Chandi Vrat.

Or maybe Sanskrit or Sava Lakh se ek laraun to Gobind Singh Naam kamaun.

Sanatani

P.S. If Gobind Sinha he is Sinha and not Singha as jee was born in Patna and is thus Bihari did oppose idol worship it was to make a mishtayk and appear Human otherwise he was god.

Of course and now, wait and see, even though the person has no evidence and I have provided ample both in source and reasoning, anything postive that comes out about Islam, pains these fools that is why they will try painfully to try all kinds of acrobatics (without source or knowledge) to impose their negative straw man on Islam. This is how bigotry works....

DM writes "As far as my understanding of the concept of Jaziya is concerned, it is mainly from the Islamic sources and chowk itself."

Which sources? Please reveal your "secret" sources. There is no "source" of Islam other than the Quran, it has one verse on Jizya and that is specifically talking about those that pick up arms against the Muslims and then are subdued, which makes it selective to begin with. Combine that with other verses of the Quran regarding the poor and the destitute to whom a "debt" is owed by the state, regardless of religion, and this tells you that the traditional generalization of Jizya is not only extra-Quranic it is illogical. Now to your sources.....I'm sure some "Guru hates" like the "pundit hates" will provide you with some. Regardless of your "neutral" posturing, your initial post, in which you were talking without any source or evidence, both in content and in presentation, would tell anyone that your claims to neutrality are mere BS.

masadi#228:
There is no need to bring the Gurus into this discussion. As far as I know, none of the Gurus talked about Jaziya, at least not in the holy scripture, although the latter Gurus did raise a revolt against the persecution of minorities.

As far as my understanding of the concept of Jaziya is concerned, it is mainly from the Islamic sources and chowk itself. As far as I can remember, I have not seen anything in the Quran or in the hadith, which says that the jaziya applies selectively to non-muslims. However, it is quite possible that I may not recall such ayat/hadith. Hence, the question to you.

chaltahai writes "oooh the circular logic of using the quran to prove the quran starts again..Kaal..now just wait and see.. :-) "

I don't think this fool has a clue about what we are discussing. When you have nothing smart to say, it is best to shut up rather than show us how dimwitted you are, not to mention how badly it reflects on the school that was of such low standards that it gave you admission and the company that was foolish enough to employ your kind

Chalta writes" Yeah, the soviet union tried this islamic system of wealth distribution. they found out that it is against the very nature of humans"

There is no such thing as "nature of humans", it is all shaped by a much variable and often relative social structure. On the hand what would a, to quote thinkingstorm, "red assed baboon" know about "human nature"?

Yeah, the soviet union tried this islamic system of wealth distribution. they found out that it is against the very nature of humans.

Of course what constitues the surplus and what is legitimate "need" beyond which is surplus, has to be defined by the state, as is done the world over these days by the various measures that define the poverty line, most are crude and unrealistic like the India food line,others try to compensate for it like food times three as in the US which is also unrealistic, but determining it can be done with a fair level of accuracy if ulterior motives don't dictate its calculation.

Kaal writes "As you research the topic of zakat, could you also see if you can find out who was made incharge of distributing it"

The state receives and distributes it, the system for the retrieval and distribution of it is paid for by the Zakat money, it is self-sustaining, its purpose is to achieve a redistribution of Income. There is no fixed percentage, the Quran suggests a midway between spending all of the surplus and spending nothing of it as the justest division, which would be 50% of the surplus not 2.5%. Jizya is compensation, it is compensation for state services since the non Muslim is exempt from Zakat, the Quranic ayat that deals with it talks about it in the context of certain people, men who are of military age and are strong enough to bear arms. Which exempts women and children and the invalids. Compensation is given to the destitute in the Islamic system (regardless of religion) and not demanded from them, which exempts all the categories of Zakat receivers from paying Jizya.

oooh the circular logic of using the quran to prove the quran starts again..Kaal..now just wait and see.. :-)

dm writes "Is there an ayat or a hadith that supports the "surplus" theory? "

Before I start pontificating from the Quran, regarding "surplus", and I assure you there is such a verse, let me ask you where YOUR ideas about the non exempt Jizya regardless of financial position, second-rate citizenry etc comes from. If you don't have a source and are relying on "Guru Sahib", then this debate can end here and now.

tolki bhai, here is the great dilemma that you will appreciate. People who lose because of the failure of the kant test want to, understandably, break out of it. But the same people when they benefit from the failure of the kant test will want to maintain and enforce it at all costs!

I think if one understands THAT one understands a great deal of natural urges of mankind.

#224
Fail to harp but lets me get to the bottom
B/c some hindu men/women due to failure of Kante test within there own comunity want out but cant b/c of Kant compling test of hindu.She /he is caught between a rock and hard place .Only universal law and constitutin gives release to lower caste and desiring men &women to break the shackles from this.

dm sahib, masadi bhai

As you research the topic of zakat, could you also see if you can find out who was made incharge of distributing it, among whom, and in what proportions, if any specified. Thanks.

Tolkinin:

I do agree with what you say. Yes, the Hindus looked down upon marrying even outside their subcastes, never mind caste or religion. But they did pass the Kant test; namely, they did not expect people of other religion to do any differently to them than they did to those of the other religion.

I think, however, that the Brahmins did not pass that test vis-a-vis other castes. A Brahmin was allowed to mate with a woman of lower caste but not the other way round.

kaalchakra#218:

I do agree about the non-confrontationist approach if you mean in a rebellious sort of way. However, from what I have read, there were vigorous debates on philosophical/metaphysical (I wouldn't call them religious) issues at the time of the Buddha. I believe these involved Buddha, Mahavir Jain, ajivikas and that dude who supported hedonism (the name escapes me as usual).

masadi#210:

"Wrong. Both are to be extracted from the "surplus"- regardless of income level"

Thanks. I would really like to know some more about this topic. From what I had read, zakat was to be 2.5% of one's income, with exemption for the destitute. Is there an ayat or a hadith that supports the "surplus" theory?

I would also appreciate it if you could refer me to an ayat or a hadith that says that poor non-muslims should be exempted from the payment of jaziya.