Shahjahan’s “Moorti” and Other Absurdities in Agra

#181:

#179, if you had learned how to read in school, you'd note that Sura 9:29 is about a particular group of "non-Muslims", to whom this "notice" that is the entire chapter 9 is addressed to. For them it is benevolence of the Muslims that is accepting Jizya, any others dealing with such people would have slaughtered them in the marketplace.


So according to you

It is Ok for the Muslims to slaughter one group of "non-Muslims". But It shows the benevolence of the Muslims to let that group live and pay "jaziya"

Let me try this:

It is Ok for the US elite to slaughter one group of "Muslims". But it shows the benevolence of the US elite to let the group live and pay "jaziya"..

masan writes "And we should "believe" you that "Jaziya" tax rate is less than "Zakat". The available evidence proves the opposite."

When it was first "misapplied" at the time of Umar, the rate was lower than that of Zakat that the Muslims paid.

#179, if you had learned how to read in school, you'd note that Sura 9:29 is about a particular group of "non-Muslims", to whom this "notice" that is the entire chapter 9 is addressed to. For them it is benevolence of the Muslims that is accepting Jizya, any others dealing with such people would have slaughtered them in the marketplace. Therefore taking that verse and applying it in a blanket fashion to all non-Muslims is a gross distorition of it- but the distortion and the benevolence of that verse cannot be recognized by bigots or illiterates and it certainly cannot be recognized by people who went through college but didn't learn how to read...

further to #178 I will add that while the jury is still out on Menzies claim that the Chinese crossed the Atlantic to discover the Americas decades before Columbus, the very fact that he can make a plausible case and the type of evidence he presents (including wrecks of enormous Chinese vessels in far flung places as far south as Australia) indicates that the Chinese were sea-faring people at a scale that totally outstripped anything from India.

As it was practiced viz a viz Zakat, it gave the non Muslim extra privilages for nothing, so what's the complaint in this, should they have forced Zakat, a higher tax out of the non-Muslims?

ROFL.. The Quranic verse says


9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


That seems like a benevolent way of treating the non-Muslims.

And we should "believe" you that "Jaziya" tax rate is less than "Zakat". The available evidence proves the opposite.

You can peddle your stories about "jaziya" being the best tax plan to people who read your books/webste. I don't think any one else would buy those stories.

IslamIslam: I will ignore your insulting tone towards me and your stupid nick whereby you define your entire presence on chowk around your hatred for Islam. I will ignore this because you actually wrote some facts down. The reason I refuse to exchange posts with Mohar is not because he is a hindu, but because he has nothing substantive to write and his concept of chowk interaction is to exchange insults.

Having said that, these are my comments on the substance of what you write. You correctly point to Indian influence in south-east asia and sri lanka. I will add VietNam to the list where I read about an Indian man having played a role in their history centuries ago. Nevertheless - these are contiguous areas, and there is no question that the arabs travelled and engaged in trade at far greater ranges. Arab caravans went through the silk route all the way to China in the east, and across norther africa in the South. Arab ships went up and down the coast of East Africa, and Arab slave ships routinely reached all the way to England and north to Iceland where they would capture locals for their slave trade. Arab Navigational techniques were copied by the Portugese (under prince Henry the Navigator), including the ability to steer ships against the wind - this feature along with Arab navigational techniques giving rise to the european Age of Discovery that led to the discovery of the New World and colonization of much of the Old World for almost 500 years. There is nothing in India that compares with this - as I said, even the idea of crossing an ocean was considered sacriligeous by hindus.

The Chinese similarly were far more sea-faring than anything coming out of India - in the 8th century, Chinese built ocean-going ships that were far bigger and more advanced of anything in Europe until centuries later. According to the englishman Menzies, in his book titled "1421, the Year China Discovered America", under Admiral Zheng He a massive Chinese fleet of hundreds of ships not only went to Indonesia and East Africa (where it is generally agreed Chinese ships often travelled), but provides evidence (including a Chinese map captured by the turks) that they went all the way around Africa, crossed the Atlantic, went around South America all the way north to what is now California.

So, to the best of my understanding, it is correct to say that the Chinese and Arabs were way advanced in terms of sea-faring as well as land travel relative to Indians. If this goes counter to the impression you have, instead of calling me names I suggest you focus on the facts. The Chinese and Arabs are not my uncles that I have to inflate their importance, rest assured.

As it was practiced viz a viz Zakat, it gave the non Muslim extra privilages for nothing, so what's the complaint in this, should they have forced Zakat, a higher tax out of the non-Muslims? Or make them tax-exempt because they were non-Muslims- go tell that to the IRS and see how fast they put you behind bars....

Regarding the Jizya, a blanket application of it was a misuse of the Quranic verse but the tax was not unfair altogether because the Muslims had to pay Zakat, and its percentage was quite a bit higher than Jizya-


You know I said this in my comment #168 already that you'd claim

yes. "jaziya" on non-Muslims is the best tax plan that anyone can get in earth and heaven combined.


:-)

So you are basically Ok with the government treating different people differently on the basis of religion. is that so?.

in addition to #172, points 1,ii,iii, iv, let me add one of the other most important differences that directly led to the new world, that of v) free flow of knowledge and ideas and equal transfer of technology...

masan writes "yes..islam colonialism wasn't similar to brit colonialism...it was better..."

Those are arjun the bigot's words, I am not an illiterate to first attribute Arab conquests to "Islam" and second to equate those conquests with british colonialism, both were different animals altogether, except for the bigots who are lost in time and want to dwell on only those aspects of history which soothe their bigotry but do nothing whatsoever to help us understand the present.

Regarding the Jizya, a blanket application of it was a misuse of the Quranic verse but the tax was not unfair altogether because the Muslims had to pay Zakat, and its percentage was quite a bit higher than Jizya-

So do you think
"jaziya" on non-Muslims is Ok. ?

arjun writes "yes..islam colonialism wasn't similar to brit colonialism...it was better...

right? "

Historians don't call that "colonialism" simply because it was as I had said earlier qualitatively different than European colonialism, in those aspects that make it quite unlike the european one i)autonomy ii)inclusiveness iii)long term effects on development. iv) protection of the indigineous folk unlike European settler areas where they were wiped out

Where the Arabs or others using the Muslim label (which is not a label but a state of affairs) plundered and killed and looted, I condemn them all right here right now.

This fallback to "Islamic Colonization" by the Hindu bigots whenever you try to understand Western imperialism that affects us today, is for the sole purpose of bigotry and muddying the barbarism of their masters. When you fallback to what reflects well on Islam and knowledge i.e. the Muslim scientists of old, they say you are dwelling in the past, and yet when youn try to understand today's world they fall back to their constructed mythology of "Islamic colonization" in words that they themselves and not historians have "invented". And then there is the harvard business school graduate Anil who can hardly put one decent sentence togehter, let alone knowing anything about history, asking me not to "glorify" colonization. Fool when you develop even half the morality and sense of you fellow human being as I have, then we can talk about glorification of colonization. Illiterates do not impress me and I have no time to waste with them...

Massaddi Mian:

You must apologize for glorifying colonialism and imperialism of any kind.

Massaddi Mian:

"...it was better..."

You are no different than an American red-neck who calls invasion of Iraq as better. I now realize that you are a red-neck of Islamic variety. Tahmed sahib, and Hamidm sahib so accurately pictured you. I must apologize to them for trying to bat for you.

Re: # 164

Massaddi Mian:

What are you talking, and where did you leave your brain?
Colonialism is colonialism, Imperialism is Imperialism. Muslim invasions were no better. You conveniently like to call as Arabs when something is bad, or Islamic when it is good.

Just get it. You would at best would a petty bourgeois. Or as Chinese used to call Running Dogs of Islamic Imperialism, if you were living in those times. Now you can only run the par course between 7th century and Mills.

Widen your knowledge, open your mind.

yes..islam colonialism wasn't similar to brit colonialism...it was better...

yes. "jaziya" on non-Muslims is the best tax plan that anyone can get in earth and heaven combined.

:-)