‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan’

[Dubious]

There are historical documented facts that people were indeed thrashed after paying Jaziya.

People have been calling it that and have not turned up with these "historical documented facts"

 

[notsuperstitious]

Sources please?!

QâDî Mughîth ad-Dîn told SulTân 'Alâ'u 'd-Dîn Khaljî: 'If the Jizyah-collector ask a Hindu for silver, the latter should offer gold in all humility. If the collector wishes to spit into his mouth, the latter should open his mouth without demur, so as to enable the former to spit into it

Diyâ' ad-Dîn Baranî, Tarîkh-i Firozshâhi, Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizwi, selected Hindi tr., in his Khaljî-Kalîna Bhârata, Aligarh.

Fîroz Shâh Tughluq promulgated an ordinance imposing Jizyah on the Hindus including the BrâhamaNa-s and exempting them therefrom on conversion. He writes that as a result of the ordinance 'the Hindus thronged in clusters after clusters and groups after groups and were glorified by the glory of Islam. And likewise to this day of ours, they come from far and wide, embrace Islam, and Jizyah is off from them.'

Firoz Shah Tughluq, FuthûHât-i Firozshâhî, ed. by Shaikh Abdur Rashid, Aligarh, 1954

In 1679, Aurangzeb reintroduced Jizyah at the usual rates of 48 dirhams on the rich, 24 on the middle class, and 12 on the poor, the rich being those earning ten thousand dirhams or more a year, the middle those earning over two hundred, and the poor those earning less. Following the tradition, he also stipulated that the Dhimmî should carry the Jizyah with his own hand and should come on foot. He should pay it standing, while the Jizyah-collector is sitting. The Dhimmî-s hand should be below that of the collector, who should snatch away the Jizyah from the former's hands with the remark, 'Pay the Jizyah, O Dhimmî!'

Mirzâ MuHammad Hasan alias 'Alî MuHammad Khân Bahâdur Mir' at-i AHmadî, ed. by Sayyid Nawab Ali, Gackwad's Oriental Series, No. XXXIII, Baroda, 1928, I, pp. 296-297

MuHammad bin Qâism, a nineteen year old Arab, conquered Sindh in 712 A.D. and imposed Jizyah on the Hindus and Buddhists unwilling to embrace Islam, excepting, however, BrâhmaNa-s and ascetics. For the purpose the Jizyah assessees were divided into three classes, the highest class being liable to pay 48 dirhams of silver (24 silver rupees) per head, the middle class 24 dirhams, and the lowest class 12 dirhams. MuHammad bin Qâsim made it clear to the Hindus and Buddhists: 'Those among you who become Mussalmans and come within the fold of Islam shall have their tribute remitted, but those who are still inclined to be of their own faith, must put up with injuries (gazand) and tribute (jizia) to retain the religion of their fathers and grandfathers

'Alî Kûfi, The Chachnâmah, tr. from the Persian by Kalichbeg Fredunbeg,

Jizyah has played an enormous role in the spread of Islam in India as everywhere else. Amîr Khusrau appears to be right when he says that, had Hanafite law (which alone of the four schools of Muslim law allows to polytheists the concession of survival on payment of Jizyah) not prevailed in India, the Hindus would have vanished root and branch:

Ba-dhimmah gar na bûdi rukhSat-i shar'
Na mâNdi nâm-i Hindû zi 'Sl tâ far'17

Literally translated, 'Did the Dhimmî-s not enjoy the concession of the Sharî'ah, all trace of the Hindus would vanish root and branch

.'

This mindset of Muslim rulers is reflected in Fatawa-i-Jahandari by Barani and in Farishtah, where, the strict imposition of jizya was followed up with a rise in the land tax (kharaj) to 50% and they started taxing possessions like cows, buffaloes and goats. Added to this was another tax called the grazing tax. Barani proudly writes that all these meant “Hindu women and children went out begging at the doors of the Musalmans.”

 

[Dubious]

I already answered: Besides I am more interested in JAZIYA not what people did!

The rule may be to drive on the road now if someone tries to fly the car, you can not blame neither the car nor the rule!

Diyâ' ad-Dîn Baranî, Tarîkh-i Firozshâhi, Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizwi, selected Hindi tr., in his Khaljî-Kalîna Bhârata, Aligarh.



Firoz Shah Tughluq, FuthûHât-i Firozshâhî, ed. by Shaikh Abdur Rashid, Aligarh, 1954



Mirzâ MuHammad Hasan alias 'Alî MuHammad Khân Bahâdur Mir' at-i AHmadî, ed. by Sayyid Nawab Ali, Gackwad's Oriental Series, No. XXXIII, Baroda, 1928, I, pp. 296-297



'Alî Kûfi, The Chachnâmah, tr. from the Persian by Kalichbeg Fredunbeg,

Honestly speaking I have no idea what these are?

 

[INDIC]

I had a similar discussion with some Indian dude on PDF not long back!

sources? not hearsay stuff please!



THEY ARE hearsay things going on as FACTS just to show that ISLAM is bad! Besides I am more interested in JAZIYA not what people did!

The rule may be to drive on the road now if someone tries to fly the car, you can not blame neither the car nor the rule!

No offence for any religion, Hindus indeed see Jaziya as a symbol of exploitation.

 

[Dubious]

Indian books written by Indians...LOVELY!

No offence for any religion, Hindus indeed see Jaziya as a symbol of exploitation.

Well, that is the problem of those who abused it and those who did not research it and went on spreading the hatred!

 

[illusion8]

Indian books written by Indians...LOVELY!



Well, that is the problem of those who abused it and those who did not research it and went on spreading the hatred!

So whom do you expect to write these books - the dead mughals?

 

[Dubious]

So whom do you expect to write these books - the dead mughals?

I meant how can we verify how authentic these books are?

 

[illusion8]

I meant how can we verify how authentic these books are?

IT get's derived from these mughal's diaries and historical records.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Indian books written by Indians...LOVELY!

I meant how can we verify how authentic these books are?

Please don't respond with predictable denial. Tarîkh-i Firozshâhi, FuthûHât-i Firozshâhî, Chachnâmah are historical court documents or historical records by muslim court historians of these muslim rulers. The indian press names are from modern reprints, obviously.

I can similarly produce scores of records from official court documents of these religious imperialists who have bragged about destroyed our temples and building mosques there. These bastards had the habbit of bragging about their peaceful nature and no compulsion in religion thing. Otherwise history rewriters across the borders would have whitewashed this by now.

 

[Dubious]

Please don't respond with predictable denial. Tarîkh-i Firozshâhi, FuthûHât-i Firozshâhî, Chachnâmah are historical court documents or historical records by muslim court historians of these muslim rulers. The indian press names are from modern reprints, obviously.

Well, I have no idea what type of rulers they were they are dead...We are talking about WHAT Jayziah is @Gigawatt none taken!

 

[INDIC]

Indian books written by Indians...LOVELY!



Well, that is the problem of those who abused it and those who did not research it and went on spreading the hatred!

I have done more research than you.

 

[Dubious]

I have already answered way before you presented your findings:

I already answered: Besides I am more interested in JAZIYA not what people did!

The rule may be to drive on the road now if someone tries to fly the car, you can not blame neither the car nor the rule

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/social...get-you-killed-pakistan-18.html#ixzz2JJ33ccgo

We were talking about the Jiyziah law not what some people implemented on India...

I do not deny people abuse laws! Muslims are no exception! But it does not change the fact that the LAW IS JUST!

What I can not understand is what one can gain by showing HOW someone implemented something and called it JIYZIAH?!

I am talking about Jiyziah as a rule and you people are talking about someone implementing SOMETHING and calling it JIYZIAH that too some hundreds of years back!

 

[Patriots]

No offence for any religion, Hindus indeed see Jaziya as a symbol of exploitation.

1) Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) narrated from Prophet (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alehi Wa Sallam) that he (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alehi Wa Sallam) said: “One will kill to any non – Muslim unlawfully. He wouldn’t get the fragrance of Jannah and indeed, the fragrance of Paradise is determined by a distance of forty years. (Sahih Bukhari)

2) Hazrat Umar (RA) advised (to later successor, at the time of his leaving the world) that I'd advice that do fulfill commitment with non – Muslms for the sake of Allah & his Prophet and fight (from Kuffar) to save non – Muslim’s lives and do not bother to them to more than their power (means do not exceed capitation to their financial condition). (Sahih Bukhari)

Islam is not responsible of one's act ... Law of Islam transparent ..

 

[Dubious]

I have done more research than you.

In history but you have failed to do it in the real meaning of the laws but just HOW they were practiced! Same can go about with common civil laws which are put down YET people break them, twist them and corrupt them!

BUT people look at the laws and say that that the laws of so and so country were great BUT when it comes to Islam everyone sees who misused them?!

WHY the double standards may I ask?

 

[notsuperstitious]

Well, I have no idea what type of rulers they were they are dead...We are talking about WHAT Jayziah is @Gigawatt none taken!

No its NOT just. Ask a non-muslim who has to pay it and he will tell you. Heck I even have an Irani friend from Mumbai whose family fled to Mumbai from Iran some 150-200 years agi because they were forced to pay that racist humiliating second class citizenship unjust inhuman tax.

Of course you will say its just, you are imposing it on the vanquished and the humiliated. Humane, lovely.

And no its nothing to do misuse of law, the law is discriminatory, treats the people following the ruler's religion and others differently, thats inherently horribly unjust, one has to be a blind follower of fairytales to not be able to see that.

Any case do not want to get into a religious discussion where you will promise me the ideal moon of religion and I will feel like I'm talking to female Zarvan. So bye, because the same way you can not convince Zarvan how many reasonable facts you present, the same it is with you. Its only a question of degree, no offence.