Insensitive remarks about Hindus on Pakistani channel

[ice_man]

They wouldn't have any of the benefits even after paying Jizya . They would still be excluded from welfare. Not allowed religious freedom . Not allowed a fair judicial system --word of a muslim would still be greater than that of a non-muslim in a Sharia court , a muslim would still get away free after harassing a non-muslim .

So a clear case of discrimination.

Otherwise why not impose the "zakat" on all instead of creating a new tax called "jizya"...

and do you have any proof to back your statement of a non muslim word holding up above a hindus? or not being allowed fair judical system where as muslims were allowed???

and zakaat is compulsary on muslims hence IF willingly the hindu converts from his religion then he pays from jaziya to zakaat! so if zakaat was FORCED upon the hindus or chritsitans then they would have said we are being FORCED into muslim religious beliefs.

hence a different name a different tax altogether! that my friend is religious tolerance!

 

[AkhandIndia]

this is absolutely unnecessary....Pakistani media should stop bashing hindu religion....job of media is to report facts...that's all....bashing hindus doesn't make PAK media more patriotic

i have seen many episodes of this particular programme.
They have too much delusion towards india.once they said,indian army wiped the whole village by mixing the poison in the water tank of the village.

look at the video of the anna hajare,they lied a lot.

 

[kingkobra]

]well good for you for hating the muslims[/B] that is your own personal choice. however, your government uses taj mahal and moghul architeture for tourist destination money making.

they use moghul cuisine as INDIAN cuisine representing northern india!

they use moghul wardrobe as indian cultural attire of northern india



now coming to "just indian hindu rulers" how about asoka who killed millions for power and then abidicated! so before you put allllll the killings at the feet of muslims go read up on ALL indian hindu rulers!

you got it all wrong dude...

ashoka was not an invader...he fought the war with another king who also was hindu...

 

[ice_man]

you got it all wrong dude...

ashoka was not an invader...he fought the war with another king who also was hindu...

DUDE please read before posting! your fellow hindu friend said that muslim moghuls killed each other in their hunger for power! well how are they any different from ashoka is my point! please read before you post! actually you yourself calimed that muslim rulers were blood thirsty compared to great hindu rulers!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

and do you have any proof to back your statement of a non muslim word holding up above a hindus? or not being allowed fair judical system where as muslims were allowed???

and zakaat is compulsary on muslims hence IF willingly the hindu converts from his religion then he pays from jaziya to zakaat! so if zakaat was FORCED upon the hindus or chritsitans then they would have said we are being FORCED into muslim religious beliefs.

hence a different name a different tax altogether! that my friend is religious tolerance!

The rules of evidence in sharia courts also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony.[110][111] A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the main evidence admissible in a hudud case, written evidence is only admissible when deemed reliable by the judge, i.e., notaries.[112] Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.[113] Forensic evidence (i.e., fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.[114] Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men,[citation needed] and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

from wiki -- perhaps a member more familiar with Islamic Jurisprudence can confirm.



IslamOnline: jizya is "fair" - Jihad Watch

Another very interesting article about monetary comparisions between Zakat and Jizya . In this case less than an Islamic Scholar we have to rely on historical accounts and sources of Muslim emperors and their taxation practices. It seems in practice Jizya was harsher than Zakat.

So both the points illustrate the inequality of minorities.

 

[ice_man]

from wiki -- perhaps a member more familiar with Islamic Jurisprudence can confirm.



IslamOnline: jizya is "fair" - Jihad Watch

Another very interesting article about monetary comparisions between Zakat and Jizya . In this case less than an Islamic Scholar we have to rely on historical accounts and sources of Muslim emperors and their taxation practices. It seems in practice Jizya was harsher than Zakat.

So both the points illustrate the inequality of minorities.

the site is blocked are you sure it is an authentic islamic website???

secondly

Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,monks, hermits and the poor, were all exempt from the tax of jaziya.

hence jaziya was modern day taxation for the well off! something warren buffet wishes for USA TODAY!!


as for the wikipedia information... i am sorry we can't hold wikipedia as a reliable source. because clearly islam says proof is proof regardless of who brings it to light muslim or non muslim!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

the site is blocked are you sure it is an authentic islamic website???

Islamonline has been an authentic website for many years . Dont know why you can't access , I can from here. Anyways , the page contains a few book extracts --


here are a few of them :

The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.

That's from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja'far's Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.

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.

Author's are Historians.
Focusing just on the facts and ignoring the personal opinions, on the whole, historically it seems Jizya has been applied at higher rates in the subcontinent at least.

 

[Don Jaguar]

this is absolutely unnecessary....Pakistani media should stop bashing hindu religion....job of media is to report facts...that's all....bashing hindus doesn't make PAK media more patriotic

Bro welcome to pakistan defence forum!!!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

the site is blocked are you sure it is an authentic islamic website???

secondly

Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,monks, hermits and the poor, were all exempt from the tax of jaziya.

hence jaziya was modern day taxation for the well off! something warren buffet wishes for USA TODAY!!


as for the wikipedia information... i am sorry we can't hold wikipedia as a reliable source. because clearly islam says proof is proof regardless of who brings it to light muslim or non muslim!

I am not as well informed about the Islamic legal system but you have to show the Hadith / Quran passages where it mentions about the legalities and offences ,role of witnesses.
I have come across that information several times , but like I mentioned
I 'll leave it to a member well versed in Jurisprudence to point out the exact source.

Btw can you source your claim(from a Hadith ) about the afore-mentioned i.e In Islam non-muslim witnesses are given the same credence as muslim witnesses. Would be interested to clear this point up.

 

[ice_man]

Islamonline has been an authentic website for many years . Dont know why you can't access , I can from here. Anyways , the page contains a few book extracts --


here are a few of them :






Author's are Historians.
Focusing just on the facts and ignoring the personal opinions, on the whole, historically it seems Jizya has been applied at higher rates in the subcontinent at least.

ok historians are not bias according to you...but then all muslim historians glorify muslims and hindu ones glorify themselves!!

as for rate of 48,24 and 12 it is fixed regardless of property which was imposed on ALL MUSLIM WEALTH! as i nbusiness property everything. so i rather pay a fixed 48 then pay more just because my wealth increases. the "authour" convinently missed out the amount of 2.5% in terms of monetary value!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

ok historians are not bias according to you...but then all muslim historians glorify muslims and hindu ones glorify themselves!!

as for rate of 48,24 and 12 it is fixed regardless of property which was imposed on ALL MUSLIM WEALTH! as i nbusiness property everything. so i rather pay a fixed 48 then pay more just because my wealth increases. the "authour" convinently missed out the amount of 2.5% in terms of monetary value!

2.5% is fixed ...but rates of Jizya are not . Which means that increasing or decreasing the amount would be at the ruler's benevolence .

Also what about the forcible collections parts ? Zakat is a religious duty but it was not enforced by authorities. Jizya on the other hand was forcibly collected by the rulers' soldiers. And there several other very valid factual sources for that.

As for the 48 , 24, 12 part --- the economic status of minorities( Hindus , Sikhs etc) was low after invasion by a different faith.

 

[WHF]

Problem: You have problem with the content shown on Pakistani media?

Solution: Control your obsession with Pakistan and stop searching for such videos on youtube. Thank you.

Simple.

Why dont u guys do the same when some danish newz papers post some cartoons in their edition..Why do u guys resort to wide spread rioting and even planning bombings in those respective countries??Heck u guys even have problems over Modi not wearing a skull cap..racism at the best is being practised in ur culture..

 

[WHF]

The figures you are showing of muslim population growth is very slow.

And the hindu population decreased because majority of hindus left pakistan after independence.

Y did hindus leave for india after independence?? were they chased off the same way the pandits were chased away from the valley??after all islam never hurts and takes gr8 care of the minorities??

 

[ice_man]

2.5% is fixed ...but rates of Jizya are not . Which means that increasing or decreasing the amount would be at the ruler's benevolence .

Also what about the forcible collections parts ? Zakat is a religious duty but it was not enforced by authorities. Jizya on the other hand was forcibly collected by the rulers' soldiers. And there several other very valid factual sources for that.

As for the 48 , 24, 12 part --- the economic status of minorities( Hindus , Sikhs etc) was low after invasion by a different faith.

if economic status was lower then how come 80% of india is hindu today and is still floursihing businessmen? when did they take everything back from muslims?

as for zakaat it is not forced because it is COMPULSARY to be paid people who don't pay disobey Allah and hence face his wrath simple. as for non muslims you can't scare them with the threat of Allah's wrath inorder to pay them hence it is collected publicaly. rates of jaziya are fixed to 48,24,12 according to your source. but zakaat increases as your wealth increases. hence jaziya is better.

& MOST importantly if zakaat was charged from non muslims then they would claim that they were forced to follow islamic traditions. hence a different name and different fixed tax.


as for most of your questions

IslamBasics

visit this website which is somewhat better for basic knowledge of islam.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

Y did hindus leave for india after independence?? were they chased off the same way the pandits were chased away from the valley??after all islam never hurts and takes gr8 care of the minorities??

why were muslims butchered that tried to come to pakistan?? why is india still opressing the kashmiris or gujrati muslims? is it because hinduism is a bad religion according to your logic?

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

if economic status was lower then how come 80% of india is hindu today and is still floursihing businessmen? when did they take everything back from muslims?

.

This was in the middle ages . Historically a lot of changes have taken place since Akbar and Aurangzeb's times .

as for zakaat it is not forced because it is COMPULSARY to be paid people who don't pay disobey Allah and hence face his wrath simple. as for non muslims you can't scare them with the threat of Allah's wrath inorder to pay them hence it is collected publicaly. rates of jaziya are fixed to 48,24,12 according to your source. but zakaat increases as your wealth increases. hence jaziya is better.

& MOST importantly if zakaat was charged from non muslims then they would claim that they were forced to follow islamic traditions. hence a different name and different fixed tax.

Answered in the previous posts , I have still to see you refute the points I made. eg. Jizya can be increased at whim whereas Zakat percentage is fixed.

as for most of your questions

IslamBasics

visit this website which is somewhat better for basic knowledge of islam

Would have been more useful if the specific legal passages from the scriptures ( Hadith/Quran) could have been posted here for the benefit of all the readers but thank you anyways.