• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does The Koran Teach "Kill The Infidels"

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Al Zamakhshari says:
The Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck.​

You quoted him, but honestly I don't know who he is. Why is his word important and why should I take his word above what Allah and His messenger have said?
 

kai

ragamuffin
Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari also called Jar Allah (Arabic for "God's neighbour")

al-Zamakhshari was born in Zamakhshar, Khwarezmia, and became a renowned scholar of the Mutazilite school of Islam. He used Persian for some of his work, although he was a strong supporter of the Arabic language as well as an opponent of the Shu`ubiyya movement.[3] After losing one of his feet to frostbite, he carried a notarized declaration that his foot was missing due to accident, rather than a legal amputation for any crime.[4]
He is best known for Al-Kashshaaf, a seminal commentary on the Qur'an. The commentary is famous for its deep linguistic analysis of the verses, however has been criticised for the inclusion of Mu'tazilite philosophical views.
For many years he stayed in Makkah, for which he became known as Jar-Allah ("God's neighbour"). He later returned to Khwarizm, where he died at the capital Jurjaniyya.
He died in 1144 at al-Jurjaniya, Khwarezm.
He studied at Bukhara and Samarkand while enjoying the fellowship of jurists of Baghdad.

Zamakhshari's fame as a commentator rests upon his commentary on the Qur'an. In spite of its Mu'tazili theology it was famous among scholars.
Works include:
  • Al-Kashshaaf ("the Revealer", Arabic: کشاف ) — A tafsir of the Qur'an) [5]
  • Rabi al-Abrar [5]
  • Asasul-Balaghat dar-Lughat (Arabic:اساس البلاغه) — Literature[5]
  • Fasul-ul-Akhbar [5]
  • Fraiz Dar-ilm Fariz [5]
  • Kitab-Fastdar-Nahr [5]
  • Muajjam-ul-Hadud [5]
  • Manha Darusul [5]
  • Diwan-ul-Tamsil [5]
  • Sawaer-ul-Islam [5]
  • Muqaddimat al-Adab [6]
  • کتاب الامکنه والجبال والمیاه (Geography)
  • مقدمه الادب (Arabic to Persian dictionary)
  • مفصل انموذج (Nahw: Arabic grammar)
wiki
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
I'd rather you didn't, frankly. But the actual behavior of Muslims is relevant to the topic.

As long as one does not commit gross generalization. The Kharaj (land tax), for instance was allowed to become a system of serfdom, which was also the case in Europe and does not seem to collect a religious onus to western observers.

Regards,
Scott
 

Smoke

Done here.
As long as one does not commit gross generalization. The Kharaj (land tax), for instance was allowed to become a system of serfdom, which was also the case in Europe and does not seem to collect a religious onus to western observers.
On the contrary, I think that in terms of repression and intolerance, present-day Islam is directly comparable to medieval Catholicism.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
On the contrary, I think that in terms of repression and intolerance, present-day Islam is directly comparable to medieval Catholicism.

The feudal system was not limited by religion, MB. The Japanese shogunate ran on it for just one example of many.

Regards,
Scott
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
No, it is not. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a democracy.

Regards,
Scott

Yes, it is a monarchy, but why can't a monarchy allow freedom of religion? I looked at the rights of non-muslims that maro had given, thanks maro. I see some differences between those rights and the rights of Islam's home country. Was maro post incorrect?
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Yes, it is a monarchy, but why can't a monarchy allow freedom of religion? I looked at the rights of non-muslims that maro had given, thanks maro. I see some differences between those rights and the rights of Islam's home country. Was maro post incorrect?
The Saudis rule because they estaboished in 1917 that they were sdtong enough to oust the Turks. The rest of Islam decided they could be trusted with protecting Meccah and Medina abd enforing enough neutrality over the holy siters to ensure the Islamic world access for pilgrimage. They havwe acquitted that fairly effectively.

A monsrchy does not mean democracy nor does it guarantee civil rights.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Yes, it is a monarchy, but why can't a monarchy allow freedom of religion? I looked at the rights of non-muslims that maro had given, thanks maro. I see some differences between those rights and the rights of Islam's home country. Was maro post incorrect?
The Saudis rule because they estaboished in 1917 that they were sdtong enough to oust the Turks. The rest of Islam decided they could be trusted with protecting Meccah and Medina abd enforing enough neutrality over the holy siters to ensure the Islamic world access for pilgrimage. They havwe acquitted that fairly effectively.

A monsrchy does not mean democracy nor does it guarantee civil rights.

Regards,
Scott
 

kai

ragamuffin
maros post is right the very first page tells us "The Arabs, to whom the Lord has given control over the world" it is an arab religion and does hold tennets of peace etc unfortunately these only apply when the Arabs are in control over the world at this moment in time they are not, so they have to strive to be in control of the world first to implement these issues, unfortunately tribal and ethnic values come to the fore in war and the words of the Quran are lost misquoted etc.

yes in an ideal world run by the Arabs infidels would be treated with compassion by their rulers.
 

Sahar

Well-Known Member
maros post is right the very first page tells us "The Arabs, to whom the Lord has given control over the world" it is an arab religion and does hold tennets of peace etc unfortunately these only apply when the Arabs are in control over the world at this moment in time they are not, so they have to strive to be in control of the world first to implement these issues, unfortunately tribal and ethnic values come to the fore in war and the words of the Quran are lost misquoted etc.

yes in an ideal world run by the Arabs infidels would be treated with compassion by their rulers.
yawn.gif
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
The Saudis rule because they estaboished in 1917 that they were sdtong enough to oust the Turks. The rest of Islam decided they could be trusted with protecting Meccah and Medina abd enforing enough neutrality over the holy siters to ensure the Islamic world access for pilgrimage. They havwe acquitted that fairly effectively.

A monsrchy does not mean democracy nor does it guarantee civil rights.

Regards,
Scott

Have you read maro's rights of non-muslims? I'm just trying to understand if the leaders of Saudi Arabia are following these rules. I'm finding some differences, don't you?

Some friendly advice: the "ABC check mark" will show you where you have misspelled words and give you the correct spelling. I'm having a hard time understanding your posts.:confused:
 

kai

ragamuffin
Have you read maro's rights of non-muslims? I'm just trying to understand if the leaders of Saudi Arabia are following these rules. I'm finding some differences, don't you?

Some friendly advice: the "ABC check mark" will show you where you have misspelled words and give you the correct spelling. I'm having a hard time understanding your posts.:confused:



depotic leaders have a tendancy to do as they please whether islamic or not
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Have you read maro's rights of non-muslims? I'm just trying to understand if the leaders of Saudi Arabia are following these rules. I'm finding some differences, don't you?

Some friendly advice: the "ABC check mark" will show you where you have misspelled words and give you the correct spelling. I'm having a hard time understanding your posts.:confused:

I find the laptop keyboard constricted and the fingertip mouse bounces my cursor around. If you can't read it, tough.

The Saudis sometimes act very conservatively and they tend to be Whabis anyway. This causes problems.

I am not a Muslim, I defend them when they are subject to obvious prejudice. I am not suggesting that you are prejudiced.

However, why do you expect a non-constitutional monarchy to concern itself so much with democratic sensibilities.?

One cannot legally BE a subject of the Saudi King if one is not a Muslim, they have a very restrictive citizenship law. Foreigners enter Saudi Arabia under certain legal limitations. They do so voluntarily.

I, for one, would not go there voluntarily. I've worked with Saudis here in the US as students, and I find their attitude toward non-Saudis to be generally insufferable.

Regards,
Scott
 

Sahar

Well-Known Member
I, for one, would not go there voluntarily. I've worked with Saudis here in the US as students, and I find their attitude toward non-Saudis to be generally insufferable.
Why insufferable? Explain more what you mean, if you don't mind!
 
Top