• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Syed's Mega-Thread

Who is the dhimmi

Originally Posted by bigfield
If everyone is a Muslim then who were the dhimmi?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

If everyone is a Muslim then who had to pay the jizya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

If everyone is a Muslim then why does your god command you to fight non-Muslims and force them to pay tribute?

A dhimmī is a historical term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state. The word literally means "protected person." Wikipedia

google
A dhimmi ([ðimi]; Arabic: ذمي, meaning "protected person") refers to specific individuals living in Muslim lands, who were granted special status and safety in Islamic law in return for paying the capital tax.



it was so easy lol
 
word god, is it god of english people or generic word for allah?
Both.

Meanwhile in Malaysia, non-Muslims are banned from using the word "Allah" for their "god", despite it being the generic Arabic word for (any) "god". Because it is also, despite what you say, the name of the Muslims' "god".

they did that not for theological reason but political reason
Islam is, supposedly, not just a religion but a complete way of life (دين, deen), so you're wrong to separate the religious from the political. They're both encompassed in the دين.

arab christian use word allah more then 1400 years, there is no other word for allah then allah in arabic
 
word god, is it god of english people or generic word for allah?
Well, it's the word used for Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Tiamat, Crom, Anoia, Blind Io, Gozer, and Cthulhu. It's kind myopic to ask if the word means 'the god of the English,' it just means a supernatural being of whooping big power. It includes those worshiped, those formerly worshiped, those long forgotten and those made up for fiction.
 
You had to start a new thread for googling a word?
Huh.

So how does this fit into your claim that nonmuslims are really muslims?

this thread about dhimmi
Ah yes, the dhimmi. "Protected" from being killed, enslaved, or imprisoned by their Muslim overlords as long as they keep up the payments to their Muslim overlords... apparently the words "extortion" and "bigotry" do not exist in the Islamic world even though the acts are encouraged by the leadership.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Jizya_tax

There were a number of restrictions on dhimmis. In a modern sense the dhimmis would be described as second-class citizens.[95]

Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells and the blowing of the shofar.[96][citation needed] They were also not allowed to build or repair churches without Muslim consent.[70] Moreover, dhimmis were not allowed to seek converts among Muslims.[97][page needed] In the Mamluk Egypt, where non-Mamluk Muslims were not allowed to ride horses and camels, dhimmis were prohibited even from riding donkeys inside cities.[98] Sometimes, Muslim rulers issued regulations requiring dhimmis to attach distinctive signs to their houses.[99]

Most of the restrictions were social and symbolic in nature,[71] and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[72] The major financial disabilities of the dhimmi were the jizya poll tax and the fact dhimmis and Muslims could not inherit from each other.[71] That would create an incentive to convert if someone from the family had already converted.[70] Ira M. Lapidus states that the "payment of the poll tax seems to have been regular, but other obligations were inconsistently enforced and did not prevent many non-Muslims from being important political, business, and scholarly figures. In the late ninth and early tenth centuries, Jewish bankers and financiers were important at the 'Abbasid court."[100] The jurists and scholars of Islamic sharia law called for humane treatment of the dhimmis.[101]

Jizya tax[edit]
Main article: Jizya
Payment of the jizya obligated Muslim authorities to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. Sura 9 (At-Tawba), verse 29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease.[citation needed] Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement, death or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi (Islamic judge) of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid who ruled over much of modern-day Iraq.[102]
 
this thread about dhimmi
Ah yes, the dhimmi. "Protected" from being killed, enslaved, or imprisoned by their Muslim overlords as long as they keep up the payments to their Muslim overlords... apparently the words "extortion" and "bigotry" do not exist in the Islamic world even though the acts are encouraged by the leadership.
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax


like you pay tax to your government for your protection from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals
 
Ah yes, the dhimmi. "Protected" from being killed, enslaved, or imprisoned by their Muslim overlords as long as they keep up the payments to their Muslim overlords... apparently the words "extortion" and "bigotry" do not exist in the Islamic world even though the acts are encouraged by the leadership.
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax


like you pay tax to your government for your protection from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals
Ah yes. there are certainly people who believe that they can polish a turd enough to make it appealing.
 
Ah yes, the dhimmi. "Protected" from being killed, enslaved, or imprisoned by their Muslim overlords as long as they keep up the payments to their Muslim overlords... apparently the words "extortion" and "bigotry" do not exist in the Islamic world even though the acts are encouraged by the leadership.
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax


like you pay tax to your government for your protection from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

So you're cool with Trump's plan to make Muslim Americans pay a protection tax.
 
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax


like you pay tax to your government for your protection from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

So you're cool with Trump's plan to make Muslim Americans pay a protection tax.

american muslims do pay tax
 
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax
But you said christains and jews were muslims in the thread where you were asked to identify them.
Dhimmi are expressly non-muslims in the definition you offered in the OP.
So you're stepping on your dick yet again, Syed.
You've proven yourself wrong, or dishonest.
 
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax
But you said christains and jews were muslims in the thread where you were asked to identify them.
Dhimmi are expressly non-muslims in the definition you offered in the OP.
So you're stepping on your dick yet again, Syed.
You've proven yourself wrong, or dishonest.

But that was in a different thread.

Religious people hold inconsistent beliefs, so it is commonplace for them to consider different conversations ablut their opinions to be unrelated, and it is commonplace for them to dismiss any charge of inconsistency as somehow unreasonable - every discussion starts with a clean slate, and nothing they said in earlier conversations will be admitted as evidence.

They consider it to be extremely rude to point out that their earlier statements directly contradict their current claims. Particularly as they appear to genuinely not be aware of this - hence their ability to state, without apparent irony, their commitment to reason, logic and the scientific method, while holding beliefs that their own beliefs require cannot possibly be simultaneously true.

Hence 'All people are Muslims' is true for Syed; and 'Dhimmi are people who are non-Muslims' is true as well. Both at the same time, but never in the same conversation.
 
dhimmi simply mean protected people from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals

so jews, christians and other people who lives under islamic state pay protection tax
But you said christains and jews were muslims in the thread where you were asked to identify them.
Dhimmi are expressly non-muslims in the definition you offered in the OP.
So you're stepping on your dick yet again, Syed.
You've proven yourself wrong, or dishonest.

even if christains and jews were muslims, they still have to pay protection tax from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals
 
But you said christains and jews were muslims in the thread where you were asked to identify them.
Dhimmi are expressly non-muslims in the definition you offered in the OP.
So you're stepping on your dick yet again, Syed.
You've proven yourself wrong, or dishonest.

But that was in a different thread.

Religious people hold inconsistent beliefs, so it is commonplace for them to consider different conversations ablut their opinions to be unrelated, and it is commonplace for them to dismiss any charge of inconsistency as somehow unreasonable - every discussion starts with a clean slate, and nothing they said in earlier conversations will be admitted as evidence.

They consider it to be extremely rude to point out that their earlier statements directly contradict their current claims. Particularly as they appear to genuinely not be aware of this - hence their ability to state, without apparent irony, their commitment to reason, logic and the scientific method, while holding beliefs that their own beliefs require cannot possibly be simultaneously true.

Hence 'All people are Muslims' is true for Syed; and 'Dhimmi are people who are non-Muslims' is true as well. Both at the same time, but never in the same conversation.

christains and jews and atheists are muslims by definition of muslims
 
So you're cool with Trump's plan to make Muslim Americans pay a protection tax.

american muslims do pay tax

But they are not the only religion required to pay a tax as the Jizya under Islam requires other religions and they are not under the threat of death or slavery if they refuse to pay it or convert. The Jizya is extortion to protect those of other religions from their Muslim masters. Crime families in the US are convicted and sentenced to jail for running such protection rackets.
 
But you said christains and jews were muslims in the thread where you were asked to identify them.
Dhimmi are expressly non-muslims in the definition you offered in the OP.
So you're stepping on your dick yet again, Syed.
You've proven yourself wrong, or dishonest.

even if christains and jews were muslims, they still have to pay protection tax from hostile foreign enemies and domestic criminals
But dhimmi have to pay a SPECIAL tax, don't they? Over and above any taxes paid by muslim citizens, nu?
And they have to pay THIS tax exactly because they're not muslims.

So you're still wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

But that was in a different thread.

Religious people hold inconsistent beliefs, so it is commonplace for them to consider different conversations ablut their opinions to be unrelated, and it is commonplace for them to dismiss any charge of inconsistency as somehow unreasonable - every discussion starts with a clean slate, and nothing they said in earlier conversations will be admitted as evidence.

They consider it to be extremely rude to point out that their earlier statements directly contradict their current claims. Particularly as they appear to genuinely not be aware of this - hence their ability to state, without apparent irony, their commitment to reason, logic and the scientific method, while holding beliefs that their own beliefs require cannot possibly be simultaneously true.

Hence 'All people are Muslims' is true for Syed; and 'Dhimmi are people who are non-Muslims' is true as well. Both at the same time, but never in the same conversation.

christains and jews and atheists are muslims by definition of muslims
Except they're not muslims as indicated by the imposition of the Dhimmi tax.
 
Back
Top Bottom