it has been tested, practised and proven in the past, muslims dominated the world for many centuries in terms of technological advance and modernity, when Cordoba, Damascus and Baghdad had street lamps and libraries Paris and London were plunged into darkness and plagues This really bothers me, this point that almost everyone you talk to about the fallacies of medieval thought comes back with is some past glory that a certain historical muslim nation had achieved. This shows more than anything a case of identity crises as the modern times seem bare of anything worth bragging about so you would sustain a semblance of self worth through bragging about a period of history where arabs expanded their empire to Cordoba? Why don't you tell me what the Somalis were doing at that time? Technologically, artistically, scientifically? You were still in the same place that you occupy today. What is it to you if Baghdad was a bustling corner of human thought? And if you still want to brag about those long gone days, would you still bring this up to a Han Chinese or an Italian? They would simply bring up the han dynasty that had ruled a united China for about 400 years, and a Roman Empire that last several hundred years, then what? Anyways, I digress.

MoonLight1;971166 wrote: Yes your right, the current Muslim world is not an example of technological advance and modernity thanks to the dictators you and the west support, those dictators who's sole goal was to fill their pockets and pass the heir to their sons after their demise, those dictators promised us modernity if we sideline Islam, but we had an imitating modernity which made us leave our religion and not become "moderns", Muslim states which sucessfuly implemented real modernity & technological advances without side-lining Islam are Malaysia, and Turkey which are Today's world power houses. The notion of "Islam is the salvation" is not an empty slogan, it has been tested, practised and proven in the past, muslims dominated the world for many centuries in terms of technological advance and modernity, when Cordoba, Damascus and Baghdad had street lamps and libraries Paris and London were plunged into darkness and plagues, So my point is, Islam has been proven to be adaptable to modernity and encourages technological advance but with its values and boundaries, today's extremism does not reflect on real Islam which has been hijacked by a group of reactionary groups. My friend you are confused. What your so called 'dictators' promised you was a strict implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Saudi Arabia. Now tell me where that got them? Its easy for you to blame the dictators for your faults, but they are products of their environments, are they not? Was Mullah Omar a dictator? I say this because he came to power in almost the same manner that the first Caliph Abu Baker came to power, so please tell me what makes him a dictator? Now are you sure you want to cite Malaysia and Turkey as Islamic countries? Because I am then inclined to ask you why then do they not abide by full Sharia Laws? My question in the post that you've quoted was Where today has the flower of Islam blossomed into a modern society that both adheres to strict fundamental laws of Islam and yet functions as an example of this brave 'shin sekai' new world? So I am afraid neither Malaysia nor Turkey fit this description, as they are both examples of two secular countries with predominantly muslim populations, this is especially true in Turkey the creation of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (father of Turks) with its constitution that asserts that Turkey is a secular and democratic, republic. So tell me, please: Where today has the flower of Islam blossomed into a modern society that both adheres to strict fundamental laws of Islam and yet functions as an example of this brave 'modern' new world? first of all Morsy never had the time and the authority to implement his policies, as one western commentator said "he was a president who had power, but no authority", this is true, the entire Egyptian organs of governing institutions such as the High court, the lower court, the army, the police ranks, the intelligence service, the Cairo stock exchange, even the Egyptian state tv &radio were out of his authority and could not touch them to reform since they were in the hands of Mubarakites and Seculars, in simpler terms, this guy was a toothless president who could not even change governors without the army and media harassments, plus, the daily barrages of protests he endured from these seculars and the negative effects this had on the Egyptian economy and tourism made many simple people who depended on these trades turn against and denounce him. with all these negative impacts on his presidency let me ask you a question, tell me a government in this world which achieved miracles in 360 days? bury in mind Morsy inherited a 60 years old economical mess, infrastructure decline and a patient-less young generation. Are YOU serious? We are talking about a man who won the country's first free election (all be it with emotional slogans ala islam is the answer, but I digress), supported by the most organised and prepared political/religious party in the country and with Qatar, a leading regional state taking a personal interest in having him see his presidential term through. He was just part of a certain Muslim Brotherhood, a leading islamist group that fought so hard to rule and once they got there realised (to their despair) that perhaps Islam was never the answer. They worked the constitution in Morsi's infamous constitutional declaration giving Mursi pretty much all the power he needs, they had majorities in both houses of the Egyptian Parliament, they had gotten rid of the only serious problem they had faced in the heads of the Egyptian Military (I am talking about the head of the army Field Marshal Tantawi and his right hand man Annan) and they had their own media instruments to use. So spare me the 'toothless president' narrative because that is one thing Mursi was not. It was a simple case of the islamists failing to deliver on their promise and the people of Egypt responding to that. Your last question is surely rhetorical, as you are practically asking me to find an other country in exact social and historical position Egypt found her self in post Mubarak, and then to give you not a success but a 'miracle' that its president performed Dude, you cant be serious!

Where today has the flower of Islam blossomed into a modern society that both adheres to strict fundamental laws of Islam and yet functions as an example of this brave 'shin sekai' new world? Tell me about the technological dominance of Afghanistan? The military supremacy of Saudi Arabia? The thought factory that is the Islamic Republic of Mauritania? I would love to hear about all that! but the late chain of events and the Arab spring are changing the landscape and slowly but surely people are realising Islam is the salvation Funnily enough the islamists in Egypt won the elections carrying banners that said just that, with chants of islam is the salvation but look what happened to them! They could not deliver on their promise. Where you see a change in the landscape for islamists I point you to this current chain of events in this very thread my friend! What happened to the islamists of Egypt? Where is the dear leader, Mohamed Mursi Al Ayaat? Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path].

Dude, take a chill pill. Where you have provided your own analysis and thought I've included Quran and Fatwas by Islamic scholars. As to the points raised by Hobbesian Brute, they too were well backed by Hadith, so please either respond with Quran and Hadith or scholarly sources or just leave this discussion.

DoctorKenney;970695 wrote: Actually, no. Zakat is very much a tax which is paid to the Islamic State and is administered by the Caliph himself. Who are you to intentionally distort these facts when it is well documented that after the Prophet (pbuh) died, Abu Bake took over as his successor and there were various Arab tribes in the Najd area who refused to pay their Zakat (although they still believed in Islam) and Abu Bakr organized a war against them for that reason (Sahih Muslim 0029) The same way how in the United States, people here who refuse to pay their income tax are imprisoned and in some instances have their properties seized. So Zakat is very much a tax, whilst "Sadaqah" is something optional which you can decide to give however much you want. Either way, Non-Muslims shouldn't be surprised that they would have to pay a tax in order to live in the Islamic State, and the Jizyah tax is normally very light (under 2% of your income) You are wrong my friend. Your level of ignorance is one not to belittle, let me tell you: There are strict beneficiaries of Zakat as listed above and in accordance to the Quran: إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَاِبْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ You pay Zakat for the sake of your own salvation and as such there is no repercussions to evading Zakat (at least in this lifetime) as Mr Mohamed Bins Saleh al Authaimeen says: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UTqzA_jX7-MC&pg=PA298&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Now what Mr Abubaker did was very much a political decision to keep the Califat together under his rule. Zakat is one of the five pillars of islam and as with the rest of the pillars of islam it can not be enforced on the general population. I would like to see the government force people to Salat or Hajj or to Fast even, its impossible my friend.

Hi there, that was an excellent point you made there in the Jizya vs Zakat discussion. I can no longer post there for some reason, as my posts are required to be screened by a mod apparently. Anyways, I was wondering if you could post my response in the thread? DoctorKenney;970695 wrote: Actually, no. Zakat is very much a tax which is paid to the Islamic State and is administered by the Caliph himself. Who are you to intentionally distort these facts when it is well documented that after the Prophet (pbuh) died, Abu Bake took over as his successor and there were various Arab tribes in the Najd area who refused to pay their Zakat (although they still believed in Islam) and Abu Bakr organized a war against them for that reason (Sahih Muslim 0029) The same way how in the United States, people here who refuse to pay their income tax are imprisoned and in some instances have their properties seized. So Zakat is very much a tax, whilst "Sadaqah" is something optional which you can decide to give however much you want. Either way, Non-Muslims shouldn't be surprised that they would have to pay a tax in order to live in the Islamic State, and the Jizyah tax is normally very light (under 2% of your income) You are wrong my friend. Your level of ignorance is one not to belittle, let me tell you: There are strict beneficiaries of Zakat as listed above and in accordance to the Quran: إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَاِبْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ You pay Zakat for the sake of your own salvation and as such there is no repercussions to evading Zakat (at least in this lifetime) as Mr Mohamed Bins Saleh al Authaimeen says: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UTqzA_jX7-MC&pg=PA298&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Now what Mr Abubaker did was very much a political decision to keep the Califat together under his rule. Zakat is one of the five pillars of islam and as with the rest of the pillars of islam it can not be enforced on the general population. I would like to see the government force people to Salat or Hajj or to Fast even, its impossible my friend. Do not come on this website, register, and then immediately decide to give arguments on subjects you know little about You are wrong yet again my friend, for I have been a member of these quarters far longer than you. Check yourself before you wreck yourself brother!

DoctorKenney;970695 wrote: Actually, no. Zakat is very much a tax which is paid to the Islamic State and is administered by the Caliph himself. Who are you to intentionally distort these facts when it is well documented that after the Prophet (pbuh) died, Abu Bake took over as his successor and there were various Arab tribes in the Najd area who refused to pay their Zakat (although they still believed in Islam) and Abu Bakr organized a war against them for that reason (Sahih Muslim 0029) The same way how in the United States, people here who refuse to pay their income tax are imprisoned and in some instances have their properties seized. So Zakat is very much a tax, whilst "Sadaqah" is something optional which you can decide to give however much you want. Either way, Non-Muslims shouldn't be surprised that they would have to pay a tax in order to live in the Islamic State, and the Jizyah tax is normally very light (under 2% of your income) You are wrong my friend. Your level of ignorance is one not to belittle, let me tell you: There are strict beneficiaries of Zakat as listed above and in accordance to the Quran: إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَاِبْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ You pay Zakat for the sake of your own salvation and as such there is no repercussions to evading Zakat (at least in this lifetime) as Mr Mohamed Bins Saleh al Authaimeen says: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UTqzA_jX7-MC&pg=PA298&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Now what Mr Abubaker did was very much a political decision to keep the Califat together under his rule. Zakat is one of the five pillars of islam and as with the rest of the pillars of islam it can not be enforced on the general population. I would like to see the government force people to Salat or Hajj or to Fast even, its impossible my friend. Do not come on this website, register, and then immediately decide to give arguments on subjects you know little about You are wrong yet again my friend, for I have been a member of these quarters far longer than you. Check yourself before you wreck yourself brother!

DoctorKenney;967872 wrote: Stop with these Mickey Mouse arguments. They make no sense. Under Shariah, Muslims have to pay this special tax on their income called a "Zakat". Have you heard of Zakat? Do you know what it is? Are you actually insisting that Muslims are forced to pay a tax (which is what Zakat essentially is, it's a tax) but the Christians/Jews should be exempt from paying any taxes, despite the fact that they're citizens of the State and share in the rights of responsibilities of everyone else? How dare you call these double standards fair? I fully support the application of the Jizyah tax. You are either ignorant of the facts or pure delusional because what is written above is absolutely false. Zakat is effectively an act of piety, and one of the pillars of Islam. Paying Zakat fulfills one of your obligations as a practicing muslim but it certainly could not be considered a tax that a government would use in public expenditure. For Zakat has very specific and named recipients and according to the Quran there would be eight categories who would have access to Zakat funds: The impoverished The poor Zakat collectors Bribing people to either join Islam or 'sweetener' money for those newly muslims Free tge slaves, or blood money Pay debts for those who would not be otherwise able to Jihad Travellers Now refusal to pay Zakat hasnt any specific punishment in Sharia laws, at least in this lifetime whereas refusal to pay Jizya puts you in the bad book. When I say bad books I mean if you refuse to pay Jizya your life and assets become permissible. So Jizya and Zakat are two very different things my friend.

Did you write all of that or are you one of those copy & paste generals?

The Google Ngram viewer searches 5.2 million books published between 1800 and 2000, recording uses of single words and phrases. In amusing myself with various graphs I came upon one that is shockingly simple in its presentation of Somaliland's case: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Somalia%2CSomaliland%2CDjibouti&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= Adiós mi gente nos vemos!