Muslim Brotherhood Forces Christians To Either Convert Or Pay Jizya

Muslim_Brotherhood_LogoThe Muslim Brotherhood has continued its crackdown on Christians and has now implemented a tax or Jizya for Christian Copts who do not agree to convert to Islam. Based on Koran 9:29, Christians are being told in Dalga that they must pay jizya or tribute to their Muslim overlords as described in the Koran.


The tribute varies from 200 to 500 Egyptian pounds per day. If families cannot pay, they are reportedly attacked and 40 families have now fled the village.

The same demand has been seen among Syrian rebels who reportedly have gave a shopkeeper three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax on non-Muslims or be killed with his family. The same practice has been noted in Iraq with Islamic militants.

Jizya seems a wonderful example of how religion can be used for simple extortion, but the culprits claim the imprimatur of God. It is the same logic that allows the killing of Christians and burning of churches in a “moral outrage” over the showing of a disrespectful film or anti-Islamic cartoon.

92 thoughts on “Muslim Brotherhood Forces Christians To Either Convert Or Pay Jizya”

  1. Liar?

    Hardly.

    What I said was “the two leading causes of death related to overt or covert warfare are religion and greed”, David. You didn’t say how many of those wars were started over greed. Religion is often used as a justification for wars based in greed, as I said, “sometimes conjoined.” Combined, those two top the charts, followed closely by political ideology (often in the form of nationalism). The causes of war, again – as I said, are complicated and I did stipulate that what I said was a simplification. That you took a simplification as a literal ranking is your stupidity. Perhaps I’ll start constructing sentences as if I’m talking to a dim child or a dog so you won’t get confused in the future.

    Also, you calling anyone a liar given that you lie to yourself about something so basic as your own sexuality doesn’t hold a lot of weight with me or anyone else I’m guessing.

    1. DavidM wrote to GeneH: “You claim that religion and greed as the two leading causes of death by warfare. Do you have some reference to a study with actual mathematical analysis to back this up? Or is this really just your opinion and not actual historical fact?”

      You responded: “Do your own homework.”

      Now you say: “You didn’t say how many of those wars were started over greed.”

      I have read numerous texts on the subject. I gave one little short quip concerning just one book that attempts to put a mathematical statistic on the religious motivation because many historians agree that when digging deeper into the subject, the idea of religion being the reason is just a common misperception. Some of the historians make a strong case that even the Crusades did not have much to do with religion because when territories were won, they continued to haggle over them among themselves and divided up lands not based upon religion. The original stated religious goal clearly was camouflage for other motivations.

      In any case, I wasn’t trying to make a case to you. I only asked you to provide actual scientific support of your bold statement that contradicts actual academic research on the subject. I asked politely, but you told me to do my own homework and tossed some ad hominem epithets for good measure. So now I say to you: “Do your own homework.” I have no desire to enlighten your mind about anything.

  2. I have a simpleton solution to wars, like all my solutions, overly simple.

    Have the leadership of both countries who are bent on attacking the other nation put into an arena on opposite sides for them to settle the dispute in “man to man” fashion. If they can solve their differences, fine let them out. If they don’t let them fight it out themselves and until they have come to their senses, let them out. That way they can have the battle they hope for and no civilians or others get hurt. If none of them come out, well at least it was only they that were the casualties.

  3. David, the few reviews I could find on that three volume set Encyclopedia of Wars, they weren’t all that favorable. Also, while the ostensible purpose of many wars is political, the underlying driving psychodynamic is religion. Take the Jacobite rebellion as one example. It was really about returning a Catholic to the throne of England, but many historians simplify it as a power grab by the Stuarts. Additionally, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the motivation of the Nazis did not have a religious undertone, as well as racism. Some of the longest and bloodiest conflicts, once you dig down into the details, at the end of the day, were about religion. No matter what any compilation says, I doubt seriously anyone knows, or is able to know, how much influence religion had in both wars and pogroms. I know it is enough to make baby Jesus weep.

  4. As an aside, me and a friend were once discussing the hypothetical question “What would be the first law you’d make or action you’d take if you ran the country or the world?” He’s a very silly person, but his answer does kind of make sense. John said, “I’d institute ‘Mandatory Puppy Hour’ every day because it’s impossible to be angry after you’ve been playing with a puppy.” Silly or not, he may have been on to something.

  5. The causes of war are fairly complicated as a social dynamic but they are all caused by social and/or economic friction. Frustration, deprivation, aggression, misperception, cognitive dissonance, expectations, and righteousness all factor in, but if you trace the causal roots of those psychological factors, they all relate to religion (the primary shaper of societies until the modern age) and greed (“We don’t have enough stuff or the same stuff they have.” or the personal lust for power by leadership which in itself is a form of greed.). I will stipulate that what I said was a simplification, but it was neither an inaccurate nor fallacious simplification.

    Bron, read something other than Rand. It rots your brain. It has been demonstrated time and again in this forum that her understanding of political science (and economics) is both disastrously wrong and rooted in her trauma and mental illness but not any substantive understanding of either subject on her part. Your new habit of cutting and pasting her reminds me of people who quote scripture as if it were sufficient argument in and of itself. It is not.

    As for you, David? Do your own homework. Based on the quality of work displayed to date, I fully expect you to come to the wrong conclusions.

    1. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod, Facts on File, December 2004) of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them were classified as having been fought over religious differences. That’s just under 7 percent. The number of people killed in these conflicts amounts to only 2 percent.

  6. “Water under the bridge”?

    Congratulations on making the dumbest statement of the year. No doubt you’d make the same stupid statement to the Southern Poverty Law Centre when they hunt KKK members, or you’d say it to those who hunt Nazi war criminals. Or you’d say it to adults who were the victims of pedopriests as children, and women who were raped years ago but the rapists never caught.

    9/11 was “water under the bridge” by 2010. So why was the US still looking for Bin Laden?

  7. P Smith:

    how long ago was that?

    When was the last time Christians did that?

    Seems to me that is water under the bridge.

  8. Aaaaand, how is that any different than what christians did to the moors and jews in Spain (and elsewhere)?

    Forced conversion and fealty under the threat of punishment and/or death is nothing new. The only difference is, those whining about it today are upset about being the targets – when they were the ones targeting others, they were all for oppression and genocide.

  9. DavidM:

    “Statism—in fact and in principle—is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country’s economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.

    Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

    Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

    Observe that in World War II, both Germany and Russia seized and dismantled entire factories in conquered countries, to ship them home—while the freest of the mixed economies, the semi-capitalistic United States, sent billions worth of lend-lease equipment, including entire factories, to its allies.

    Germany and Russia needed war; the United States did not and gained nothing. (In fact, the United States lost, economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to this day.) Yet it is capitalism that today’s peace-lovers oppose and statism that they advocate—in the name of peace.”

    The Roots of War
    Ayn Rand

  10. DavidM:

    I always thought religion was an excuse to fight wars not the cause.

    People always blame other things for human failings.

    And greed as a cause of war? That is almost laughable, since war destroys and costs money to wage.

    I want money so I go destroy another country? When I could make more money trading with them and make a friend and business partner?

    And anyway only government can wage war, at least in this country.

    “What is economic power? It is the power to produce and to trade what one has produced. In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

    Wealth, in a free market, is achieved by a free, general, “democratic” vote—by the sales and the purchases of every individual who takes part in the economic life of the country. Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of some manufacturer. And, in this type of voting, every man votes only on those matters which he is qualified to judge: on his own preferences, interests, and needs. No one has the power to decide for others or to substitute his judgment for theirs; no one has the power to appoint himself “the voice of the public” and to leave the public voiceless and disfranchised.

    Now let me define the difference between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.”

    Ayn Rand

  11. Darren Smith 1, September 12, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Gene:

    I am curious you might have more info than I do so I would like to know the answer to this.

    I had suspected that the largest killer of humans, from homicidal means, were governments (including monarchies) . Is religious leadership more than this or less. I’m not talking about what might have been the underlying cause / excuse, just who ordered the attacks.

    ……………………….

    Gene H. 1, September 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    Darren,

    Hard to answer for the following reason: for much of human history, some form of theocracy – from the God-King Pharaohs of Egypt to the Monarchs by Divine Right of Europe – was the norm. King and Clergy were often indistinguishable.
    =============================================
    The Judeo-Christian scriptures indicate that war, murder, and lies originated in heaven:

    “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.” (Ezek. 28:14-16)

    “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”  (Rev. 12:7-9).

    “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)

    The narrative in the text is that there was a being who was perfect until no longer that way, and thus a war began, ending up with the devil out of heaven and down to the Earth to cause trouble.

    Both Islam and Christianity have variations on that theme.

  12. Things are not the same everywhere:

    “Syria has for much of the century had a sizeable Christian minority, making up at least 10% of the population.
    ***
    In recent years Syria has been considered one of the easier Middle Eastern countries for Christians to live in. Power is concentrated in the hands of the Alawite minority – a Shia sect considered heretical by many Muslims – which has clamped down hard on extreme forms of Islam.”

    (BBC).

  13. David,

    Most country’s outside the US reject separation of church and state…

  14. Darren,

    Hard to answer for the following reason: for much of human history, some form of theocracy – from the God-King Pharaohs of Egypt to the Monarchs by Divine Right of Europe – was the norm. King and Clergy were often indistinguishable. That’s why causation becomes the critical distinction. Very often a war for resources was justified using the trappings of religion although some were straight out “I want your stuff”. Some wars – the Crusades being the obvious example – the causation is inexorably intertwined. A twisted version of the old Lite Beer commercials: “Kill the Infidel!” – “Steal Their Stuff!” – “Kill the Infidel!” – “Steal Their Stuff!”

    Tangentially, it was really Imperial Rome that innovated not spreading religion as a method of colonial pacification. Up to that point, the victor usually spread their religion to new territory under the theory that converts to a common faith are less likely to rebel. Sometimes this worked, often it didn’t. The Romans took the exact opposite approach, letting the locals keep their local traditions so long as they paid their taxes and contributed troops for the Legions. It was a truly innovative tactic and effective practice.

  15. Religion and greed. Same thing. Different strokes for different folks. Remember that God created Dog on the Eighth Day, not the Ninth Day as some would hold. Dog was sent down to keep mankind from killing each other over dumb religious notions. Notice that in territories where dogs are revered there is less bigotry. Give a dog a bone and thank dog you are not living in some muslim place where they eat dogs.

  16. Gene:

    I am curious you might have more info than I do so I would like to know the answer to this.

    I had suspected that the largest killer of humans, from homicidal means, were governments (including monarchies) . Is religious leadership more than this or less. I’m not talking about what might have been the underlying cause / excuse, just who ordered the attacks.

  17. In the history of mankind, the two leading causes of death related to overt or covert warfare are religion and greed, sometimes conjoined. That is simply a historical fact. Political ideology is a distant third and it still manages quite the impressive body count although that is a fairly new thing in human history. Before the late 18th Century, religion and greed (be it for resources and/or power) are the prime drivers of human warfare. I know this because history tells me so.

    1. Gene H wrote: “In the history of mankind, the two leading causes of death related to overt or covert warfare are religion and greed, sometimes conjoined. That is simply a historical fact. Political ideology is a distant third and it still manages quite the impressive body count although that is a fairly new thing in human history.”

      You claim that religion and greed as the two leading causes of death by warfare. Do you have some reference to a study with actual mathematical analysis to back this up? Or is this really just your opinion and not actual historical fact?

      I read recently that military deaths in Afghanistan under President Obama has exceeded deaths under President Bush. Furthermore, deaths from drone attacks is four times what it was under Bush. I think most people would consider that religious motivation for President Bush would be greater than for Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama.

      We might also note that the U.S.A. prides itself as a secular government with separation of church and state, yet we probably are now leading all other countries in having an inclination toward imperialism and aggressive war. If religion is the leading cause, wouldn’t we expect secular nations to be less responsible for killing by war?

  18. Approximatelhy 300 years ago, more or less depending on where you were, it became unfashionable in Christianity to kill other Christians for not believing in the “correct” way. Christianity is a little over 600 years older than Islam. Do we have to wait another 300 years?

    1. Dave wrote: “Approximatelhy 300 years ago … it became unfashionable in Christianity to kill other Christians for not believing in the “correct” way.”

      Actually, it was more than 300 years after Christianity began before there was any killing of Christians by other Christians. What happened then? The emperor Constantine became a Christian. Killing happens primarily from government. Sometimes religion is used as a cloak to hide this fact that government is the source of the use of force and death.

      So what happened in Christianity 300 years ago that made it “unfashionable” for Christians to kill other Christians? Theologians and philosophers articulated a doctrine of separation of church and state as a principle of freedom and liberty. The effect of such resonated so well with the conscience of men, that even a theocracy like Great Britain has been affected such that while they do not officially separate church and state, they basically operate in a way that is not much different from countries like the U.S.A. which officially do separate church and state.

      Islam rejects the separation of church and state, so there will never be freedom and true democracy in Islamic republics like Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, Syria has a doctrine of separation of church and state, but President Obama is sending weapons to the Islamic rebels fighting in the name of their god. What a mess.

Comments are closed.