There is a controversial measure introduced in Tennessee by State Sen. Kerry Roberts to make the Bible the official book of the state. Roberts insists that this is just a recognition of the historical importance of the book and not any elevation of the Bible over other books of faith. That is less convincing to many who view the measure as an official endorsement of, if not an entanglement with, Christianity.
Roberts insists that the Bible is merely being acknowledged as the book relied upon by George Washington in his inauguration: “He used the Bible for his swearing in. The attitude of these people was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep government out of religion.”
There is a legitimate debate over the purpose of the entanglement clause and whether it was solely meant to prevent the creation of an official religion. Some have argued that the framers were not opposed to general religious influence on government.
However, regardless of your view of meaning of the religious clauses, this is still a uniquely bad idea. For those who truly believe in fostering faith, the selection of the book of one faith (or two if you include the Old Testament as advancing a Judeo-Christian understanding) is neither inclusive nor supportive of all faiths. The Tennessean was particularly blistering in its editorial.
Try telling that to the editorial board of The Tennessean. Calling Roberts and his colleagues “theocrats,” the newspaper objected that “This is Tennessee, not Tehran. We are governed by the people, not the religious authorities.”
What is amazing to me is that this measure does not advance faith but a faith. It also creates a glaring conflict for agnostics and atheists in Tennessee. The question is why create such conflicts rather than honor the Bible in your own families and churches and private schools. The Framers were first and foremost concerned about individual liberty and freedom to think and live and pray according to our own values and beliefs.
Despite the rise of faith-based politics, those of faith should be the first to demand neutrality on religion to protect the free exercise of faith. These are many of the same people who openly warn about the encroachment of Sharia laws and other faiths into governmental programs or regulations. Putting aside the low likelihood of such developments, the greatest protection is found in the separation of church and state — not the erosion of separation principles through measures like the Bible bill in Tennessee. Where Roberts can demand that the Bible be honored as the official state book today, what is to stop another move to do so with the Torah (as the older book of Judeo-Christian traditions) or even the Koran under other claims of historical significance. These are merely majoritarian votes after all. The point is that, simply because you currently have the votes, does not remove any need for judgment or restraint.
The greatest demonstration of faith is to protect all faiths and not to try to place any one religious book higher than the rest. We are living at a time of religious extremism around the world. The United States represents a shining example of a place where all faiths flourish without violence or official favoritism. Despite their claims of being protectors of morality, I have never viewed Saudi Arabia or Iran as truly supporters of faith. They are the very opposite in flogging, arresting, or executing those who hold other religious views. We represent a system that truly values faith and protects free exercise. This is done not only in preventing government restrictions on faith but guaranteeing a separation of our government from our faiths. We manage the secular work of our government and leave matters of faith where they belong: with our families or our churches and temples and mosques.
By the way, there are various books based in Tennessee (“Tennessee Williams” would seem a logical choice but he was actually born in Mississippi and received that nickname due to the fact that his family came from the Volunteer State).
Very happy to see that the governor vetoed this ridiculous bill
UPDATE:
The governor of Tennessee sensibly vetoed this absurd piece of legislation today. But I’m sure there’ll be an intense effort to override.
Po
No discussion necessary. It is a state matter period. As for Values, this word has been polluted in the debates for President. For example, Trump stated NY Firefighters on 911 demonstrated values. Wrong! That was heroism. That was their job. Yet, Millions of people just oohed and awed. Values guide our principles which in turn come from the depths of our soul. Religion or Faith is at that center point. The disguise however needing to be uncovered is the motive on which an act takes place. This is where politics and religion cross roads. Politicians act in the name of caring but their true motive is re-election. They even will respond with a motive based upon Religious beliefs. At the end of the day, none of it matters if done for the wrong reason. What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world only to lose his soul?
Jim
You wrote “Wrong, That was heroism. That was their job.”
It wasn’t “values.”
For me the ultimate description of hero is found in
The Medal of Honor – “above and beyond”
The recipients did more than their job. To a person they reflect that it was for their buddies. No thought for their “job.” The value found within the “band of brothers.”
There is nothing in a fireman’s contract which requires them to walk into extremely dangerous environs. Lifeguards are not legally required to jeopardize their lives to save a swimmer. As I served as a lifeguard, the basic rule was to use all other assets before making actual physical contact. Swimmers in distress are extremely dangerous. At poolside, use the pole or life ring.
the firemen responded to danger by going to the scene as was their job. To enter the building was their job, but at some point their performance exceeds the job and becomes “above and beyond.” Value, which was always there, moves to the fore.
I go out on patrol into dangerous territory and engage the enemy…I took an oath to do so. So did my team. If somebody takes extremely dangerous action to take out the enemy?? It is an amalgam of “job” and value. We were trained to so but the values of the brotherhood takes over. Ask any of us if we were thinking about our contracts or the regs…..Nah,, it’s all about our teammates. The values of duty, honor, country, always faithful, always ready, Navy Hymn…..
There is no way to separate values from “job.” Why does a mother scrub floors to get a child through school? Consider the full spectrum involved.
Jim
1, April 8, 2016 at 11:06 am
po and renegade
Po as for your lengthy column, you said absolutely nothing. All rambling and nothing to do with Tennessee.
————————
Jim
You are right, I said nothing about the larger topic, Tennessee.
My topic was about something else, what Steve, Renegade and I were discussing.
What, you want to force us to discuss Tennessee and the Bible?
how much you got?
Renegade
The honor is all mine, discussing ideas is a pleasure and worthy endeavor, and doing it with care and fairness is a blessing truly.
Regarding:
“I do have to say that your response actually proved my assertions that we can’t be “human” without those two “qualities”,/i>
No doubt, I do not mean to say that politics and religions are not human or unnecessary. To quote my wife :”you spend all your time discussing politics and religion!”
What I am saying is that both are more prominent/necessary the larger the societal structure., and lesser so the smaller the societal unit.
The issue we have as people is that at some point we cease relating to people individually, instead relating to one another as member of different groups. My wife, for example, is ready to vote for Hillary, I am not. If we start defining our relationship by our outer political identity (democrat vs independent/artificial Politics) vs our inner political identity (man/woman, husband/wife, parents, lovers/ natural politics), the outer overwhelms the inner, the artificial overwhelms the natural and the disruptions we experience in our relationship will not only undermine the most basic societal unit, our family, but will also undermine the larger societal unit.
Take a look at the Bernie supporters. They are a diverse bunch, of different political orientation, religion, age, gender, experience and means…what they are able to do is to reduce the function of politics and religion in their individual sensitivity to what they share, humanity and the appeal of fairness. Obviously in that they are being political, and in that they are still responding to their religious identity, but their political and religious identity are tools used to further humanism rather than their humanity being used to further their political and religious causes.
“The reason your friends of different or “non” faith structures get along so well? There isn’t any real survival (lethal ?) issue. It would not take much to get even really good friends to “turn”. Basic values will take over, and where did the values come from?”
Here I disagree that the nature of humanity is to compete and turn beast like before competing interest. The nature of humanity is to cooperate and close ranks before the threat, whatever it is. Let us again return to the principle of the smaller societal unit, the family. The nature of family members it to share with one another and help one another. Such instinct also extends to the village when, let;’s say they face an outer threat. And then to the town and country. That is how our religious and political leaders can convince us to take up arms against the “”öthers””, other families, other villages, other countries. But without the demonization of the other at the core of Politics and Religion, people cooperate and help one another. Think of the worst cases of famines, drought, flooding, war, and you see that the unit, whatever it is at the moment, rather than throwing one another to the wolves, cooperates to benefit and empower the whole.
This is one of the things we share with animals, they too cooperate and close ranks before the threat for they know if is necessary for their survival.
For them as for us however, the large the society, the more diffuse those elements are and the less they bound people. If I move from the village to the city and I don’t know my next door neighbors, yes, when the ish hit the fan, we will compete for resources. However, if I am at the village where I know everyone, or I have lived long enough in town to know my neighbors, rather than competing for resources, I’ll check on them, they’ll check on us and we will cooperate.
“In all of this, I think that an even deeper discussion would require agreement as to the fundamental definitions of
Political – Politics
Religion – Faith(?)”
Agreed!
po and renegade
Po as for your lengthy column, you said absolutely nothing. All rambling and nothing to do with Tennessee. Renegade shame on you for taking the bait and commenting on that ridiculousness. This is a state matter. The state has voted to make their official book the Bible. They have that right. It only applies to that state no different than their state bird or flower. All this other talk is to no avail.
Jim
Nice try…..
Nick, thank you for proving my point.
Renegade,
What defines us as human beings comes before our self-subjective-societal definitions as atheist, muslim, christian, capitalist or communist.
Whether we believe in Adam or Eve or we believe in the steady evolution from fish to Nick (in the short term) or fish to Steve (in the longer term), we must remember that whatever we believe defines us is very much a fraction of our communal history as humanity, and more often than not very random.
Most of the factions/identities we claim, the ones we are ready to fight for and too often to kill for are ones we never had much of a say in to begin with. None among us decided where to be born, what name to take, how tall to be, in how rich of a family… whether even a boy or a girl….
Most of us never even question our religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Obviously we can never truly rid ourselves of religion or politics, both obviously/necessarily are a corollary of society, and the larger more complex the society, the larger and more complex the religious and political interactions.
However, both religion and politics are not society, both serve a specific, narrow function in society, and that is solely to better regulate and protect societal interests, but keeping in mind that societal interest is the communalization of individual interests. That is to say that religion or politics should NOT cause us to sacrifice the individual to the communal, for without valuing and serving the individual, there is no communal with which to make a society.
Let us just imagine the smallest societal unit, the family. What is the value of politics and religion to it? Very little. Let’s build up on that family unit, let us make it a village of 10 families. Right away we see that the religious and political interactions become more complex. And it goes up from there in complexity as we become a town, a city, a country…
If we remember however that the core element that defines any society is the smallest unit, the individual to individual relationships and interactions, and we manage those and salvage them and insure they are even and fair, and we manage to imbue such standards to the more complex societal interactions, family, neighborly…we would be fine.
That is how some of my closest friends can be atheist, Jewish and Christian…that they can be from here or foreigners…that they can be republican and democrat…that they are women and men, young and old…. why? Because we do not allow religion and politics to dictate who we are to each other. That comes from a deeper source, one that tells us that to see each other as human is the truest way to be.
Now, if we ponder on religion and politics, we realize that both are the opposite sides of the same coins. Both are the tools of elites who either believe they know what is best for us and are adamant in giving it to us, or are claiming they do in order to control us. More often than not, they have their better interest at heart than they do ours.
Regarding justice vs fairness vs… great question!
I generally do not use the words justice and equality, because the former is too vague and the latter does not take in consideration the differences between people. Justice, equality, morality…all of those words exist in relation to society, not in relation to the individual. And that makes it hard to deal with those words for they invite a third power in, the state power, as ultimate arbiter. Even words like politics and religion do not convey the basic idea of individual relationships, rather they make those subject to higher control.
Fairness however is a great word because it exists in relation to individuals. To be fair is simply to not take an action that harms another individual, or one that does not harm that individual beyond the measure of the harm he caused.
Even if we take the world capitalism, whatever great a system some claim it is, is it greater than fair trade?
Isn’t the ideal of capitalism fair trade? Fair suggests a two-sided agreement, where all parties decide on their own that the terms for the transactions are agreeable.
Fair trade has been the standard for commerce for most of humanity, barter, salt for meat, gold for spices, fish for leather…the basics of human relationships, the one to one exchange, cleared of the politics, of the religious, of the control, the “leadership”and the self-interest
PO
Truly enjoyed and am honored for the reasoning and time taken.
I do have to say that your response actually proved my assertions that we can’t be “human” without those two “qualities”. Not that they are the only fundamental ones. A standard of conduct is political (people governing people) in and of itself. A standard is also based on some primal or pervasive orientation agreed to by those in relationship. (A common source….the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pantheists, Buddhists…..all hold to a sense of “other”, albeit the spectrum is wide.)
As for the family unit or your associations, everyone has a pervasive orientation to life, and while I might suggest that even a solitary person on an island is political (Tom Hanks and a volleyball), I would focus on any triad or larger amalgam. Even the groups (that is the first “generation”) in Haight-Ashbury discovered that people governed people??….no such thing as “let it be”.
The reason your friends of different or “non” faith structures get along so well? There isn’t any real survival (lethal ?) issue. It would not take much to get even really good friends to “turn”. Basic values will take over, and where did the values come from?
It could be as simple as releasing a non-lethal pathogen (or a simple drink additive) but convincing the group that the one(s) with certain symptoms are lethal threats to the children, and time is short. The absolutely horrid modern examples? Cambodia (a homogeneous people) or Yugoslavia (post-Tito).
In all of this, I think that an even deeper discussion would require agreement as to the fundamental definitions of
Political – Politics
Religion – Faith(?)
Currently my biggest irritant? A Home Owners Association. I’m reminded of Churchill’s evaluation of democracy, beats the alternatives. Here I am complaining about an HOA while downtown Seattle is trying to figure out what to do with the tent people under a highway ramp.
Great for Tennessee! A state can do what it wants. The Federal Constitution specifically states “Congress shall ….” This a state issue and if they want their official book to be the Bible then go for it!
A Muslim and atheist love fest. Their common denominator, why they hate capitalism. So, money trumps religion, or lack of it, as it were.
Nick, money trumps religion? I won’t ask how you deciphered that conclusion.
Nick, you have problems with people getting along, whether they’re Muslim or atheist? What about protestants and the Roman Catholic horde which hates them? You better hit the confessional on the way home.
Po
Also, want to address how “fairness” is defined, determined and implemented?
E.g. fairness vs justice vs legal vs moral vs ethical. And who determines? By what standard? Yours? Ours? Who’s the “ours”?
Steve, Nick is another one I keep challenging to a debate, and another one who keeps pretending he never received the invite 🙂
Meanwhile, he pushes people away then follows them on other blogs just to fling poo at them…under an alias obviously
But I couldn’t say anything to him better than this:
.gbk
March 29, 2016 at 8:15 pm
franky spindriftus,
Why do you bother? You are all over a map of your own making.
On August 8, 2015 you thought Fiorina, “speaks straight and honestly.”
pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/trump-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/#comment-415
Then when Trump gained ground in December of 2015 you claimed that, “[t]he duopoly and Obama created Trump.” Ignoring the redundancy of your quote you, again, warn us all of your prescience.
jonathanturley.org/2015/12/14/trump-critics-unleash-vulgar-and-violent-rhetoric-over-immigration-debate/#comment-1513405
Then again, you state that, “ISIS HATES US. There is NOTHING we can do that will change that, absent maybe all converting to Islam.”
jonathanturley.org/2015/12/08/trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/#comment-1512213
Now you’re “Feeling the Bern”? What a fool you are. No balls, no commitment, shift with the wind hoping people have no memories.
You are right in that there is a revolution coming, (like this is news), and it will come right up your arrogant and uninformed ass.
Hold on tight, as your ignorant and oft repeated political homilies just catch the edge.
https://mikespindell.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/bernie-v-hilary-it-aint-over-yet-and-why-it-shouldnt-be/
Tin
“Nonetheless, I do believe that G & J would have achieved world economic prominence on their own. It just would have taken longer. We have dumped extraordinary foreign aid into countless other countries and have seen no betterment in their economies and living conditions.”
——————–
Unfortunately, we will never know!
Just as we will never know what would the Congo be like had we not taken out Lumumba and put in place Mobuto who robbed the country blind. WE did not dump extraordinary foreign aid there, we dump intelligence and training to insure Mobuto stays in power to allow the rape of the resources.
Look at any other country in africa and the ME with any resources, and you’d have the same exact conditions.
Same in Central.south america.
Speaking of Afghanistan, wonder what it would be like right now if…http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/
@Renegade
Yes, I agree that Germany and Japan received considerable aid. (And it should be noted that Finland is the only country in the world that fully repaid its war debt to the U.S.) In helping Germany and Japan rebuild, I think the U.S. recognized the lesson of WWI that Foster Dulles had warned against – the excessive punishment of Germany at the end of WWI led to resentment and rearmament and the growth of the Nationalist movement that allowed Hitler to rise to power. England did get the short end, only because they were not seen as a country that would become a militarist threat. In exchange for the aid, Japan had to concede much of its right to rebuild its own government and laws and military. Nonetheless, I do believe that G & J would have achieved world economic prominence on their own. It just would have taken longer. We have dumped extraordinary foreign aid into countless other countries and have seen no betterment in their economies and living conditions.
Hmmm NO “betterment” i.e. improvement?
Really?
Yes there are real disasters in a number of efforts.
Improvements?
Shall we list the number of diseases? Or maybe South Korea? The Philippines? The Lincoln Battle Group after the Indian Ocean tsunami?
Just a few…and I’m sure fault will be found in an effort to drown it all out.
The alternative? A dead turtle shell…no sticking the neck out.
Who has the perfect solution around here??? Who hasn’t stepped on someone and been stepped on? Both are learning experiences and some criminal.
At least my duck and cover drills were never needed. I can call anywhere in the world in seconds. Remember waiting days to make a trans-Pacific call. Remember the first live satellite Europe to New York tv….God it was boring.
Ahhh for the caveman days. They were sooooo much better.
We know too much about the outside world, and it is sooo horrid, and nothing good is happening.
Now back to Roddenberry’s “The Lieutenant” … 2 yrs before Star Trek….fun to see all the folks who will make history before they do.
Po, since the glory days of Islam ended in the 7th century, shouldn’t that tell you something? So long as warfare was limited to men on horses with relatively crude weapons, the barbarians (whether the Mongol hordes or the Turks) could conquer. But when the more intellectually curious and technically advanced Europeans invented modern methods of warfare, the Islamists ceased power and they’re still resentful. But your ISIS brethren cutting off heads with swords are still living in your glorious 7th century.
As for citing some obscure text of unknown credibility; I’m not going to waste my time with it. If I want to know which peoples of the world are successful, and which are the failed races, I just look around. So you can believe whatever fantasy gets you through the day. Heck, if you want to believe that the North Koreans contributed more to rock music than the British, and have some obscure author to support you, that’s cool too. I just know I’m not buying any car made in Somalia, and if I ever need open heart surgery, I don’t plan on having it done in Afghanistan.
Tin
It is difficult, and fruitless to have a discussion with you if you keep basing your arguments on ahistorical information along with non-sequiturs and associated fallacies.
1- Where does it say that the glory days of Islam ended in the 7th century, when it started in earnest in the 7th century? When did Andalusia come down? In the 7th century?
2- What else came down with Andalusia? Jewish enlightenment, which reached its apogee in Andalusia. Are you saying that Jews are therefore a “failed race?”
3- You should have noticed by now, Tin, that we are not talking about warfare and hordes of warriors, the greatest moment of human enlightenment came through cooperation and communion, not warfare. Interesting that my measure of greatness is scholarship and intellectual inquiry, while yours is warfare and violence.
4- What modern and superior forms of warfare did the Europeans invent that were not already used by previous people? Did they invent gunpowder? The catapult? The battering ram? The cannon? They did not invent the firearm (chinese), which is another of the weapons that changed warfare.
If we are talking about modern warfare weapons, weapons of mass destruction, then yes, I give the west credit for it, along with the great masses of death it has wrought upon the world.
5- Meanwhile, let us separate the actors here. By Europeans you mix in a great many, some of whom fell off the mark of history ages ago. Who do you mean by European? Eastern Europe? Western Europe? Do you include America in it?
At the same time, you are mixing Arabs with Muslims, and we know that Arabs constitute at most 20% of Muslims. Then you bring in Africans, as if Africans are necessarily Muslim???
6- “Islamists”? Islamist is a modern term, so it that which it describes. Who was an islamist in the middle ages? Isn’t Andalusia the complete opposite of ISIS? Would you please understand the terms you throw around? And where is the link between ISIS and me? Do you believe that the Muslims of Andalusia who stressed the importance of cohabitation and peace the same as the Muslims of ISIS? Under what logic?
7- okay, i’ll bite. Which are the successful “races” and which are the failed ones?
As for the “unknown credibility” of my sources, there is such thing as historical consensus and also peer review and also scholarship…all of which demand a certain validation. The consensus on Andalusia and the golden age of Islam is pretty broad. Can you provide anything that undermines it?
I have noticed that I have provided sources and you haven’t!
Or is your subjective, biased opinion more valid than the legacy of centuries of established scholarship?
Our token Muslim is a dissembler. He’s been caught dissembling here and elsewhere. Engaging w/ their ilk is a fool’s errand. But, this is America, not some backward, hateful, Middle East country w/ sharia law. Do as you please. However, you have been warned.
Nick, for being a “dissembler,” po’s scoring more a lot more points than his opposition.
Paul Schulte
1, April 6, 2016 at 4:38 pm
po – Yes there is a WE. We advanced knowledge from the Catholic Church which actually was very active scientifically. Certain texts were saved by the Muslims and WE must give them credit for some advances in medicine. However, WE kicked their ass out of Spain in 1492, ending the Reconquesta and freeing up funds for Columbus to come to the New World. Thus, starting another spurt of invention and exchange.
—————————
Paul, I still don’t know who is that WE! And whoever it is, how does it relate to you, to us? Is it based on ethnicity, religion or geography?
Seems like 1492 started, rather than another spurt of invention and exchange, the main spurt of colonization and enslavement whose legacy the world still suffers from. Comparing that to Andalusia is pretty…silly!
As for the grand mufti, I have done my share of reading up, please try me.
Make your case. Your best case that is.
po – Andulusa had slaves, was a conquered colony, etc. What is the difference between that and the Conquistadors?
Karen S
1, April 5, 2016 at 12:46 pm
steveg:
Historically, Muslims subordinated non-muslims by requiring a tax, granting few if any rights, inferior status under the law, inability to bear witness against a Muslim, and the right to kill them if they refuse to pay the tax or convert. They kept non-Muslims as slaves who were forcibly circumcised, and the women kept as sex slaves.
————————————
Karen, forgot to add that Muslims pay a tax too, it is called the zakat, 2.5% of one’s income, I don’t hear you complain about that.
But here is a wiki entry that breaks it down adequately: (though i know that, as usual, you will disappear as you’ve been caught and will return on another thread to spew the same falsities and this loop would start anew… What can we do, you are who you are)
—————————
“Jizya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects—dhimmis—permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law.[1][2][3] Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the insane, monks, hermits, slaves,[4][5][6][7] and musta’mins—non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands.[8][9] Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment,[1][4][10][11][12] as were those who could not afford to pay.[4][13][14]
Jizya is mandated by the Quran and hadiths[15] (but not the rate or amount). However, scholars largely agree that early Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established under previous rulers of the conquered lands, such as those of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.[9][16][17][18][19]
The application of jizya varied in the course of Islamic history. Together with kharaj, a term that was sometimes used interchangeably with jizya,[20][21][22] taxes levied on non-Muslim subjects were among the main sources of revenues collected by some Islamic polities.[23] Jizya rate was usually a fixed annual amount depending on the financial capability of the payer.[24] Sources comparing taxes levied on Muslims and jizya differ as to their relative burden depending on time, place, specific taxes under consideration, and other factors.[25][not in citation given][1][26][27][28]
Historically, the Jizya tax has been rationalized in Islam as a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the permission to practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims’ submission to the Muslim state and its laws.[29][30][31] Jizya has also been rationalized by some as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam,[32][33] while others argue that if it were meant to be a punishment for the dhimmis unbelief then monks wouldn’t have been exempted.[34]
The jizya tax was historically imposed on Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians in the Arabian peninsula, the Levant, Iraq, North Africa, Caucasus and Spain, and on Hindus in South Asia into the 19th century, but almost vanished during the 20th century.[35] The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world,[36][37] although there are reported cases of organizations such as the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS attempting to revive the practice.[35][38][39]
Some modern Islamic scholars, such as Abul A’la Maududi of Pakistan, have said that Jizya should be re-imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim nation.[40] Most Muslims generally reject the dhimma system, which encompasses jizya, as inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democracies.[37]