Finding a corporation's bank is a whole separate issue, where you have to go back to court for a post-judgement discovery to force them to tell you. And even if they do - or you already knew - you have to get the writ served to the bank, and just hope they didn't move funds beforehand - or else you're back to start.

As GP said, it IS a huge PITA to get judgments paid, and it's particularly menacing in Small Claims. Unless the other side act on some virtue (which, they were already bad-faithed enough to have a lawsuit against them AND lose), your judgment is just an IOU, and actually forcing collection is often way more money — or time in money — than most state's Small Claims limits.

It's a broken system.

Outside of South Korea, from enormous help from Pax Americana, has it ever happened?

To pick my words more wisely: Yes, Zakat comes in the form a mandatory pillar of Islam under an Islamic state - often a tax, it is very rarely an "optional" charity. My point was more the framing between the two, and that Zakat is a financial obligation upon believers to share their wealth, while Jizya is a discriminatory tax on non-believers as a penalty for their refusal to accept Islam, paying for their "protection" from the state.

>"'violence' like what? You mean just like how any current nation throws people in prison if they evade taxes?"

Having a practice persist today isn't necessarily an argument that it's a good practice, or even a morally acceptable one (if you agree on this RE: tax, you'll find yourself agreeing with some prominient Western Enlightment thinkers, ironically). But, nonetheless, equating a religious tax to modern tax systems is a dishonest take. Modern tax regimes don't target you specifically for your refusal to convert to a state religion. The Jizya verse I mentioned earlier (though didn't cite: Surah 9:29) explicitly states non-Muslims must pay it "while they are disgraced, humiliated and belittled." It is not framed as a civil duty like most taxes; it is quite literally a religious-mandated humiliation ritual.

>"As I explained, Jizya is waived for women, children, priests, the elderly and the disabled. It was also waived if an able man volunteered to join the army in exchange."

The case remains, extorting the people of a minority group to fund an Islamic state - while politically and socially persecuting them - is morally reprenhensible.

>"What do you call very clearly taking something out of context?"

The oldest excuse in the book - and I already called this excuse out when I noted earlier that it's the exact same defense Christians use to wave away the violent commands in their own scriptures. If citing explicit, accepted verses and mainstream Sunni Tafsir is "taking things out of context", then the text is practically meaningless - and it doesn't sound like good faith in the material to me. The words are right there on the page.

>"You're looking at zionist crimes against Iranian jews."

I've already said Israel is a problem state. Doesn't change Islamic States can be, too.

>"You speak as if you are certain of what you are saying, but I confidently say you are 100% incorrect. Remind us, what are your qualifications in this matter[..]"

I don't need "qualifications" to engage in this conversation, besides understanding language. A Mu'ahid literally translates to "one who has a treaty/covenant". You cannot be a Mu'ahid without an active, explicit treaty with the Muslim state. Without that, traditional Islamic law classifies a non-believer as Harbi (at war).

>"It's not from the Quran."

Fair. I looked too quickly at your Sunnah.com links, wasn't familiar with their UI, and incorrectly referred to a Hadith as a Quranic verse. I apologize for calling it a Surah. It was a genuine slip on my part.

>"I think this is sufficient to prove my point - that you have no qualifications on this matter. I think we're done here."

Take the out if you need it. As I noted in my last comment, we already established that we agree on my foundational point: that pious Islamic beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with traditional Western values - and we should conduct ourselves accordingly..

Have a good one!

https://hammondscandies.com/products/hammonds-factory-tour

https://hammondscandies.com/pages/factory-tours-new

I wish you luck.

You're clearly well-versed enough in this site's UX/UI to follow comments across a thread, presumably you saw my comment conceding Israel as a problem state now, as well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912061

>"American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day"

Yeah, so are those from Islamic States. But American war crimes didn't include sanctioning rape for prisoners of war for its history, and had a lot more regulation and moral reservations for pillage and conquest. A pretty good start - hopefully it evolves from here.

So you can agree calling out someone for fair-read Arabic semantics is shallow, gratuitous and often grandstanding? Great! Look at us, stranger: Making progress.

>RE: Jiyza, Zakat

Zakat was almost never more than Jizya in practice. Zakat is also the act of charitable giving to the poor, Jizya is state-collection of funds - even during Rashidun Caliphate's times. It was a tax, with threats of state-sponsored violence when not complied with. Deals regarding Jizya were made as non-believing groups were conquered (if you believe this somehow helps your case) and didn't follow a uniform standard, but were typically on a MUST-PAY basis, unlike Zakat - which could be forgiven for impoverished persons and other circumstances.

>"[1]"

I haven't the time nor the inclination to debate clearly textualist passages in a religious text, when some religious scholar tries interpreting them "purposively" to make them more palatable to ANY audience, particularly modern ones. If you do, more power to you.

>"[2], [3]"

2's last sentence is fiercely at odds with 3's position - and these are single rabbi claims. I'm not sure what I'm looking at here?

>"No you did not."

Did you want your verses via Sunnah URL? Lol.

>"[4], [5]"

A Mu'ahid is a may-issue protection and there are plenty of believers and People of The Book that are not granted such protection, because it is an explicit and protected procedure - that requires ACTIVE action (covenant, treaty, or pledge). It is often a coerced agreement made with MUCH concessions required from the protected. And to add, its protection is not passively or implicitly granted, nor shall-issued. It is also not required of Islamic States to conscript, or to implement.

>"[6]"

Noble verse, not sure what it illuminates here though? That the Qur'an has the occasional good take?

>"Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran."

Cherry-picking. "What do you mean there are minority lynchings??? I see plenty of them alive and well, working in fields!"

>"This is one thing we agree on."

Well with any reading comprehension, you'll know my position that a pious Muslim's beliefs are incompatible with traditional Western values is the entire purpose of my position and my underlying justification for each and every comment I've left in this chain - that DIDN'T resort to personal attacks. So, I'm glad we agree?

>"The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies."

You said the same thing twice, and just made the one describing the ideology you agree with sound more mature and refined.

And it's my worldview needing refinement?

But if you believe in anti-trust, regulation, and competition as external checks (typically enacted through governments) on capitalism's power - then you can indeed square the two positions.

Western values separated themselves from several beliefs demanded by the Christianity religions that inspired them. They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material (homosexuality and sodomy, slavery, religious violence, working on the sabbath, forced assimilation, torture and wartime measures, textile production).

Shocking, right? Almost like it's possible...

I'm glad we could point out pedantic semantics - if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way". Nonetheless, "Sharia Law" is a term that means something in jargon and in colloquial, and it is understood to most (serious inquirers) as a mechanation of law, typically from a governing body, that is inspired and sourced by a mix of verses in the Qur'an, prophetic tradition, hadiths, and scholarly consensus between all aforementioned elements.

>"Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?"

At least try to be genuine, please:

Surah 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them."

Surah 9:5: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way."

The Jizya verse is all about sanctioning religious "freedom" and only even tolerating "People of the Book" outside Islam if they pay a special tax called a jizya.

And yes! To your point: "Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason", it is with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom - Western values are. Their beliefs are further predicated upon commands to treat People of The Book (Christians and Jews) with less-than-desirable behaviors, all of which I sourced above. We can talk about bans on places of worship and criminalizing proselytization outside of Islam if you're somehow not convinced?

But in any case, unless you want to play the excuse that Christians and Jews do from the other side of the aisle when they say that this was directed to a certain people at a certain time - which carries its own enormous pragmatic and theological flaws (and is often at great detriment to Muslims when logically exercised) - it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values. And this is just me appealing to the pragmatic, such conclusions follow logically what a pious Muslim's more-extreme beliefs are for religiously-tolerant cultures, and their beliefs towards the people that make them up.

Every thing I've said here is driven by collected data. To note, I conceded in my below-cited comment that active religious hatred towards Middle-Eastern Muslims from Westerners is often a political dogwhistle, due to how distant they are from us in almost every sense:

>>"Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today."

But we should know - and recognize - those who identify us as an enemy to their beliefs or advancements, even if they're presently inconsequential. I am not contributing to the active Islamophobia towards Western Muslims with anything I am saying, and let's use caution when prescribing such.

With that in mind, let's quote you more directly:

>"I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray."

Yes. Western Muslims are good people, and you'll see points in my comments on this thread directly support that, I was predominantly talking about the beliefs of Middle-Eastern Muslims, which overwhelming hold beliefs that are incompatible with my - and most Westerners - moral framework, even if you can get along with them at a corner market or when asking for directions. I even say this in my first comment:

>>"It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - *particularly in Middle Eastern countries* - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers"

You also say:

>"The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries."

No, it supports it being the official law of the land and within the jurisdiction of the respectively-polled nation. It was not a poll to see what standards Muslims desire to hold themselves and fellow Muslims accountable. It is a poll about the percentage of Muslims in various Middle-Eastern countries support Sharia as their nation's official law. Your motivation for skewing the dataset's conclusion? I remain unsure.

>"Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels."

Most*

>"Israel is an apartheid state"

I'll concede Israel is now another one. The original scope of this discussion was a country - and its inhabitants - religious actions and consensus beliefs for the last decades, and Israel has only brazenly shown its hand for the same within the past 5 years, so they weren't on my mind when I wrote my comment. But good point bringing them up

>"Christian theocracies do not exist anymore"

Another commenter called this out well.

You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%.

Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.