from Google AI:
Jizya is a historical per capita yearly tax levied by Islamic states on non-Muslim subjects, known as dhimmis. [1, 2]Historical Purpose and Conditions
- Protection and Rights: In return for paying the tax, non-Muslims (primarily Christians, Jews, and later Zoroastrians and others) received state protection, exemption from military service, and the right to practice their religion with communal autonomy. [1, 2]
- Who Paid: Classical Islamic law generally required free, adult, sane, and financially able-bodied non-Muslim men to pay the jizya. [1, 2]
- Exemptions: Women, children, the elderly, the poor, slaves, monks, and the mentally or physically ill were typically exempt. [1, 2]
- Shifting Interpretations: While initially framed as a financial contribution for governance and safety, classical and medieval jurists increasingly interpreted or applied the tax in ways that marked a subordinate social and legal status for non-Muslims
Mamdani saying the "quiet part" out loud on the Jizya:
"Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods."
(From his official housing policy campaign platform document.) [1]"The use of that language is just an assessment of the neighborhood... I’m just naming things as they are."
(Defending the platform's specific terminology during a Fox News Interview.) [1]"That is just a description of what we see right now. It's not driven by race."
(Responding on NBC's Meet the Press to criticism that the tax proposal was racially motivated.
If it wasn't racially motivated, then why say "white" neighborhoods at all? Why was it important to mention the racial demographics? Sounds like what was intended was something akin to the "indirect" racial taxation methods being employed in South Africa. In fact, it appears as if all "progressive" taxation has been a de facto indirect racial tax all along.
Is NYC the beginning of a New South Africa?
7 comments:
Never. This is some incredibly stupid and racist speculation. To pose such a question, you must be incredibly stupid yourself, or hopefully that other stupid people would think this is a possibility.
Gemini: You are completely correct -- the likelihood of this happening is exactly zero percent. The blog post is referencing an absurd internet conspiracy theory rooted in islamophobic fear-mongering rather than any basis in reality.
The rumor exists solely because New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist and the city's first Muslim mayor. Since his election, critics have frequently circulated extreme and debunked claims that he wants to institute "Sharia law" in the city.
Enacting a historical religious tax like the Jizya is a legal, political, and mathematical impossibility for several reasons:
The U.S. Constitution Prohibits It: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment strictly forbids the government from establishing a religion or enacting laws that favor one religion over another. A tax levied explicitly on non-Muslims would be instantly struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional.
The Mayor Cannot Arbitrarily Create Taxes: A New York City mayor does not have the power to invent new tax structures on a whim. Creating or altering taxes requires approval from both the New York City Council and the New York State Legislature.
Mamdani's Actual Platform is Secular: Mayor Mamdani’s actual policy platform is focused on secular, progressive economic policies. His real-world tax proposals involve raising income taxes on individuals making over $1 million, taxing high-value second homes, and adjusting estate taxes -- not targeting people based on their religious beliefs.
The question asked by the blog post is a piece of political hyperbole meant to generate clicks and stoke fear.🛑
What about NYC City Schools new Islamic holidays? Unconstitutional? lol!
Yeah, same as having off for Christmas🙄
But you think there are taxes assessed to the parents of non Muslim students for these holidays?
The New York City public school calendar just got a little more colorful. For the 2025–26 academic year, students and teachers will officially have the day off for Diwali, Lunar New Year and Eid al-Adha.
Christmas? You mean "Winter Break" don't you. Easter? "Spring Break". Christian holidays were too triggering to the other religions.
Public schools renamed Christmas and Easter breaks to "winter break" and "spring break" to promote inclusivity for students of diverse religious backgrounds and to maintain a secular public calendar.
Key Reasons for the Change
Inclusivity and Diversity: As local communities grew more diverse, school boards sought to avoid alienating students and families who do not practice Christianity.
Secular Governance: Public institutions aim to remain neutral regarding religion. Using terms like winter and spring break frames the time off around seasonal periods and academic scheduling quarters rather than specific religious doctrines.
Practical Scheduling: These breaks often align with the natural division of school terms, such as the end of the first semester in December/January or a mid-point between grading quarters in the spring, regardless of when religious holidays fall.
Equal Treatment Demands: In many districts, requests from families of other faiths (such as Jewish or Muslim communities) for their own holidays to be recognized or accommodated led boards to strip explicit religious names from the calendar entirely to treat all groups uniformly
"Merry Christmas" became "Seasons Greetings"? Why the flip-flop now?
Post a Comment