1441

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: R.I.P. Ferguson

« on: November 25, 2014, 04:56:43 PM »

White people: super concerned with justice in the context of economic goods owned by other whites, less so with justice in the context of systematic oppression of millions of people of color.

Yes, I am sure no "people of color" were affected by "justice in the context of economic goods" with their own community being burned down. Get off your high horse and stop being so pious.

Christ.  I'm sure there were.  Obviously not my point.  My point is that the same people who are so loudly decrying the injustice of looting a Walgreens don't seem to give a shit that the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

Really, though, super sorry to hear about what happened to a Walgreens.  That's awful.  The injustice of it all!  How untoward!

1442

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: R.I.P. Ferguson

« on: November 25, 2014, 04:00:16 PM »

White people: super concerned with justice in the context of economic goods owned by other whites, less so with justice in the context of systematic oppression of millions of people of color.

1443

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Interstellar

« on: November 12, 2014, 05:04:10 PM »

It was much too long, it couldn't pick a genre, and too many of its plot devices were completely contrived.

So love is a dimension or whatever, and also some aliens that are actually us from the future are going to drag you across the universe into a black hole to transcend the boundaries of space and time but only in this one room and you can't really do anything but push some books around.

e: There actually were a lot of things I liked about this film; I just wish it had either been a more interesting drama or a more interesting sci-fi flick.  If it had been mostly a character drama that culminated in his black hole journey (a la Contact), that could have been great.  Likewise, it could have been a great pure sci-fi movie, going to more planets, maybe throwing in a robot fight or two.

And I think everyone who saw it would agree that TARS was the highlight of the film.

1444

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 10, 2014, 05:26:31 PM »

The Collier articles are absolutely describing a technical limitation in rocketry. They need to build them big because they have to be big. As stated in the article, to carry 32 tons the rocket would need to be as big as a light naval cruiser, and goes on to explain how the things we ended up with, the shuttle and other heavy lift rockets with a capacity of around 32 tons, being much smaller.

Why would they build huge rockets because they wanted to? They had to build them that way because that's what the equations called for. Von Braun complains that to make a single rocket to get to the moon and back would be so big as to be an economic impossibility.

If von Braun is describing an insurmountable technical limitation in the Collier articles, then prove me wrong and show me a quote to that effect.

Von Braun himself says that the Collier articles are only meant to represent designs that are technically possible using only the technology available in 1952.  He doesn't anywhere say that rockets must be so grandiose, nor does he complain that his rockets are an economic impossibility.  He says exactly the opposite of all of that:

“Speculations regarding the future technical developments have been carefully avoided,” or, as von Braun explained, “While the Collier’s designs may be a far cry from what Mars ships some thirty or forty years from now will actually look like, this approach will serve a worthwhile purpose. If we can show how a Mars ship could conceivably be built on the basis of what we know now, we can safely deduce that actual designs of the future can only be superior. Only by stubborn adherence to the engineering solutions based exclusively on scientific knowledge available today, and by strict avoidance of any speculations concerning future discoveries, can we bring proof that this fabulous venture is fundamentally feasible.”

Here is von Braun describing a smaller rocket with a lower lift capacity, used to put a 30-foot-tall satellite into orbit in what he describes as the "first step" in space exploration.

Before take-off, the satellite vehicle will resemble one of today's high-altitude rockets, except that it will be about three times as big—150 feet tall, and 30 feet wide at the base. After take-off it will become progressively smaller, because it actually will consist of three rockets—or stages—one atop another, two of which will be cast away after delivering their full thrust. The vehicle will take off vertically and then tilt into a shallow path nearly parallel to the earth. Its course will be over water at first, so the first two stages won't fall on anyone  after they're dropped, a few minutes after take-off.

NASA didn't launch any 32-ton payloads into orbit in 1958, so I don't see what the problem is.  I, for one, would expect a rocket built in 1952 with a 64,000 lbs payload to be larger than a rocket built in 1958 with a 30 lbs payload.

1445

Flat Earth Community / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:14:32 PM »

Genuine question: how does Branson's scam work?  Is it that he's stealing the money from his customers or his investors?  Both?  Other?

1446

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches

« on: November 04, 2014, 08:21:26 PM »

Gary, you seem to be unaware that this argument has already been made (when Yaakov originally brought up Anselm's argument as if it was worth anything a few months ago). Yaakov is either not smart enough to understand why he is wrong or is simply a character troll.

I was genuinely unaware of that, but I really only check the Jew thread occasionally to see if Yaakov has shot up a mosque yet. 

Except that Kant only THOUGHT he proved the Ontological Argument wrong. The Ontological Argument has been attacked by many people, and has withstood the challenge pretty well.

Kant's argument that existence is not a predicate is a well-established consensus at this point, so merely declaring that he's wrong isn't persuasive.  Would you mind elaborating on why you think he's wrong on this point?

TMPHS is not greater than any possible thing. It may be great in some sense, but what if you don't like ham? What if you are more partial to bacon? Then it is not perfect at all.

You don't appear to understand Anselm's argument very well.  For one thing, his argument isn't about preference.  You don't have to prefer God or ham sandwiches.  His proof doesn't depend on that.  You don't have to want to eat the ham sandwich; but, if you find Anselm's logic valid and sound, then you must accept that TMPHS exists.

Second, Anselm doesn't define God as the greatest possible thing.  He defines God as "a being than which none greater can be imagined."  I'm defining TMPHS as "a sandwich than which none greater can be imagined."  I don't see what the problem is.

And to echo PP (and myself, I guess), I'm still super curious to understand how existence is greater than non-existence and what that even means.

1447

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches

« on: November 04, 2014, 05:43:33 PM »

I figured I'd make this a separate thread since the Jew thread is already a giant dumpster fire.  An awesome dumpster fire, don't get me wrong.  Like in a dumpster next to a fireworks warehouse or something.

Until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap. Since we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent. My God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it? The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones. You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.

Yonah is apparently unaware of the last 200+ years in the development of the philosophy of religion and thinks that Anselm's Ontological Argument is a thing that anyone takes seriously anymore.  Kant killed this argument in the 18th Century.  Existence is not a predicate.  Argument over.

So I have two questions for you, Yonah:

1.  How exactly do you go about proving the truth of this premise?  Why is existence 'greater' than non-existence? 

Existence is greater than non-existence.

2.  Do you find the following argument both sound and valid?  Why or why not?

1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich is a ham sandwich than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined).

2.TMPHS exists as an idea in the mind.

3.A ham sandwich that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a ham sandwich that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4.Thus, if TMPHS exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (that is, a greatest possible ham sandwich that does exist).

5.But we cannot imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a ham sandwich greater than the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined.)

6.Therefore, The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich exists.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's impossible to prove a negative.  That's just something people say.  It isn't true.

1448

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: November 04, 2014, 05:08:17 PM »

GARY, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You have managed to surpass Thork. Good move.

Finally, we agree on something.  Conflating correlation and causation is really stupid.  I wish you wouldn't do it so often.  It would help you to get along with others better.

1449

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: November 04, 2014, 04:21:39 PM »

Yonah's logic is both valid and sound.  I use identical reasoning to justify my hatred of nations that start with the letter P.  Each of those nations has a long, storied history of dictatorships, violence, and oppression against its citizenry.  Panama, Peru, and Paraguay all continually oppress their indigenous populations.  Pakistan is nothing but terrorists.  Portugal operated as a colonial power for centuries.  Every single nation that begins with the letter P has done terrible things to both its citizenry and the citizenry of its neighbors.  They're nothing but savage subhumans who should be deported or killed.

Also, the Ontological Arguments is a really excellent demonstration of deduction, and it's still taken very seriously in both religion and philosophy.  Kudos to Yonah for reviving it after its death in the 18th Century. 

1450

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: November 04, 2014, 04:55:10 AM »

It's almost as if every nation has at some point done a bunch of fucked up stuff, so any subdivision of nations is going to contain nothing but nations that have done a bunch of fucked up stuff.  Weird.

Also, I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

1451

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 06:07:21 AM »

Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

The Collier articles aren't describing a technical limitation in rocketry.  They're just Von Braun saying, "here are some rockets we could build using only 1952 technology."  He's not saying that those are the smallest rockets possible in 1952.  He's just saying that 1952 could build those huge rockets if it wanted to.

I don't get why you think that the rockets used to achieve orbit in 1958 break the laws of physics.  Can you be more specific?

1452

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 02, 2014, 11:45:28 PM »

The Collier articles were only ever meant to describe what was technically feasible in 1952.  They were demonstrations, not theoretical limits.

“Speculations regarding the future technical developments have been carefully avoided,” or, as von Braun explained, “While the [Collier’s] designs may be a far cry from what Mars ships some thirty or forty years from now will actually look like, this approach will serve a worthwhile purpose. If we can show how a Mars ship could conceivably be built on the basis of what we know now, we can safely deduce that actual designs of the future can only be superior. Only by stubborn adherence to the engineering solutions based exclusively on scientific knowledge available today, and by strict avoidance of any speculations concerning future discoveries, can we bring proof that this fabulous venture is fundamentally feasible.”

1453

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine

« on: October 28, 2014, 03:40:18 PM »

You didn't answer my questions.  You claim that these wells cure diseases.  You said these claims about radioactive springs and vitamin C and all that are "absolutely true."  Can you prove that?  How do you know that these stories are true?  How do you know that they aren't fabrications?

I've seen these people post on the health forums I frequent. There are stories littered all around the internet about these things, from multiple sources. News organizations have reported on this spring over the last 150 years, and Vitamin C over the last 60. Corroboration from multiple unconnected sources constitutes evidence.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked how you know these stories to be true and not fabrications.  How can you verify them?  How have you confirmed that these reports are true?  This seems important given how easy it would be for a multi-billion-dollar industry to generate a bunch of fake websites and testimonials to sell their products.  And since those firms have a demonstrable track record as thieves, frauds, and liars, this point isn't irrelevant. 

You appear to be saying that there stories must be true because there are a lot of them on the internet.  There are lots of Yeti and UFO stories on the internet.  Do you believe in those?  What about all of the multiple sources and testimony on the internet that disputes your vitamin C claims?  Don't those count as evidence?

Let's talk about Linus Pauling.  Let's also talk about Hoffman-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company that used to dominate the vitamin C market until being convicted of leading a price-fixing cartel in the largest anti-trust case ever decided in the US.  Guess what?  They funded and reviewed Pauling work.  Whoops.

So what? They may have thought that there was a chance that Vitamin C would become a standard treatment at the time and their domination of the Vitamin C market would become extremely valuable. That's good on them for supporting a natural substance.

So what?  Are you serious?  Maybe that would be a reasonable way to think about it if the very same company that funded the studies hadn't been convicted of fraud.  Not just fraud.  Price fixing.  They have overtly displayed a willingness to be deceptive in order to make more money.  Nothing that comes from the Linus Pauling Institute or any affiliated institution can be trusted.  They are proven frauds.

And aren't you the one that says that big pharma never spends money to research "natural" cures because they can't make any money off of it?  Isn't that what your whole narrative against traditional medicine?  They "can't patent nature" or whatever, so they suppress natural cures?

The Mayo clinic used low oral doses in an attempt to refute Pauling's work, when the work clearly called for high dose Intravenous Vitamin C.

See this article: Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor's opinion

So if I found peer-reviewed medical literature refuting the efficacy of high dose, intravenous vitamin c, would you take it seriously?  Why or why not?

There's nothing wrong with buying natural substances from a pharmaceutical company running a supplement company on the side. Good on them. They need to refrain from fixing prices, however, and move more towards healthier natural solutions.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it.  I'm talking about its implications.  You're missing my point completely.  Let me try and better explain:

To my knowledge, your indictment of traditional medicine begins and ends with "Big pharma can't patent the natural things that make you better, so they make unnatural things they can patent to make their money; to that end, they suppress knowledge of natural cures and maybe even go as far as trying to make you sick to keep you in the system."  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem is that this doesn't explain the facts.  Big pharma funds the research on natural cures.  Big pharma has a near-monopoly on the sale of natural cures.  It's so lucrative, and their monopoly is so thorough, that they were even able to run a price-fixing vitamin cartel.  It didn't even break up.  It just moved to China.  You're a sucker and a shill.

Big pharma doesn't need to suppress anything.  They're selling the things you say they don't sell and are trying to suppress.  If vitamin C cured cancer, big pharma would be all over that.  As I've demonstrated, big pharma already tried and succeeded to convince people that vitamin C cures cancer.  You're one of those people.  They are not trying to suppress vitamin C research.  They're the ones doing the research.

1454

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: October 23, 2014, 09:52:33 PM »

We saw God on Mt. Sinai. Its not that Moses claimed to be inspired. Its that we know that 2 million people, our ancestors, saw God, and heard him speak. And no, I am not about to get into that argument with you about that so don't even go there. It is in both our written and oral history, so there you are.

To be fair, "we" didn't see anything.  You're not a member of the group of people who claimed to have seen God.  Those people have been dead for some time now.

You say that you know that your ancestors saw God and heard him speak.  How?  Because the Torah says so?  You seem to be taking for granted that because it is in your oral and written history that it must be true.  I don't dispute that it's in your written and oral history.  I dispute that you have any way at all to verify the truth of the claim of the author of the text.

So what does this mean? It means that since we are here by God's own good grace, we are supposed to extend that good grace to as many others as we are able. Instead of doing mean and horrible things to one another, we need to find a way to treat our friends with some level of kindness and respect. Maybe then we can start worrying about reward and punishment. As Gandhi said of fighting the British: "Do we fight to change things, or do we fight to punish? I've found we're all such sinners we should leave punishment to God."

This is an odd thing to say for someone who routinely advocates the use of violence and force against a group of people he labels as subhumans.  I guess you don't think Arabs are worthy of God's grace, love, kindness, or respect.  How Godly of you.

1455

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: October 23, 2014, 05:00:16 PM »

Just to be sure I have this correctly: the measure of your intelligence is your willingness to follow the prescriptions of an ancient text merely because the authors claim to have been inspired by God?  That's the thing that you think demonstrates your intellectual superiority over the rest of the people on this forum?

I mean, at least Christians and Muslims and whatnot are all acting as they do for rational incentives like eternal reward.  Their logic is valid even if it isn't sound.  Your rationale for obeying the prescriptions of the Torah appears to stop at "because it tells me to."   

1456

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine

« on: October 23, 2014, 05:34:03 AM »

Tom is actually correct on this point.Although life expectancy was much smaller for paleolithic peoples, this is largely due to infant mortality.  Those who survived childhood had similar lifespans to modern humans.

Of course, the truth of this fact actually undermines Tom's larger argument: their 'natural' diets didn't extend their lifespans beyond that of a modern human.  Eating whole foods didn't save them from disease or extend their lives beyond what one would expect from modern humans.

1457

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: October 06, 2014, 04:05:24 AM »

Saudi Law makes it clear that no Jew can enter the Kingdom for any reason whatsoever. In fact, during the first Gulf War, when our soldiers were there to defend them, that law had to be placed in temporary abeyance so that our soldiers who were Jewish would be allowed to be deployed there. My brother who was in the military was aware of this problem. So I would encourage you to get your facts straight on the matter.

Again, the actions of a theocratic, absolute monarchy are not rational reasons to advocate for violence against Arabs or to speak of them as subhumans.

That said, you're wrong.  I've watched you be wrong with my own eyes.  Israelis are not permitted into Saudi Arabia.  Anyone with an Israeli visa is not permitted into Saudi Arabia.  American citizens of any religion are typically permitted into Saudi Arabia.  Once there, no one will try to kill you for being a Jew.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/delta-saudia-arabia-and-jewish-travellers

It is true that some Jewish travelers—usually people who were born in Israel or who have evidence of travel to Israel on their passports—sometimes have trouble obtaining visas for Saudi Arabia and some other Middle Eastern countries. This is not a new development. But there are ways to get around the restriction, and Jewish travelers can fly to Saudi and have done so in the past.

That's cool that the Jewish Geocities Library compiled of a list of all the times some Arabs were shitty to some Jews, though.  Sweet paper.

1458

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine

« on: October 05, 2014, 11:16:17 PM »

How do you know those stories to be absolutely true?  Because you read them on the internet?  Those stories could easily be fabrications.  Which sounds simpler to you: that springs with magical healing properties are being completely overlooked by virtually everyone on the planet because doctors are somehow hiding them (although not very well, apparently); or, that these stories were fabricated by an industry with the means, opportunity, and billion-dollar motive to do so?

But, the stories of people curing themselves with radioactive water are generally true nonetheless. Water form radioactive springs was popular 100 years ago, and touted to cure disease. There is water which flows from a spring in the Grotto of Massabielle in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, France, a historical site where thousands of people have traveled in search of a cure since the 1800's, and still do today. The internet is littered with stories about Lourdes. It's also a topic of discussion on forums like curezone.com and others, where people claim to have seen benefit. It's a historical miracle spot maintained by the Vatican, which maintains a hospital near the spring to accommodate visitors in search of a cure.

You didn't answer my questions.  You claim that these wells cure diseases.  You said these claims about radioactive springs and vitamin C and all that are "absolutely true."  Can you prove that?  How do you know that these stories are true?  How do you know that they aren't fabrications? 

Chinese pharmaceutical companies are not the authority on Vitamin C. The authorities on Vitamin C are the people who are writing the books and conducting studies. Vitamin C was first popularized by a Chemist named Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize winner, who published books and studies on the benefits of Vitamin C, bringing the benefits into the public eye, campaigning for over 30 years for the substance to be recognized as a medical treatment.

Let's talk about Linus Pauling.  Let's also talk about Hoffman-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company that used to dominate the vitamin C market until being convicted of leading a price-fixing cartel in the largest anti-trust case ever decided in the US.  Guess what?  They funded and reviewed Pauling work.  Whoops.

Pauing's vitamin C research was funded by frauds and liars: http://worldtracker.org/media/library/Science/Science%20Magazine/science%20magazine%201981-1982/Science%201981-1982/root/data/Science_1981-1982/pdf/1981_v212_n4499/p4499_1126.pdf

Pauling - says, "We live a hand-to-mouth existence here." But despite the lack of NCI funding, his research in vitamin C has continued with money provided by private donations and the Hoffmann-La Roche Foundation. A spokeswoman from Hoffmann-La Roche says Pauling received a grant for his "interesting theories, but more data needs to be generated to support his ideas."

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine was founded in 1973 and operated under that name until 1995 [20]. The institute was dedicated to "orthomolecular medicine." For many years, its largest corporate donor was Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C.

http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2006/04/10/science-marches-on-over-linus/

The real trouble started when other researchers tried–and failed–to replicate his results. Despite exhaustive examination, today the efficacy of vitamin C as a cold and flu treatment remains questionable. Three successive studies by the prestigious Mayo Clinic testing orally administered vitamin C demonstrated no significant cancer-fighting effects. Additionally, it was revealed that Hoffman-La Roche, a company that at the time produced most of the world’s vitamin C supplements, extensively funded Pauling’s Institute.

Or maybe you'd like to hear it from Pauling himself.

A. No. No. Well, $300,000.00 over what time period? They give us $100,000.00 per year. We have to sort of squeeze it out of them, but we've managed to get it for several years now.
Q. So you have donations of $100,000.00 per year from Hoffman-La Roche?
A. That's right.

These same liars and frauds are the ones who reviewed The Pauling Institute's research.  That's super legit.  You can totally trust Hoffmann-La Roche to be honest with you about how much of their vitamin C you should be buying.

Like this research paper:

Written in February 2011 by:
Victoria J. Drake, Ph.D.
Linus Pauling Institute
Oregon State University

Reviewed in February 2011 by:
Juerg Haller, Ph.D.
F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd
Basel, Switzerland

The study was paid for by Bayer, though, so nbd.  They're not a giant of big pharma or anything.

I wasn't saying that China is an authority on vitamin C.  I was saying that if you're taking it, then you bought it from big pharma.  There's a reason for that.  You think you're abandoning traditional medicine for naturalist medicine.  You aren't.  You're just buying a different big pharma product, researched and marketed by convicted frauds.

1459

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: October 05, 2014, 07:05:33 PM »

Oh, and you're just plain wrong with all of this nonsense about Saudi Arabia.  Jews can travel to Saudi Arabia.  Israelis cannot.  They also won't let in anyone with an Israeli visa, but you can just request a duplicate passport from the State Dept.  Use duplicate to go to Israel.  Use regular one to go to Saudi Arabia.  Problem solved.  No one will try and kill you for being a Jew.  That's absurd.

1460

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: October 05, 2014, 06:59:16 PM »

big wall of text

So you've never visited an Arab nation.  Got it.

I'm not interested in discussing the Saudi monarchy or any other repressive government.  The fact that many Arabs live under oppressive regimes isn't to me a rational justification for advocating for violence against Arab citizens or speaking of them as subhumans. 

I'm interested in discussing your sole possible justification for advocating for violence, that Arabs represent an existential threat to Jews.  You claim that the Quran commands all non-Muslims to submit to Islam in conversion, taxation, or death.  You claim to be well-versed on the Quran, so perhaps you could point me to the relevant passages that demonstrate the accuracy of this characterization. 

I've been doing a bit of reading myself, and I have yet to find an academic source that agrees with you.  I keep finding descriptions like this one from Quran commentator Muhammad Asad:

The term jizyah, rendered by me as "exemption tax", occurs in the Qur'an only once, but its meaning and purpose have been fully explained in many authentic Traditions. It is intimately bound up with the concept of the Islamic state as an ideological organization: and this is a point which must always be borne in mind if the real purport of this tax is to be understood. In the Islamic state, every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God's cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperilled: in other words, every able-bodied Muslim is liable to compulsory military service. Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden. On the other hand, they must be accorded full protection of all their civic rights and of their religious freedom: and it is in order to compensate the Muslim community for this unequal distribution of civic burdens that a special tax is levied on non-Muslim citizens (ahl adh-dhimmah, lit., "covenanted" [or "protected"] people", i.e., non-Muslims whose safety is statutorily assured by the Muslim community). Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an
exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the "covenant of protection" (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state. (The term itself is derived from the verb jazd, "he rendered [something] as a satisfaction", or "as a compensation [in lieu of something else]" - cf. Lane II, 422.)