Can polytheists be dhimmis?

[attica]

If a country is conquered by Muslims who then set up Islamic rule, what exactly are the choices open to a polytheist living in such a country?
Can he be considered as a dhimmi (ie same category as Christians and Jews, for example) and continue to practise his religion with certain conditions and payment of the poll tax?
Is there any distinction made between a polytheist whose beliefs are based on a book of revelation and one who's believes are merely orally passed down?
Thanks for any enlightenment on this subject.

[جوري]

What polytheist country do you have in mind?

best,

[attica]

im not talking about a specific country. i mean members of a polytheist community in any country. for example some native americans ihave polythestic beliefs. various tribes in new guinea also. any polytheists - if they were to be ruled by an islamic state - can they have dhimmi status?

[جوري]

im not talking about a specific country. i mean members of a polytheist community in any country. for example some native americans ihave polythestic beliefs. various tribes in new guinea also. any polytheists - if they were to be ruled by an islamic state - can they have dhimmi status?

When the hypothetical lacks logical relations to life then how is a logical true to life reply expected? There's no community of pure polytheists, what would happen to them under a hypothetical is what what has happened before under Islamic states governing dhimmis.. also the next time an Islamic state is established (in shaa Allah) Jizyah in all likelihood will be abolished:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:



That's of course if your q is purely regarding tax/jizyah, as for practicing their religion, well Islam always enabled folks to practice their religion freely. there's no compulsion so if they wanna pray to odin or amun ra it is their prerogative!

best,

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[attica]

You say:
"what would happen to them under a hypothetical is what what has happened before under Islamic states governing dhimmis"
This sentence would seem to suggest that Islamic Law is based solely on precedent and does not use any hypothetical principles of Law to regulate situations? Or have I misunderstood you? Can you explain a bit more what you mean here, its not clear to me.

However, if I understand the rest of your answer, polytheists have historically been allowed to freely practice their religion in an Islamic state without interference, is that right (for example the polytheist tribes in the parts of the Arabian peninsula as were ruled by Muslims in the 6th and 7th century)? Did they have to pay the Jizyah or not in this case?

[جوري]

This sentence would seem to suggest that Islamic Law is based solely on precedent and does not use any hypothetical principles of Law to regulate situations? Or have I misunderstood you? Can you explain a bit more what you mean here, its not clear to me.

It means there are no Islamic states currently- and it means that when one is established at least one or more of your query would no longer be applicable and will be abolished- otherwise if strictly hypothetical then everything that were carried out in the ideal Islamic state would be carried out now as well!

However, if I understand the rest of your answer, polytheists have historically been allowed to freely practice their religion in an Islamic state without interference, is that right (for example the polytheist tribes in the parts of the Arabian peninsula as were ruled by Muslims in the 6th and 7th century)? Did they have to pay the Jizyah or not in this case?

Arabs have collectively forgo their pagan practices around 7 c and no longer practice it as far as I am concerned. So there are no more polytheist tribes after Islam. The only time they'll be freely able to practice paganism again is when there's no more Islam in the world:

The buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daws will again sway in circumambulation (tawaf) around the idol Dhul-Khulsah.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/foru....asp?TID=13373


best,

[attica]

"It means there are no Islamic states currently- and it means that when one is established at least one or more of your query would no longer be applicable and will be abolished"
Which part of my query would no longer be applicable if an Islamic state is established? What will be abolished exactly? I don't understand the second part of the above sentence.

"Arabs have collectively forgo their pagan practices around 7 c and no longer practice it as far as I am concerned. So there are no more polytheist tribes after Islam."
Do you know if there were any pagan Arab tribes living under Islamic rule before they decided to give up their practices? Were they allowed to practise their religion without interference and did they have to pay the Jizyah?

You mentioned in an earlier response the example that worshippers of Odin would have been allowed to continue practising their religion. Do you know of any specific examples of polytheists like this who were allowed to continue practising their religion without interference under Islam?

I'm also unsure what you mean by "pure polytheists"? Are you comparing polytheism where there are many gods representing different aspects of a single God (e.g. Hinduism) with worshipping a bunch of separate Gods with no particular unifying connection?

[attica]

I just saw your response concerning the Visigoths after posting, I will check that out. However, I thought that the Visigoths were Christian (are you referring to Visigoth Spain?)

[جوري]

I'm also unsure what you mean by "pure polytheists"?

as in homogenous population of! NO such people exist currently in Arabia or since!

Do you know if there were any pagan Arab tribes living under Islamic rule before they decided to give up their practices? Were they allowed to practise their religion without interference and did they have to pay the Jizyah?

There were none, Islam came and people accepted it in totality - and those that didn't whomever they maybe didn't declare a pagan society for us to offer any insight on the matter.

Which part of my query would no longer be applicable if an Islamic state is established? What will be abolished exactly? I don't understand the second part of the above sentence.

The part of Jizya/tax please see post number 4 so that I am not repeating things unnecessarily!


best,

[جوري]

I made a mistake about the visigoths:
I am going to correct it here:

So thus, it was due the abundance of good in medieval Christendom that opened the doors of Islamic Expansion. This also resulted to a mass conversion to Islam under no coercion

Professors Thomas Arnold again comments that:

"This misinterpretation of the Muslim wars of conquest has arisen from the assumption that wars waged for the extension of Muslim domination over the lands of the unbelievers implied that the aim in view was their conversion."[11]

One example to note is the conquest of Spain. In 711 CE, an oppressed Christian chief named Julian went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Christian Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick. Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops, burned their fleets, and defeated the 30,000 Visigoths. One of his remarkable speech was after burning his fleet -- "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you, and you have no escape but the truth and patience." A new atmosphere of toleration began for the Jews. The Muslims had few men and needed help in every city they conquered to maintain their rule. The Jews helped the Muslims because they represented an opportunity to free themselves from the Visigoths. The Christians and Jews were liberated in Al-Andalusia. The Syrians welcomed the Muslims as their liberators since they liberated from their religious trouble and also relieved them of the burdensome taxes that that were placed on their backs. They praised the Muslims by announcing publically, “Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and put us under the rule of the Muslims”. A great amount of them converted to the Islamic faith. This liberation goes in accordance with the Quranic verse:

And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourside one who will protect; and raise for us from Your side one who will help!') (An-Nisaa' 4:75).

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/3443-refutation-real-history-crusades.html

as far as I am concerned people welcomed Islam openly and in places like southeast Asia where there were many Pagans they entered into Islam through free trade. The Muslims there were under protection of an Islamic state but I don't know of the pagans in their midst. Someone from there would be better equipped to answer that Q than myself.

best,

[attica]

Ok, thanks for your response about the Visigoths. But, as you mention in the last part of the post, you do not know much of pagan societies which were conquered by Muslims, which is what I am most curious about. Perhaps, since most such societies were illiterate, there is no much evidence out there of how exactly they were treated. So, in the absence of such evidence, how is one to know what rules should be applied to a country containing Pagans which is conquered by an Islamic state at some time in the future? Perhaps a hypothetical approach would be required after all in this case?

[جوري]

since most such societies were illiterate

You know this because? Printing press is a recent invention around the 1500s, so yes maybe books weren't readily available but it doesn't mean folks were illiterate. If you're talking about remote regions where no one has been, well no such societies exist, maybe one in Brazil that made it to the news but they were destroyed shortly after due to exposure and not at the hands of Muslims!

there is no much evidence out there of how exactly they were treated

The treatment that Islam implements is universal not for one group while the other is no. I don't know the answer per specifics of tax or whatever but not per living conditions and whether or not they're able to practice their religion. People were always able to practice their religion under Islam!
The guy who killed the second khalif Umar ibn ilkhtaab was in fact a Zoroastrian and he lived in Medina, and Umar was actually about to approach his foreman to raise his wages, if he'd only been patient but he had too much hatred in his heart. At any rate it is a done deal

Perhaps a hypothetical approach would be required after all in this case?

You haven't demonstrated for me purpose so I don't see a requirement.

best,

[attica]

And you know they were literate...because?

The treatment that Islam implements is universal not for one group while the other is no.
Ok, so it is not done on a case-by-case basis only, but according to universal principles, alternatively described as "hypothetical".

People were always able to practice their religion under Islam!
But, you have told me in your previous post that you do not know whether or not pagans were able to do this? So how are you able to make this statement after admitting to not knowing much about the treatment of pagans?

[جوري]

But, you have told me in your previous post that you do not know whether or not pagans were able to do this

That's not what I said please read carefully, my comment was strictly about Jizyah, which I reiterated wouldn't matter anyway once a new Islamic state is established in shaa Allah!

So how are you able to make this statement after admitting to not knowing much about the treatment of pagans?

I have no reason to conclude differently given the fundamentals of the religion!

best,

[جوري]

The part of Jizya/tax please see post number 4 so that I am not repeating things unnecessarily!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:



That's of course if your q is purely regarding tax/jizyah, as for practicing their religion, well Islam always enabled folks to practice their religion freely. there's no compulsion so if they wanna pray to odin or amun ra it is their prerogative!

best,

The treatment that Islam implements is universal not for one group while the other is no. I don't know the answer per specifics of tax or whatever but not per living conditions and whether or not they're able to practice their religion. People were always able to practice their religion under Islam!

That's not what I said please read carefully, my comment was strictly about Jizyah, which I reiterated wouldn't matter anyway once a new Islamic state is established in shaa Allah!

Do you see how many times I posted the same thing? What is wrong with you?

[attica]

Sorry, but I still find many points in your reply unclear and, when I ask you to explain them, you get angry with me and say things like "what is wrong with you", the implied insult being that I am stupid? You consider this the normal way to respond to questions? Hardly a good way to encourage debate.

[attica]

What is wrong with me is that I like to understand what someone tells me and not just "fill in the blanks" with my own, perhaps incorrect, interpretation of what they mean. I am asking you for clarifications because I want to understand what you are telling me. What is wrong with that?

[جوري]

Sorry, but I still find many points in your reply unclear and,

exactly which part was difficult?

when I ask you to explain them, you get angry with me and say things like "what is wrong with you", the implied insult being that I am stupid? You consider this the normal way to respond to questions? Hardly a good way to encourage debate.

When you've been replied to, one, two, three four times with the exact same thing and yet choose to pose the same question again, exactly what am I supposed to make of your person? I didn't imply you're stupid, I think you know exactly what you're doing and your purpose here. I hope the mods will indeed look into whether or not you're the banned member Hugo. Exactly the same style pretext and winded query over something that has already been replied to.
As for the treatment of Non-Muslims whomever they're there's no compromise, they're to be tolerated and invited to the truth in the best possible ways. As for your Q about Jizya (tax) I have answered that amply.
Do you have any further queries or just hypotheticals which I have already also taken care of!

[attica]

Just a final question, are there any references in the Quran or Hadith to how polytheists should be treated under an Islamic state?

[Independent]

are there any references in the Quran or Hadith to how polytheists should be treated under an Islamic state

To clarify the question so someone else can answer: is your question about whether there is a difference (in an Islamic state) between the treatment of individuals who follow a non-Muslim monotheistic religion, compared to those who follow polytheistic religions?

And (from your original post) are you also asking if it makes a difference if this polytheistic religion is derived from its own book of revelation (equivalent to a Qu'ran or Bible) as opposed to being purely handed down within an oral tradition? (This sounds to me like you have heard about different treatment within islam for 'children of the book').

[جوري]

The rules are the same for ALL!

[attica]

Hi Independent,
Yes, that's exactly what I want to know - with one small difference. It may be that the manner of treatment of polytheists was handed down by oral or written tradition (just that the written tradition was not Quran or Hadith) or was based on precedent (like in common law caselaw) - e.g. polytheists in country X were treated in a certain way in the seventh century so, without having any specific written or oral teaching about how they should ideally be treated being available to conquerors of another country which contained polytheist populations, they decided to overtly follow the precedent of what the rulers of country X in this matter did.
Thanks!

[aamirsaab]

This might help:

During the Umayyad period when Muslims entered Sindh (now western Pakistan), they saw Hindus and Buddhists in that area. Muhammad ibn al-Qasim, the commander of the Muslim armies at that time, sent a letter to the Caliph asking him how he should treat them. The Caliph called a meeting of the `ulama’ (scholars) and told them that the armies had met people who are neither Christians nor Jews. How should they be treated in Islam? The `ulama’ gave their fatwa that these people should be treated like the People of the Book with the exception that Muslims will not marry their women and will not eat the meat slaughtered by them. This is the position that Muslims took with other groups as well when they came into contact with them in other lands."



Taken from:
http://208.43.71.196-static.reverse....g-peace/175803

[attica]

Thanks for that aamirsaab. However, I am uncertain whether Buddhists or Hindus are truly polytheists in the sense that there are gods in Buddhism but they are not really considered that important compared to Buddha, who himself is not a god, and all Gods in Hinduism are representations of one God, in my understanding.
Do you have any similar references relating to polytheist peoples from non mainstream religions - e.g. animists (ok, I suppose they are pantheists rather than polytheists) or worshippers of a pantheon of Gods with no unifying principle such as one can see in Hinduism, such as the Nordic gods (I know there were some commercial contacts between the Arabs and the Vikings, so I wonder whether there might be some information out there about how the Viking religion was seen by Muslims).

[aamirsaab]

Thanks for that aamirsaab. However, I am uncertain whether Buddhists or Hindus are truly polytheists in the sense that there are gods in Buddhism but they are not really considered that important compared to Buddha, who himself is not a god, and all Gods in Hinduism are representations of one God, in my understanding.
Do you have any similar references relating to polytheist peoples from non mainstream religions - e.g. animists (ok, I suppose they are pantheists rather than polytheists) or worshippers of a pantheon of Gods with no unifying principle such as one can see in Hinduism, such as the Nordic gods (I know there were some commercial contacts between the Arabs and the Vikings, so I wonder whether there might be some information out there about how the Viking religion was seen by Muslims).

In An-dalus, Vikings would have been known as fire-worshippers, so would be included under the polytheist umbrella. There is a concept in Islam called Qiyas, which allow us to use analogical reasoning/deduction. Long story short, Vikings and other polytheistic types (that may or may not fit neatly as Buddhism or Hinduism etc) would clearly go under the same umbrella term of dhimmis.

Further reading:
http://www.nordicway.com/search/Viki...the%20East.htm

[attica]

Ok, that clears it up, thanks for that.