/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The rights of non-Muslims under Islam?



Cherub
09-01-2006, 05:59 PM
Hi there could you tell me what rights i have as a non-Muslim in a Islamic society?
What things can i do and what can't i do?
I am under the impression that if i were to live in a Islamic Sharia based society, i would be a second class citizen, denied the same rights as Muslims, and the rights/freedoms that i enjoy today.

But i am curious how the Muslims here understand the position of non-Muslims in a Muslim society.
And do you think they are fair and justified?

I mean, why should i as a non-Muslim not be opposed and hostile towards Islam?
It seems to limit and threaten my freedoms.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
09-01-2006, 10:36 PM
I moved this to comparative religions as I believe this is more open as a debate subect rather than as being simply informative. Hopefully open discussion will help clear up some misconceptions.
Reply

Cherub
09-01-2006, 11:09 PM
Also that last question might require some clarification, i'm a non-Muslim i enjoy things which are forbidden to you.
I'm not a huge sinner or anything, but i enjoy alcohol.
I like looking at beautiful woman etc.

I mean how would my life change if i lived under sharia law?
Could i still enjoy the things i do today?
Or would i be limited?

Could i make jokes about Islam?
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.
Reply

Woodrow
09-01-2006, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
Also that last question might require some clarification, i'm a non-Muslim i enjoy things which are forbidden to you.
I'm not a huge sinner or anything, but i enjoy alcohol.
I like looking at beautiful woman etc.
I mean how would my life change if i lived under sharia law?
Could i still enjoy the things i do today?
Or would i be limited?

It would be forbidden to sell Alcohol. There would be no legalization of pornography, drugs, alcohol etc.

No stores would sell pork products, so there goes the BLT'sCould i make jokes about Islam?

That would depend on what you call a joke. Muslims do have a sense of humor, but we do not consider anything that ridicules or demeans Allah(swt) and His Prophets (Peace Be Upon All of Them). Muhammad did have a sense of Humor and he did laugh and enjoyed seeing others laugh. I would say it would be best to not joke about Islam. However, there are jokes about us Muslims that are acceptable.
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.

Free mixing of the genders would be forbidden. However, in most Muslim countries I have lived in Non-Muslims were not obligated to obey Sharia Law.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
جوري
09-02-2006, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.
I didn't know you can make love in the park in the "free world" let alone in an islamic country.... my god how embaressing for you.... I believe they take you in on lewed acts and improper sexual conduct and set you up with a psych. consult... Why would you want to exhibit yourself or someone whom you supposedly care for in such a way? Also how do you personally feel about little children who frequent the park, or families or couples seeing such a private act?
Reply

syilla
09-02-2006, 01:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.
aren't you afraid that the police will mistaken that you are raping somebody :uuh: ....
Reply

mas
09-02-2006, 01:44 PM
hey peace brother

It seems to limit and threaten my freedoms.[/QUOTE]
this how i see it if u think it limit and threaten ur freedom then dont go their at all .no one is forceing u . and yeah i do think its fair becouse yall do watever u want in ur country so we do wat ever we want so im guessing that fair .
peace
Reply

*Hana*
09-02-2006, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
Also that last question might require some clarification, i'm a non-Muslim i enjoy things which are forbidden to you.
I'm not a huge sinner or anything, but i enjoy alcohol.
I like looking at beautiful woman etc.

I mean how would my life change if i lived under sharia law?
Could i still enjoy the things i do today?
Or would i be limited?

Could i make jokes about Islam?
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.
Peace Cherub:

A Muslim country honouring the laws of the Shariah would not have alcohol in it, so it would not be available to you.

A Muslimah living in such a country would most likely be covered, so no you would not be able to disrespect her by gawking at her like a piece of meat.

Fornicating in a park is not acceptable under the Shariah law, nor is it acceptable under government imposed laws. You would be arrested in both cases.

If your yard provides you with total privacy and away from public view, what would prevent you from sunbathing? Unless you have some disorder that makes you want to expose yourself in public, which is also illegal, I don't get your point.

Would it be ok if I sat in a room full of Christians and made jokes about their belief? Would it be ok if I visited a family in a foreign country and while in their presence I made jokes about their customs or way of life? There are jokes and there is disrespect and unless you understand the difference between the two, I would advice you to keep your jokes to yourself.

Living in a Muslim country that followed the Shariah wouldn't make you a second class citizen at all. You have the right to worship and to be protected to ensure that. You can shop, eat, work, operate a business, have a dinner party, etc. The availability of alcohol and pork would be non existant, but if your whole reason for existance is influenced by such things, then it is strongly recommended you don't live in a country that follows the Shariah.

Hope that clarifies things.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Salaam,


If drinnking,fornication,lewdness are all ill of society...then do you do it out of necessity to survive or just becasue you want knowing it is ILL..??
Reply

ManchesterFolk
09-02-2006, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,


If drinnking,fornication,lewdness are all ill of society...then do you do it out of necessity to survive or just becasue you want knowing it is ILL..??

Drinking moderatly is not bad. In some religions is it a part of the religion to drink wine at a time, and therefore a Shariah run country would be discriminating against that religion.
Reply

جوري
09-02-2006, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Drinking moderatly is not bad. In some religions is it a part of the religion to drink wine at a time, and therefore a Shariah run country would be discriminating against that religion.
if it were part of your religious ceremony then I am sure you can have it in your church services...... right now they are making stops all over the states to check for drunk drivers... a shame it has to come to that....
about two years ago ... a brilliant surgeon and a friend was murdered by a drunk driver... him, his wife and his sister in law... they didn't stand a chance.... not to mention a great deal of pateints I have come across half of their problems are due to terrible life style choices be it drinking or smoking, or drugs.......Boerhaave's Syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, Wernicke's Syndrome, korsakoff syndrome, fatty liver, cirrhosis.... just to name you a few... there is a reason God asks us not to drink alcohol.... and this list simply goes for what one can do to oneself.... but it certanly doesn't makeup for ending someone else's life......
Reply

*Hana*
09-02-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Drinking moderatly is not bad. In some religions is it a part of the religion to drink wine at a time, and therefore a Shariah run country would be discriminating against that religion.
Peace:

As in the Catholic church, you have one cup and everyone takes a sip, but it is not obligatory. The parishioners do not bring the wine, it is wine used by the church and as such, I'm sure the church would be permitted to use it. However, many churches are moving away from using wine and replacing it with juice, and many no longer practice this custom as it is not very sanitary.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

sonz
09-02-2006, 06:13 PM
Non-Muslims in Muslim Societies: Contemporary IjtihadThe Rights of Non-Muslims in Society: A Reading of Al-Qaradawi Thought
(Book Review)
By Mass`oud Sabri


Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is among the most prominent Islamic figures who expressed early interest in the issue of the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim societies. Al-Qaradawi’s views on this topic are particularly important because of his academic and scholarly background, which indicates that his thoughts are directly an extension of jurisprudential proofs.

Following are the most important rights deduced by Al-Qaradawi from his studies of religious texts and scholarly commentaries, from his important book on the subject Ghayr al-Muslmein fi el-Mujtama` al-Islami; Wahbah Pub., Cairo, 1997. This review is based on this work.

The Right of Protection

In Islam, the primary right of the People of the Book is to be protected and safeguarded against any foreign aggression, and Muslims are compelled to protect them in the event such a transgression falls against them. Al-Qaradawi bases his standpoint about this on jurisprudential texts and the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) while speaking to Qultoo Shah—a Tartar—regarding the freeing of prisoners of war (POWs). Qultoo Shah agreed to set Muslim POWs free upon Ibn Taymiah’s request; however, the latter insisted that Christian POWs be released with the Muslims, which was what happened in the end. This stand by IbnTaymiyah reflects the perspective of jurisprudence on the subject of the right to external protection.

The Muslim state must also defend minorities against internal injustice or oppression, such that they cannot be subject to any form of wrongdoing by the state or its sponsors; and overlapping evidence from the Qur’an and the Sunnah clearly prohibits any sort of injustice against noncombatant non-Muslims living peacefully within a Muslim state. To this effect, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, “He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi). He (peace and blessings be upon him) is also reported to have said, “He who harms a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims has harmed me, and he who harms me has harmed Allah” (At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain of transmission).

Not only was this the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the issue, but the Rightly Guided Caliphs also practiced this, with several authentic incidents to this effect reported by `Umar ibn Al-Khattab and `Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Types of Protection

Protection of body and blood.

Al-Qaradawi asserts the consensus among scholars to protect the blood of non-Muslim minorities living within a Muslim state, and he explains that violating their blood is considered one of the gravest of sins. This is due to the hadith by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years” (Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah, among others).

Although scholars have differed over the issue of exchanging the life of a Muslim for that of a Dhimmi (a noncombatant non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims and lives within a Muslim society), yet Al-Qaradawi sides with the opinion that says a Muslim can be killed if he wrongfully murders a Dhimmi with no right. He founds his view on this matter on texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah that underline the principle of retribution and reprisal (qisaas).

This was also the view endorsed and exercised by the Ottoman caliphate in all the regions and provinces falling under its jurisdiction for centuries, until the Muslim empire fell prey to its enemies and was knocked down.

Protection of Money and Property.

This principle has been unanimously agreed upon among all Muslims of all sects throughout history.

Moreover, Islam regards whatever property or money considered by non-Muslims as valuables—according to their faiths—and pledges to protect them, even if they pose no real value to Muslims.

Liquor and swine are an example of this, where they cannot be considered as money to Muslims; and if a Muslim squanders or spoils such property of another Muslim, he could not be called upon for compensation; yet if a Muslim spoils such assets belonging to a non-Muslim, he would be responsible for compensation, according to Imam Abu Hanifah.

Protection of Honor.

The honor of Dhimmis is sacred in Islam, similar to that of Muslims. Imam Al-Qarafi Al-Maliki once said on this note, “He who transgresses against them (Dhimmis)—even with a mere word of injustice or backtalk— has jeopardized the covenant with Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the covenant of the religion of Islam” (Al-Furuq Part 3, p. 14). Moreover, there exist abundant additional texts to the same effect.

Social Welfare Against Disability, Old Age, and Poverty

Islam guarantees non-Muslims living under its societal umbrella their necessary welfare benefits, which enables them to live decently and support those they sponsor, since they are considered among the Muslim state’s subjects or citizens. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, “You are all sponsors and (thus) responsible for those you sponsor” (Ibn `Umar).

The Rightly Guided Caliphs and those who succeeded them continued to implement these policies towards non-Muslims living within the Muslim community. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), Khalid ibn Al-Waleed sent a letter to the non-Muslim population of Al-Hira in Iraq at the time, assuring them that none of their rights were to be undermined by the Muslim army’s procession in their direction. `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was also reported to have seen a senile Jewish man asking for alms, and hence took him to the treasury and authorized a monthly pension for him and the likes of him. By this, Abu Bakr and `Umar had jointly formulated a social welfare legislation for Muslims as well as non-Muslims, which was then unanimously picked up by all Islamic sects.

The Right to Freedom of Belief

Additionally, Islam does not force Dhimmis to embrace Islam and recognizes their freedom to choose their own faith. This freedom is stressed in the following Qur’anic verses: [Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error] (Al-Baqarah 2:256) and [Wilt thou (Muhammad) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!] (Yunus 10:99). History does not deny this fact about Islam, nor do Westerners.

Islam, throughout history, has safeguarded and protected houses of worship for non-Muslims and sanctified their religious rituals. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wrote the peace treaty to the people of Najran, he asserted to them that they should receive the protection of Allah and His Prophet on their property, faith, and choices. Similarly, `Umar’s letter to the people of Iliya in Palestine, upon the Muslim conquest, promised them the liberty to choose the faith they deemed appropriate; in addition there are analogous accounts attributed to Khalid ibn Al-Waleed.

Permitting non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship in towns mainly populated by Muslims also falls under this scope, where early in Muslim history several churches were built in Egypt during the first Hijri century. An example of this is the construction of the Mar Marcus Church in Alexandria (between AH 39 and 56), and the construction of the first church in Fustat in the Roman Alley during the reign of Maslamah ibn Mikhled (between the years AH 47 and 68). Ruler Abdul `Aziz ibn Marwan also authorized constructing a church in Helwan while founding the city, besides allowing a number of bishops to erect hermitage cells.
Historian Al-Maqrizi once said, “All modern day Cairo churches were undoubtedly restored in Islam.”

As for the villages and areas which are not considered among the Muslim provinces, non-Muslims were not repressed against practicing and illustrating their religious rituals, including the renovation of old churches and cathedrals, and were free to expand building such houses of worship as their population grew.

This form of religious tolerance is strictly a bread of Islam, as the infamous French scholar Gustave Le Bon once said (as al-Qaradawi quotes him in his book),
From the verses of the Qur’an we previously mentioned, we find that Muhammad’s forgiveness towards the Jews and the Christians was ultimately phenomenal; and such tolerance was unprecedented by the founders of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity in particular. We shall also see how his successors followed in his footsteps on this path.
Other Europeans also paralleled such discourse, such as Robertson and others.

The Right to Work and Earn Profits

Islam has guaranteed to non-Muslims living under its umbrella the right to engage in any form of commercial activities, including buying, selling, leasing, and otherwise, with the exception of exercising riba (taking interest on loans, etc.). This rule was derived from a letter from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the Magians of Hajar, where he said, “You may choose between neglecting riba or facing war with Allah and His Prophet.” The selling of liquor and swine in Muslim provinces are also to be added to the list of the impermissible; otherwise, non-Muslims may practice any form of commercial activities.
Adam Mitz, as al-Qaradawi sites, once said
Islamic jurisprudence does not forbid Dhimmis from entering any field of labor they choose, and they were well-established in trades which yield large profits; excelling as bankers, landlords, and doctors. Moreover, they managed to organize themselves, such that the most prominent bankers in the Levant (Syrian and Palestine) were Jews, whilst the best physicians and writers were Christians, and the chief of the Christian population in Baghdad was the caliph’s personal doctor, as the caliph also gathered in his court the chiefs and heads of the Jewish population.
The Right to Occupy State Ranks
Islam did not prohibit Dhimmis from occupying state positions, since it perceived them as an integral part of the state fabric. Islam also did not encourage their isolation, and the People of the Book were allowed to join all offices apart from those marked with a religious trait; for example, the imamate, leadership of the state and the army, judge of disputes between Muslims, administrator of the dispensing of charity and alms.
The imamate, or caliphate, is a senior leading position in both the mundane world and the religious, a succession of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); and, obviously, such ranks could not be open to non-Muslims.

Similarly, the leadership of the army cannot be considered a purely civil duty, since it is strongly related with jihad, which tops the ladder of Islamic duties.

Moreover, the judiciary is operated through Islamic jurisprudence, and non-Muslims cannot be asked to carry out the rules of a doctrine they do not believe in.

The guardianship over alms and charity also falls under the scope of Islamic duties and logically could not be entrusted to the disposal of the non-Muslim minority within the Muslim state.

Other than the above, all state offices were always open to Dhimmis on condition that they fulfilled the necessary requirements and prerequisites for the positions applied for; that is, integrity, honesty, and loyalty to the state. This is to assure that these sensitive posts be entrusted to faithful individuals, other than those Muslims are warned against in the following verse: [O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: they will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: what their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom] (Aal `Imran 3:118).

Imam Al-Mawardi even authorized Dhimmis to undertake executive ministries rather than delegate ministries. Executive ministers are those who implement and execute the imam’s orders.

Conversely, delegate ministries are those which the imam entrusts to the minister to devise certain political, administrative, and economic matters according to his own personal judgment.

During the Abbasid era, Christians undertook the ministry more than once; for example, Nasr ibn Haroun in AH 369 and Eissa ibn Nastorus in AH 380. Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan had also appointed a Christian clerk named Sarjoun.

Perhaps Muslim tolerance in this regard was sometimes taken too far, where at some instances, the rights of Muslims themselves were undermined and some skeptics complained about the undeserved prestigious authority of Jews and Christians above them.

Western historian Adam Mitz says in his book Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Hijri Century, “We find it very surprising the abundance of non-Muslim laborers and senior staff within the Muslim state; where Christians governed Muslims in Muslim provinces, and complaints against non-Muslims’ seniority in these provinces dates far back” (part 1, p. 105).

Prophetic Recommendations Particularly for Egyptian Copts

Al-Qaradawi finds that Egyptian Copts in particular have a distinguished position among other non-Muslim minorities, given the prophetic narrations to that effect. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said on his deathbed, “By Allah, respect the Copts of Egypt, for you shall conquer them, and they shall be your supporters in the cause of Allah” (At-Tabarani).

In another hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Treat them well, for they are an asset to you and a warning against your enemies by the Will of Allah.” Reference here is made to Egyptian Copts (Ibn Hibban).

Historical reality has lived up to the Prophet’s prophecies, where Egyptian Copts welcomed the Muslim conquerors, who saved them from the persecution they suffered under the Romans, who had taken up another sect of Christianity. The Copts started entering Islam in large numbers, to the extent that some rulers of the Umayyad dynasty mistakenly enforced the jizyah among some Copts who had already embraced Islam.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) attributed certain rights to Egyptian Copts that he did not grant to other minorities, where Ka`b ibn Malik narrates from the Prophet, “If Egypt is conquered, treat the Copts with dignity, for they have a blood relation with us.” Connotation is made here to the mother of the Prophet Isma`il, Hajar, who was an Egyptian (Reported by At-Tabarani and Al-Hakim).

Loyalty Guarantees

Moreover, Islam adds to the rights of minorities by laying down a number of guarantees to live up to these rights. Among the most important of these is the right to believe. Such rights are clearly defined in the Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah, and their practice falls under the correct practice of Islam.

These rights are also protected by the Muslim society, which is founded on accurate implementation of Islamic jurisprudence, including the rights of the People of the Book according to Islamic principles. Any Dhimmi who feels that he has been treated unjustly has the right to appeal to the ruler to reverse the injustice against him, either by a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
Scholars and the “general Islamic conscience” are another defense line for non-Muslims to seek protection behind.

Islamic history is full of incidents that indicate the Muslim community’s commitment to protect Dhimmis against any depreciation of their rights.
Islamic history reports the case of the priest who complained against an army leader who wrongfully took his money to Ahmad ibn Tulun, who then had it returned to the priest. There is also the case of the Copt who complained against `Amr ibn Al-`Aas to `Umar, who summoned the latter into account.

The role of scholars in this regard can clearly be detected in the stance of Imam Al-Awza`i towards the Abbasid ruler during his time, when the ruler kicked out a non-Muslim tribe from Mount Lebanon after a group of them had refused to pay their yearly agricultural tax. Al-Awza`i wrote on this matter to the caliph, denouncing the act and reminding him that Dhimmis were free people and not slaves.

Furthermore, when Al-Waleed ibn `Abdul Malik confiscated Church John from the Christians and enjoined it to a mosque, they sought Caliph `Umar ibn `Abdul Aziz’s assistance to revoke the wrongdoing against them, which he did.

The history of the Islamic judiciary bears witness to this, as was the case with `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) and others; which evidently proves that Islam renders the People of the Book as an integral part of society, not to be discriminated against by the Muslim population in any way.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2005/12/article01.shtml
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Cherub:

A Muslim country honouring the laws of the Shariah would not have alcohol in it, so it would not be available to you.

A Muslimah living in such a country would most likely be covered, so no you would not be able to disrespect her by gawking at her like a piece of meat.

Fornicating in a park is not acceptable under the Shariah law, nor is it acceptable under government imposed laws. You would be arrested in both cases.

If your yard provides you with total privacy and away from public view, what would prevent you from sunbathing? Unless you have some disorder that makes you want to expose yourself in public, which is also illegal, I don't get your point.

Would it be ok if I sat in a room full of Christians and made jokes about their belief? Would it be ok if I visited a family in a foreign country and while in their presence I made jokes about their customs or way of life? There are jokes and there is disrespect and unless you understand the difference between the two, I would advice you to keep your jokes to yourself.

Living in a Muslim country that followed the Shariah wouldn't make you a second class citizen at all. You have the right to worship and to be protected to ensure that. You can shop, eat, work, operate a business, have a dinner party, etc. The availability of alcohol and pork would be non existant, but if your whole reason for existance is influenced by such things, then it is strongly recommended you don't live in a country that follows the Shariah.

Hope that clarifies things.

Peace,
Hana
I would consider not being able to use alcohol a serious limit of my religious freedoms as it is a part of the Mass. If I want to eat pork, I will never accept someone else telling me I can’t. As far as sex in the park, I don’t think there are too many places in the world that would allow that. This breaks down to values and what each person believes in.

The fact that I could not say anything negative about Islam or mohammed would seriously bother me. I do not view him as a prophet; therefore he is not sacred to me and many other non-muslims. If you are in a room with Christians, you should definitely have the right to speak badly of Christianity if you wish. That is something I consider a right. That does not mean I would feel like saying anything against Islam or mohammed, but I reserve the right to.

Would I be allowed to attempt to convert muslims to Christianity and publicly display my religious beliefs? If no, then Islam and I would never be compatible.

Before anyone says something like "alcohol and pork are bad for society...etc" or "what freedom of speech is their in the West...etc", remember that this boils down to personal values and my own values will always be superior to myself, as your values will always be superior to you.
Reply

جوري
09-02-2006, 06:40 PM
I think at that point you'd have to question why it is you are living in an islamic country then... it is a matter of pros and cons... what benfits are you gaining at what risks... there are lots of things that offend me here and by virtue of the fact that this is my country and I live here I have to put up with it... have to put up with friends being killed by drunk drivers or my little niece and nephew seeing things that are not only age inappropriate but assulting to the senses...
There is also something called reverance and respect... I can't expect you to understand it but it is called common sense and morality... your mother means nothing to me, I have never met her, she could be an awful person that I don't believe in or her values... does that give me the right to just walk up to you and curse her to no end just because it is my right? believe it or not even in the free world there are laws against libel and slander... we are not animals and laws aren't meant to restrict us rather give guidence for an acceptable co-existence....
peace
Reply

*Hana*
09-02-2006, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
I would consider not being able to use alcohol a serious limit of my religious freedoms as it is a part of the Mass. If I want to eat pork, I will never accept someone else telling me I can’t. As far as sex in the park, I don’t think there are too many places in the world that would allow that. This breaks down to values and what each person believes in.

As far as the wine for mass....it's been answered above. No one would stop you from eating pork, but you wouldn't find it in a Muslim country. Sex in the park....we're in agreement.


The fact that I could not say anything negative about Islam or mohammed would seriously bother me. I do not view him as a prophet; therefore he is not sacred to me and many other non-muslims. If you are in a room with Christians, you should definitely have the right to speak badly of Christianity if you wish. That is something I consider a right. That does not mean I would feel like saying anything against Islam or mohammed, but I reserve the right to.

It's called RESPECT. You don't have to view Him as a Prophet, but I would certainly hope you would have enough common decentcy to not do it. Of course I have the ability to bad-mouth Christianity to Christians...but I was raised better than that and Islam teaches us better than that. Discuss, give opinions, etc....no problem, speaking negatively for the sake of it....up to you, but don't expect to be thanked for it and don't whine should people become angry at such rude and thoughtless behavior.

Would I be allowed to attempt to convert muslims to Christianity and publicly display my religious beliefs? If no, then Islam and I would never be compatible.

You think a church is not a public display? It's pretty big and rather visible. And no, you couldn't go on the street preaching Christianity in a country following the Shariah Law. Because it would be a Muslim country we believe you would be trying to take Muslims away from Islam and into Hellfire. Should you choose to live in such a country, you are free to practice your faith, to discuss it and to live your life without harassment, just as Muslims are permitted. If your sole purpose is to go to that country to preach...then you probably shouldn't go.

Before anyone says something like "alcohol and pork are bad for society...etc" or "what freedom of speech is their in the West...etc", remember that this boils down to personal values and my own values will always be superior to myself, as your values will always be superior to you

No, what it boils down to is that Alcohol wouldn't be available in such a country. As I said, if your existance depends on alcohol consumption, best you live in a country that makes it available.
What you are attempting to do is the reverse of what you are saying is unfair. You want to impose your beliefs on others and call it freedom. I am a Muslim living in the west and I am not permitted to provide my family with Halal meat that I have slaughtered myself on my own property. Therefore, I can claim the west doesn't allow me to practice my faith. However, this is not permitted as in most areas this would be unsanitary and not appropriate in this country. I have to go to a farm where the slaughtering of animals is permitted. So, if you want to go drink, then go to an area that provides it and permits it. Each country has it's own laws, just because you are permitted to do one thing in your country doesn't mean you have to force those values on another country. In the USA carrying arms is a right....in Canada you would be arrested. Does that mean an American should be permitted to carry a gun while in Canada? Whether these laws are government based or Shariah based makes no difference.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

What you are attempting to do is the reverse of what you are saying is unfair. You want to impose your beliefs on others and call it freedom. I am a Muslim living in the west and I am not permitted to provide my family with Halal meat that I have slaughtered myself on my own property. Therefore, I can claim the west doesn't allow me to practice my faith. However, this is not permitted as in most areas this would be unsanitary and not appropriate in this country. I have to go to a farm where the slaughtering of animals is permitted. So, if you want to go drink, then go to an area that provides it and permits it. Each country has it's own laws, just because you are permitted to do one thing in your country doesn't mean you have to force those values on another country. In the USA carrying arms is a right....in Canada you would be arrested. Does that mean an American should be permitted to carry a gun while in Canada? Whether these laws are government based or Shariah based makes no difference.

Peace,
Hana
As I previously said, it is a matter of personal values. Thank you for confirming exactly what I said. By the way, nowhere have I said I want to impose my values on others.
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
There is also something called reverance and respect... I can't expect you to understand it but it is called common sense and morality...
Wow, you sure do know how to show respect to others. You are a wonderful teacher. Don’t worry about my intelligence and common sense, I can assure you I am an intelligent and educated person with a great deal of common sense.

I have never questioned anyone's intelligence here, so please pass on the favor.
Reply

جوري
09-02-2006, 08:08 PM
I think it is oxymoronic and negating to the word (values) as well as self defeating to curse and be lewd and disrespectful to your host country, their customs and beliefs......
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I think it is oxymoronic and negating to the word (values) as well as self defeating to curse and be lewd and disrespectful to your host country, their customs and beliefs......
Agreed, guests should be respectful.
Reply

Tania
09-02-2006, 08:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace:

As in the Catholic church, you have one cup and everyone takes a sip,
Peace,
Hana
during sermon we are not receiving the wine from the priest anymore. Only in orthodox religion is kept to share the wine during the sermon.We have only to take the bread.. i need to search the english word
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tania
during sermon we are not receiving the wine from the priest anymore. Only in orthodox religion is kept to share the wine during the sermon.We have only to take the bread.. i need to search the english word
Confused. Are you saying the Catholic Church doesnt use wine anymore?
Reply

Tania
09-02-2006, 08:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
Confused. Are you saying the Catholic Church doesnt use wine anymore?
During the sermon only the priest drinks from the glass a little wine. The people are not drinking from the glass.
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tania
During the sermon only the priest drinks from the glass a little wine. The people are not drinking from the glass.
Yeah, but there is a seperate line to drink the wine in every Mass I have been to, if I recall correctly.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-02-2006, 08:51 PM
Yeah, but there is a seperate line to drink the wine in every Mass I have been to, if I recall correctly.
I see a correlation between wine consumption and fornication.
Reply

ACC
09-02-2006, 08:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
I see a correlation between wine consumption and fornication.
Kaboom! You sure arent afraid to say what you believe. I will definitely give you that.
Reply

glo
09-02-2006, 08:59 PM
Hello!

This thread seems to be drifting off into the great unknown ... :rollseyes

Does anybody have any additional information with regards to the rights of non-Muslims under Islam - on top of the information already given?

I would be interested to hear how Muhammed and the early Muslim communities treated non-Muslims ... :)

Peace.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-02-2006, 09:11 PM
As far as the Jews are concerned

1.During the life of Prophet Muhammad, the Jews in Madina had a synagogue and an educational institute by the name of Bait-Al-Madras. He made sure it was preserved as well as all the Jews attending it were protected.

2.The Prophet of Islam made several treaties with the Jews. Following is an extract of a message that he wrote to form a treaty:

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Ever Merciful. This message is from Muhammad, Messenger of God. Verily, whoever follows us from the Jews shall have the help and the aid; and shall neither be victim of injustice, nor taken vengeance upon. The Jews of the children of Awf are safe with the Faithful. They have their religion and the Muslims theirs and themselves, except those who oppress or sin, they will forfeit themselves and their families. The Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, of Bani Al-Harith, of Bani Saaedah, of Bani Aws and of Bani Belanah are Jews like the others.

As far as the Christians are concerned

1.The Prophet honored the Christians of Najran from Yemen who visited him in his own mosque in Madina. The Christians prayed according to Christian fashion inside the mosque, and the Prophet and his followers prayed in Muslim tradition.

2.The Prophet respected the autonomy of the Christian churches. The nomination and the appointment of bishops and priests was left to the Christian community itself.

3. Prophet Muhammad promoted cooperation between Muslims and Christians in the political arena as well. The prophet selected a non-Muslims and delegated him as his ambassador to Negus, the king of Ethiopia. The name of that ambassador was 'Amr-ibn-Umaiyah-ad-Damri.

4.During the days of the Prophet, there were two super powers, the Persians and the Romans. The Romans adopted Christianity while the Persians adopted atheist beliefs. Those two super powers were at war with each other. During that period, Muslims were a small minority in the Arabian Peninsula. They prayed to Almighty God that the Romans would win the war against the Atheistic forces. The feelings and the beliefs of the Muslims were based on the fact that the Romans were part of the People of the Book. (See Qur'an 30: 1-7)

5.The Prophet sent a message to the Monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai. The English translation of that document is as follows:

This is a message written by Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christians is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgement and the end of the world.

Contemporary Treatment of Non-Muslims

Non-Muslims flourished in the Muslim world in all aspects of life even after the abolition of colonialism. Anywhere a person goes in both the Arab world and the non-Arab Muslim world, he will see Christians and Jews. They have lived freely in the Muslim community and have thrived in the fields of religion, education, economics, politics, health, industry, farming, housing, banking, festivities, and social services.

In several Muslim countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Algeria or Sudan, etc. there are a large number of Christians in the highest political levels of the government.

Today there are forces that seem to be propelling a clash of civilizations, but let us build a bridge of understanding and mutual respect through the exploration of commonalities among all civilizations.
Reply

glo
09-02-2006, 09:15 PM
Thanks, Tabbaya

Presumably the beforementioned rulings on pork, alcohol and free-mixing between genders were in place then as they are now?
Or did those rules apply to the other religious grous at that time, too? (I know some did, at least for Jews, but I don't know if all)

Thanks.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-02-2006, 09:20 PM
Im actually not sure about that. I'll find out, unless someone else knows lol.
Peace
Reply

Cherub
09-02-2006, 10:44 PM
Ow dear, i didn't mean having sex in public, i meant simply enjoying each others company in a park, kissing etc.
Not having sex.

If people find that offensive they should close there eyes.
I don't judge and bother people who pray in public or something.
So respect each others way of life.

Yes it's different but you shouldn't bother me with it unless it directly harms you in some way.

Clearly though a Sharia run state would be a racist state.
As you would be judged and treated according to your religion and not your abilities.
Why wouldn't a non-Muslim be capable of handing out welfare checks?
They seem to be more then capable of doing so in most developed Western nations.
Reply

*Hana*
09-02-2006, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
Ow dear, i didn't mean having sex in public, i meant simply enjoying each others company in a park, kissing etc.
Not having sex.

If people find that offensive they should close there eyes.
I don't judge and bother people who pray in public or something.
So respect each others way of life.

Exactly, respect each other's way of life. When in a Muslim country, respect the laws of that country. If you are in a country where fondling is considered offensive....don't do it....simple.

Yes it's different but you shouldn't bother me with it unless it directly harms you in some way.

In Islam, we do feel public displays of affection are harmful, not to mention unneccessary. So, again, it comes down to respecting the laws and culture of the country you are in.

Clearly though a Sharia run state would be a racist state.
As you would be judged and treated according to your religion and not your abilities.

Where did you get that from?

Why wouldn't a non-Muslim be capable of handing out welfare checks?
They seem to be more then capable of doing so in most developed Western nations.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. :rollseyes
Peace,
Hana
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-02-2006, 11:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
Ow dear, i didn't mean having sex in public, i meant simply enjoying each others company in a park, kissing etc.
Not having sex.

If people find that offensive they should close there eyes.
I don't judge and bother people who pray in public or something.
So respect each others way of life.

Yes it's different but you shouldn't bother me with it unless it directly harms you in some way.

Clearly though a Sharia run state would be a racist state.
As you would be judged and treated according to your religion and not your abilities.
Why wouldn't a non-Muslim be capable of handing out welfare checks?
They seem to be more then capable of doing so in most developed Western nations.

Since u would be living in a Muslim country, it would offend that person because it goes against their way of life and Islamic culture of that country. Why would u wana kiss in public when u can do that in the vicinity of ur home? Domestic matters stay within the house. They dont leave the house for people to know about. Unfortunately sometimes, i end up seeing that on my way to class. Even though its not me doing it, i feel embarassed. i shouldnt have to see it when my whole point is not to see it or do it. So imagine u doing that in a Muslim country. That wouldnt make a Sharia run state racist. The whole point of an Islamic state is implementing Islamic laws. If they allowed you to do that, then what would be the difference between a Western country or an Islamic country? Judging peoples "moral ethics" or "etiquettes" is not judging someones religion. Kissing in public i guarantee u is not allowed in religion im sure. So u cannot say ur being judged because of ur religion. In a Sharia run state a person is only judged for their abilities. Even in the time of Muhammad(pbuh), thats what they were judged on. They were very much honored. I even gave an example previously.
Reply

*Hana*
09-03-2006, 12:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HusamLah
come on he obviously means discreetly
Salam Alaikum:

Discreetly or not, it is still illegal under both the Shariah and Government imposed laws. He's trying to say Islam is unjust because it prevents him from performing such acts. The sister was correctly pointing out that it is also not permitted under non-shariah law.

Isn't it unfair he is finger pointing at Islamic laws when his own laws do not permit the same thing?

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

جوري
09-03-2006, 01:01 AM
it would be interesting to note that Judiasm and christianity both also forbid eating (pigs) pork, ham or pickled pig feet... I believe it was saint paul that allowed it... I don't think Jesus endorsed eating it........ pls, correct me if I am wrong.. is there a place in the bible where Jesus allows the eating of pigs? I think if we get down to the nitty gritty we are not that different on what is allowed and what is forbidden........
Reply

*Hana*
09-03-2006, 01:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HusamLah
not when the repercussions of breaking the law would be different
excuse me??? What difference does it make? Illegal is illegal... regardless of the punishment. If I steal something in the west and get caught, I might get fined, imprisoned or placed on probation. Under the Shariah Law, if found guilty, you lose a hand. BOTH laws say it is illegal. According to you it's ok for someone to call Muslims racists because our punishments for illegal behavior differ??

Don't try to tell me that Islam is unfair because we don't incorporate man-made laws. And don't try to tell me that Islam infringes on the rights of non muslims because what is illegal under the Shariah is also illegal under government laws! If you live in a Muslim country....obey the law!! How difficult is that? I manage to obey the laws in my country every day with no effort at all.

Uffff, this is getting ridiculous and off topic. :heated:

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

جوري
09-03-2006, 01:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HusamLah
and do you, purestambrosia, see how your two statements are contradictory?
No please go ahead and point it out....
Reply

*Hana*
09-03-2006, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
it would be interesting to note that Judiasm and christianity both also forbid eating (pigs) pork, ham or pickled pig feet... I believe it was saint paul that allowed it... I don't think Jesus endorsed eating it........ pls, correct me if I am wrong.. is there a place in the bible where Jesus allows the eating of pigs? I think if we get down to the nitty gritty we are not that different on what is allowed and what is forbidden........
Salam Alaikum Sister:

There is a whole pork topic here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-eat-pork.html

Lots of reading there too. lol

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

جوري
09-03-2006, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Salam Alaikum Sister:

There is a whole pork topic here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-eat-pork.html

Lots of reading there too. lol

Wasalam,
Hana
Thank you sister Hana... this is very expansive... I appreciate it :)
Reply

ACC
09-03-2006, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
it would be interesting to note that Judiasm and christianity both also forbid eating (pigs) pork, ham or pickled pig feet... I believe it was saint paul that allowed it... I don't think Jesus endorsed eating it........ pls, correct me if I am wrong.. is there a place in the bible where Jesus allows the eating of pigs? I think if we get down to the nitty gritty we are not that different on what is allowed and what is forbidden........
I may be wrong, but didnt Jesus say something to the effect that there is no unclean food? As for saying it is forbidden by Christianity, I am sure that 2 thousand years of Christian thought and theology would have noticed this if that were true.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2006, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
I may be wrong, but didnt Jesus say something to the effect that there is no unclean food? As for saying it is forbidden by Christianity, I am sure that 2 thousand years of Christian thought and theology would have noticed this if that were true.
I know some of my christian friends don't eat it.....also, I am finding that christianity is constantly evolving.... people are always unhappy with one ruling or another of the catholic church... they want to bring it to fit the times.... which is their prerogative... everyone should live in accordance to their own moral compass....
Reply

ACC
09-03-2006, 01:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I know some of my christian friends don't eat it.....also, I am finding that christianity is constantly evolving.... people are always unhappy with one ruling or another of the catholic church... they want to bring it to fit the times.... which is their prerogative... everyone should live in accordance to their own moral compass....
Yeah, many people are trying to switch it, which seems to be the internal struggle that many religions are having today, including islam. People always want to make things more convenient for themselves.
Reply

*Hana*
09-03-2006, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
I may be wrong, but didnt Jesus say something to the effect that there is no unclean food? As for saying it is forbidden by Christianity, I am sure that 2 thousand years of Christian thought and theology would have noticed this if that were true.
Peace ACC:

If you check out the thread I posted for sister PurestAmbrosia you will find differing points of view regarding the eating of Pork. It's long, but a lot of it you can just scroll through to get to the verses in question.

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-03-2006, 02:15 AM
:sl:
Concerning the rights of non-muslims in the Islamic state:
4) Muslim Jurisprudents on the Security and Acknowledgment of the Rights of the People of Dhimma.
The Islamic rule was a pioneer in protecting the rights of the people of dhimma. This is reflected in the maintenance of their rituals and churches. The shari'a law provides for the following: "The second issue: The rights due to them by us, namely to maintain their residence in our countries except the Arab Peninsula namely Hijaz and Yemen; to secure their lives and property and not to impair their churches, wine and pigs so long as they do not display the same."[27]
Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by their religion. He says:
"They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the houses which they took by consent where such people are in a non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[28]
The Shari'a maintains the life and property of the dhimmi. It even stipulates the life penalty for the murderer of a dhimmi. A Muslim was sentenced to death during the rule of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, for killing a dhimmi, but the dhimmi's brother appeared and chose ransom instead so Ali told him: "Have they threatened you?" He said: "No but I chose ransom and I don't think my brother will come back by the killing of another man" so Ali released the murderer and said: "You know better that the one in our dhimma is treated as one of us as regards to blood [life] and ransom."[29]
In maintenance and protection of a dhimmi's property, Shari'a does not differentiate between a dhimmi's property and a Muslim's property. So stealing a dhimmi's property is punished for by amputation even if it were a Muslim's hand. Al-Qurtubi says:
"A dhimmis' life is perpetually inviolable and so is a Muslim's life and both have become people of the House of Islam. The evidence of this is that a Muslim's hand is amputated if he steals a dhimmi's property. Therefore, a dhimm's life would by analogy be as inviolable as a Muslim's life as property derives its inviolability from the inviolability of its owner."[30]
Al-Mawardi says:
"And he -– an Imam — is bound to ensure two rights for them; first, to save and spare their lives and second, to protect them so that they would be secure by being spared and guarded by being protected."[31]
Al-Nawawi said:
"We must spare their lives and indemnify them against any damage caused by us to their lives and property. We are also committed to defend them against the people of war."[32]
Muslim jurisprudents reiterated this concept. Ibn Al-Najar Al-Hanbali says:
"An Imam must protect the people of dhimma, deter those who injure them and defend them against those who seek to harm them."[33]
When the Mongolian general Qatloushah invaded Damascus in the early eighth century Hijri and imprisoned Muslims as well as Christian and Jewish dhimmis, Imam Ibn Taimiyyah went to him with an august of scholars claiming the release of the prisoners. The general agreed on releasing the Muslims exclusively. Sheikh-ul-Islam, then replied:
"All prisoners including Jews and Christians who are in our dhimma must be released and we will never let any prisoner with you including Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis are equal to Muslims as regards rights and duties."
So the Mongolian general released them all.[34]
Al-Qarafi quotes Imam Ibn Hazm who in turn accounts for Muslims' unprecedented consensus on the following:
"We are obliged to fight people of war who seek a dhimmi with weapons and we must sacrifice our lives to this end in order to protect people in the dhimma of Allah Almighty and the dhimma of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, as handing a dhimmi over without such struggle and sacrifice is an omission of the dhimma covenant."[35]
5) Examples of the Treatment of Dhimmis by Muslims
When Muslims became incapable of honoring the condition of protection of dhimmis, they refunded to them the jizya for non-satisfaction of its pre-condition namely protection.
Judge, Abu Youssef, quotes in his book, Taxes, as well as other books, Makhoul who reports that a sequence of news was reported to Abu 'Ubaida declaring the invasion by the Roman troops. Abu 'Ubaida and the Muslims found this unmanageable, so Abu 'Ubaida wrote to every visor of the cities whose people agreed with Muslims on Jizya ordering them to refund the Jizya and taxes. He ordered them to inform the dhimmis of the following:
"We hereby reimburse your money as we have been informed of the troops that are about to invade us and the condition between us was to protect you and we cannot do this now, so we will reimburse the money we took from you. We do abide by our agreement and we will honor our condition if Allah rendered us victorious over them."[36]
When the people of dhimma participated in defending their countries, they were exempted from the jizya. This was done by Mu'awaiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, with the Armenians. The French historian Lauren says in his book Armenia between Byzantine and Islam:
"Armenians welcomed Muslims to free them from the oppressive Byzantine rule. They even allied with Muslims to fight the Khazr. Arabs maintained for Armenians their accustomed conditions and the covenant was given by Mu'awaya in 653 AD to Commander Theodor Rakhtoni and to all his co-nationals so long as such is their wish. The covenant in brief is as follows: "They will be exempted from jizya for three years. Then they are free to pay the amount they view appropriate. They also covenanted and assured him that they will cater for fifteen thousand knights instead of jizya and that the Caliph would send to the forts and strongholds of Armenia any Emirs or commanders or horses or judges and that if they were invaded by the Romans he is to provide them with all the help they might need. Mu'awaya hereby takes this covenant before Allah Almighty."[37]
The right of the people of dhimma does not stop short at defending them against their enemy, but it also includes defending them against any injury that might disturb them or cause them unrest even if by speech. Al-Qaraafi says: "The dhimmi agreement stipulates rights for the people of dhimma that we should honor because they are in our protection and neighborhood. They are also in our dhimma, the dhimma of Allah Almighty and the dhimma of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and Islam. So if any person attacks them even by ill speech or backbiting he has violated the dhimma of Allah and the dhimma of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and the dhimma of Islam."[38]
Muslims, guided by their religion, continued their civilized giving when they were transformed from Jizya takers to almsgivers to protect and sustain poor dhimmis. Ibn Zangawaih narrated that 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab(R) saw a senile dhimmi man begging, so he said: "We are unfair to you if after this old age we ask you to pay jizya." Then he wrote to his workers prohibiting them from taking jizya from old people.[39] He also commanded: "Reduce the sum of jizya for people who cannot afford for it and give alms to those who are incapable of paying at all."[40]
Caliph ‘Umar ibn Abd ‘Aziz also wrote to his worker in Basra 'Udai Ibn Arta'a saying: "If you find that a dhimmi becomes old, weak and poor, give him [some alms] from the Muslims' Treasury House."[41]
Nevertheless if a dhimmi who can afford to pay jizya refrains from payment, he will be punished without violating his covenant. Al-Qurtubi says:
"It is permissible to punish them if they refrain from payment while such being affordable. However the one proving to be incapable of payment may not be punished because the one who is incapable to pay is exempted and the rich are not bound to pay the jizya for the poor."[42]
Muslim jurisprudents realized the significance of the dhimma covenant and the seriousness of breaching it; and that it is never terminated by mere abstention from payment. Al-Kasaru Al-Hanafi says:
"As for the agreement (the dhimma covenant) it is binding on us so that Muslims may not terminate it in any way whatsoever. As for dhimmis it is unbinding."[43]
Testimony of Western Historians
A person might ask: Have Muslims realized these magnificent ideal principles? Have they really honored the dhimma of their Prophet throughout their lengthy history? We will hereby state three testimonies by Westerners who repeated the truth duly established in our great history.
Welldiorant says:
"The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them."[44]
Adam Mitz in his book The Islamic Civilization says:
"Dhimmis used to pay jizya each pro rata his income. Jizya was similar to national defense tax as it was only paid by men who can go to war while the disabled, priests, clergy were exempted unless they have wealth."[45]
Thomas Arnold in his The Preaching of Islam says:
"The purpose of levying this tax on Christians – as reiterated by some researchers – was not a form of punishment for not accepting Islam. They rather used to pay it with the remaining dhimmis namely non-Muslims subjects of the Islamic state whose beliefs prevent them from joining the military service in return for the protection secured to them by Muslims' swords."[46]
Islam thus is patently cleared by the historical testimony of objective non-Muslims from the allegation attributed to it by the unjust and non-objective.
Taken from:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions


Many many more articles here:
http://www.load-islam.com/classified...assified_id=16


:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-03-2006, 02:18 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
I see a correlation between wine consumption and fornication.
Well it certainly has an apparent link with rape according to statistics; more than 45% of rapists in the US were under the influence of alcohol. Here's something I posted on the forums before:

Here are some rape statistics within the U.S.

General Rape Statistics
Every 2 minutes a woman is raped in the U.S.
72 of every 100,000 women are raped in the U.S. each year.
28% of women are raped by boyfriends.
35% of women are raped by acquaintances.
5% of women are raped by relatives.
Less than one third of all rapes are reported to the authorities.

Rape Situation Statistics
25% of rapes take place in a parking garage or public area.
68% of rapes occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
More than 45% of rapists were under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Rapists used a weapon in 29% of all rapes.
The victim received external injuries in over 47% of all rapes.

Youth Rape Statistics
15% of rape victims are under the age of 12 (another source said as high as 22%).
29% of rape victims are between the ages of 12 and 17.
44% of rape victims are under the age of 18 (another source said as high as 54%).
80% of rape victims are under the age of 30.

College Rape Statistics
25% of college women have been victims of rape.
8.5% of college men admit to sexually abusing women - but don't consider that rape.
Of the women who were raped, only 25% described it as rape.
Of the women who were raped, only 10% reported the assault.
47% of the rapes were by dates and romantic acquaintances.

Date Rape Statistics
84% of women who were date raped knew their attacker.
Women who are 16-24 are more than four times as likely to be date raped.
90% of date rapes occur when either the victim or attacker was drinking.
33% of men said they would date rape someone if it could go undetected.
44% of women who were date raped have considered suicide.

Sources include RAINN, University of South Florida, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996), U.S. Department of Justice, Violence against Women (Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)
:w:
Reply

ACC
09-03-2006, 03:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace ACC:

If you check out the thread I posted for sister PurestAmbrosia you will find differing points of view regarding the eating of Pork. It's long, but a lot of it you can just scroll through to get to the verses in question.

Peace to you,
Hana
Yes I saw that, thanks.
Reply

dougmusr
09-03-2006, 03:46 AM
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.

Originally Posted by north_malaysian View Original
A Muslim who wants to convert to other religion, has to obtain an order from Shariah Court in order to leave Islam. After being examined and satisfied with apostacy of the Muslim, the Shariah court will give an order announcing the person to be no longer a Muslim.

But the main opposition for ex-Muslims to be declared as Christian, Hindu etc. comes from the Muslim community ... not from the authority....

So, presently if a Muslim convert to other religion ... he/she will be disowned by the family, relatives, community etc. Usually they will migrate to other cities or states.... where people dont know their previous religious background.

Ex-Muslims also would loose their 'Malay' status, because under Malaysian Constitution only Muslims can be Malays.....
Reply

*Hana*
09-03-2006, 04:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.
I am assuming you are using this to refute fair treatment of non muslims in a predominately Muslim country?

Based on that assumption, it should be noted that this thread is based on the idea that there is a country that is run totally under the teachings of Islam and follows only the Shariah Laws. There is no such country in the world today.

We can only tell you what the rights of non-muslims would be in a truly Islamic state. Apostacy is a totally different topic, but I do believe it was discussed at length in this forum. If you do a search I'm sure you would find it.

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

glo
09-03-2006, 08:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
I may be wrong, but didnt Jesus say something to the effect that there is no unclean food? As for saying it is forbidden by Christianity, I am sure that 2 thousand years of Christian thought and theology would have noticed this if that were true.
I know Hana has kindly provided a link for the whole thread on pork ... so I'll mention just briefly that the Christian belief that all food is permissible stem from this saying of Jesus:

"Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'" (Matthew 15:10-11)

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'
(Matthew 15:17-18)
(Just for information. Perhaps it can be discussed further in the thread Hana provided, if people want to)

Peace.
Reply

kormath
09-03-2006, 10:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cherub
Also that last question might require some clarification, i'm a non-Muslim i enjoy things which are forbidden to you.
I'm not a huge sinner or anything, but i enjoy alcohol.
I like looking at beautiful woman etc.

I mean how would my life change if i lived under sharia law?
Could i still enjoy the things i do today?
Or would i be limited?

Could i make jokes about Islam?
What if i wanted to make love with my girlfriend in the park?
Or sunbath , or things like this.
BR.Cherub, one question to you.
You said: I'm not a huge sinner or anything, but i enjoy alcohol.
I like looking at beautiful woman etc.

Do you like to see your son or daughter coming forward to kill you or beat you after enjoying alchohol? In our country , India, a terrible event has taken place. That is a youth killed 4 people including his beloved mother, yesterday, after he enjoyed alchohol. The news sources saying that the youth was very shy and a good man. What do you about this freedom? Apply this to your life .
The you said that you like looking beautiful girls. OK. But, suppose a youth in your area like looking your beloved daughter or sister or wife and mother. What will be your response? My opinion is that you will not like this.

We can understand from this comparison that the forbidden things are deserved to forbid because it's consequences. Do you accept?
Reply

snakelegs
09-04-2006, 05:54 AM
i am curious as to why you raised this question. were you considering moving to a muslim country?
Reply

Woodrow
09-04-2006, 07:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.Originally Posted by north_malaysian View Original
A Muslim who wants to convert to other religion, has to obtain an order from Shariah Court in order to leave Islam. After being examined and satisfied with apostacy of the Muslim, the Shariah court will give an order announcing the person to be no longer a Muslim.

But the main opposition for ex-Muslims to be declared as Christian, Hindu etc. comes from the Muslim community ... not from the authority....

So, presently if a Muslim convert to other religion ... he/she will be disowned by the family, relatives, community etc. Usually they will migrate to other cities or states.... where people dont know their previous religious background.

Ex-Muslims also would loose their 'Malay' status, because under Malaysian Constitution only Muslims can be Malays.....
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.

That is all in reference to a Muslim who converts to another religion. A Muslim who converts is an Apostate, no matter what religion he converts to. A person born, non-Muslim and living in an Islamic Nation will not be discriminated against. An Apostate has lost all rights as a Muslim because he has wilfully shunned his Country, family and God(swt). A Muslim living in a Muslim country has alligence to God(swt), Country and Family, when he turns his back on his country, he has essentialy become a traitor to his country. About the closest similarity would be like a USA citisen, deciding to become a communist and then denying US citisenship, taking Cuban citisenship, but trying to live in the US.
Reply

north_malaysian
09-04-2006, 08:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.

That is all in reference to a Muslim who converts to another religion. A Muslim who converts is an Apostate, no matter what religion he converts to. A person born, non-Muslim and living in an Islamic Nation will not be discriminated against. An Apostate has lost all rights as a Muslim because he has wilfully shunned his Country, family and God(swt). A Muslim living in a Muslim country has alligence to God(swt), Country and Family, when he turns his back on his country, he has essentialy become a traitor to his country. About the closest similarity would be like a USA citisen, deciding to become a communist and then denying US citisenship, taking Cuban citisenship, but trying to live in the US.

Actually in Malaysia, if a Malay converted to any religions but Islam, he is considered as traitor to Malay community. That's why being a Malay must be a Muslim.
Reply

dougmusr
09-04-2006, 02:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
This one pretty well sums up the rights in Indonesia.

That is all in reference to a Muslim who converts to another religion. A Muslim who converts is an Apostate, no matter what religion he converts to. A person born, non-Muslim and living in an Islamic Nation will not be discriminated against. An Apostate has lost all rights as a Muslim because he has wilfully shunned his Country, family and God(swt). A Muslim living in a Muslim country has alligence to God(swt), Country and Family, when he turns his back on his country, he has essentialy become a traitor to his country. About the closest similarity would be like a USA citisen, deciding to become a communist and then denying US citisenship, taking Cuban citisenship, but trying to live in the US.
So you are saying that people who do not embrace Islam do not do it willfully, but those that leave it do so willfully?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
09-04-2006, 02:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I didn't know you can make love in the park in the "free world" let alone in an islamic country.... my god how embaressing for you.... I believe they take you in on lewed acts and improper sexual conduct and set you up with a psych. consult...
LOL - It's illegal!
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
09-04-2006, 02:35 PM
What if i was a muslim and i wanted to convert to another religion, would i taken away to be beheaded?
Reply

*Hana*
09-04-2006, 02:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
So you are saying that people who do not embrace Islam do not do it willfully, but those that leave it do so willfully?
Peace Doug:

Where exactly do you get that from what brother Woodrow posted? :rollseyes

Peace,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
09-04-2006, 02:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
What if i was a muslim and i wanted to convert to another religion, would i taken away to be beheaded?
:confused:
Reply

ACC
09-04-2006, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Actually in Malaysia, if a Malay converted to any religions but Islam, he is considered as traitor to Malay community. That's why being a Malay must be a Muslim.
Well I cant agree with that at all. There is obviously no freedom of religion regardless of what people may say about Malaysia. If this is true, there is nothing anyone can post that would make me think otherwise.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-04-2006, 03:00 PM
Apostasy is discussed here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#28
And in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

The current thread is NOT about apostasy. Please stay on topic.

Thanks
Reply

dougmusr
09-04-2006, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Doug:

Where exactly do you get that from what brother Woodrow posted? :rollseyes

Peace,
Hana
An Apostate has lost all rights as a Muslim because he has wilfully shunned his Country, family and God(swt).
I believe that people choose to not become Muslim just as they choose not to become Christian. Choice is by definition willful. In fact, the concept of reversion to Islam shows that Muslims consider all people to be born Muslim. Thus if one denies being Muslim even without embracing any other religion, this is by default a conversion which makes them an apostate.
Reply

*Hana*
09-04-2006, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
I believe that people choose to not become Muslim just as they choose not to become Christian. Choice is by definition willful. In fact, the concept of reversion to Islam shows that Muslims consider all people to be born Muslim. Thus if one denies being Muslim even without embracing any other religion, this is by default a conversion which makes them an apostate.
Peace Doug:

No, if someone is born into a muslim family, are raised muslim and they choose not to follow religion, it makes them a non-practicing Muslim. Apostacy is totally different as you will see from the links brother Ansar Al-'Adl posted for you.

The topic is about rights of non-muslims according to Islam, not about non-practicing Muslims or apostates of Islam. But, feel free to open another thread regarding non-practicing Muslims or add your comments to the already created threads regarding Apostacy.

The fact is, the true teachings and practices of Islam guarantees a non-muslims right to worship without harassment. Whether all leaders of predominately Muslims countries abide by this is also a different matter, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the teaching of Islam.

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
09-04-2006, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
:confused:
Ok stoned to death then?
Reply

syilla
09-04-2006, 03:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACC
Well I cant agree with that at all. There is obviously no freedom of religion regardless of what people may say about Malaysia. If this is true, there is nothing anyone can post that would make me think otherwise.
he is a practise lawyer....so he is talking about the malaysia law...
Reply

dougmusr
09-04-2006, 04:11 PM
No, if someone is born into a muslim family, are raised muslim and they choose not to follow religion, it makes them a non-practicing Muslim. Apostacy is totally different as you will see from the links brother Ansar Al-'Adl posted for you.
I'll read up on apostasy links. I do however believe that it is not possible to be a non-practising Muslim. If this forum is correct:

The word "Islam" is an Arabic word that means "submitting and surrendering your will peacefull to Almighty God". The Arabic word "Muslim" literally means "someone who submits to the will of God".
So one who isn't practising Islam is not submitted, and therefore can't be called a Muslim. The same is true for Christianity. A person must be "born again", ie: a willful conversion, to be a Christian. There's a joke that says sitting in church doesn't make anyone a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes anyone a car.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-04-2006, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE=dougmusr;477725] I do however believe that it is not possible to be a non-practising Muslim.
QUOTE]
For someone not to be Muslim, they have to declare it. There are people who are proud to call themself a Muslim but are too lazy to pray. Thats non-practicing
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-04-2006, 04:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
So one who isn't practising Islam is not submitted, and therefore can't be called a Muslim.
No, a Muslim who isn't practicing Islam is sinning and is therefore a Fâsiq (sinner), but we cannot call them a Kâfir unless they disbelieve in Islam. Just because we say they are Muslims does not necessitate that they are 100% submitted to the command of God in every aspect.

As I said before this thread is about the rights of non-muslims under Islam, not the rights of Muslims under Islam. Off-topic posts will be removed.

Regards
Reply

ACC
09-04-2006, 07:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syilla
he is a practise lawyer....so he is talking about the malaysia law...
Yes, as am I (talking about the Malaysian law that is).
Reply

Woodrow
09-04-2006, 09:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr
So you are saying that people who do not embrace Islam do not do it willfully, but those that leave it do so willfully?
No, we recognise a person may wilfully be any religion they desire.


However, once a person becomes Muslim, it is with the understanding that it is a life time commitment and there is no turning back. Being Muslim goes beyond what most people consider religion. It is a 100% commitment in all phases of ones life. If a person betrays that commitment it is a betrayal to all of Islam. A non-Muslim has not made that commitment, so he can not betray that which he has not made a commitment to.


Now let us return to the topic. This thread is about the rights of a Non-Muslim in a Muslim country. The lose of rights for an Apostate is a totaly different matter.

Essentialy a Non-Muslim has quite a few guaranteed rights. Under shariah law a Non-Muslim would not be a citisen of an Islamic country. That is not as odd as it first looks. Shariah is based on the Qur'an, if a person is to follow shariah law it would not make any sense for them not to be Muslim. Sort of like it would not make sense for a non-Catholic to be a citisen of Vatican City. A non-Catholic would be treated well and fairly, but it would not make any sense to swear to uphold the rules of the Catholic church unless a person is Catholic.
Reply

جوري
09-04-2006, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HusamLah
if you fail to see the contradiction in your statement there's no need in further discussion which will no doubt be futile:uuh:
It is my feeling that you are still stuck at kohlberg preconventional level of moral and psycho-social development...You interject other people's posts not parting with much substance rather a scathing comment or two. I am not sure where your discussion was ?......for you to impart a "further discussion" which will undoubtedly prove futile? what exactly is that? other than an (open & closed) sentence from which the reader is unable to discern cause or effect or a viable conclusion?... I think it is best Islamically encouraged even when/if you see wrong to right it.....please point out the "contradiction" should you wish to loan your statements some credence, or help a fellow Muslim recognize the wrong of their ways?! if indeed you had sincere intent and not a personal agenda?... ... It is a child that blathers and a man that speaks his mind........
waslaam
Reply

wilberhum
09-05-2006, 09:31 PM
Isn’t all of this pointless since there are no “Islamic Countries”?
Reply

Woodrow
09-05-2006, 11:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Isn’t all of this pointless since there are no “Islamic Countries”?
I agree with you. i think what the Original Poster actually means "Is what are the rights of a non-Muslim in a predominatly Muslim Country"
Reply

Aznan
09-07-2006, 01:43 AM
I believe all the post before this has answered this thread's own title-question which is "The Rights of Non-Muslims Under Islam"...

Its not about any supposedly utopian country nor the title warrants the discussion about the rights of Muslim in a Muslim country, apostate or otherwise. I hope that moderators would simply delete postings thats irrelevant.
Reply

Woodrow
09-07-2006, 09:43 AM
It is apparant that the past few pots had little to do with the original topic. The question appears to have been concluded.

:threadclo
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 07:59 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2010, 11:34 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 12:49 AM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 04:13 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2006, 10:56 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!