The Rights of a Dhimmi (non muslim) & Muslim in an Islamic State.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State


Islam protects the rights belonging to the citizens of an Islamic state, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

• The first is the right to security of life and property. Islam prohibits killing except for that which is done in the due process of law at the hands of a God-fearing court. No government has the right to murder its citizens, openly or secretly, because they oppose its unjust policies and actions or criticize it. Furthermore, Islam confers the right of security of ownership of property.

• Another right is that of the protection of honor. Under Islamic Law, if one is proved to have said things that could have damaged the reputation and honor of the plaintiff, the accused is declared guilty of defamation — regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is able to prove that he is respectable and honorable in the first place.

• Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to the sanctity and security of private life. Thus spying on others, reading their mail, tapping their phones, etc., is illegal. Espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified on moral grounds. In fact, when a government does begin to spy on its own people, the common citizens cannot speak freely even in their own homes, and society begins to suffer from a state of general distrust and suspicion — which in turn leads to more dissatisfaction and eventually unrest.

• No citizen can be imprisoned unless his guilt has been proven in an open court in which he has the opportunity to defend himself.

• Citizens have the God-given right to protest against the government’s tyranny, whether that abuse is directed against individuals, groups, or the entire population.

Citizens have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law regardless of their religion

• Islam grants the right of freedom of thought and expression on the condition that it should be used to propagate virtue and truth, not to spread evil and wickedness. Further, no one has the right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. In fact, the citizen not only has the right of freedom of expression in order to propagate virtue, but also the duty to propagate virtue and stop the spread of evil.

• Islam gives people the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations, provided that this right is exercised to spread virtue and righteousness, not to spread evil and mischief.

• Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to freedom of conscience and conviction. Non-Muslim citizens cannot be forced to accept Islam, and no moral, social, or political pressure can be put on them to make them change their minds.

• Religious sentiments are to be protected. Discussion and debate on religious matters can be held, but these must be conducted in decency with no abusive language. This applies to followers of all faiths.

• An individual cannot be arrested or imprisoned for the offenses of others. Every person is responsible for his own acts.

• Citizens have the right to the basic necessities of life. It is the responsibility of the State to provide the basic necessities for the poor and needy, invalid, orphaned, elderly, unemployed, et cetera. Even a dead person with no guardian or heir has the right to a proper burial by the State.

• The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion.

• In an Islamic state, the rulers are not above the law. All officials of the state, whether they are the head or ordinary employees, are equal in the eyes of the law. None can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen has the right to forward a claim or file a complaint against the highest executive in the country.

• Citizens have the right to avoid sin. No government, or administrator, or head of a department can order another person to do wrong. A person who is so ordered has the right to refuse to comply, and this would not be seen as an offense under Islamic Law.

• Islam grants the right to participate in the affairs of state. Thus every citizen has the right to have a direct say in the affairs of the state or a representative chosen by him and others.

[wilberhum]

Where can I find this place?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


This has been explained by the Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him:

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.


According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah.

Regards.

[wilberhum]

Where? I didn't understand.

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

[siFilam]

:salamext:

Jazakallah Khair.

Allah is Just and so is His Religion. May Allah guide us to understand the beauty of Islam. Ameen.

wasalam
-SI-

[siFilam]

wilberhum

Where? I didn't understand.

Brother Fi_Sabilillah posted the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a generalized prophecy of what will happen to the Muslims. Currently we're in this stage:
"there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes"

Then the rightly guided caliphs will return again. If its during our lifetime we'll let you know when the rightly guided caliphs of Allah rule the land with the Shariah.

wasalam
-SI-

[- Qatada -]

Where? I didn't understand.

There is no islamic state today, as its been prophecised by Allaah's final Messenger (peace be upon him.) That's why i quoted the hadith.



Regards.

[wilberhum]

There is no islamic state today, as its been prophecised by Allaah's final Messenger (peace be upon him.) That's why i quoted the hadith.



Regards.

So the rights you posted exist no place.
We might as well talk about Utopia, another fictional place.

I do get testey when you talk about the rights of this "Defiant Dhimmi".

[siFilam]

So the rights you posted exist no place.
We might as well talk about Utopia, another fictional place.

I do get testey when you talk about the rights of this "Defiant Dhimmi".

History is a proof that it existed before and by the Will of Allah it will exist again when He Wills.

-SI-

[wilberhum]

History is a proof that it existed before and by the Will of Allah it will exist again when He Wills.

-SI-

What value is that to me?
For other than historical interest,
Why would I care what rights of the Vikings captives were?

[- Qatada -]

^ Because you realise that there really is a fixed governance & legislation which can and is prepared to stick to them fundamentals, whether its within our lifetime or even later on. Yeah - history is history, however Islaam sticks to its principles, and the praise is to Allaah for that since we know that there will [inshaa Allaah] be a time when there will be this justice once again.

[wilberhum]

we know that there will [inshaa Allaah] be a time when there will be this justice once again.

I just hope it doesn't exist where I live.

[- Qatada -]

Okay, that's upto you. But please don't go offtopic.


Thanks.

[Joe98]

The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion. ( and beliefs)

Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to freedom of conscience and conviction............and no moral, social, or political pressure can be put on them to make them change their minds.

And from this I conclude Iran is not an Islamic state.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stm


Iran's Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims' families.

The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.

The killers said they believed Islam let them spill the blood of anyone engaged in illicit activities if they issued two warnings to the victims.

The serial killings took place in 2002 in the south-eastern city of Kerman.


The case raises serious questions about vigilantes in Iran taking justice into their own hands and undermining the rule of law.

Up to 18 people were killed in just one year, but only five of the murders were tried in court.

According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.

The accused, who were all members of an Islamic paramilitary force, told the court their understanding of the teachings of one Islamic cleric allowed them to kill immoral people if they had ignored two warnings to stop their bad behaviour.

But there was no judicial process to determine the guilt of the victims in these cases.

The group even killed a young couple they thought were involved in sex outside marriage, but media reports say the couple were either married or engaged to be married.

Lawyers for the victims' families say the Supreme Court has five times overturned the verdict of a lower court that found all the men guilty of murder.

Now the Supreme Court is reported to have acquitted all the killers of the charge of murder on the grounds that their victims were all morally corrupt.
Some of the group may, however, face prison sentences or have to pay financial compensation to their victims' families.

[- Qatada -]

Joe, we know that there is no Islamic State in the world today ^ its mentioned in the 3rd post.



Regards.

[Ruggedtouch]

There is no islamic state today, as its been prophecised by Allaah's final Messenger (peace be upon him.) That's why i quoted the hadith.



Regards.

I’m not sure why you would make this claim.

I would propose that an Islamic state is one where Moslems are the majority inhabitants, where islam is the mandated religion and where sharia is the legal system. By that definition, there are many Islamic states. I would suggest that it’s disingenuous to claim - - and unrealistic to expect that – there ever could be the prototypical Islamic paradise prophesized by the historical figure you revere as a religious figure.

Clearly, people are an incorporation of their religious beliefs, practices and customs. People get their religious beliefs, in this case, Islam, from somewhere. In this case, that “somewhere” is the Koran. I note that the states you claim are not Islamic states certainly do claim that they are Islamic states. Their religious perspectives are inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. You simply can’t dismiss the religious connotations to their behavior. I incorporate them (and do so fairly on both sides of the question). These cultures have religion (islam), as their primary motivation so it is fair and accurate to judge islam by Islamic nations.


Curiously, however, folks who have not allowed a monopolistic spirit realm to develop, notably the folks of India and China, largely polytheistic nations, are on the rise. By dint of population, growing wealth, and political influence, their ascendancy portends an altered global mindset as all the gods shall be accorded a place in the ineluctable unfolding of human destiny.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

First- the statement that there are no Islamic states in existence today is not merely a claim. It is a fact that there is no country today that is implementing the Sharî'ah accurately and in its entirety. This is most notably visible in the absence of khilâfa, the Islamic political system of governance. In order to assess anyone's beliefs or actions from the Islamic perspective we need to go back to the original sources of Islamic law, the conclusions of which are summarized in the points found in the original post. The actions of any group or indvidual can only be attributed to their religion if it can objectively be demonstrated that such actions have explicit basis in the religious sources.

Second - Muslims need to start with educational reform in order to spread knowledge of the authentic Islamic teachings. Only then can we hope to move in the direction of correct and complete implementation of Islamic law.

Third - from the aforementioned points it should be clear that there is a definite purpose to be served spreading knowledge of the islamic laws in this regard, and it is not idle talk of a fanstasy 'utopia'. It is ironic that when misinformation is spread that paints Islamic law as unjust, no one complains but when accurate information is spread concerning the Islamic teachings, it is dismissed as a pointless discussion of a utopia! Rather, it is crucial for us to spread the accurate information about Islamic teachings if there is to be any positive reform in the Muslim Ummah. Our situation will not improve until Muslims return to their religion and begin practicing again.

Fourth - It is so easy to look at the problems around the world and throw all the blame on people's religious beliefs. It is not as easy to take an objective look at the situation and analyze the complex array of socioeconomic and geopolitical factors involved. But that is precisely what needs to be done.

Regards

[Hemoo]

it is a matter of who rules not how much muslims in the country.

some arab countries leaders have muslim names "as muhammad, ahmed, etc" but those leaders don't rule with the islamic laws because if they did then these countries would have been places of justice and good manners but unfortunately there is not just good country.

even in those so-called islamic countries there are so much oppression even upon the muslims people.

i can almost exclude saudi arabia, which is in my opinion the most near country to the islamic laws though it is too has flaws in the applying of the shari`a (islamic rules)

but after all what we muslims see now is already a prophecy said by prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from more than 1400 years, in the book of Abu Dawud and in the authentic (Sahiha)book by sheikh Alalbany:

Narated By Abdullah ibn Umar : I heard the Apostle of Allah, (pbuh) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.


*the "inah transaction" is a forbiden type of RIBBA transaction and it is one of the greatest sin but unfortunately it is being used by muslims in islamic countries.

*just to clarify the Jihad mentioned in the hadith, you must consider several types of Jihad such as by the written word, to struggle against your own bad desires, forbid your self from commiting sins and of course defending your muslim brothers and sisters and defending the lands owned by muslims.

and as you all may observe that indeed the majority of muslims are doing those forbiden things.

[nocturne]

Its exactly like talking about democracy. There is truly no country in the world that is implementing democracy in its entirety.

[Bassam Zawadi]

Assalamu Alaykum

This E book would seem to be useful http://www.library.mohdy.com/saveas.asp?p_path=http://www.mohdy.name/pdfs/e157.pdf&book_name_html><strong>Non-Muslims%20in%20the%20Shariah%20of%20ISLAM</strong>&writer_name_html=<strong>Salim%20Al-Bahnasawy</strong>

[Joe98]

Joe, we know that there is no Islamic State in the world today ^ its mentioned in the 3rd post.
Regards.

Iran, Pakistan and Saudie Arabia call themselves Islamic countries. As a result the world can see what an Islamic state is like by watching the actions of these countries.

The thing is, if any of us non-believers critisize any of these countries, you will tell us we are critizing Islam - and in the same breath tell us they are not Islamic.

-

[wilberhum]

If someone would create a true 100&#37; democracy, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

There would be no need to talk about the rights of this group or that group because they would all be the same.

If every country would adapt this democracy, surly all wars would end and for the first time since there have been two tribes, the world would be at peace.

[snakelegs]

Iran, Pakistan and Saudie Arabia call themselves Islamic countries. As a result the world can see what an Islamic state is like by watching the actions of these countries.

The thing is, if any of us non-believers critisize any of these countries, you will tell us we are critizing Islam - and in the same breath tell us they are not Islamic.

-

actually, i never heard anyone saying that you are criticizing islam when you criticize those countries.

[Isambard]

actually, i never heard anyone saying that you are criticizing islam when you criticize those countries.

Really? You havent seen the threads comparing Western countries to 'Islamic Ones' where by because they follow 'God's Law' they are somehow better?

[snakelegs]

there aren't any countries that have full islamic law.

[Isambard]

there aren't any countries that have full islamic law.

No, I guess not, but certain folk like to act like it when convieniant

[ranma1/2]

History is a proof that it existed before and by the Will of Allah it will exist again when He Wills.

-SI-

do you got a link to this history? and what happened to this wonderful place of right action?

[ranma1/2]

I’m not sure why you would make this claim.

I would propose that an Islamic state is one where Moslems are the majority inhabitants, where islam is the mandated religion and where sharia is the legal system. By that definition, there are many Islamic states. I would suggest that it’s disingenuous to claim - - and unrealistic to expect that – there ever could be the prototypical Islamic paradise prophesized by the historical figure you revere as a religious figure.

Clearly, people are an incorporation of their religious beliefs, practices and customs. People get their religious beliefs, in this case, Islam, from somewhere. In this case, that “somewhere” is the Koran. I note that the states you claim are not Islamic states certainly do claim that they are Islamic states. Their religious perspectives are inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. You simply can’t dismiss the religious connotations to their behavior. I incorporate them (and do so fairly on both sides of the question). These cultures have religion (islam), as their primary motivation so it is fair and accurate to judge islam by Islamic nations.


Curiously, however, folks who have not allowed a monopolistic spirit realm to develop, notably the folks of India and China, largely polytheistic nations, are on the rise. By dint of population, growing wealth, and political influence, their ascendancy portends an altered global mindset as all the gods shall be accorded a place in the ineluctable unfolding of human destiny.

You misunderstand, these are not True scotsman islamic state.

Now i am curious where these rules were established?
Where did Mohammad or Alah set up these rules?

[Inquisitive]

Iran, Pakistan and Saudie Arabia call themselves Islamic countries. As a result the world can see what an Islamic state is like by watching the actions of these countries.

The thing is, if any of us non-believers critisize any of these countries, you will tell us we are critizing Islam - and in the same breath tell us they are not Islamic.

-

Well calling a country an Islamic state doesn't make it one. What you should do is see if there actions are in line with the Islamic teachings. I can tell you with certainty that this nations that you have mentioned don't even follow Islam fully. To be fair there are people who try to impelment Islam in their daily life but they are not the majority. As a muslim when i see those nations i don't see an Islamic state in action and many muslims could testify to that.

You are welcomed to criticize those nations and if you need company let me know. It is a common thing in our family to discuss and criticize them. While you are doing so, please learn to differentiate between Islam and the so called "Islamic states.".

do you got a link to this history? and what happened to this wonderful place of right action?

It disappeared when muslims abadoned their faith and started to put culture, nation, and other things before Islam. Hopefully, one day it will return when muslims are ready for it.

[wilberhum]

I think which side of the battle you were on would impact just how wonderful you thought it was. :hiding:

I see it as a typical case of "History written by the victors".

[Joe98]

It is a fact that there is no country today that is implementing the Sharî'ah accurately and in its entirety.

perhaps if you provde an internet link to these laws we can all study them for ourselves.

[Woodrow]

perhaps if you provde an internet link to these laws we can all study them for ourselves.

I can not speak for Bro Ansar and he is a much better source for this then I am or ever will be. I am not very knowledgeable about Islam anr far from understanding Shariah.

I doubt if any comprehensive sites exist, particular English ones I doubt if any one scholar ever lived long enough to read all of the legal rulings of all the jf memory serves me right it takes about half a million books to hold all of the rules.

I believe many sharia scholars limit there studies just one area.

[snakelegs]

joe, here's a link for you that might help
http://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/thedialogu...M.%20Nazir.pdf

[asadxyz]

Hi
Please be clear about one thing.Being a muslim country is different from being an Islamic country.

1. Muslim country = where muslims are in majority
2. Islamic country = Where Islamic sharia is implemented.

From these definitions there is "No true" islamic country but there are many "muslim countries"

[Amadeus85]

I want to ask something. I know that christians and jews (people of the book) who live in lands conquered by muslims they have 3 options (as far as i know)- to accept the special tax and live peacefully in muslim controlled land, or to convert to islam and become full citizens or to resist the occupation and fight. So i wanna ask, whats the fate of atheists and agnostics (like Wilber or Snakelegs for example) in such lands. What options they have?

[snakelegs]

I want to ask something. I know that christians and jews (people of the book) who live in lands conquered by muslims they have 3 options (as far as i know)- to accept the special tax and live peacefully in muslim controlled land, or to convert to islam and become full citizens or to resist the occupation and fight. So i wanna ask, whats the fate of atheists and agnostics (like Wilber or Snakelegs for example) in such lands. What options they have?

i don't think atheists and agnostics are included under the term "dhimmi" so, yeah, it would be interesting to know the laws regarding them and how they differ.
(personally, i would never want to live in under any kind of theocracy, but it is not something i worry about.)

[barney]

Quote: So i wanna ask, whats the fate of atheists and agnostics (like Wilber or Snakelegs for example) in such lands. What options they have? Endquote

Quote: Execution. Endquote

And here we have the advocate of no-compulsion-in-religion.
Its true actually. You cant be non-compliant if your head is in a basket.

Thanks sister for showing us the sunny side of your religion.

[asadxyz]

I want to ask something. I know that christians and jews (people of the book) who live in lands conquered by muslims they have 3 options (as far as i know)- to accept the special tax and live peacefully in muslim controlled land, or to convert to islam and become full citizens or to resist the occupation and fight. So i wanna ask, whats the fate of atheists and agnostics (like Wilber or Snakelegs for example) in such lands. What options they have?

Hi
In any islamic country ,any non-muslim is as respectable citizen as any other person with exception of a few rights.Like he cannot become head of the state.
First Commander in Chief of the Pakistan Army was General Gracy a Christian,.One of Chief justice of Pakistan was Justice Carnaleus ,a christian. A few months back a Hindu took oath as Chief justice of Pakistan.
Though Pakistan is still not a true "islamic country".

[Muslim Knight]

i don't think atheists and agnostics are included under the term "dhimmi" so, yeah, it would be interesting to know the laws regarding them and how they differ.

What do you mean they're not included as "dhimmi"? The full term used is "kaaffir dhimmi" (unbelievers under protection). Unbelievers who wage war and cause trouble against the Islamic State is termed "kaaffir harbi".

Jews and Christians are categorized as "ahle kitab" (People of the Book)

[snakelegs]

What do you mean they're not included as "dhimmi"? The full term used is "kaaffir dhimmi" (unbelievers under protection). Unbelievers who wage war and cause trouble against the Islamic State is termed "kaaffir harbi".

Jews and Christians are categorized as "ahle kitab" (People of the Book)

i have seen dhimmi defined as unbelievers or non-muslim (under muslim protection) and i have also seen in more narrowly defined as referring specifically to christians, jews and sometimes other religions too.
so i am not sure if an atheist or agnostic would come under the term dhimmi or not. i am really curious now - does anyone know for sure?
were there even atheists and agnostics around in the early days of islam?
i know there were people of the book and there were idolators, but were there atheists?

[wilberhum]

i have seen dhimmi defined as unbelievers or non-muslim (under muslim protection) and i have also seen in more narrowly defined as referring specifically to christians, jews and sometimes other religions too.
so i am not sure if an atheist or agnostic would come under the term dhimmi or not. i am really curious now - does anyone know for sure?
were there even atheists and agnostics around in the early days of islam?
i know there were people of the book and there were idolators, but were there atheists?

It is my understanding that if you are not of the book, you are not welcome.
Leave or die.

[barney]

It is my understanding that if you are not of the book, you are not welcome.
Leave or die.

We Aggys and Athys would be classed as Idolaters, worshipping cars or pop idols or something.

Basically it's too weird a concept for people in those days to even think that God might not exist or that their and indeed all religion might be wrong, so if there were any aggys about they would have got the chop too.

[crayon]

If someone would create a true 100% democracy, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

There would be no need to talk about the rights of this group or that group because they would all be the same.

If every country would adapt this democracy, surly all wars would end and for the first time since there have been two tribes, the world would be at peace.

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

[Isambard]

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

Perfect for a specific group of muslims perhaps.....as long as you can somehow ignore the economic and political reprecussions that would ensure.

Not so perfect for everyone else:skeleton:

[crayon]

If by "everyone else" you mean non muslims, ie. Dhimmis, just check back with the original post in the thread, see how life would be for them.

And what do you mean by economic and political repercussions that would ensure?

[Amadeus85]

What do you mean they're not included as "dhimmi"? The full term used is "kaaffir dhimmi" (unbelievers under protection). Unbelievers who wage war and cause trouble against the Islamic State is termed "kaaffir harbi".

Jews and Christians are categorized as "ahle kitab" (People of the Book)

But when muslims conquer a land, what happens with atheists and agnostics who dont want to embrace islam?

[Isambard]

If by "everyone else" you mean non muslims, ie. Dhimmis, just check back with the original post in the thread, see how life would be for them.

And what do you mean by economic and political repercussions that would ensure?

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...economics.html

Under a shariah state, I as a non-muslim, am rendered a second-class citizen. I cannot change or vote on laws I do not agree with. Nor am I allowed to openly dicuss my faith (or lack thereof).

Your 'perfect' state is elitist.

[wilberhum]

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

Maybe if your a Muslim. But I have no desire to become a second class citizen or expelled.
I prefer to live where the government does not define my value by my religious beliefs.

[snakelegs]

living in a shariah state is not really amongst my worries.
but i am curious now - what is the definition of dhimmi?
does it only pertain to jews, christians (and some include other religions) or does it also include atheists and agnostics?
and did atheists and agnostics even exist then?
i have read conflicting things.

[Keltoi]

living in a shariah state is not really amongst my worries.
but i am curious now - what is the definition of dhimmi?
does it only pertain to jews, christians (and some include other religions) or does it also include atheists and agnostics?
and did atheists and agnostics even exist then?
i have read conflicting things.

Well, you have to keep in mind that during this time period there was no separation of church and state, therefore there weren't many vocal or even visible athiests or agnostics. If you came from Christian lands you were a Christian, if you can from Muslim lands you were a Muslim. That doesn't mean they all believed or were pious, but they were labeled as such.

[wilberhum]

Well, you have to keep in mind that during this time period there was no separation of church and state, therefore there weren't many vocal or even visible athiests or agnostics. If you came from Christian lands you were a Christian, if you can from Muslim lands you were a Muslim. That doesn't mean they all believed or were pious, but they were labeled as such.

I think that is a total breach of reality, but OK.

What about a Hindu?

[Keltoi]

I think that is a total breach of reality, but OK.

What about a Hindu?

How is it a "breach of reality?" You have to understand that athiesm was all but unheard of in the context of public action during this time period. Even the Romans would execute self-proclaimed athiests. When Christians were being persecuted by the Romans they were persecuted for being "athiests", as strange as that might sound now.

Fast forward till the time of the Crusades. If you were European, you were Christian(Catholic). If you were born in Syria...yeah, you were a Muslim. When the Byzantine Empire started to decay and was eventually invaded by Muslims, those average citizens of the Byzantine emperor were Christians. It doesn't matter if they believed in God or not, they were aligned with that faith for better or worse.

Hopefully that makes sense...we are indeed talking about a very different time and mindset.

[snakelegs]

well, in addition to christians and jews, there were plenty of idolators running around. maybe non-christian, non-jew were all considered idolators? there probably weren't really atheists and agnostics in the neighbourhood.
still, my question for a knowledgeable muslim remains unanswered:
does dhimmi status only apply to people of the book and are those that don't fall in to this category, a sub-category legally?

[Amadeus85]

What about a Hindu?

I think that Hindus were added to people of the book after the conquest of India by muslims. Thats why they paid the dhimmi tax.

[wilberhum]

I think that Hindus were added to people of the book after the conquest of India by muslims. Thats why they paid the dhimmi tax.

Right, in India. You can't kill all the people.

But what about the odd few in Spain?

[Uthman]

But when muslims conquer a land, what happens with atheists and agnostics who dont want to embrace islam?

Can somebody answer this question please? It came up in another discussion I was having, and I didn't really know the answer.

I wish Ansar was still around.

[Amadeus85]

BTW does anyone know what hapenns with Wilberhum?

[Faye]

well, in addition to christians and jews, there were plenty of idolators running around. maybe non-christian, non-jew were all considered idolators? there probably weren't really atheists and agnostics in the neighbourhood.
still, my question for a knowledgeable muslim remains unanswered:
does dhimmi status only apply to people of the book and are those that don't fall in to this category, a sub-category legally?

In Hidayah, the main book of Hanafi Fiqh, it says that Jizya, (and by extension, dhimmi status) is leveled on the Ahli Kitaab and Fire Worshippers, the first because of an order to Allah to that effect in Surah Tawbah, Ayat 29, and the second because it is proven in a Hadith that Rasoolullah SAWS took jizya from a Fire worshipper. And according to Imam Abo Hanifa, Jizya may also be leveled on a non-Arab idolatoror, but according to Imam Shafee, fighting them is mandatory, because the original order in the Ayat is: fight them.We know that it is permissible to level Jizya in the case of the Ahli Kitaab by the Quraan itself, and in the case of fire-worshippers by Hadeeth, but in all others the original order applies. And Imam Abo Hanifa's point is that enslaving idolatorors is permissible, so levelling Jizya on them is also permissible, because in each cases his life is spared, so he will earn and pay jizya to muslims and his living expenses will be from his earnings.

From what I understand from this, according to Imam Shafee, jizya is only leveled on Ahli Kitab with the sole exception being Fire-Worshippers. Thus Agnostics and Atheists do not qualify for dhimmi status and they would either be killed or enslaved.

Imam Abo Hanifa's position seems to indicate, though he does not clearly state it, that dhimmi status could be granted to an Atheist or Agnostic. His use of the term 'idolatorors' appears to cover all other religions. Furthermore, the logic behind his arguement is that if you can make a person a slave, you can also make him a dhimmi. I don't actually know whether Agnostics and Atheists can be enslaved, but if they can, they should be granted dhimmi status as well.

I am attaching a scan of the page of Hidayah from which I took my information

[Skavau]

In Hidayah, the main book of Hanafi Fiqh, it says that Jizya, (and by extension, dhimmi status) is leveled on the Ahli Kitaab and Fire Worshippers, the first because of an order to Allah to that effect in Surah Tawbah, Ayat 29, and the second because it is proven in a Hadith that Rasoolullah SAWS took jizya from a Fire worshipper. And according to Imam Abo Hanifa, Jizya may also be leveled on a non-Arab idolatoror, but according to Imam Shafee, fighting them is mandatory, because the original order in the Ayat is: fight them.We know that it is permissible to level Jizya in the case of the Ahli Kitaab by the Quraan itself, and in the case of fire-worshippers by Hadeeth, but in all others the original order applies. And Imam Abo Hanifa's point is that enslaving idolatorors is permissible, so levelling Jizya on them is also permissible, because in each cases his life is spared, so he will earn and pay jizya to muslims and his living expenses will be from his earnings.

From what I understand from this, according to Imam Shafee, jizya is only leveled on Ahli Kitab with the sole exception being Fire-Worshippers. Thus Agnostics and Atheists do not qualify for dhimmi status and they would either be killed or enslaved.

Imam Abo Hanifa's position seems to indicate, though he does not clearly state it, that dhimmi status could be granted to an Atheist or Agnostic. His use of the term 'idolatorors' appears to cover all other religions. Furthermore, the logic behind his arguement is that if you can make a person a slave, you can also make him a dhimmi. I don't actually know whether Agnostics and Atheists can be enslaved, but if they can, they should be granted dhimmi status as well.

I am attaching a scan of the page of Hidayah from which I took my information

This sort of confirms, at least by your analysis why I would never want to live under an Islamic state.

[Uthman]

In this day and age, were a proper Islamic state to be established, the western world would still be a more attractive proposition to Non-Muslims anyway. I think that's a no-brainer really. Historically, that wasn't the case, but nowadays it is.

[Skavau]

In this day and age, were a proper Islamic state to be established, the western world would still be a more attractive proposition to Non-Muslims anyway. I think that's a no-brainer really. Historically, that wasn't the case, but nowadays it is.

Is what Faye says correct? About the potential plight of Atheists and Agnostics under an Islamic State?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I'll post some info on this when I get home. Just book marking it for now.

But when muslims conquer a land, what happens with atheists and agnostics who dont want to embrace islam?

As far as I can remember atheists and agnostics would be treated the same as dhimmis.

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

Is what Faye says correct? About the potential plight of Atheists and Agnostics under an Islamic State?

That Atheists and Agnostics would be either killed or enslaved under an Islamic state seems strange to me. I'll be the first to admit though, that Islamic law is a subject that I don't know much about. I'll wait to see what aamirsaab has to say on the issue, since he has much more knowledge about it than me.

Regards

[Faye]

In Hidayah, the main book of Hanafi Fiqh, it says that Jizya, (and by extension, dhimmi status) is leveled on the Ahli Kitaab and Fire Worshippers, the first because of an order to Allah to that effect in Surah Tawbah, Ayat 29, and the second because it is proven in a Hadith that Rasoolullah SAWS took jizya from a Fire worshipper. And according to Imam Abo Hanifa, Jizya may also be leveled on a non-Arab idolatoror, but according to Imam Shafee, fighting them is mandatory, because the original order in the Ayat is: fight them.We know that it is permissible to level Jizya in the case of the Ahli Kitaab by the Quraan itself, and in the case of fire-worshippers by Hadeeth, but in all others the original order applies. And Imam Abo Hanifa's point is that enslaving idolatorors is permissible, so levelling Jizya on them is also permissible, because in each cases his life is spared, so he will earn and pay jizya to muslims and his living expenses will be from his earnings.

From what I understand from this, according to Imam Shafee, jizya is only leveled on Ahli Kitab with the sole exception being Fire-Worshippers. Thus Agnostics and Atheists do not qualify for dhimmi status and they would either be killed or enslaved.

Imam Abo Hanifa's position seems to indicate, though he does not clearly state it, that dhimmi status could be granted to an Atheist or Agnostic. His use of the term 'idolatorors' appears to cover all other religions. Furthermore, the logic behind his arguement is that if you can make a person a slave, you can also make him a dhimmi. I don't actually know whether Agnostics and Atheists can be enslaved, but if they can, they should be granted dhimmi status as well.

I am attaching a scan of the page of Hidayah from which I took my information

Two points that need clarification here, I think. The first is that anything after 'from what I understand from this', is just my own extrapolation from my understanding of their positions, and not anything I know from a reliable source. The actual ruling maybe opposite to this, and I maybe mistaken.

The other point is that this text relates the opinion of two traditional scholars, who may never have met an Agnostic or Atheist. The ruling of modern scholars, even from those two schools of thought may not agree with this.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Very brief info on this matter:

Dhimmis are under the dhimmat-Allah; as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.

Fundemental rights of a dhimmi:
* protection from all external threats
* protection from all internal tyranny and persecution

Some Hadith by the Prophet [saw], relating to dhimmis;
* One who hurts a dhimmi, he hurts me; and one who hurts me, hurts Allah
(Al Tibrani)
* Whoever hurts a dhummue, I shall be his complainant, and for whosoever I am a complainant, I shall ask for his right on the Day of Resurrection.
(Al Sunan, al-kubra Vol. 4 P. 205. narrated by Al Khatib)

Some muslim jurists like Ibn Abdin (1836 A.D) have argueed that since muslims are given responsibility to protect the blood and property of non-muslims and since the persecution of weak persons at the hands of strong is considered as one of the greatest crimes, the persecution of non-muslims in an islamic state will be considered to be a greater crime than the persecution of muslims by non-muslims.

One needs only to look through articles 1 through 20 of the declaration of human rights to see that they reflect the aims and objectives of the Shariah.

Source material used;
Sharia: The Islamic Laq
Author: Abdur Rahman I. Doi

If you'd like to purchase this book: clicketh me!

[Faye]

they enjoy complete religious...freedom

other than the right to try to spread their religion.

[Whatsthepoint]

other than the right to try to spread their religion.

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

[crayon]

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

I think they can practice it but not preach it, don't quote me on that though, not entirely sure.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

How do you mean 'in public?' If you mean like can a Sikh wear his kirpan dagger, then yes (since hye enjoy complete religious freedom [provided they aren't ''recruiting'' but that's not really a problem given that it is a theistic state!])

[Whatsthepoint]

:sl:


How do you mean 'in public?' If you mean like can a Sikh wear his kirpan dagger, then yes (since hye enjoy complete religious freedom [provided they aren't ''recruiting'' but that's not really a problem given that it is a theistic state!])

Yeah, that's what I meant. Can they also celebrate or worship in public? Can Catholics have processions, can Hindus have their festivals etc.

[aamirsaab]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Can they also celebrate or worship in public? Can Catholics have processions, can Hindus have their festivals etc.

I really don't know. The book I have doesn't go that far in detail - it just says (regarding dhimmis):''.....as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.''

So I'm guessing they'd be allowed to but cannot say for 100%.

[Whatsthepoint]

I really don't know. The book I have doesn't go that far in detail - it just says (regarding dhimmis):''.....as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.''

So I'm guessing they'd be allowed to but cannot say for 100%.

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.
Can they build new places of worship?

[aamirsaab]

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.

For a pure theisic state, it is a considerable amount of religious freedom. And given that it is an Islamic state, it is hardly going to be in the interest to allow preaching of another religion. It'd be like the Pope saying: yeah you muzzies can come round my house, benefit in every way possible, eat all my food, be protected by my own personel security force AND preach your own religion! Hell, on saturdays, you EVEN get to take over the rule as POPE!

Obviously this is an exageration but I think you see my point; for a thiestic state, the True Islamic state offers a great deal of religious freedom.

Can they build new places of worship?

Again, I don't know. From what little history I do know of, places of worship (other than Islam) were already present in those countries were Islam spread to. Now, there is this belief online (a mere google search of ''the Islamic state'' will show this) that absolutely no new places of worship (of non-muslims) can be built - but I've yet to see any ayat or hadith that clarifies it.
So I'd much rather hear people in general say: I don't know as opposed to: ''no you cannot build a new one''.

[Whatsthepoint]

Obviously this is an exageration but I think you see my point; for a thiestic state, the True Islamic state offers a great deal of religious freedom.

I agree. That doesn't mean that the islamic state is the ultimate state though.

Again, I don't know. From what little history I do know of, places of worship (other than Islam) were already present in those countries were Islam spread to. Now, there is this belief online (a mere google search of ''the Islamic state'' will show this) that absolutely no new places of worship (of non-muslims) can be built - but I've yet to see any ayat or hadith that clarifies it.
So I'd much rather hear people in general say: I don't know as opposed to: ''no you cannot build a new one''.

Well, what if the old places of worship become more crowded?
Could you do some research on this one? Thank you.:thumbs_up

[aamirsaab]

I agree. That doesn't mean that the islamic state is the ultimate state though.

True, but then that's the main ''flaw'' of a true theistic state.

Well, what if the old places of worship become more crowded?
Could you do some research on this one? Thank you.:thumbs_up

I'll see what I can find out.

[Faye]

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.
Can they build new places of worship?

They can't build new ones, but if the old ones get ruined, or broken down, they can rebuild. I'll post the reference tonight, Insha Allah.

As far as overcrowding is concerned, this has not historically been a problem, as the majority population usually did convert to Islam, if not in the first generation, then definitely in the second. After all, they can't recruit, any children of mixed parents are Muslim by default, and Muslims can recruit.

[Faye]

Here is the reference, from the book of Fiqh, Mukhtasir ul-Qudoori.

It says that it is not allowed to make new worshipping places in Muslim land, but if one gets destroyed, it is to be remade, and dhimmis cannot dress like muslims and cannot ride horses or bear weapons, and dhimmi status will not end if the dhimmi doesn't give jizya, or kills a muslim, or insults the Nabi SAWS or commits adultry/fonication with a muslim woman; that dhimmi status will only end if he goes to an enemy nation, or the enemy nation attacks the Muslim land and win.

Correction: the dhimmis cannot resemble muslims in their dress, or in what they ride (animals), or in their saddles (reins, harnesses, that sort of stuff), or in their hats and they may not ride horses and may not carry weapons.

[barney]

Here is the reference, from the book of Fiqh, Mukhtasir ul-Qudoori.

It says that it is not allowed to make new worshipping places in Muslim land, but if one gets destroyed, it is to be remade, and dhimmis cannot dress like muslims and cannot ride horses or bear weapons, and dhimmi status will not end if the dhimmi doesn't give jizya, or kills a muslim, or insults the Nabi SAWS or commits adultry/fonication with a muslim woman; that dhimmi status will only end if he goes to an enemy nation, or the enemy nation attacks the Muslim land and win.

Since riding Horses obviously relates to training cavalry, would that now be to include flying aircraft/helicopters or driving vehicals. There is no combat horse cavalry units outside of Afganistan, if Dhimmis are allowed to learn to drive they could drive a truck or a HUMMWV, if they are allowed to fly a helicopter they could with not much training,fly a gunship.

[Faye]

Here is another reference from Hidayah.
This has more detail. It adds that if the place of worship gets ruined, then it is necessary to rebuild it but in the same place, moving it is not allowed. Also, that private places of worship inside houses are exempt from this decree. Also that these rules ie, forbidding of making new places of worship, apply to cities and villages of Arabs, and to the cities of non-Arabs, but not their villages.

This is a summary, not a translation.

[aamirsaab]

Since riding Horses obviously relates to training cavalry, would that now be to include flying aircraft/helicopters or driving vehicals. There is no combat horse cavalry units outside of Afganistan, if Dhimmis are allowed to learn to drive they could drive a truck or a HUMMWV, if they are allowed to fly a helicopter they could with not much training,fly a gunship.

I believe that point refers to dhimmis participating in a battle - e.g training. So I guess it would include helicopters, cars etc. But that's only for war related times (since it is the muslims duty to fight in an islamic state - not for the dhimmis/protected people)

[Faye]

Since riding Horses obviously relates to training cavalry, would that now be to include flying aircraft/helicopters or driving vehicals. There is no combat horse cavalry units outside of Afganistan, if Dhimmis are allowed to learn to drive they could drive a truck or a HUMMWV, if they are allowed to fly a helicopter they could with not much training,fly a gunship.

Hey, how would I know? Go ask a scholar, I'm just quoting books.

Also, I don't think this refers to training cavalry, but rather is another thing to distinguish Muslims from dhimmis, like not dressing like them and so on, though I may be wrong.

My previous translation was not as precise as it might be, I edited it.

[aamirsaab]

Hey, how would I know? Go ask a scholar, I'm just quoting books.

Also, I don't think this refers to training cavalry, but rather is another thing to distinguish Muslims from dhimmis, like not dressing like them and so on, though I may be wrong.

My previous translation was not as precise as it might be, I edited it.

If that is so, I suggest we all leave it to the scholars to explain this particular point - they'll be able to provide a more accurate answer.