Religious toleration?

[Dave2]

Hi, this is another "common criticism of Islam" thread, so sorry if you're sick of these. I've looked around and I see a lot of threads about Islam being spread by the sword, but I can't find anything on the topic I'm interested in: religious toleration.

If you look at Islamic nations, I'm pretty sure they never or almost never provide robust protection for religious freedom. I mean the freedom to be an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, a Protestant, a Catholic, an Orthodox Christian, a Reformed Jew, an Orthodox Jew, a Hindu, a Twelver, a Sunni, whatever. I also mean the freedom to openly practice your religion or advocate for your position, by publishing books, having religious services, building temples, etc. I also mean the freedom to openly criticize other religions or positions on religion, through reasoned discussion as well as hostile mockery and ridicule. I'm pretty sure these freedoms aren't protected by Islamic nations. And, what's more, I'm pretty sure these nations say that Islam is opposed to these freedoms. Thus these nations would not tolerate or protect an atheist or a Jew who openly criticized Islam, and they would say that Islam forbids such toleration or protection.

This leads me to suspect that Islam itself is inconsistent with religious toleration. But of course that's just a suspicion and I'd like to know for sure. It's at least possible that all these Islamic nations are wrong about Islam. Perhaps if you look through the Qur'an, the hadiths, the sunna, or the other sources of Islamic authority, there's nothing opposed to robust religious freedom. Perhaps a genuinely Islamic nation could have laws protecting the freedom of atheists and Catholics and Twelvers to believe as they do, practice as they see fit, and openly criticize each other. But I doubt it, and I wonder what Islam really says about religious toleration.

So what are the facts? Thanks for your help.

[Pynthanomai]

Hi, this is another "common criticism of Islam" thread, so sorry if you're sick of these. I've looked around and I see a lot of threads about Islam being spread by the sword, but I can't find anything on the topic I'm interested in: religious toleration.

If you look at Islamic nations, I'm pretty sure they never or almost never provide robust protection for religious freedom. I mean the freedom to be an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, a Protestant, a Catholic, an Orthodox Christian, a Reformed Jew, an Orthodox Jew, a Hindu, a Twelver, a Sunni, whatever. I also mean the freedom to openly practice your religion or advocate for your position, by publishing books, having religious services, building temples, etc. I also mean the freedom to openly criticize other religions or positions on religion, through reasoned discussion as well as hostile mockery and ridicule. I'm pretty sure these freedoms aren't protected by Islamic nations. And, what's more, I'm pretty sure these nations say that Islam is opposed to these freedoms. Thus these nations would not tolerate or protect an atheist or a Jew who openly criticized Islam, and they would say that Islam forbids such toleration or protection.

This leads me to suspect that Islam itself is inconsistent with religious toleration. But of course that's just a suspicion and I'd like to know for sure. It's at least possible that all these Islamic nations are wrong about Islam. Perhaps if you look through the Qur'an, the hadiths, the sunna, or the other sources of Islamic authority, there's nothing opposed to robust religious freedom. Perhaps a genuinely Islamic nation could have laws protecting the freedom of atheists and Catholics and Twelvers to believe as they do, practice as they see fit, and openly criticize each other. But I doubt it, and I wonder what Islam really says about religious toleration.

So what are the facts? Thanks for your help.

Although you were doubtless seeking help from Muslims' perspective, I see that no one's yet replied to your post. I thought it was a very interesting question, myself. I think that in a secular nation the idea of religious freedom is far more realistic than in a nation that makes no distinction between the "church" and the "state", so to speak. In the latter case it would be illogical to allow the complete freedom of which you speak, since any religions that were opposed to the religion that was incorporated into the state, in any respect whatsoever, would, in theory, not only be opposing a religion per se, but also the state itself.

[Dave2]

Although you were doubtless seeking help from Muslims' perspective, I see that no one's yet replied to your post. I thought it was a very interesting question, myself. I think that in a secular nation the idea of religious freedom is far more realistic than in a nation that makes no distinction between the "church" and the "state", so to speak. In the latter case it would be illogical to allow the complete freedom of which you speak, since any religions that were opposed to the religion that was incorporated into the state, in any respect whatsoever, would, in theory, not only be opposing a religion per se, but also the state itself.

Thanks for the response. I think even a nation with an established religion could allow complete religious freedom (a lot of countries in Europe still have established churches and they at least claim to practice religious toleration). After all, people do have a right to oppose even their government, as long as this opposition is just publishing books against its policies, openly criticizing it, using reasoning or ridicule, etc. So since people can oppose the government, they would likewise have the right to oppose the government religion.

[August]

It's a fair question. Even if Islam isn't intolerant of other religions, countries with majority muslim populations certainly allow less religious freedom on average than majority non-Muslim nations. Muslims should note that this isn't necessarily a criticism of Islamic theology, but of the way it is often used to run a government. Now, I know that Islam is a complete way of life etc. What I simply don't see is how the complete and open practice of another religion can be a threat to the state.

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

[Pynthanomai]

Thanks for the response. I think even a nation with an established religion could allow complete religious freedom (a lot of countries in Europe still have established churches and they at least claim to practice religious toleration). After all, people do have a right to oppose even their government, as long as this opposition is just publishing books against its policies, openly criticizing it, using reasoning or ridicule, etc. So since people can oppose the government, they would likewise have the right to oppose the government religion.

In my personal opinion, the reality of practising "complete religious freedom" is different to and more difficult than the theory. I really doubt that it's possible in its purest conceptual form; people are just too difficult. :) But you've hit the nail on the head by referring to the opposition that a country's citizens ought to be able to make against its government: if that is implicated in the country's dominant/official religion, it would very likely be interpreted as an attack against the state religion, rather than the state itself. But what if the nexus of a particular problem lies just there, in a particular tenet or doctrine of an official state religion, propagated, regulated and governed by the civil-servant machinery of the state itself? A citizen could not appeal to his or her government as an objective arbiter in such a case.

[Pynthanomai]

It's a fair question. Even if Islam isn't intolerant of other religions, countries with majority muslim populations certainly allow less religious freedom on average than majority non-Muslim nations. Muslims should note that this isn't necessarily a criticism of Islamic theology, but of the way it is often used to run a government. Now, I know that Islam is a complete way of life etc. What I simply don't see is how the complete and open practice of another religion can be a threat to the state.

I think "intolerance" is understood differently by Muslims and non-Muslims (although I accept that I'm making a very broad generalisation). It may be that certain rights and liberties that Western citizens may think of as "natural" and in that sense inalienable are either conceptualised differently in Muslim nations and states, or aren't in existence in their strict Western sense. This, I suspect, leads to the conclusions that we often hear made that Islamic nations don't provide an acceptable level of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, etc.

I think these conclusions are not entirely without merit. While having no desire to offend any Muslims with regard to the operation of Islam within any given Muslim nation or state, it certainly is the case that certain things and acts are stipulated in the law of such nations as forbidden, which in Western nations are not. A prime example would be laws forbidding the ridicule or mockery of the Prophet Muhammad. In a Western nation, religious freedom relies upon the principle that every citizen has the right to express his or her views about religion, even if that includes (as Dave2 pointed out), "hostile mockery and ridicule". But since this principle does not operate or exist in Muslim nations, insofar as Muhammad, at least, is concerned, one would not be deemed irrational for concluding that, in point of fact, there is - albeit, it might be said, in only a small or minor way - less "tolerance" or freedom of expression in those nations.

[Malaikah]

It seems this thread has been missed by the people who are able to reply, just be patient and God willing someone will notice it!

The answer will be worth the wait, I'm sure!

[- Qatada -]

Here's a nice one insha Allaah (God willing): :)

A Unique Tolerance

There are degrees to religious tolerance. The lowest degree is that of allowing one's opponent to enjoy the freedom of his faith. Doubtless in such a case, the individuals are allowed to enjoy freedom of faith, but he might not be able to exercise his religious obligations or to abstain from prohibitions according to his faith.

A moderate degree of tolerance is to allow an individual to believe in a faith of his choice. In this case, he is neither compelled to discard his religious obligations nor is he forced to act contrary to his faith. For instance, a Jew believes that working on Saturdays is prohibited in his faith. Forcing him to work on that day is, therefore, not tolerance. Likewise a Christian, who goes to church on Sundays as part of his faith, should not be constrained from attending it.

The highest degree of tolerance is allowing people of other faiths to follow their way, even though some of their practices might conflict with the religion of the majority. It was this degree of tolerance that the Muslims adopted toward their non-Muslim citizens.

Muslims tolerated the religious practices of their minorities by not prohibiting even those practices, which were contrary to the state ideology. Such prohibitions, if Muslims had imposed them on non-Muslims, would not have been considered as fanaticism, for that which is considered lawful in a religion is not necessarily an imposed obligation.

For example, although a Magian may marry his mother or sister, he may also marry any other woman without this being frowned upon; or a Christian, who is permitted to eat pork, may also eat beef or lamb or poultry, just as he may abstain from drinking wine, even though the Gospels permit the consumption of wine. Consequently, had Islam ordered the non-Muslims to abstain from marriage with close relatives, which is prohibited by the shari'ah, or to abstain from wine or pork for the sake of their Muslim brothers, this would not have caused them any religious conflicts, since these practices are not obligatory for them.

Nevertheless, Islam did not make any such demands, nor did it ever intend to take non-Muslims to task on matters lawful in their religion but unlawful in Islam. On the contrary, Islam enjoins upon Muslims to allow non-Muslims to observe any practice, which they believe to be lawful in their religion.



The Muslim Tolerance

There is another aspect of this matter which cannot be found in the edicts of the law, nor can it be enforced by the courts or the government: this is the so-called "spirit of tolerance" which underlies upright attitudes, benevolent dealings, respect for one's neighbors, and all the sincere sentiments of piety, compassion, and courtesy. Such attitude is required in everyday life and cannot be obtained through constitutional legislation or the courts' jurisdiction. The spirit of tolerance is exclusively practiced in Islamic society. It appears in several verses of the Qur'an, which tell of parents who attempted to turn their sons from the unity of God to polytheism: "You bear them company in this life with justice." (Luqman: 15)

Similar too is the call of the Qur'an to righteousness and justice in dealings with the non-Muslims who do not oppose Muslims in their religion: "God forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just." (Al-Mumtahanah : 8)

The Qur'an describes the righteous in the following terms: "And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive." (Al-Insan : 8)

The captives, at the time of this verse's revelation, were polytheists. The Qur'an also explains that there is no harm in incurring expenses on behalf of polytheists who are relatives or neighbors of Muslims: "It is not required of you (O Apostle) to see them on the right path, but God sets on the right path whom He pleases. Whatever good you give benefits you own souls. And you shall only do so seeking the "Face of God." (Al-Baqarah: 272)


Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Abu Hanifah's colleague and scribe, has reported that the Prophet had sent money to the people of Makkah when they were facing drought. It was to be distributed among the poor, although the Prophet and his companions had undergone a great deal of torture and oppression at the Makkah's hands.

Imams Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad related on the authority of 'Asma bint Abi Bakr that she said: "During the covenant with the Quraish, my polytheistic mother came to see me. I asked the Prophet, upon whom be peace, 'O Messenger of Allah, if my mother came to me wishing to see me, should I maintain good relations with her?' He replied, 'Yes you should treat her kindly.

The words of the Qur'an indicate the correct manner of discussion with non-Muslims: "And do not dispute with the people of the book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury). But say: 'we believe in the Revelation, which has come down to us and in that which came down to you. Our God and your God is one." (Al-Ankabut: 46)


This tolerance manifests itself very clearly in the conduct of the Prophet, in his dealings with the people of the book, whether Christians or Jews. The Prophet used to visit them, treat them kindly and with respect, console their sick and deal with them in terms of "live and let live."

Ibn Ishaq in his Sirah (biography of the Prophet) stated: 'When the delegation of Najrani Christians came to the Prophet at Madinah, they entered his mosque in the afternoon to meet him. It was their prayer time, so they began to perform their prayer in the mosque. Some Muslims were about to prevent them from doing so, but the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "Let them pray.", So they faced eastward and performed their prayer.'

Based on the preceding incident, Ibn al-Qayyim, a mujtahid scholar, put up a sign in front of the mosque reading "Admission granted to people of the book that the people of the book could perform their prayers in the presence of Muslims was evidently clear to him.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

[August]

The highest degree of tolerance is allowing people of other faiths to follow their way, even though some of their practices might conflict with the religion of the majority. It was this degree of tolerance that the Muslims adopted toward their non-Muslim citizens.

Even if this is practiced by both Islam and Islamic societies, many individual Muslims have a problem with that statement. There have been many cases of Muslims rioting against non-Mulim owned stores which displayed alcohol for sale, for example.

The post also did not address the imposition of the special tax on non-Muslims, nor did it address the prohibition of other religions building new houses of worship. Nor does it address Egypt, where anyone who wants to get a drivers license must list their religion as Muslim, Jew or Christian. This doesn't mean that Islam is inhierently intolerant, to determine that we must look at the actual teachings of the Qur'an. What it does mean, is that by any objective standard, societies dominated by muslims are less tolerant today than those that are not.

[- Qatada -]

Even if this is practiced by both Islam and Islamic societies, many individual Muslims have a problem with that statement. There have been many cases of Muslims rioting against non-Mulim owned stores which displayed alcohol for sale, for example.

This depends, if it's a Muslim nation where alcohol is prohibited. Then i don't think it can be promoted (i may be wrong), however Jews and Christians are not forbidden from drinking it, since their religion doesn't forbid it. Even if they are within an Islamic state. And Allaah knows best.

The post also did not address the imposition of the special tax on non-Muslims,

This article clears that up well;

All the jizyah amounts are to be a financial obligation placed upon those who do not have to pay the zakah. As the ratio of these two taxes is the same, it is obvious that the jizyah is simply a technique used by Islamic governments to make sure that everyone pays his fair share. If the term(jizyah) is too offensive to non-Muslims, it can always be changed: Umar ibn al-Khattab levied the jizyah upon the Christians of the Bani Taghlib and called it sadaqah (alms) out of consideration for their feelings.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...zya-islam.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...mic-state.html

nor did it address the prohibition of other religions building new houses of worship.

The Qur'an says: "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Qur'an, 60:8)

It is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world.

History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city.

Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves.

When the caliph Omar took Jerusalem from the Byzantines, he insisted on entering the city with only a small number of his companions. Proclaiming to the inhabitants that their lives and property were safe, and that their places of worship would never be taken from them, he asked the Christian patriarch Sophronius to accompany him on a visit to all the holy places.

The Patriarch invited him to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but he preferred to pray outside its gates, saying that if he accepted, later generations of Muslims might use his action as an excuse to turn it into a mosque.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

Nor does it address Egypt, where anyone who wants to get a drivers license must list their religion as Muslim, Jew or Christian.

I don't even know if that's an Islamic principle. Keep in mind that everything which happens in Egypt isn't always Islamic, since the government isn't an Islamic government establishing Islamic laws 100%.

This doesn't mean that Islam is inhierently intolerant, to determine that we must look at the actual teachings of the Qur'an.

Thanks for having an open mind. :)

What it does mean, is that by any objective standard, societies dominated by muslims are less tolerant today than those that are not.

Infact, let's see what the Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him) actually Prophecised over 1400 years ago.

"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 [God willing.]

So in reality, we see that many rulers in the Muslim world are oppressive today. As has been Prophecised. They don't fully implement the laws of Islamic justice etc. either. So it wouldn't be surprising if there were laws which applied injustice upon non muslims too. Which we should all look down upon.




Peace.

[wilberhum]

All the jizyah amounts are to be a financial obligation placed upon those who do not have to pay the zakah. As the ratio of these two taxes is the same, it is obvious that the jizyah is simply a technique used by Islamic governments to make sure that everyone pays his fair share. If the term(jizyah) is too offensive to non-Muslims, it can always be changed: Umar ibn al-Khattab levied the jizyah upon the Christians of the Bani Taghlib and called it sadaqah (alms) out of consideration for their feelings.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

yeah so wats the probleM?

asking too much when we say give some of your money to the needY? :?

[wilberhum]

and feel themselves subdued.

Equality? Right!

[- Qatada -]

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Misquoted Verse #11

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)

Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:

Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut'ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)

In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)

Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)

The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:

Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)

The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:

The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:

The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi'i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people's means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)

Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,

"The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa'i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).

In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.


http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#13

Also look at this link to see the rights of those who pay the Jizya;


http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...zya-islam.html








Regards.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Equality? Right!

we're paying the sadaqa too and zakaat.


yeah so i would say, pure equality :)

[- Qatada -]

So from what's been mentioned above - it's referring to those who fight the muslims. :)

And secondly, those who pay the jizya - they can't be harmed, as the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

Sahih Al Bukhari Volumn 009, Book 083, Hadith Number 049.


Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Amr : The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)."


"The non muslims who are protected by sharee’ah (laws of islam) are of three types:


1 – Al-dhimmi. This is one with whom we have a contract or treaty of al-dhimmah (i.e., one who lives in a Muslim state)

2 – Al-mu’aahad. This is one with whose people we have a peace treaty.

3 – Al-musta’man. This is one who has entered the Muslim land and has been guaranteed safety, such as those who come to do business, to work, to visit relatives, and so on."

Peace.

[CptSunbeam]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now, in order to prevent the horrific suffering that has occurred whenever religious guys disagree, whether Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Muslim, or Christian-Christian. I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an, whilst fundamentally flawed, are great literary works, and should remain just that: consigned to a book shelf. In other words, I believe we should all become secularised. By the way, it's no coincidence that the U.S.A is a statisical anomaly among Western nations when it comes to crime: it is the only one which is fervently religious. This is not my opinion, the link has been studied in the past. It is not a case of "correlation is not causation" either, because most jail in-mates are religious, and they became such before they were sentenced.

[wilberhum]

we're paying the sadaqa too and zakaat.


yeah so i would say, pure equality :)

Does it make you feel subdued? :skeleton:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

so you think that without religion we'll all be a big happy family? trust me it doesnt work that way, no matter what, ever heard of the "apartheide", seriously its NOT religion creating the problems, its PEOPLE!

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

what this isnt true at all, my friends cousins and brothers got kicked out from pilotting jobs and aeronautics careers, i know a lot of brothers who are discriminated at due to beards. Just the other day jack straw attacked the niqaab. theres SO many other examples but i cant be bothered to go into it.

Try to get a clear idea of what a TRUE islamic state is like, you havent ever seen it. Read about the caliphate of Umar ibn Al Khattab or even how our prophet muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam ruled over medina, there was true tolerance. Islam TEACHES tolerance! We have always been patience with the christians and the jews, and for this patience we thank Allah.

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

your correct, christianity seems a lot of blind following. But believe it or not, in islam we're told to believe in Allah but then we're constantly asked to reflect, to reflect and ponder over creation, over the way everything works, the mountains the birds the sky etc, we are given tons of proof to analyse, and after all this our faith is firmly rooted by the help of Allah. Alhamdulillah.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now,.

lol trust me, he did, he told adam, he told noah, he told moses, he told jesus, his been telling everyone the real deal ever since the beginning of time.

Now lets ask the people why its so hard for them to tell that

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH"

^ such a simple, easy to understand concept, yet people cant seem to grasp it...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Does it make you feel subdued? :skeleton:

where did you get that quote from anyway?

i want to make sure its accurate before even commenting on it :?

give exact link and translation plz, with correct referencing

[wilberhum]

where did you get that quote from anyway?

i want to make sure its accurate before even commenting on it :?

give exact link and translation plz, with correct referencing

Qur'an 9:29

[- Qatada -]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

If you've actually read my responses*, you'll see that this isn't the case. Infact, it unites people and causes unity among them. Infact - this is the main reason for God sending revelation to mankind, to unite them on matters where they differed.

*http://www.islamicboard.com/790412-post8.html

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

When the nations in the west threw the bible behind their backs, then they advanced.

When the nations in Muslim lands held the Qur'an firmly, they advanced in so many fields.


Refer to this link;

http://www.muslimheritage.com/

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

There are over 750 verses in the Qur'an which encourage thinking, pondering, contemplation and reflection.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now, in order to prevent the horrific suffering that has occurred whenever religious guys disagree, whether Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Muslim, or Christian-Christian. I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an, whilst fundamentally flawed, are great literary works, and should remain just that: consigned to a book shelf.

I disagree. Atleast about the Qur'an.


Here, i invite you to check this link;

http://beconvinced.com






Regards.

[- Qatada -]

http://www.islamicboard.com/791278-post14.html


Bro ibnabdulHakim, i've posted him the response in the above link. It's referring to those who fight and aggress against the believers first.


And then i explained;

http://www.islamicboard.com/791282-post16.html

So from what's been mentioned above - it's referring to those who fight the muslims. :)

And secondly, those who pay the jizya - they can't be harmed, as the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

Sahih Al Bukhari Volumn 009, Book 083, Hadith Number 049.


Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Amr : The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)."


"The non muslims who are protected by sharee’ah (laws of islam) are of three types:


1 – Al-dhimmi. This is one with whom we have a contract or treaty of al-dhimmah (i.e., one who lives in a Muslim state)

2 – Al-mu’aahad. This is one with whose people we have a peace treaty.

3 – Al-musta’man. This is one who has entered the Muslim land and has been guaranteed safety, such as those who come to do business, to work, to visit relatives, and so on."

Peace.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Qur'an 9:29

aah i read it, i think it means fight them IF THEY REFUSE TO PAY, so as a punishment for refusing to help the needy they are made to feel subdued.

This isnt barbaric at all, i've heard of heads flying off and women raped etc, all they do is feel low (as given in another translation).


thats their penalty, WHY ARE THEY REFUSING TO HELP THE POOR? what greed imsad

[wilberhum]

This isnt barbaric at all

Hu, who said any thing about barbaric?
I'm talking about the implication of equality?
Though the situation was better than most others, it is not equality.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Hu, who said any thing about barbaric?
I'm talking about the implication of equality?
Though the situation was better than most others, it is not equality.

it is well known that, the disbelievers during the times of the muslims enjoyed the dunya a LOT, and the muslims didnt.

You want equality, then feel content knowing that the true muslims during the times of the prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallaam always had less but they were content awaiting the reward of the hereafter.


the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free, and guess what the muslims had nothing but dates....

and then you talk about equality...

[wilberhum]

dunya? What is that?

the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free

Is that what he did to The Banu Qurayza?

[- Qatada -]

dunya? What is that?

The dunya is the world.


About the concept of people being humiliated, don't you think they would be if they fought against the believers? I.e. No matter who fights who, isn't the party who loses therefore humiliated?


Even then, we aren't allowed to curse the one who is protected by the Muslims. Since his/her honor is protected.


The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said:

"Whoever hurts a dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys God." [Sahih Al Bukhari]


"Beware! On The Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against him who wrongs a dhimmi, or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear, or deprives him of anything that belongs to him."

[Al-Mawardi]

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...tolerance.html

Is that what he did to The Banu Qurayza?

Clarified here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/640507-post8.html




Peace.

[wilberhum]

So "the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free" didn't apply.
I always get this image of this old crippled man being let out to be beheaded for treason. Every single person in the entire tribe was guilty of Treason?
Na, it is called collective punishment.

[- Qatada -]

So "the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free" didn't apply.
I always get this image of this old crippled man being let out to be beheaded for treason. Every single person in the entire tribe was guilty of Treason?
Na, it is called collective punishment.

If you're talking about the Bani Quraydha situation, there are many proofs which state that before they were executed for their treason - their houses were sieged [since they lived within Medina], the houses were searched and they found weapons lying on the tables etc. These weapons were being prepared to fight against the Muslims. Especially once they had found out that the Quraysh and Ghattafaan had deserted and betrayed them.


There were people who never got involved, infact - there were some Jews who never got involved, including a Jewish man called Zubair who was blind, and he said that he never got involved in this whole scenario. Therefore he was freed. There may have been more, but i can't remember the names right now off by heart.




In regard to the issue of slavery, i really urge you to read this link;


The Islamic position on Slavery: A refutation of doubts
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions


Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.



Let's see what the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said should be the rights of slaves;

"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."

He (peace be upon him) also said:

' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave.

Reported by Muslim and Abu Dawood.

There are more narrations of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him):

'Umar bin Al-Khattab once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :

"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ? "

Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.



A man once entered the house of Salman, may God be pleased with him, and saw him kneading his dough. "What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work." This is some of what Islam did for slaves !

Thanks for your time. :)





Regards.

[wilberhum]

Na, it is called collective punishment.

But I understand if you took any different stance, you would be guilty of Aposticy.
Faith and Fact will frequently clash.

[- Qatada -]

It's upto you to believe that, i've stated the facts.




Regards.

[Amadeus85]

When the nations in the west threw the bible behind their backs, then they advanced.

When the nations in Muslim lands held the Qur'an firmly, they advanced in so many fields.


Regards.

This statement is just ignorant and offensive. It also proves that your knowledge about european history isn't impressive. First of all the great progress in european science and knowledge called renesaince began in XV century. And christianity played major role in life of those people. The same can be said about XVI, XVII cantury. Just in XVIII century such attitudes like deism or atheism appeared. But still they werent so common even among higher classes and aristocracy, as great majority of educated people were christians. The truth is that untill XIX and XX century christianity was the leading moral force in Europe and the great majority of great people in that times were christians. For example, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, Jan Sebastian Bach, Mozart, Dante, Leonardo da vinci,Michael Angelo, Copernicus, Erazm from Rotterdam. If you look at it closer, you will see that the fall of european power began just with the rejecting christin values and beliefs, since the 60's in XX century and that contrrevolution.

And about muslim countries.. I think that people in muslim countries hold Quaran firmly as nowadays as in medieval times. But somehow, since medival, muslim contribution to world's knowledge and technology is extremely low, if you consider muslims' number in the world. Compare it at least to Jews' contribution to knowledge and inventions.

[August]

Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

[wilberhum]

Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.

Is there no end to your indoctrination?

[asadxyz]

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

Peace:
Your statement like this is because you are ignorant of Islam.1400 years back Islam raised voice against all sorts of slavery:
ONE MAJOR MISSION OF THE HOLY PROPHET :arabic5:

وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ

He makes the clean things lawful to them and prohibits all corrupt things, *114 and removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them. (7:157)

EVEN PROPHETS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENSLAVE ANYONE:

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُواْ عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللّهِ(3:79)

It does not befit a man that Allah should grant him His Book and sound judgement and prophet-hood, and thereafter he should say to men: 'Become servants to me apart from Allah.

Best of luck

[Malaikah]

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Does it make you feel subdued? :skeleton:

Since the verse is referring to people who are in some way being aggressive against the Muslims, then obviously they need to be subdued. What good is it if they pay the tax but still try to be aggressive? ^o)

[Pynthanomai]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now, in order to prevent the horrific suffering that has occurred whenever religious guys disagree, whether Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Muslim, or Christian-Christian. I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an, whilst fundamentally flawed, are great literary works, and should remain just that: consigned to a book shelf. In other words, I believe we should all become secularised. By the way, it's no coincidence that the U.S.A is a statisical anomaly among Western nations when it comes to crime: it is the only one which is fervently religious. This is not my opinion, the link has been studied in the past. It is not a case of "correlation is not causation" either, because most jail in-mates are religious, and they became such before they were sentenced.

I can understand your sentiments about religion and Christianity. But your suggestion that "we should all become secularised", while a popular desire among many people, has never been properly reconciled in my mind. Without the objective standard of right and wrong provided by religion, upon what basis would humans found their morality? As I have been taught, morality without religion is relative. But what confidence can we have that humans, each man, woman and child using his or her own personal and particular ideas, notions, conceptions and prejudices about morality, will not end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour?

For, to be brief, what weapon of logic or reason can contend against each person's own opinion on the matter? since, through secularism, we will have granted each individual no other means or machinery by which to come to any conclusion about any matter pertinent to morality. Relativity leaves no place for anyone to be "right" or "wrong". People will be reduced to congregating according to their circumstances or coincidences of sentiment about particular morals, and fighting amongst each other to impose them upon others.

[Trumble]

Without the objective standard of right and wrong provided by religion, upon what basis would humans found their morality? As I have been taught, morality without religion is relative. But what confidence can we have that humans, each man, woman and child using his or her own personal and particular ideas, notions, conceptions and prejudices about morality, will not end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour?

Because that morality, or more precisely the behaviour towards other people determined by it, is in the best overall interests of both the individual themselves (the 'golden rule' principal) and of their society. People do not want to "end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour" hence morality will become established with or without religion. Society itself, even at the most basic level, cannot function without morality and societies existed long before organised religion of any sort, let alone revealed Abrahamic religion. Religious morality merely reflects and codifies general morality.. and has proved a very effective tool historically for enforcing it.

Necessary morality can be codified and enforced just as well, and usually better, by secular law.. and that is exactly what has happened in many places from antiquity to the present day. The main advantage, I think, is flexibility; a secular approach can address contemporary moral issues (such as abortion, stem cell research, genetic engineering, environmental polution etc etc) head on without needing increasingly far-fetched, extended and increasing irrelevant 'interpretations' of ancient writings. And it can do so without favouring one religious tradition over another, where conflicts may exist.

[CptSunbeam]

I agree with many of these points, but it seems to me that most human have an inherent morality by default, perhaps because we may have a creator. Naturally, we created organised religion as a direct consequence of our morality, not the other way around. I concede that belief in life's purpose is important in this, and the atheists and stalinists that did not believe in such a purpose commited great wrongs. However, this does not nullify my argument. They could have still chosen to obey their in-built conscience and turned to doing good.

Organised, or even non-organised religion is not necessary for this. I know its tempting to say that we would "sink into suffering and squalor" wothout religion, but history has already proved this wrong. Throughout most of history, we've had suffering and squalor. and throughout most of history, we've had deep religious belief. Today, many of us live longer and healthier than the richest King of times past. We dont have to face the (real) risk of death and mutilation daily. If you doubt this, I encourage research on the matter. It's no use being on denial on the matter. In the past four centuries, starting with Copernicus, Tycho Brae and Gallieo, there's been a steady increase in scientific understanding. There's also been a slow but sure decrease in religious belief.

Sure, we also have some terrible problems, but these are magnified by technology and intensive human activity. I think that, faced with the destructive power we have, it's remarkable that we haven't destroyed ourselves. What would have happened if say the Roman Empire had access to even conventional weaponry? Or the crusaders? The Mongols? It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but we're a great deal more civilised since we diluted religious belief.

[August]

Peace:
Your statement like this is because you are ignorant of Islam.1400 years back Islam raised voice against all sorts of slavery:

Last country in the entire world to owtlaw slavery? Saudi Arabia. Regardless of Islamic teaching on slavery, Muslim countries have been among the last to ban it. I'm pretty sure that it's a tribal custom, not from Islam, but in Afganistan girls are still married off to settle blood fueds. Don't know what to call that except slavery.
That really is my central point, that regardless of what the Qur'an says, it means less than what the followers of the religion actually do. Now, no religion has been blameless, and my own (Catholic) Church has persecuted many different groups in the past. What I am looking at is today's world, in which Muslims simply don't show as much respect for the freedoms of others as western culture does.

[- Qatada -]

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

Modern Europe and Slavery

The reader would be right to inquire at this time of progress and development about the attitude of Europe, the pioneer of progress and development, toward slavery.

When Europe found its way to Africa it was a disaster for the latter that lasted for five centuries. The Europeans had a genius for devising ways to ensnare the Africans, to take them to Europe or its colonies, and to force them to such drudgery that contributed to a development of economic life. Later on, America joined Europe in subjugating the Africans, and the latter had to serve one more master.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following to say about slavery:

"The hunting of of slaves from their villages in the midst of jungles was effected by setting fire to the straw used in building barns around the village. Once the villagers ran out for their lives, the English hunted them."

"The hunting of of slaves from their villages in the midst of jungles was effected by setting fire to the straw used in building barns around the village. Once the villagers ran out for their lives, the English hunted them.”

Apart from Africans who died during their flight, or on the way to the coast for shipment, one third of the survivors died of bad weather, 45% in traspartation overland, 12% during the sea voyage, and some more died on plantations.


Continued...

Let's see how much ways Islaam got rid of slavery;


the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said;

"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."

He (peace be upon him) also said:

' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave.

Reported by Muslim and Abu Dawood.

There are more narrations of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him):
'Umar bin Al-Khattab once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :

"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ? "

Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.



A man once entered the house of Salman, may God be pleased with him, and saw him kneading his dough. "What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work." This is some of what Islam did for slaves !

The Noble Qur'ân An-Nur 4:32-33

32. And marry those among you who are single (i.e. a man who has no wife and the woman who has no husband) and (also marry) the Sâlihûn (pious, fit and capable ones) of your (male) slaves and maid-servants (female slaves). If they be poor, Allâh will enrich them out of His Bounty. And Allâh is All-Sufficent for His creatures' needs, All-Knowing (about the state of the people).

33. And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly).

The Noble Qur'ân An-Nisa 4:221

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever All*Knowing, All*Wise.

There are so much ways in Islaam to get rid of slavery, yet because it was at a worldwide scale - it got abolished gradually - starting from 14 centuries ago! Whereas we see that the slave trade which took place within America just a few centuries ago made slaves the lowest of the low, which involved racism, something which may have been abolished lately (which is a good thing) - yet much more later than Islaam.





Regards.

[Pynthanomai]

Because that morality, or more precisely the behaviour towards other people determined by it, is in the best overall interests of both the individual themselves (the 'golden rule' principal) and of their society. People do not want to "end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour" hence morality will become established with or without religion. Society itself, even at the most basic level, cannot function without morality and societies existed long before organised religion of any sort, let alone revealed Abrahamic religion. Religious morality merely reflects and codifies general morality.. and has proved a very effective tool historically for enforcing it.

Necessary morality can be codified and enforced just as well, and usually better, by secular law.. and that is exactly what has happened in many places from antiquity to the present day. The main advantage, I think, is flexibility; a secular approach can address contemporary moral issues (such as abortion, stem cell research, genetic engineering, environmental polution etc etc) head on without needing increasingly far-fetched, extended and increasing irrelevant 'interpretations' of ancient writings. And it can do so without favouring one religious tradition over another, where conflicts may exist.

What you say is a sound argument, consistent with itself. The primary problem I have with it lies in your supposition that the "Golden Rule" principle will apply because people are innately or naturally concerned to do good to others. I suggest that biology teaches us that the "Golden Rule" applies only because if individuals in society go through their lives entirely unconcerned about others, or seek to act only in their own interests, it's very likely that they will be shunned by society, or locked up - or killed. This very obviously works against an individual's desire for self-preservation; hence, human beings' "morality", by which they appear to conduct their affairs for the benefit of others, arises not from some inalienable altruism, but from a biological mechanism to preserve themselves, and to ensure their own survival.

If there were to be a severe famine in an impoverished region of the world (as sometimes happens), you would be able to see how little this "morality" prevails to protect the weak, when the strong realise that to ensure their survival will require appropriating food and resources from others. "Morality" therefore, and one's "conscience" are nothing more - from an atheistical viewpoint - than effects of biology and evolution. As such there is no need to posit any underlying or overriding need or desire to protect others' interests or lives any further than any individual is ultimately concerned to preserve him- or herself. Indeed, what obligation could there possibly be upon an individual to do a particular good to others, if a consideration of his own interests or self-preservation, or the psychological (= electrochemical, biological) satisfaction of his conscience, does not apply in any given case?

[Pynthanomai]

I agree with many of these points, but it seems to me that most human have an inherent morality by default, perhaps because we may have a creator. Naturally, we created organised religion as a direct consequence of our morality, not the other way around. I concede that belief in life's purpose is important in this, and the atheists and stalinists that did not believe in such a purpose commited great wrongs. However, this does not nullify my argument. They could have still chosen to obey their in-built conscience and turned to doing good.

But in the absence of religion, such morality would be relativistic, and subject to change. Indeed (as I noted in my reply to Trumble, below), such morality could have no function except as an individual's means to protect him- or herself. For evolution teaches us that nothing is created in vain; and if something does turn out to be useless, evolution does not continue further down that path. So morality is either useful, in which case it can have no other purpose beyond an individual's self-preservation, or it is useless, in which case, we may conclude, it will soon (in geological terms, not human years!) be destroyed through the ongoing process of natural selection.

Organised, or even non-organised religion is not necessary for this. I know its tempting to say that we would "sink into suffering and squalor" wothout religion, but history has already proved this wrong. Throughout most of history, we've had suffering and squalor. and throughout most of history, we've had deep religious belief. Today, many of us live longer and healthier than the richest King of times past. We dont have to face the (real) risk of death and mutilation daily. If you doubt this, I encourage research on the matter. It's no use being on denial on the matter. In the past four centuries, starting with Copernicus, Tycho Brae and Gallieo, there's been a steady increase in scientific understanding. There's also been a slow but sure decrease in religious belief.

Sure, we also have some terrible problems, but these are magnified by technology and intensive human activity. I think that, faced with the destructive power we have, it's remarkable that we haven't destroyed ourselves. What would have happened if say the Roman Empire had access to even conventional weaponry? Or the crusaders? The Mongols? It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but we're a great deal more civilised since we diluted religious belief.

I can't deny what you say about the progress of human civilisation. Yet I still doubt that advancing secularism or atheism will bring about a better world. People, we might guess, will no longer kill in the name of God; but without God, being guided only by individuals' conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong", we may find ourselves suffering at the hands of others, without recourse. For how, in the absence of anything objective, can we claim that someone is doing "evil", or that we are doing "good"?

[CptSunbeam]

I can't deny what you say about the progress of human civilisation. Yet I still doubt that advancing secularism or atheism will bring about a better world. People, we might guess, will no longer kill in the name of God; but without God, being guided only by individuals' conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong", we may find ourselves suffering at the hands of others, without recourse. For how, in the absence of anything objective, can we claim that someone is doing "evil", or that we are doing "good"?

I believe it is possible that the necessary objectivity exists within most of us, put there by our creator. Perhaps one day he will show himself to us, but even if he doesn't, my gut instinct tells me that we wouldn't be completely lost without religion. It is my view that the Stalins and Hitlers were either violent because they were godless with no purpose, or they were notable, horrible exceptions. In the U.S.A, most prison inmates are religious, and they were so before they were sentenced.

Psychological reports have shown that religious people suffer from greater mental illness and generally have a poorer education, often by choice. This can lead to social deprivation. The US is an interesting case study because it can be compared with the generally secular European economies, which suffer from lower crime and inequality. The difference is moderate and statistically significant.

So the claim that religion produces moral people is not backed up by the evidence I'm afraid. All of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and yet they are amongst the most caring, "moral" people I know. It's just within us to do good, and nobody can take that away, even with religion gone. On the other hand, holy books can induce bad morality. They promote an "us versus them" attitude, and one only needs to read the Old Testament to see the atrocities ordained by God. One study subjected a test group to bible reading, and they were found to show increased aggression. It's the same as watching a violent movie. If religious people want to get immoral books removed from libraries, they should include the holy books too.

[جوري]

a very curious and dubious report indeed ( No matter) ... I wonder what "observer bias" has led to such conclusions?.. be that as it may, it must mean there are only 8-10% of the population that are educated and the rest are living in the stone age? since atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large...
here is a report at least about the Muslim population in the U.S
peace!

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.




Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/p...ab_America.pdf
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/mideastcoverage.html

so much for poorer education!

peace!

[CptSunbeam]

it must mean there are only 8-10% of the population that are educated and the rest are living in the stone age?

Woah! I didn't say that! The report I found that, on average, the rate of education was lower among religious people, especially amongst fundamentalist Christianity. This has nothing to say about Middle-East immigrants, or individual cases. I urge you to please not make out that I said something when I did not. I was making the case against religion, not specifically Islam, and was referring to general statistical trends, not small populations.

[جوري]

It was certainly a judgment reached after consideration of what you'd written; acknowledging that this is an Islamic forum, frequented by religious folk... Collectively as a whole, I haven't come across any Muslim/ religious peoples, that were on any ground under educated. Rather than giving you my word for it, I provided you with statistics from non-Islamic sources, on the educational affairs of Muslim believers.
I don't think Islam would have reached its golden age compared to what is universally known as dark ages of Europe, if Islam didn't encourage the pursuit of knowledge from the cradle to the grave!
peace!

[Pynthanomai]

[...]
I don't think Islam would have reached its golden age compared to what is universally known as dark ages of Europe, if Islam didn't encourage the pursuit of knowledge from the cradle to the grave!
peace!

I can't help but agreeing. When I read about Christianity in the Dark/Middle Ages, I find it hard to discover any concerted or consistent effort on the part of the Christian elite to promote genuine scientific inquiry. Science tended to focus on confirming what was contained in the Bible, rather than "going where no man has gone before" (obligatory Star Trek quote). Things got better as time moved on, but I don't knew whether that was as a result of the religion itself pushing people to extend the bounds of science, or external pressures (e.g. the advancement of civilisation and culture generally) forcing it to move with the times.