PDA

View Full Version : No compulsion in religion?



jd7
01-04-2008, 05:06 PM
Did Moses teach the Hebrews that there was no compulsion in religion? Were the Hebrews ever instructed to purge themselves of those who not of the same faith?
Were there ever threats of punishment for the Hebrew people if they didn’t purge themselves of other faiths?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
01-05-2008, 01:46 AM
I am sure a Jewish atheist will come along to offer a fair balanced reply..

cheers
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Did Moses teach the Hebrews that there was no compulsion in religion?
Nope.

Were the Hebrews ever instructed to purge themselves of those who not of the same faith?
Yes, repeatedly*. The Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands genocide:

Deuteronomy 20:16
But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

In addition to this law, the book of Joshua is essentially a celebratory description of a string of genocides, in conquest of the so-called holy land. Genocides were also commanded, and celebrated, throughout the rest of the Deuteronomistic histories.

In addition to ethnic cleansing, the Bible also contains the following law:

Deuteronomy 13:6
If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God.

However, Islam also punishes apostates with death, so the Bible is not unique in this respect.

Were there ever threats of punishment for the Hebrew people if they didn’t purge themselves of other faiths?
See the law immediately above. Also, Yahweh yells at/sends wrath upon leaders who fail to complete their genocides in the Dt. histories. For example, Judges 2:1. Saul is also rejected by Yahweh for failing to commit complete genocide against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15).

*For the record, I don't think "Moses" instructed the Hebrews to do anything, because I don't think Moses actually existed. The priests and military leaders who likely wrote these books of the Bible, on the other hand....
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I am sure a Jewish atheist will come along to offer a fair balanced reply..

cheers
Wow, nice call! :)

Except I don't really think of myself as Jewish. Though others do, for some ridiculous reason involving magic blood.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
01-05-2008, 01:49 AM
and here is one now.. perfect comedic timing! :lol:

cheers
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 01:51 AM
As for the thread title: I understand that the Quran says there is "no compulsion in religion." And yet dhimmi who are conquered by the Muslims are required to pay a poll tax and are treated as second-class citizens, unless they convert. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

I would certainly rather "convert" to Islam than be treated as a dhimmi.
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Wow, nice call! :)

Except I don't really think of myself as Jewish. Though others do, for some ridiculous reason involving magic blood.
Saved no matter what.. how can you go wrong?
and you get a small portion of tapestry in the Baroque- threads of Splendor at the met.. what is not to love?


cheers
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
As for the thread title: I understand that the Quran says there is "no compulsion in religion." And yet dhimmi who are conquered by the Muslims are required to pay a poll tax and are treated as second-class citizens, unless they convert. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

I would certainly rather "convert" to Islam than be treated as a dhimmi.
Eh beats cognitive conservatism any day? I Think a small jizyah is better than half my salary to welfare on ingrates who misuse it anyway..especially that the price is I don't have to go to war when my country is under siege..

I find it odd many people complain about jizya in a hypthetical Muslim state, which is actully to be abolished at a certain point (too expansive for me to delve into here) yet are happily disgorging massive amount of money to dead beats and to fund governmental wars in hopes of globalization?


cheers
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Saved no matter what.. how can you go wrong?
and you get a small portion of tapestry in the Baroque- threads of Splendor at the met.. what is not to love?
I had to Google this and I still have no idea what you're talking about. Care to explain? :)

Eh beats cognitive conservatism any day?
Was this a dig at me? I'm not much of a fan of either. Though of course I recognize the evolutionary value of both. :)

I Think a small jizyah is better than half my salary to welfare on ingrates who misuse it anyway..especially that the price is I don't have to go to war when my country is under siege..
I fail to see how your comparison is at all valid. I believe we had this discussion before as well.

Also, you would not be called into warfare even if you weren't a dhimmi. You're a woman.

I find it odd many people complain about jizya in a hypthetical Muslim state, which is actully to be abolished at a certain point (too expansive for me to delve into here) yet are happily disgorging massive amount of money to dead beats and to fund governmental wars in hopes of globalization?
The issue is not with the concept of taxation. The issue is that there are two classes, dhimmis and Muslims. Muslims pay no taxes, only zakat, which redistributes their wealth among themselves. Dhimmis pay taxes to the engorgement of the ruling class, and receive no wealth redistribution in return.

There are other inequalities as well, as I'm sure you're aware: restrictions on dhimmis' religion; dhimmis cannot testify against Muslims in court; dhimmis cannot own weapons (iirc), etc.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you, a Muslim, live in America in 2009 and Mike Huckabee has just won the general election. One day, police officers knock on your door. They inform you that, unless you convert to Christianity, you are no longer allowed to proselytize or vote, and you have to pay even more taxes (to make up for taxes that Christians no longer have to pay in the new system). Also, you must wear special clothing that marks you as Muslim, and you cannot testify against Christians in court. Only by converting to Christianity could you receive the benefits of the United States government (though on the upside your sons/husband cannot be drafted).

How would you feel about this situation? Would you say the American government was "compelling" you to convert to Christianity? I would.
Reply

caroline
01-05-2008, 02:22 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Eh beats cognitive conservatism any day? I Think a small jizyah is better than half my salary to welfare on ingrates who misuse it anyway..especially that the price is I don't have to go to war when my country is under siege..

I find it odd many people complain about jizya in a hypthetical Muslim state, which is actully to be abolished at a certain point (too expansive for me to delve into here) yet are happily disgorging massive amount of money to dead beats and to fund governmental wars in hopes of globalization?


cheers
Are you assuming everyone on state assistance is a "deadbeat?"

And can you please explain jizya and the Muslim state you refer to?

Thanks!:sunny:
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
I had to Google this and I still have no idea what you're talking about. Care to explain? :)
No, it is too late the exhibit has packed up and left town!


Was this a dig at me? I'm not much of a fan of either. Though of course I recognize the evolutionary value of both. :)
I see no evolutionary value in either!


I fail to see how your comparison is at all valid. I believe we had this discussion before as well.
Maybe in a parallel universe? it is very valid you don't like jizyah in an imaginary state that has dissolved a hundred years ago, I don't like paying tax now modern day!
Also, you would not be called into warfare even if you weren't a dhimmi. You're a woman.
Women can participate in warefare, ever heard of Om omara or khwala bint al'azwar?

The issue is not with the concept of taxation. The issue is that there are two classes, dhimmis and Muslims. Muslims pay no taxes, only zakat, which redistributes their wealth among themselves. Dhimmis pay taxes to the engorgement of the ruling class, and receive no wealth redistribution in return.
There is zakat and there is sadaqa a Muslim can and often does pay more than zakat money to non-muslims, the way I donate to st.Jude and not consider it part of my zakat. people can and have taken from state fund in an islamic state to foster their own business and ideas, certainly wasn't restricted to its Muslim inhabitants only!

There are other inequalities as well, as I'm sure you're aware: restrictions on dhimmis' religion; dhimmis cannot testify against Muslims in court; dhimmis cannot own weapons (iirc), etc.
Says who? a jewish man stole the sword of Ali ibn abi talib, even though the sword bore Ali's name, the Muslims judge still ruled in the Jew's favor on the account that there were no witnessess.. I think you are just making stuff up as you go along?
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you, a Muslim, live in America in 2009 and Mike Huckabee has just won the general election. One day, police officers knock on your door. They inform you that, unless you convert to Christianity, you are no longer allowed to proselytize or vote, and you have to pay even more taxes (to make up for taxes that Christians no longer have to pay in the new system). Also, you must wear special clothing that marks you as Muslim, and you cannot testify against Christians in court. Only by converting to Christianity could you receive the benefits of the United States government (though on the upside your sons/husband cannot be drafted).
This is an asinine hypothetical if you'll forgive me, I don't already care to vote as this isn't an Islamic state so it wouldn't matter which of the two evils gets my ballot. and I never proselytize as I couldn't care less what becomes of you.. everyone has a head on their shoulder and can reason through life (I hope).. I pay more than the average american by virtue of my job and single status, and I believe I already wear very modest clothing so it doesn't bother me in the least!

How would you feel about this situation? Would you say the American government was "compelling" you to convert to Christianity? I would.
read above and in the end know, I am free to roam where my heart pleases, I reckon if I weren't too terribly happy in a place I can just pack and leave, although an Islamic state is nothing as grossly horrible as what you have just described but just for the sake of playing along!

cheers
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 02:34 AM
No compulsion in religion?
Well it all depends on how you define things.
Compulsion 1. force: a force that makes somebody do something.
So Technically, compulsion to pay more tax is not a compulsion to convert.
It sure is an incentive but it isn't compulsion.
Given the choice of loosing your head or converting is not compulsion. You have free choice. Again, I surly conceder it an incentive but it is not compulsion.
Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion, being forced to be a second class citizen is not compulsion either.
Being deprived of a vote, denied access to many jobs is not compulsion.

But of course only those who are totally devoted to there religion will not convert, if in name only.

But to be sure there is "No compulsion in religion", just strong incentives.
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 02:36 AM
Originally Posted by caroline
Are you assuming everyone on state assistance is a "deadbeat?"

And can you please explain jizya and the Muslim state you refer to?

Thanks!:sunny:
No, but I assure you from experience, I see many abusing the system while just regular middle class folks get short changed..
in my sister's pharmacy one patient who was always non-compliant with his meds came to fill a prescript., when she asked him why he takes it for one month and then skips three, he said he lost his job, and insurance and has no way to pay for all the medications but still didn't qualify for govt grants on account his wife is working and just barely skips minimum standards.. imagine in the same day someone abuses medicaid, takes thousands of dollarsworth of AIDS meds to sell them to other pharmacies for dimes, to support his/her drug habit while spreading disease around through unsafe sexual practices.. I haven't run a study on who abuses the system and who doesn't but I have seen more people abuse than benefit from governmental provisions, which hard working people pay for, including the guy who lost his job and can't afford his HTN meds!
The system here is less than perfect, I just hope all those who ***** about a hypothetical islamic state see it, but they have rose tinted glasses and it isn't my job to take it off for them!

cheers
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 02:39 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Maybe in a parallel universe? it is very valid you don't like jizyah in an imaginary state that has dissolved a hundred years ago, I don't like paying tax now modern day!
Again, not a valid comparison. You pay the same tax everyone else does (relative to wealth). Jizya is a tax paid by only one class of people, to a ruling class of people.

Women can participate in warefare, ever heard of Om omara or khwala bint al'azwar?
No, but I didn't say women couldn't participate in warfare, I said you would not be drafted into warfare. Do you dispute this?

There is zakat and there is sadaqa a Muslim can and often does pay more than zakat money to non-muslims, the way I donate to st.Jude and not consider it part of my zakat.
So? Non-zakat charity (to non-Muslims) is not obligatory. I'm not sure why you even brought this up.

people can and have taken from state fund in an islamic state to foster their own business and ideas, certainly wasn't restricted to its Muslim inhabitants only!
Dhimmis could dip into the caliphate's coffers to finance their businesses? Support for this claim, please?

Says who? a jewish man stole the sword of Ali ibn abi talib, even though the sword bore Ali's name, the Muslims judge still ruled in the Jew's favor on the account that there were no witnessess.. I think you are just making stuff up as you go along?
You're going to have to elaborate on how this story means dhimmis were legally allowed to own weapons under the caliphate.

This is an asinine hypothetical if you'll forgive me, I don't already care to vote as this isn't an Islamic state so it wouldn't matter which of the two evils gets my ballot. and I never proselytize as I couldn't care less what becomes of you.. everyone has a head on their shoulder and can reason through life (I hope).. I pay more than the average american by virtue of my job and single status, and I believe I already wear very modest clothing so it doesn't bother me in the least!

read above and in the end know, I am free to roam where my heart pleases, I reckon if I weren't too terribly happy in a place I can just pack and leave, although an Islamic state is nothing as grossly horrible as what you have just described but just for the sake of playing along!
Wonderful. It's nice to know that Muslims like you would not resist or complain at all when deprived of their rights and treated as second-class citizens. I should call Israel up and tell them that they should just treat the Palestinians like the Jewish equivalent of dhimmis and all would be well in the middle east.
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 02:40 AM
Thanks for the insights. Mostly I am trying to understand the diametrically opposed points of views. Compulsion to no compulsion, the idea of no compulsion seems to be found in both Islam and Christianity yet both have common origins in the "Law" (compulsion).
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Well it all depends on how you define things.
Compulsion 1. force: a force that makes somebody do something.
So Technically, compulsion to pay more tax is not a compulsion to convert.
It sure is an incentive but it isn't compulsion.
Given the choice of loosing your head or converting is not compulsion. You have free choice. Again, I surly conceder it an incentive but it is not compulsion.
Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion, being forced to be a second class citizen is not compulsion either.
Being deprived of a vote, denied access to many jobs is not compulsion.

But of course only those who are totally devoted to there religion will not convert, if in name only.

But to be sure there is "No compulsion in religion", just strong incentives.
This doesn't make sense to me. Under your definition of compulsion, it's impossible to compel anyone to do anything.

Someone could strap you to a table and torture you until you agreed that there is no god but Allah. But since you always would have the choice of "continue to be tortured," it's not really compulsion? That doesn't make sense.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 02:46 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Thanks for the insights. Mostly I am trying to understand the diametrically opposed points of views. Compulsion to no compulsion, the idea of no compulsion seems to be found in both Islam and Christianity yet both have common origins in the "Law" (compulsion).
If you're referring to Jewish Law, unbelievers are not compelled to convert to Judaism. They are either killed outright or enslaved.

I believe the slaves were circumsized, though, and war captive women could be "married" (i.e raped) and thus become Jews by proxy, though I'm not sure if they'd be considered true Jews.

This is just from the Torah, though, which considers Judaism to be a tribal identity ("the chosen people"). I imagine there is a long history of conversion rituals in the Talmud and Mishnah, of which I am less familiar.
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 02:50 AM
Wilberhum “Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion”.

You bring up an interesting point.

What constitutes compulsion? Is it only the threat of death, or can it be something less? If so, what? If not, why?
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
This doesn't make sense to me. Under your definition of compulsion, it's impossible to compel anyone to do anything.

Someone could strap you to a table and torture you until you agreed that there is no god but Allah. But since you always would have the choice of "continue to be tortured," it's not really compulsion? That doesn't make sense.
No, it isn't compulsion, it is an incentive. :D

If you take any other stance you wold come to the understanding that there is compulsion. :skeleton:

You need to keep your "Faith Blinders" on and ignore all logic to truly believe that there is "No compulsion in religion". :X

Of course there is massive "Compulsion in religion". :thumbs_up

But not just Islam, remember the Inquisitions? :raging:

Also remember, I'm "The Defiant Dhimmi".
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 02:59 AM
Qingu, what I find interesting is that Christianity and Islam both claim common ancestry, compulsion (Jewish Law), yet one group prescribes a simple shunning for apostates and the other prescribes death.
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 03:06 AM
Wilberhum “But not just Islam, remember the Inquisitions?

Not to nit pick, just trying to be fair, but exactly what Christian scripture were those of the Inquisition following?
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 03:06 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Again, not a valid comparison. You pay the same tax everyone else does (relative to wealth). Jizya is a tax paid by only one class of people, to a ruling class of people.
But I don't pay the same tax as everyone else. I don't see why I should have to pay nearly half my salary to support a harpy who got knocked up at 13, had 4 kids out of wedlock from 4 different fathers, then sues my colleagues for more to see what she can milk them for. I see a great disparity here, equal relative to wealth means nothing to me! Why should I work all my life, waste the best years studying to support immorality?

No, but I didn't say women couldn't participate in warfare, I said you would not be drafted into warfare. Do you dispute this?
You said you are a woman you'd not be drafted anyway and I say why not? there have been women worriers and gave you two examples. I don't see when/if the need for women to go on battle field out of shortage why they wouldn't although the prophet SAW forbade men from killing women in a battle field!

So? Non-zakat charity (to non-Muslims) is not obligatory. I'm not sure why you even brought this up.
Sadaqa i.e nonzakat is very important in Islam that is why I brought it up!
mentioned that many times in hadith

the query [charity] generated the following matches:

Complete Sahih Bukhari

001.002.007 001.002.024 001.002.044 001.002.047 001.002.050 001.002.054 001.003.063 001.010.501 001.010.503 001.011.629 001.012.804 001.012.810 002.015.081 002.023.383 002.023.444 002.024.491 002.024.492 002.024.494 002.024.496 002.024.497 002.024.498 002.024.500 002.024.501 002.024.502 002.024.503 002.024.504 002.024.505 002.024.506 002.024.507 002.024.508 002.024.509 002.024.510 002.024.511 002.024.516 002.024.517 002.024.518 002.024.520 002.024.521 002.024.523 002.024.524 002.024.525 002.024.529 002.024.534 002.024.540 002.024.557 002.024.562 002.024.566 002.024.567 002.024.568 002.024.569 002.024.570 002.024.571 002.024.572 002.026.765 002.026.775 002.026.776 003.027.014 003.031.119 003.031.121 003.031.156 003.031.157 003.034.271 003.034.279 003.034.280 003.036.473 003.038.511 003.041.591 003.046.715 003.046.719 003.047.750 003.047.751 003.047.752 003.047.753 003.047.763 003.047.764 003.047.772 003.047.792 003.047.798 003.047.804 003.048.843 003.050.895 004.051.002 004.051.005 004.051.007 004.051.011 004.051.019 004.051.020 004.051.022 004.051.024 004.051.026 004.051.030 004.051.031 004.051.033 004.051.034 004.051.036 004.051.037 004.052.090 004.052.125 004.052.141 004.052.160 004.052.166 004.052.191 004.052.214 004.052.215 004.052.232 004.052.246 004.052.270 004.052.272 004.052.306 004.053.325 004.053.326 004.053.328 004.056.678 004.056.708 004.056.786 004.056.793 005.057.018 005.058.273 005.059.343 005.059.367 005.059.368 005.059.430 005.059.432 005.059.509 005.059.693 005.059.738 006.060.076 006.060.190 006.060.191 006.060.300 006.060.469 006.060.471 006.060.472 006.060.473 006.060.474 006.061.543 007.062.034 007.063.202 007.063.207 007.064.271 007.064.273 007.064.281 007.065.341 007.069.513 007.069.515 007.070.563 007.070.572 008.073.012 008.073.041 008.073.051 008.073.052 008.073.110 008.073.128 008.073.156 008.073.169 008.073.185 008.073.195 008.073.236 008.074.285 008.074.314 008.075.341 008.075.384 008.076.450 008.076.459 008.076.547 008.077.602 008.078.645 008.078.670 008.078.685 008.079.699 008.079.700 008.079.701 008.079.702 008.080.718 008.080.719 008.080.720 008.080.721 008.080.722 008.080.725 008.080.743 008.082.794 008.082.798 008.082.811e 009.088.236 009.089.277 009.090.342 009.092.408 009.092.426 009.093.525y 009.093.587 009.093.603 009.093.642

Complete Sahih Muslim

001.0142 001.0149 001.0223 001.0228 001.0267 002.0432 002.0433 003.0704 003.0705 003.0707 004.1239 004.1461 004.1557 004.1778 004.2052 004.2053 005.2219 005.2223 005.2227 005.2228 005.2229 005.2230 005.2231 005.2232 005.2236 005.2239 005.2248 005.2250 005.2251 005.2252 005.2256 005.2261 005.2267 005.2273 005.2275 005.2295 006.2457 006.2463 006.2464 006.2465 009.3535 009.3589 009.3590 009.3591 009.3594 010.3764 010.3765 010.3767 010.3769 010.3777 012.3949 012.3950 012.3952 012.3954 012.3955 012.3957 013.3991 013.3997 013.4002 013.4003 013.4005 018.4271 019.4349 019.4351 019.4352 019.4354 019.4355 019.4436 019.4440 019.4441 019.4442 019.4450 020.4483 020.4513 022.4856 026.5418 030.5718 030.5728 031.5933 031.6007 031.6133 032.6264 032.6362 032.6382 034.6466 034.6467 037.6670 041.6914 042.7061 042.7063 042.7078 042.7112

Partial Sunan Abu Dawud

001.0059 003.0807 008.1499 014.2707 015.2824 017.2860 017.2875 023.3550 027.3740
and this many times in the Quran
The query [charity] generated the following matches:

Translations of the Qur'an

002.043 002.083 002.110 002.177 002.215 002.263 002.264 002.267 002.270 002.271 002.273 002.274 002.276 002.277 002.280 004.077 004.092 004.114 004.162 005.012 005.045 005.055 007.156 009.005 009.011 009.018 009.071 009.075 009.079 009.104 012.088 014.031 019.031 019.055 021.073 022.035 022.041 022.078 023.004 023.060 024.037 024.056 027.003 028.054 030.039 031.004 032.016 033.033 033.035 035.029 041.007 057.007 057.018 058.012 058.013 063.010 064.016 073.020 075.031 092.005 098.005

I believe that should confer an honorable mention as it is one of the pillars of Islam!


Dhimmis could dip into the caliphate's coffers to finance their businesses? Support for this claim, please?
There are tons of ahadith and books on the rights of dhimmis in an islamic state here is one about dhmmis cheating Muslims out of their property and getting away with it.

2523. It is related from 'Abdullah said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever swears an oath in which he lies in order to take the property of a Muslim by it, will meet Allah with anger covering him." He said that al-Ash'ath ibn Qays said, "By Allah, that was about me. There was some land that was between me and a Jewish man, and he disavowed me, so I took him to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked me, 'Do you have a clear proof?' I said, 'No.' He said to the Jew, 'Swear.' I said, 'Messenger of Allah, then he will swear and take away my property.' Then Allah Almighty revealed, 'Those who sell Allah's contract and their own oaths for a paltry price, such people will have no portion in the Next World ....' (3:77)"

You're going to have to elaborate on how this story means dhimmis were legally allowed to own weapons under the caliphate.
best you purchase a book if truly interested in the topic?
here is a quick overview

  • The Rights of Non-Muslims in Society:
  • Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is among the most prominent Islamic figures who expressed early interest in the issue of the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim societies. Al-Qaradawi’s views on this topic are particularly important because of his academic and scholarly background, which indicates that his thoughts are directly an extension of jurisprudential proofs.
  • Following are the most important rights deduced by Al-Qaradawi from his studies of religious texts and scholarly commentaries, from his important book on the subject Ghayr al-Muslmein fi el-Mujtama` al-Islami; Wahbah Pub., Cairo, 1997. This review is based on this work.
  • The Right of Protection
  • In Islam, the primary right of the People of the Book is to be protected and safeguarded against any foreign aggression, and Muslims are compelled to protect them in the event such a transgression falls against them. Al-Qaradawi bases his standpoint about this on jurisprudential texts and the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) while speaking to Qultoo Shah—a Tartar—regarding the freeing of prisoners of war (POWs). Qultoo Shah agreed to set Muslim POWs free upon Ibn Taymiah’s request; however, the latter insisted that Christian POWs be released with the Muslims, which was what happened in the end. This stand by IbnTaymiyah reflects the perspective of jurisprudence on the subject of the right to external protection.
  • The Muslim state must also defend minorities against internal injustice or oppression, such that they cannot be subject to any form of wrongdoing by the state or its sponsors; and overlapping evidence from the Qur’an and the Sunnah clearly prohibits any sort of injustice against noncombatant non-Muslims living peacefully within a Muslim state. To this effect, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, “He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi). He (peace and blessings be upon him) is also reported to have said, “He who harms a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims has harmed me, and he who harms me has harmed Allah” (At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain of transmission).
  • Not only was this the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the issue, but the Rightly Guided Caliphs also practiced this, with several authentic incidents to this effect reported by `Umar ibn Al-Khattab and `Ali ibn Abi Talib.
  • Types of Protection
  • Protection of body and blood. Al-Qaradawi asserts the consensus among scholars to protect the blood of non-Muslim minorities living within a Muslim state, and he explains that violating their blood is considered one of the gravest of sins. This is due to the hadith by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years” (Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah, among others).
  • Although scholars have differed over the issue of exchanging the life of a Muslim for that of a Dhimmi (a noncombatant non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims and lives within a Muslim society), yet Al-Qaradawi sides with the opinion that says a Muslim can be killed if he wrongfully murders a Dhimmi with no right. He founds his view on this matter on texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah that underline the principle of retribution and reprisal (qisaas).
  • This was also the view endorsed and exercised by the Ottoman caliphate in all the regions and provinces falling under its jurisdiction for centuries, until the Muslim empire fell prey to its enemies and was knocked down.
  • Protection of Money and Property. This principle has been unanimously agreed upon among all Muslims of all sects throughout history.
  • Moreover, Islam regards whatever property or money considered by non-Muslims as valuables—according to their faiths—and pledges to protect them, even if they pose no real value to Muslims.
  • Liquor and swine are an example of this, where they cannot be considered as money to Muslims; and if a Muslim squanders or spoils such property of another Muslim, he could not be called upon for compensation; yet if a Muslim spoils such assets belonging to a non-Muslim, he would be responsible for compensation, according to Imam Abu Hanifah.
  • Protection of Honor. The honor of Dhimmis is sacred in Islam, similar to that of Muslims. Imam Al-Qarafi Al-Maliki once said on this note, “He who transgresses against them (Dhimmis)—even with a mere word of injustice or backtalk— has jeopardized the covenant with Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the covenant of the religion of Islam” (Al-Furuq Part 3, p. 14). Moreover, there exist abundant additional texts to the same effect.
  • Social Welfare Against Disability, Old Age, and Poverty
  • Islam guarantees non-Muslims living under its societal umbrella their necessary welfare benefits, which enables them to live decently and support those they sponsor, since they are considered among the Muslim state’s subjects or citizens. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, “You are all sponsors and (thus) responsible for those you sponsor” (Ibn `Umar).
  • The Rightly Guided Caliphs and those who succeeded them continued to implement these policies towards non-Muslims living within the Muslim community. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), Khalid ibn Al-Waleed sent a letter to the non-Muslim population of Al-Hira in Iraq at the time, assuring them that none of their rights were to be undermined by the Muslim army’s procession in their direction. `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was also reported to have seen a senile Jewish man asking for alms, and hence took him to the treasury and authorized a monthly pension for him and the likes of him. By this, Abu Bakr and `Umar had jointly formulated a social welfare legislation for Muslims as well as non-Muslims, which was then unanimously picked up by all Islamic sects.
  • The Right to Freedom of Belief
  • Additionally, Islam does not force Dhimmis to embrace Islam and recognizes their freedom to choose their own faith. This freedom is stressed in the following Qur’anic verses: [Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error] (Al-Baqarah 2:256) and [Wilt thou (Muhammad) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!] (Yunus 10:99). History does not deny this fact about Islam, nor do Westerners.
  • Islam, throughout history, has safeguarded and protected houses of worship for non-Muslims and sanctified their religious rituals. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wrote the peace treaty to the people of Najran, he asserted to them that they should receive the protection of Allah and His Prophet on their property, faith, and choices. Similarly, `Umar’s letter to the people of Iliya in Palestine, upon the Muslim conquest, promised them the liberty to choose the faith they deemed appropriate; in addition there are analogous accounts attributed to Khalid ibn Al-Waleed.
  • Permitting non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship in towns mainly populated by Muslims also falls under this scope, where early in Muslim history several churches were built in Egypt during the first Hijri century. An example of this is the construction of the Mar Marcus Church in Alexandria (between AH 39 and 56), and the construction of the first church in Fustat in the Roman Alley during the reign of Maslamah ibn Mikhled (between the years AH 47 and 68). Ruler Abdul `Aziz ibn Marwan also authorized constructing a church in Helwan while founding the city, besides allowing a number of bishops to erect hermitage cells.
  • Historian Al-Maqrizi once said, “All modern day Cairo churches were undoubtedly restored in Islam.”
  • As for the villages and areas which are not considered among the Muslim provinces, non-Muslims were not repressed against practicing and illustrating their religious rituals, including the renovation of old churches and cathedrals, and were free to expand building such houses of worship as their population grew.
  • This form of religious tolerance is strictly a bread of Islam, as the infamous French scholar Gustave Le Bon once said (as al-Qaradawi quotes him in his book),
  • From the verses of the Qur’an we previously mentioned, we find that Muhammad’s forgiveness towards the Jews and the Christians was ultimately phenomenal; and such tolerance was unprecedented by the founders of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity in particular. We shall also see how his successors followed in his footsteps on this path.
  • Other Europeans also paralleled such discourse, such as Robertson and others.
  • The Right to Work and Earn Profits
  • Islam has guaranteed to non-Muslims living under its umbrella the right to engage in any form of commercial activities, including buying, selling, leasing, and otherwise, with the exception of exercising riba (taking interest on loans, etc.). This rule was derived from a letter from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the Magians of Hajar, where he said, “You may choose between neglecting riba or facing war with Allah and His Prophet.” The selling of liquor and swine in Muslim provinces are also to be added to the list of the impermissible; otherwise, non-Muslims may practice any form of commercial activities.
  • Adam Mitz, as al-Qaradawi sites, once said
  • Islamic jurisprudence does not forbid Dhimmis from entering any field of labor they choose, and they were well-established in trades which yield large profits; excelling as bankers, landlords, and doctors. Moreover, they managed to organize themselves, such that the most prominent bankers in the Levant (Syrian and Palestine) were Jews, whilst the best physicians and writers were Christians, and the chief of the Christian population in Baghdad was the caliph’s personal doctor, as the caliph also gathered in his court the chiefs and heads of the Jewish population.
  • The Right to Occupy State Ranks
  • Islam did not prohibit Dhimmis from occupying state positions, since it perceived them as an integral part of the state fabric. Islam also did not encourage their isolation, and the People of the Book were allowed to join all offices apart from those marked with a religious trait; for example, the imamate, leadership of the state and the army, judge of disputes between Muslims, administrator of the dispensing of charity and alms.
  • The imamate, or caliphate, is a senior leading position in both the mundane world and the religious, a succession of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); and, obviously, such ranks could not be open to non-Muslims.
  • Similarly, the leadership of the army cannot be considered a purely civil duty, since it is strongly related with jihad, which tops the ladder of Islamic duties.
  • Moreover, the judiciary is operated through Islamic jurisprudence, and non-Muslims cannot be asked to carry out the rules of a doctrine they do not believe in.
  • The guardianship over alms and charity also falls under the scope of Islamic duties and logically could not be entrusted to the disposal of the non-Muslim minority within the Muslim state.
  • Other than the above, all state offices were always open to Dhimmis on condition that they fulfilled the necessary requirements and prerequisites for the positions applied for; that is, integrity, honesty, and loyalty to the state. This is to assure that these sensitive posts be entrusted to faithful individuals, other than those Muslims are warned against in the following verse: [O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: they will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: what their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom] (Aal `Imran 3:118).
  • Imam Al-Mawardi even authorized Dhimmis to undertake executive ministries rather than delegate ministries. Executive ministers are those who implement and execute the imam’s orders.
  • Conversely, delegate ministries are those which the imam entrusts to the minister to devise certain political, administrative, and economic matters according to his own personal judgment.
  • During the Abbasid era, Christians undertook the ministry more than once; for example, Nasr ibn Haroun in AH 369 and Eissa ibn Nastorus in AH 380. Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan had also appointed a Christian clerk named Sarjoun.
  • Perhaps Muslim tolerance in this regard was sometimes taken too far, where at some instances, the rights of Muslims themselves were undermined and some skeptics complained about the undeserved prestigious authority of Jews and Christians above them.
  • Western historian Adam Mitz says in his book Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Hijri Century, “We find it very surprising the abundance of non-Muslim laborers and senior staff within the Muslim state; where Christians governed Muslims in Muslim provinces, and complaints against non-Muslims’ seniority in these provinces dates far back” (part 1, p. 105).
  • Prophetic Recommendations Particularly for Egyptian Copts
  • Al-Qaradawi finds that Egyptian Copts in particular have a distinguished position among other non-Muslim minorities, given the prophetic narrations to that effect. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said on his deathbed, “By Allah, respect the Copts of Egypt, for you shall conquer them, and they shall be your supporters in the cause of Allah” (At-Tabarani).
  • In another hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Treat them well, for they are an asset to you and a warning against your enemies by the Will of Allah.” Reference here is made to Egyptian Copts (Ibn Hibban).
  • Historical reality has lived up to the Prophet’s prophecies, where Egyptian Copts welcomed the Muslim conquerors, who saved them from the persecution they suffered under the Romans, who had taken up another sect of Christianity. The Copts started entering Islam in large numbers, to the extent that some rulers of the Umayyad dynasty mistakenly enforced the jizyah among some Copts who had already embraced Islam.
  • The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) attributed certain rights to Egyptian Copts that he did not grant to other minorities, where Ka`b ibn Malik narrates from the Prophet, “If Egypt is conquered, treat the Copts with dignity, for they have a blood relation with us.” Connotation is made here to the mother of the Prophet Isma`il, Hajar, who was an Egyptian (Reported by At-Tabarani and Al-Hakim).
  • Loyalty Guarantees
  • Moreover, Islam adds to the rights of minorities by laying down a number of guarantees to live up to these rights. Among the most important of these is the right to believe. Such rights are clearly defined in the Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah, and their practice falls under the correct practice of Islam.
  • These rights are also protected by the Muslim society, which is founded on accurate implementation of Islamic jurisprudence, including the rights of the People of the Book according to Islamic principles. Any Dhimmi who feels that he has been treated unjustly has the right to appeal to the ruler to reverse the injustice against him, either by a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
  • Scholars and the “general Islamic conscience” are another defense line for non-Muslims to seek protection behind.
  • Islamic history is full of incidents that indicate the Muslim community’s commitment to protect Dhimmis against any depreciation of their rights.
  • Islamic history reports the case of the priest who complained against an army leader who wrongfully took his money to Ahmad ibn Tulun, who then had it returned to the priest. There is also the case of the Copt who complained against `Amr ibn Al-`Aas to `Umar, who summoned the latter into account.
  • The role of scholars in this regard can clearly be detected in the stance of Imam Al-Awza`i towards the Abbasid ruler during his time, when the ruler kicked out a non-Muslim tribe from Mount Lebanon after a group of them had refused to pay their yearly agricultural tax. Al-Awza`i wrote on this matter to the caliph, denouncing the act and reminding him that Dhimmis were free people and not slaves.
  • Furthermore, when Al-Waleed ibn `Abdul Malik confiscated Church John from the Christians and enjoined it to a mosque, they sought Caliph `Umar ibn `Abdul Aziz’s assistance to revoke the wrongdoing against them, which he did.
  • The history of the Islamic judiciary bears witness to this, as was the case with `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) and others; which evidently proves that Islam renders the People of the Book as an integral part of society, not to be discriminated against by the Muslim population in any way

Wonderful. It's nice to know that Muslims like you would not resist or complain at all when deprived of their rights and treated as second-class citizens. I should call Israel up and tell them that they should just treat the Palestinians like the Jewish equivalent of dhimmis and all would be well in the middle east
Israel as we know is a colonial settler state that has abused its power, I believe they already mal-treat the inhabitants of the land they stole? so I am not sure what you are talking about? are you here to tickle me?


cheers
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Wilberhum “But not just Islam, remember the Inquisitions?

Not to nit pick, just trying to be fair, but exactly what Christian scripture were those of the Inquisition following?
Sanction by the Pope, how much more Catholic can it get?
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 03:22 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Qingu, what I find interesting is that Christianity and Islam both claim common ancestry, compulsion (Jewish Law), yet one group prescribes a simple shunning for apostates and the other prescribes death.
I think this can be explained partly because the early Christians had zero political power or legal authority and thus could not enforce "death for apostasy" in their communities. Christianity certainly is very against apostates, saying they're even more ****ed than unbelievers—they just push the incentive against apostasy to the afterlife. Muslims, on the other hand, were a self-sufficient community and thus could actually enforce the death penalty for apostates.

As soon as the Christians got control over the government they started killing apostates and heretics like their lives depended on it.

Edit: Wilberhum, you devil you. :)
Reply

Isambard
01-05-2008, 03:38 AM
In reply to the title, Id imagine someone saying to you, "Love me or Ill hurt you"
Would be considered some a strong act of compulsion, coersion even.

So how much worse is it when its a deity saying to you "Love me or Ill hurt you more than you can ever imagine...and guess what, Ill do it forever!"

Feels pretty compulsive to me :)
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
But I don't pay the same tax as everyone else. I don't see why (bla bla bla)
The merits, or lack thereof, of the concept of wealth distribution have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You said you are a woman you'd not be drafted anyway and I say why not? there have been women worriers and gave you two examples.
So you believe women are drafted along with men according to Islamic law?

Sadaqa i.e nonzakat is very important in Islam that is why I brought it up!
mentioned that many times in hadith
Is it mandatory? No. And if you had any mercy, you'd edit your post to get rid of the ridiculously long scroll of meaningless text.

There are tons of ahadith and books on the rights of dhimmis in an islamic state here is one about dhmmis cheating Muslims out of their property and getting away with it.

2523. It is related from 'Abdullah said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever swears an oath in which he lies in order to take the property of a Muslim by it, will meet Allah with anger covering him." He said that al-Ash'ath ibn Qays said, "By Allah, that was about me. There was some land that was between me and a Jewish man, and he disavowed me, so I took him to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked me, 'Do you have a clear proof?' I said, 'No.' He said to the Jew, 'Swear.' I said, 'Messenger of Allah, then he will swear and take away my property.' Then Allah Almighty revealed, 'Those who sell Allah's contract and their own oaths for a paltry price, such people will have no portion in the Next World ....' (3:77)"
1. Your summary of this text appears to be wholly inaccurate.

2. What on earth is the relevance of this text to the rights of dhimmis? Are you arguing that Muhammad hereby gave dhimmi Jews the right to lie about their property claims against Muslims?

best you purchase a book if truly interested in the topic? here is a quick overview
Your ability to copy and paste is truly remarkable.

I fail to see anything you posted that contradicts my statements about dhimmis. Though admittedly I started skimming after a while.

I saw a statement about establishing welfare for dhimmis, though this appears to be voluntary. I was also sort of surprised to see the extent to which dhimmis were allowed within the caliphate's bureaucracy, though your text clearly says they were not allowed to wield positions of political power.

You seem to be a fan of posting a ton of irrelevant material in the hopes that I will take your word for it that something you posted refutes my argument. This is simply dishonest on your part. In the future, please respond directly to my points, or don't respond at all.

Israel as we know is a colonial settler state that has abused its power, I believe they already mal-treat the inhabitants of the land they stole? so I am not sure what you are talking about? are you here to tickle me?
If the Jews rounded up all the Palestinians, and killed them unless they submitted to a special "goyim tax," resigned their right to political power, and were denied the same legal rights as Jews, this would be just peachy with you, right?
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 03:45 AM
Wilberhum, not trying to argue, but I didn’t see any scripture listed in your reply to a request asking for scripture.
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Wilberhum, not trying to argue, but I didn’t see any scripture listed in your reply to a request asking for scripture.
Ah, go ahead and argue, it's fun.

But no you didn't see any scripture. But as I said:
Sanction by the Pope, how much more Catholic can it get?
I have little concern about what "Scripture says" because I believe scriptures have nothing to do with god.

Since, IMHO all religions are man made, I don't care what they say, I care what they do.
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
The merits, or lack thereof, of the concept of wealth distribution have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Then don't bring it up? topic has to do with compulsion in religion not tax and not jizyah!

So you believe women are drafted along with men according to Islamic law?
Another irrelvant point to the topic. Woman can participate in war, wouldn't affect you either way since we are not living in an islamic state, and you are already a kaffir so how does this affect you?.


Is it mandatory? No. And if you had any mercy, you'd edit your post to get rid of the ridiculously long scroll of meaningless text.
Mandatory to give to the poor. Any text that you don't like you can just skip over instead of giving me a headache about it!

1. Your summary of this text appears to be wholly inaccurate.
How so?

2. What on earth is the relevance of this text to the rights of dhimmis? Are you arguing that Muhammad hereby gave dhimmi Jews the right to lie about their property claims against Muslims?
It means the Jew lied and got away with it, if Muslims were the torturous beasts that you paint them, he would have ruled in the Muslim's favor not the Jew's and given him his land back!


Your ability to copy and paste is truly remarkable.
isn't that what you meant by 'support'? I believe I have given you examples which were unsatisfactory to your person because I didn't copy them from somewhere.. D***** if you do and D***** if you don't!

I fail to see anything you posted that contradicts my statements about dhimmis. Though admittedly I started skimming after a while.
perhaps you missed something in the skimming then!

I saw a statement about establishing welfare for dhimmis, though this appears to be voluntary. I was also sort of surprised to see the extent to which dhimmis were allowed within the caliphate's bureaucracy, though your text clearly says they were not allowed to wield positions of political power.
You'd be surprised how much more you'd learn if you'd pick a book!
You seem to be a fan of posting a ton of irrelevant material in the hopes that I will take your word for it that something you posted refutes my argument. This is simply dishonest on your part. In the future, please respond directly to my points, or don't respond at all.
I believe I have written freely and you demanded 'support' personally, I dislike bipolarity and repeating myself. If you don't want a response to it then don't post your asinine questions all together! my feeling is, you were just looking for a particular type of reply to foster your mentality!


If the Jews rounded up all the Palestinians, and killed them unless they submitted to a special "goyim tax," resigned their right to political power, and were denied the same legal rights as Jews, this would be just peachy with you, right?
Again I believe the Jews already kill palis at whim-- yeah peachy!

Media Tags are no longer supported


cheers!
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 04:09 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
As for the thread title: I understand that the Quran says there is "no compulsion in religion." And yet dhimmi who are conquered by the Muslims are required to pay a poll tax and are treated as second-class citizens, unless they convert. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

I would certainly rather "convert" to Islam than be treated as a dhimmi.
wait until you discover that the Zakat a Muslim pays, and Non-Mulims don't is a lot higher than the "Poll tax". very strong incentive for a Dhimmi not to convert.

If you live in a country, you help pay for the upkeep of the country. A dhimmi only pays for the portion that applies for giving him protection. a dhimmi can not be forced into the military nor can he be held accountable for most sharia laws.

financially a dhimmi is at an advantage over a Muslim, in an Islamic Nation.
Reply

Isambard
01-05-2008, 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
wait until you discover that the Zakat a Muslim pays, and Non-Mulims don't is a lot higher than the "Poll tax". very strong incentive for a Dhimmi not to convert.

If you live in a country, you help pay for the upkeep of the country. A dhimmi only pays for the portion that applies for giving him protection. a dhimmi can not be forced into the military nor can he be held accountable for most sharia laws.

financially a dhimmi is at an advantage over a Muslim, in an Islamic Nation.
But there is still a class system based on faith no?
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
wait until you discover that the Zakat a Muslim pays, and Non-Mulims don't is a lot higher than the "Poll tax". very strong incentive for a Dhimmi not to convert.
Beneficiaries of jizya: Muslims.
Beneficiaries of zakat: Muslims.

The jizya takes the wealth from one class and gives it to the other.
The zakat takes the wealth of the ruling class and redistributes it ... amongst the ruling class.

Sorry, I don't see much monetary incentive to being a dhimmi. Though I suppose I'd have to look at specific rates.

If you live in a country, you help pay for the upkeep of the country. A dhimmi only pays for the portion that applies for giving him protection. a dhimmi can not be forced into the military nor can he be held accountable for most sharia laws.
But in exchange the dhimmis give up significant rights, such as the ability to bear witness against a Muslim.

I also personally find the concept of a "protected class" sort of ridiculous and insulting. American southerners used this language to justify slavery. One class of people (involuntarily) exchanged their rights for food, lodging, and "protection." The white slavemasters saw themselves as the noble stewards of the blacks, who were supposedly unfit to control their own destiny.

As a potential dhimmi, I wouldn't want Muslims' "protection," in exchange for my own subjugation.
Reply

jd7
01-05-2008, 04:36 AM
Wilberhum “no you didn't see any scripture”. “I have little concern about what "Scripture says" because I believe scriptures have nothing to do with god”.

Just the same a little scripture might be helpful in backing up certain claims/statements, wouldn’t you agree?
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 04:48 AM
Should Jizyah be enforced on Non-muslim minority in an islamic state ?
A question arises whether a modern Islamic state should collect Jizyah from its non-Muslim citizens or not. Before we answer this question, let us consider the views of Dr. Hamidullah, an eminent scholar of Islam, on this issue. He says :


Zakat is paid by every Muslim, male or female, old or minor, sane or insane, provided he possesses wealth at the level of nisab. However, Jizyah is levied only on adult male healthy non-Muslims capable to participate in a war. Women, old men, minors, sick, persons of unsound mind, poor, beggars, priests, etc. are exempted from the payment of Jizyah. Those non-Muslims who join the military service of the Islamic state are also exempted from the payment of Jizyah tax, while the Muslims are not exempt from Zakat even if they discharge the defence duties. Moreover, the rates of Jizyah are much lower as compared to Zakat because the highest rate of Jizyah is 4 Dinar or 48 Dirhams per person per annum, while the amount of Zakat can be substantial depending on the wealth of the tax payer. For instance, a Zimmi with wealth of one million Dinar would pay Jizyah at 4 Dinar only, while a Muslim possessing that much amount shall pay Zakat at 25 thousand Dinar.
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1220157AAvmLh8

Credentials of Dr. Hamidullah:

About Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah Our Imam's Teacher
One of our Imam's great teachers was the late Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, a giant among scholars. Dr. Hamidullah wrote over 250 books, papers, and manuscripts in French, Urdu, Arabic, English and German.
Source: http://www.iant.com/m_hamidullah.php
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 05:00 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Wilberhum “no you didn't see any scripture”. “I have little concern about what "Scripture says" because I believe scriptures have nothing to do with god”.

Just the same a little scripture might be helpful in backing up certain claims/statements, wouldn’t you agree?
Well then, why don't you go find some scriptures. :D
Scriptures maybe important to you, but I have explained my opinion.

I would assume that there is no scripture that says "Pope go torture bad people to death to save there souls". but that doesn't change the fact that he found some justification to do so.

But if there was one and it was quoted, the time honored excuse would be used. "Taken out of context" ;D
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 05:13 AM
My favorite source of information.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi.../spain_3.shtml
In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:
• acknowledged Islamic superiority
• accepted Islamic power
• paid tribute (i.e. paid an additional tax) to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes
• avoided blasphemy
• did not try to convert Muslims
• complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:
o restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge
o restrictions on building synagogues and churches
o not allowed to carry weapons
o could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim
o could not bequeath anything to a Muslim
o could not own a Muslim slave
o a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable)
o a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court
o dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury
Reply

Uthman
01-05-2008, 09:44 AM
Greetings,

Remember that the Jizya serves a symbolic role as well i.e. it demonstrates the allegiance of the Dhimmi.

Also, the Muslims living in a Khilafah state should take their obligation to protect the Dhimmi very seriously as it was said in a Hadith:

"One who kills a man under covenant will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise"

Also it is reported that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said :

"Whoever oppresses any Dhimmi, I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment."

Regards
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Greetings,

Remember that the Jizya serves a symbolic role as well i.e. it demonstrates the allegiance of the Dhimmi.

Also, the Muslims living in a Khilafah state should take their obligation to protect the Dhimmi very seriously as it was said in a Hadith:

"One who kills a man under covenant will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise"

Also it is reported that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said :

"Whoever oppresses any Dhimmi, I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment."

Regards
Jizya serves a symbolic role as well i.e. it demonstrates that the Dhimmi is subdued. :raging:
Reply

- Qatada -
01-05-2008, 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
My favorite source of information.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi.../spain_3.shtml
In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:
• acknowledged Islamic superiority
• accepted Islamic power
• paid tribute (i.e. paid an additional tax) to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes
• avoided blasphemy
• did not try to convert Muslims
• complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:
o restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge
o restrictions on building synagogues and churches
o not allowed to carry weapons
o could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim
o could not bequeath anything to a Muslim
o could not own a Muslim slave
o a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable)
o a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court
o dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury


LIE.
:sl: bro,
The people who made this claim should bring their evidence. Sometimes they make claims concerning a so-called 'pact of Umar' citing its apparent discriminatory regulations, but br. Kadafi has refuted this previously on the forum:
Thomas Arnold writes in his book the spread of Islam in the world:
A later generation attributed to 'Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje [3] and Caetani [4] have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age; as, however, Muslim theologians of less tolerant periods accepted these ordinaces as genuine, they are of the importance for forming a judgement as to the condition of the Christian Churches under Muslim rule. This so-called ordinace of 'Umar runs as follows: "In the name of God………. you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels". [5]

[1] Baladhuri, p. 129 [Liber Expugnationis Regionum]
[2] Ibn S'ad, Vol. III, p. 246 [Al-Tabaqat]
[3]Memoire sur la conquete de la Syrie, p. 143
[4] Annali dell' Islam, Vol. III, p. 957.
[5] Gottheil pp. 382-4 [Dhimmis and Moslems in Egypt]

Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:
The discriminatory regulations in exchange for protection are usually traced back to a document known as the Pact (pahd) of 'Umar. The contents of this document suggest that its attribution to Umar b. al-Khattab, who ruled from 634 to 644, is doubtful. The discriminatory stipulations—a non-Muslim's word was not to be accepted against a Muslim in the qadi's court; the murder of a non-Muslim was not to be treated as quite so heinous a crime as the murder of a Muslim—not only run completely counter to the spirit of justice in the Koran, but they also contravene the practice of the early community. The tendency among later jurists, in the eighth and ninth centuries, was to seek justification for the eighth-century rulings by ascribing the documentary evidence in support of these rulings to the early community, whose prestige in such matters was a source of authentication for the later jurists' extrapolations. Thus, for instance, the prohibition against building new churches or repairing old ones, which was instituted under some Umayyad and 'Abbasid caliphs, did not prevail in the early decades, because it is well documented that non Muslims erected such places of worship following the conquest. When Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, the caliph 'Umar b. al-Khattab, on his visit to that city from Damascus, sent the inhabitants of the city the following written message:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a written document from 'Umar b. al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the Sacred House (bayt al-maqdis). You are guaranteed (aminun) your life, your goods, and your churches, which will be neither occupied nor destroyed, as long as you do not initiate anything [to endanger] the general security
It is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.

For information on Jizyah, please read the following:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...izya-in-islam/
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503544994

http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...a-dhimmis.html
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 07:16 PM
You and our dear pal quingu seem to be wailing for communism? That 'utopic society' you both speak of translates to nothing else in my book as far as I am concerned.
So quick to condemn a society that has paved to the world the path of enlightenment , You dispute over a state that has dissolved over a hundred years ago, you have not interviewed one person who has lived under such a state, yet have formulated a perfect idea of how subjugable everyone will be for paying the equivalent of tax to the state. One you'll merrily pay else where were it not filed under a different name-- yet applaud a most imperfect system which not 60 years ago demanded a black woman move to the back of the bus for a white man..
can we please spell hypocrisy?

When it is time for an Islamic state to assemble and insha'Allah it is just a matter of time, then you don't have to be one if its citizens, you can go find some other utopia maybe in Cuba and live there..

cheers
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Jizya serves a symbolic role as well i.e. it demonstrates that the Dhimmi is subdued. :raging:
Dhimmi is a bit of a complex issue. The Hadith and the Sharia laws do speak of the maximum and extreme point which are the maximum of what should be enforced. As a result there are differences in different countries and differences between the treatment of long term residents compared to recent arrivals for whatever reason.

the best choice would be to look at different countries and try to understand what is done and why.



Iran comes as a big surprise:


Iran remains home to Jewish enclave
By Barbara Demick
KNIGHT-RIDDER
September 30,1997

TEHRAN - The Jewish women in the back rows of the synagogue wear long garments in the traditional Iranian style, but instead of chadors, their heads are covered with cheerful, flowered scarves. The boys in their skullcaps, with Hebrew prayer books tucked under their arms, scamper down the aisles to grab the best spots near the lush, turquoise Persian carpet of the altar. This is Friday night, Shabbat - Iranian style, and the synagogue in an affluent neighborhood of North Tehran is filled to capacity with more than 400 worshipers.

It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this most virulent anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. While Jewish communities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria have all but vanished, Iran is home to 25,000 - some here say 35,000 - Jews. The Jewish population is less than half the number that lived here before the Islamic revolution of 1979. But the Jews have tried to compensate for their diminishing numbers by adopting a new religious fervor. ''The funny thing is that before the Islamic revolution, you would see maybe 20 old men in the synagogue,'' whispers Nahit Eliyason, 48, as she climbs over four other women to find one of the few vacant seats. ''Now the place is full. You can barely find a seat.'' Parvis Yashaya, a film producer who heads Tehran's Jewish community, adds: ''we are smaller, but we are stronger in some ways.''

Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, and a Jewish hospital, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles, its reading room decorated with a photograph of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini protection Iran's Jewish community is confronted by contradictions. Many of the prayers uttered in synagogue, for instance, refer to the desire to see Jerusalem again. Yet there is no postal service or telephone contact with Israel, and any Iranian who dares travel to Israel faces imprisonment and passport confiscation. ''We are Jews, not Zionists. We are a religious community, not a political one,'' Yashaya said.

Before the revolution, Jews were well-represented among Iran's business elite, holding key posts in the oil industry, banking and law, as well as in the traditional bazaar. The wave of anti-Israeli sentiment that swept Iran during the revolution, as well as large-scale confiscation of private wealth, sent thousands of the more affluent Jews fleeing to the United States or Israel. Those remaining lived in fear of pogroms, or massacres. But Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris and issued a ''fatwa'' decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. Similar edicts also protect Iran's tiny Christian minority.

Just as it radically transformed Muslim society, the revolution changed the Jews. Families that had been secular in the 1970s started keeping kosher and strictly observing rules against driving on Shabbat. They stopped going to restaurants, cafes and cinemas - many such establishments were closed down - and the synagogue perforce became the focal point of their social lives. Iranian Jews say they socialize far less with Muslims now than before the revolution. As a whole, they occupy their own separate space within the rigid confines of the Islamic republic, a protected yet precarious niche. Jewish women, like Muslim women, are required by law to keep their heads covered, although most eschew the chador for a simple scarf. But Jews, unlike Muslims, can keep small flasks of home-brewed wine or arragh to drink within the privacy of their homes - in theory, for religious purposes. Some Hebrew schools are coed, and men and women dance with each other at weddings, practices strictly forbidden for Muslims.
Source: http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/iranianjews.html

Iranian Jews refuse cash 'bribe' to move to Israel

IMEMC

17 July, 2007

In Iran today, the country’s Jewish minority unanimously rejected cash offers from supporters of the state of Israel to leave Iran and move to Israel.

The Israeli government promised to provide a package of housing and jobs for the twenty-five-thousand Iranian Jews. A special fund created by Israel supporters promised a ten-thousand-dollar cash award for any Iranian Jew who moved to Israel.

The Society of Iranian Jews dismissed this move as a bribe. Iran's sole Jewish member of parliament, Morris Motamed, said the offer was insulting to Jewish Iranians.

Instead of taking the pro-Israel group up on its offer, the community of Iranian Jews instead took a loyalty pledge to their home country of Iran.

Iran's Jewish population has dwindled from around eighty-thousand at the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution. But, it remains the largest of any Middle Eastern country apart from Israel. Jews have lived in Iran since at least 700 B-C.
Source: http://www.jerusalemites.org/News%20...07/July/17.htm


Iranian Jews Reject Outside Calls To Leave
Push From Israel, U.S. Groups Falls Flat Despite Ahmadinejad
By Marc Perelman
Fri. Jan 12, 2007
Article tools

* Text size: Larger | Smaller
* Print this article Print this article
* Email to a friend Email this article
* more article by... Other articles by Marc Perelman
* More in ... More in News


A campaign to convince Iran’s 25,000 Jews to flee the country has stalled, with most opting to stay in their native homeland despite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and anti-Israeli speeches.

In recent months, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Israeli officials and some American Jewish communal leaders have urged Iranian Jews to leave. But so far, despite generally being allowed to travel to Israel and emigrate abroad, Iranian Jews have stayed put.
Source: http://www.forward.com/articles/iran...ls-to-leave-1/


Perhaps the life of a Dhimmi has appeal to some people?
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
LIE.
:sl: bro,
The people who made this claim should bring their evidence.
*****************

[/INDENT]For information on Jizyah, please read the following:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...izya-in-islam/
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503544994

http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...a-dhimmis.html[/INDENT]
You should take your demand to BBC.

I bring you an Unbiased source, well unless you buy the "Western Media hates Islam" conspiracy theories, and you bring totally biased sources.

Thats kind of like asking the Pope if Jesus is god.
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 08:41 PM
BBC reports 'littered with errors'
By Chris Hastings, Media Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:16pm BST 03/07/2004



A significant number of BBC news reports are untrustworthy and littered with errors because the corporation's journalists fail to check their facts, according to e-mails sent by one of the BBC's most senior news managers. His messages reveal that the credibility of the news service is "on the line" because of a climate of sloppiness.

The internal memos, which have been obtained by The Telegraph, highlight concerns about the standard of journalism on local BBC television and radio, as well as on the BBC's flagship News Online service. They suggest that the corporation is struggling to keep its promise to improve the standards of its news services following ****ing criticisms levelled against it by the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

The BBC was criticised by Lord Hutton after it emerged that Andrew Gilligan, the Radio 4 Today programme journalist - whose flawed story about the background to the Government's claims on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was at the centre of the inquiry - had filed his report without it being checked by station managers.

advertisement
The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of "unvetted" stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.

In an e-mail last October, Mr Berlyn said journalists were not showing their reports to managers, who are supposed to check them in accordance with BBC rules. He wrote: "Yesterday we carried out a study of how many of your stories were being properly checked by a second pair of eyes before publication. To my surprise and concern, more than 60 stories around the country were apparently published without being second-checked."

Another e-mail, sent in February, said that the number of "justified complaints" about the lack of accuracy in spelling, names, grammar or simple detail was growing. Mr Berlyn told staff that he received dozens of complaints a day. "I really think the level of complaints is such that our credibility is on the line and that cannot be allowed to continue."

Although his memos were addressed to staff at BBC Online, they highlight concern about local studios, which provide the internet service with much of its material. He said that it was no longer acceptable for News Online staff to justify mistakes by saying: "That's what was in the radio and TV copy." He wrote: "We have to accept that the standard of journalism in local radio and regional TV is not the same as that required by News Online."

BBC Online is the most popular website in Europe, receiving 1.9 billion hits a month. It has two million internet pages.

A BBC spokesman insisted last night that it had confidence in its journalists. "Since these e-mails were written, tighter procedures for checking copy have been put in place." The BBC has committed itself to implementing measures recommended by Ron Neil, the former head of news. Mr Neil, who was asked to investigate news services following the Hutton Inquiry, has recommended the establishment of a journalism college and expansion of local news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/ixhome.html

BBC scandal not a first
29/01/2004 13:24 - (SA)









BBC chair quits over Kelly


London - The BBC, Britain's venerable broadcaster, has become the latest media institution to come under the spotlight for its reporting practices, joining other respected organisations such as the New York Times or the German magazine Stern who have come under heavy criticism in recent times.

The scandal surrounding the BBC concerns a radio report by one of its star journalists, Andrew Gilligan, who claimed that the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion on March 20.

British weapons expert David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003 after being exposed as the source of the BBC report and the ensuing controversy surrounding his death threatened to bring down Blair's government.

But a judge investigating Kelly's death cleared Blair and his government on Wednesday of any wrongdoing while delivering a scathing report against the broadcaster.

The judge's findings dealt a heavy blow to the BBC's credibility and image and led to the resignation of its chairperson Gavyn Davies.

Last May, the New York Times, one of the leading papers in the United States, also had to deal with the repercussions surrounding a scandal involving one of its prominent national reporters who fabricated stories.

Gerald Boyd, the paper's managing editor and Howell Raines, the executive editor, quit in the wake of the scandal.

Another major US paper, USA Today, came under the spotlight earlier this month after star reporter Jack Kelley was forced to resign over the accuracy of some of his reporting.

In 1981, the Washington Post gave back a Pulitzer because reporter Janet Cooke had cooked up a story about an eight-year-old heroin addict who didn't exist.

In France, star TV anchorman Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, or PPDA as he is known, came under intense criticism in 1991 for a false interview with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

The reporter appeared on television on December 16, 1991 claiming to have seen Castro in Cuba a few days earlier and airing an exclusive report that proved false.

In August 1984, the German magazine Stern published the now celebrated Hitler diaries, leading to the prosecution of former reporter Gerd Heidemann for fraud after he collected 600 000 for selling 60 diaries purporting to have been written by the Nazi leader.

Although they were authenticated by historians, they proved to have been elaborate hoax perpetrated by forger Konrad Kujau.
http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziA...476003,00.html

there you have it folks the infallible, unbiased BBC!


cheers
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
there you have it folks the infallible, unbiased BBC!
cheers
There is no such thing as a totally unbiased source. You know it, I know it,
The world knows.

But there are sources that are totally biased, you know it, I know it, the world knows it.
Reply

Uthman
01-05-2008, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I bring you an Unbiased source
Which happened to be wrong.

Through no fault of it's own, of course. Simple misinformation.
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Which happened to be wrong.

Through no fault of it's own, of course. Simple misinformation.
Ouch, is that a gotya or what? Well done Osman. :peace:

Too the news is not perfect as nothing man produces is.

But if my bias is against X and I'm reporting on Y, then my bias should not impact my report.
Reply

caroline
01-05-2008, 10:56 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is no such thing as a totally unbiased source. You know it, I know it,
The world knows.
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I bring you an Unbiased source, ...
:lol:
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by caroline
:lol:
Yes it is an LOL. But Osman got it first.

(He wasn't off neg reping people because he doesn't agree with them) :thumbs_do
Reply

Jayda
01-05-2008, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by jd7
Did Moses teach the Hebrews that there was no compulsion in religion? Were the Hebrews ever instructed to purge themselves of those who not of the same faith?
Were there ever threats of punishment for the Hebrew people if they didn’t purge themselves of other faiths?

hola

i don't think Moses ever taught such a thing... the Hebrews were ordered to purge themselves of unbelievers in various different scenarios and there were threats of punishment for not doing so.

the best example i can think of is how King Saul lost his throne. he attacked people who were under what was called 'the ban.' when people are under the ban that means everything must be destroyed... men, women, children, livestock, all of the structures, all of the gold and treasures. i forget who precisely King Saul attacked, but he did not destroy everything and allowed people to live or allowed treasure to be taken, it resulted in God cursing him and taking away his crown.

if you read the military accounts of Joshua in the bible you will understand the ban.

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

snakelegs
01-05-2008, 11:18 PM
something that is rarely discussed is that "no compulsion in religion" doesn't seem to apply to muslims.
Reply

Jayda
01-05-2008, 11:19 PM
what do you mean?
Reply

snakelegs
01-06-2008, 01:59 AM
it is hard to be sure because there is no shariah state, but some muslim countries who practice it in part. (or claim to)
muslims are not allowed to become non-muslims publicly. in some places muslims are compelled to pray 5 times a day. a number of religious commandments become compulsary.
you can see some of the rules for muslims in malaysia in this thread
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-word-god.html
i may be wrong, but i think in some places i think it is easier to be non-muslim than muslim.
Reply

jd7
01-06-2008, 03:26 AM
Jayda your post left me a little confused:

I don't think Moses ever taught such a thing... the Hebrews were ordered to purge themselves of unbelievers in various different scenarios and there were threats of punishment for not doing so”.

I couldn’t tell what exactly you disagreed with. Were you disagreeing with the idea of compulsion in religion being part of the Old Testament or the source of that instruction or both?

I will wait for some clarification before commenting further.


I hope I didn’t give the impression in my original post that I was trying to imply that according to Old Testament scripture that Moses was acting without a mandate from God. I also want to state that according to Old Testament scripture that the order to purge the non-Hebrews (with the exception of certain slaves) came from God, not from Moses.

Perhaps I should state it this way:

Did God of the Old Testament prescribe compulsion in religion?
Reply

jd7
01-06-2008, 03:34 AM
Snake Legs, I will offer that considering Islamic rules concerning apostates, Muslims are even more so under compulsion in religion.
Reply

Jayda
01-06-2008, 04:36 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Jayda your post left me a little confused:

I don't think Moses ever taught such a thing... the Hebrews were ordered to purge themselves of unbelievers in various different scenarios and there were threats of punishment for not doing so”.

I couldn’t tell what exactly you disagreed with. Were you disagreeing with the idea of compulsion in religion being part of the Old Testament or the source of that instruction or both?

I will wait for some clarification before commenting further.


I hope I didn’t give the impression in my original post that I was trying to imply that according to Old Testament scripture that Moses was acting without a mandate from God. I also want to state that according to Old Testament scripture that the order to purge the non-Hebrews (with the exception of certain slaves) came from God, not from Moses.

Perhaps I should state it this way:

Did God of the Old Testament prescribe compulsion in religion?
hola jd7,

i mean i do not believe Moses ever taught that there is 'no compulsion in religion,' for the most part i think the hebrews considered themselves pilgrims in a lost world... they were not interested in proselytizing their religion... those who turned to God were good, but it was expected that people would follow their false gods.

either way... much to the contrary of 'no compulsion' under OT law most of the canaanite nations were under the ban... which is ethnic cleansing to such a degree you might consider it ludicrous.

in the OT it's not so much about compulsion as it is (literally) destroying any trace of non monotheistic worship...

does that make any more sense?

it might help to look up 'charem' which is the hebrew word for the ban, or to read the books i mentioned...

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

Uthman
01-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Ouch, is that a gotya or what? Well done Osman. :peace:
You flatter me.

Originally Posted by wilberhum
But if my bias is against X and I'm reporting on Y, then my bias should not impact my report.
No doubt. But if the sources of your report about Y are ill-informed, then your report about Y would also be ill-informed. And you would not be the least bit to blame.

That would be the case even if you were a reporter who endeavours to be completely unbiased (which I have no doubt that you, sir, would be).

:)

Fond regards
Reply

Uthman
01-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Greetings jd7,

Originally Posted by jd7
Snake Legs, I will offer that considering Islamic rules concerning apostates, Muslims are even more so under compulsion in religion.
I believe you might be ill-informed (my word of the day) about Islamic laws regarding apostasy.

If I might humbly point you to this thread:

Here

Regards
Reply

Woodrow
01-06-2008, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
something that is rarely discussed is that "no compulsion in religion" doesn't seem to apply to muslims.
That is true. That is not true.











.









.

Yes we are under compulsion to worship the one God(swt). We under legal, moral and religious commitment to eternally be Muslims. We know that to leave Islam is a denial of worshipping Allaah(swt). It is felt so serious that it can be a major sin to even call a person an apostate. It takes considerable proof to show that a person has abandoned Islam.


Now can a Muslim choose to no longer be a Muslim? Yes, that is always a choice. Some do it while still retaining the name of Muslim, by refusing to follow their faith or by exempting themselves from worship. Some do it by associating themselves with another faith.

Can it be done without repercussions. Yes, even in a Shariah state if the person is not attempting to spread they converted faith to others, keeps it private and does not publicly practice and has not committed treason in the process of converting, there is no major problem, except the probable ostracizing by friends and family.

In a non Sharia country, they will be no enforceable punishment as the laws of the country must be followed. However, the person will still face the disappointment of family and friends. A revert living in a non-Sharia state faces little problems as they simply return to their old life styles most of the time.

Of course the final choice is up to the individual. the important thing is that their choice is based on full knowledge and of their own free will.
Reply

snakelegs
01-06-2008, 08:18 PM
i didn't really want to focus on apostasy particularly. but there are situation where the gov't or the 'morality police' enforce religious duties on muslims - like ordering people to say their prayers, for example. (which seems a strange concept to me).
when i read about the laws in some muslims countries, it strikes me that non-muslims are better off when it comes to the law.
i think "no compulsion in religion" doesn't really apply to muslims - the state will enforce their religious practice and obligations.
Reply

Woodrow
01-06-2008, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i didn't really want to focus on apostasy particularly. but there are situation where the gov't or the 'morality police' enforce religious duties on muslims - like ordering people to say their prayers, for example. (which seems a strange concept to me).
when i read about the laws in some muslims countries, it strikes me that non-muslims are better off when it comes to the law.
i think "no compulsion in religion" doesn't really apply to muslims - the state will enforce their religious practice and obligations.
the pseudo religion of Xarstepistooken condones murder and in fact makes it mandatory that each citizen murder at least one person every ten years. I therefore see the USA of imposing their silly religious practices upon people and people are actually punished under law if they follow Xarstepistooken and faithfully practice their religion. People are compelled to obey the USA ritual of abstaining from murder if they choose to live in the USA. there are laws on the book that prevent people from practicing it and converts from USA mainstream will be severely punished and often face execution if they convert to Xarstepistooken and follow their faith.

Although i carried it to a rediculous extreme, the principal is the same.
Reply

Amadeus85
01-06-2008, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i didn't really want to focus on apostasy particularly. but there are situation where the gov't or the 'morality police' enforce religious duties on muslims - like ordering people to say their prayers, for example. (which seems a strange concept to me).
when i read about the laws in some muslims countries, it strikes me that non-muslims are better off when it comes to the law.
i think "no compulsion in religion" doesn't really apply to muslims - the state will enforce their religious practice and obligations.
I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque in friday or for not obeying Ramadan. This is really strange for me. Is this also in other muslim countries?
Reply

snakelegs
01-06-2008, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
the pseudo religion of Xarstepistooken condones murder and in fact makes it mandatory that each citizen murder at least one person every ten years. I therefore see the USA of imposing their silly religious practices upon people and people are actually punished under law if they follow Xarstepistooken and faithfully practice their religion. People are compelled to obey the USA ritual of abstaining from murder if they choose to live in the USA. there are laws on the book that prevent people from practicing it and converts from USA mainstream will be severely punished and often face execution if they convert to Xarstepistooken and follow their faith.

Although i carried it to a rediculous extreme, the principal is the same.
no it isn't. you are talking about a secular country preventing someone from practicing their religion because their practice violates secular law. it is not comparable at all.
if the u.s. became a christian country (:scared:) and now the gov't compelled christians to go to church and say their prayers - that would be comparable.
for the sake of argument, suppose the christians didn't force us to become christian (which they probably would - esp. if they were all the same denomination) - you and i would be better off because the gov't doesn't care about these aspects of our lives. noone is going to tell us where when and how to pray.
i think when a partially shariah state requires muslims to perform their religious obligations re: prayer, etc - this is compulsion in religion too.
so the shariah state has certain things that it imposes on non-muslims, but does not require them to become muslims. but it does compell muslims to practice.
so i still maintain that "no compulsion in religion" only applies to non-muslims.
Reply

snakelegs
01-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque in friday or for not obeying Ramadan. This is really strange for me. Is this also in other muslim countries?
actually, i was thinking of malaysia, but also of frontier province in pakistan when the religious coalition was elected in 2002 and enforced some shariah stuff on the populace.
i am not sure about other countries, but a number of muslim countries have a partially shariah gov't.
Reply

Qingu
01-07-2008, 05:54 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
the pseudo religion of Xarstepistooken condones murder and in fact makes it mandatory that each citizen murder at least one person every ten years. I therefore see the USA of imposing their silly religious practices upon people and people are actually punished under law if they follow Xarstepistooken and faithfully practice their religion. People are compelled to obey the USA ritual of abstaining from murder if they choose to live in the USA. there are laws on the book that prevent people from practicing it and converts from USA mainstream will be severely punished and often face execution if they convert to Xarstepistooken and follow their faith.

Although i carried it to a rediculous extreme, the principal is the same.
One difference is that the Xarstepistookenians in your example chose to live under the United States regime, while dhimmis did not choose to be violently conquered by the Muslims.
Reply

جوري
01-07-2008, 06:12 AM
might do you some good to read some history.. if you aren't into books I'd start with this thread.. I hate when greenhorns recycle that old familiar rhetoric!
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ead-sword.html

cheers
Reply

Woodrow
01-07-2008, 06:48 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
One difference is that the Xarstepistookenians in your example chose to live under the United States regime, while dhimmis did not choose to be violently conquered by the Muslims.
the conquered one were the aggressors. In todays world they would be considered POWs. The majority of dhimmis are so by choice, not coercian. When you chose to live in a country, it is usually because you find better living there than you have found elsewhere.
Reply

syilla
01-07-2008, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque
Actually i never heard of this.... i've asked everyone (everybody that i knew... of course)... everybody said they never heard of this.
Reply

snakelegs
01-07-2008, 07:22 AM
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-word-god.html
Reply

syilla
01-07-2008, 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-word-god.html
funny...none of my friends never seen or heard anyone getting fine over this. lol. I guess it will be easy for them (the offender) to give excuses.

But actually how the authority going to proof that :?
Reply

Woodrow
01-07-2008, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-word-god.html
As Sister syilla mentions just above me. That is basically an unenforceable law. About the only way a person could be found guilty would be if during 3 consecutive Fridays they participated in an overt anti-Islamic activity, blatantly pointing out their refusal to attend Jummah on Friday.
Reply

snakelegs
01-07-2008, 08:16 PM
it's true that it would probably be too hard to enforce.
i was speaking more in principle. the point i was making is that i think "no compulsion in religion" applies toward non-muslims, but not to muslims.
in NWFP (pakistan) when the MMA (religious coalition) won the election of 2002, one of the things they did was force people to close their shops and pray.
question is should the gov't really be in the business of enforcing religious practice? to me that is a clear case of "compulsion in religion".
Reply

Woodrow
01-07-2008, 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
it's true that it would probably be too hard to enforce.
i was speaking more in principle. the point i was making is that i think "no compulsion in religion" applies toward non-muslims, but not to muslims.
in NWFP (pakistan) when the MMA (religious coalition) won the election of 2002, one of the things they did was force people to close their shops and pray.
question is should the gov't really be in the business of enforcing religious practice? to me that is a clear case of "compulsion in religion".
I think I finally understand where you are coming from. I believe there are at least 3 different ways this needs to be answere.

1. From the viewpoint of a person born Muslim

2. From the view point of a Muslim who wants to leave Islam

3. From the view point of a revert.


I can only answer from view 3. As a Muslim I am under compulsion to live as a Muslim and there is no turning back. But, it is by my choice to be Muslim and that is by my own free will. I knew this before I reverted. It was of my own free will and without compulsion I accepted the compulsions of Islam. So, in that sense this is all my choice and not by compulsion.
Reply

snakelegs
01-08-2008, 07:07 PM
you are compelled by God because you have chosen to be a servant of God.
that is quite different from being compelled by a government, isn't it?
you say your prayers because God has ordered you to and you serve God -not because some government employee makes you.
big difference. (at least to me)
a shariah state would (as i understand it) take it upon itself to enforce God's commands. and to me, this is "compulsion in religion". which is why i said that it doesn't seem to apply to muslims, only non-muslims.
Reply

Keltoi
01-11-2008, 10:01 PM
My question would be what is the difference between paying a tax for being non-Muslim and paying tribute to a conquering entity? When the Golden Horde (Mongols) invaded and destroyed Kiev and basically the whole of Russia, the Mongols demanded only tribute...a tax, and the people were left to their own devices.
Reply

Omari
01-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
a shariah state would (as i understand it) take it upon itself to enforce God's commands. and to me, this is "compulsion in religion"...
In a shariah state, when they "force" muslims to pray, it is for there own good. If at the time the person does not "feel" like, say, pray then they would certainly regret having the "feeling" after the prayers are done.

And in such a state, if a person denies to follow the commands of God, then he is not a beliver and the person can tell the "state" that they aren't belivers and the should be left alone. Simple as that.

_-----------------------------------_____------------------_____-----
About "compulsion in religion"... if one chooses, as woodrow might have been trying to say, to follow the commands of God, then they must follow ALL of the commands, and thus, they are CHOOSING their own "compulsion" and have no regrets. The one thing that you should understand is Islam was not spread by the point of a sword (force) people CHOSE Islam as a way of life, and any "compulsion" they themselves have gladly chosen to accept.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Peace and blessing of Allah be with you brother . :)

Omari
Reply

snakelegs
01-12-2008, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by Omari
In a shariah state, when they "force" muslims to pray, it is for there own good. If at the time the person does not "feel" like, say, pray then they would certainly regret having the "feeling" after the prayers are done.

And in such a state, if a person denies to follow the commands of God, then he is not a beliver and the person can tell the "state" that they aren't belivers and the should be left alone. Simple as that.

_-----------------------------------_____------------------_____-----
About "compulsion in religion"... if one chooses, as woodrow might have been trying to say, to follow the commands of God, then they must follow ALL of the commands, and thus, they are CHOOSING their own "compulsion" and have no regrets. The one thing that you should understand is Islam was not spread by the point of a sword (force) people CHOSE Islam as a way of life, and any "compulsion" they themselves have gladly chosen to accept.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Peace and blessing of Allah be with you brother . :)

Omari
hi omari and welcome to the forum!
i know intent is very important in islam. do you think the prayer of someone who was made to pray by a government official has the same weight as a prayer that was by someone obeying God?
yes, you choose to submit to God and obey his commandments. you do not to it because you are compelled by man to do it.
to me, that is compulsion in religion, so i don't think "no compulsion in religion" applies to muslims - only to non-muslims.
i guess as a non-muslim, i just see it differently.
Reply

Omari
01-12-2008, 02:46 AM
Peace snakelegs,
Thank you for your welcome to the forums, I am very glad I joined because I am accomplishing my mission to learn more about Islam and Comparative religions. :)

__________________________________________________ ____________

Originally Posted by snakelegs
i guess as a non-muslim, i just see it differently.
Perhaps you're right, and not just as a non muslim, but as another person with different view points as a whole. And I certainly agree with you, a prayer made by somone who has the initiative to do it himself, and is not "compelled" by anyone definatly weighs more than somone who is forced to do it. But then again somone who is forced to pray is not the best muslim is he? :)

And I once again agree with you when you said that this topic applies to muslims more than non-muslims.

peace be with you :)

Omari
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-14-2008, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
something that is rarely discussed is that "no compulsion in religion" doesn't seem to apply to muslims.
"no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. And that's pretty much all. It doesn't mean that a Muslim is free to disobey God as he likes because there's "no compulsion in religion". These are two different things. It's compulsory for a Muslim to pray, fast during Ramadhan, and pay annual Zakat. A Sharia state has the right to make sure a Muslim does obey the command of God which is deemed compulsory. When you fine someone for speeding, does that mean that you are forcing them to slow down. It's merely a reminder as I see it. I'm not good in giving examples but I hope you get my point.
Reply

jd7
01-16-2008, 02:04 AM
Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-16-2008, 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.
I would have to disagree. What I meant is that a Muslim is not allowed to disobey GOD because the Qur'an merely says there's "no Compulsion in religion". Of course he has freewill and can do whatever he wants but NOT BECAUSE the Qur'an said that there is "no Compulsion in religion". Maybe you saw it differently. I do believe that when the state does take such measure it's for the benefit of the Muslim himself.

Just like when you get fined for not wearing a helmet on a motorbike or not tying your seatbelt when driving. Those two preventive matters are necessary and can be a difference between life and death when an accident happenes. Maybe as an Atheist you don't see the importance of reminding each other to obey GOD because it can make a difference between Heaven and Hell when a Muslim dies.
Reply

snakelegs
01-16-2008, 07:37 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
"no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. And that's pretty much all. It doesn't mean that a Muslim is free to disobey God as he likes because there's "no compulsion in religion". These are two different things. It's compulsory for a Muslim to pray, fast during Ramadhan, and pay annual Zakat. A Sharia state has the right to make sure a Muslim does obey the command of God which is deemed compulsory. When you fine someone for speeding, does that mean that you are forcing them to slow down. It's merely a reminder as I see it. I'm not good in giving examples but I hope you get my point.
i understand that a muslim is not free to disobey God - after all, he has submitted. i know it's compulsory for a muslim to pray etc etc. and i don't see this as "compulsion in religion". it's when the state is involved that the "compulsion in religion" happens. why shoud the muslim need the state to compel him to obey God? in this hypothetical shariah state, are you praying because you wish to please God or because the state is making you?
i understand what you're saying and i guess i just see it differently as a non-muslim. i just know that i wouldn't want the state to force me to worship God.
at least we agree on: "no compulsion in religion" doesn't apply to muslims.
Reply

snakelegs
01-16-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally Posted by jd7
Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.
not sure i understand your point. the thread is called "no compulsion in religion" and my point was that it is rarely discussed that it does not apply to muslims. it applies to non-muslims in that they are not forced to worship, to become musilm or practice islam.
i'm not sure how distinction by the state is compulsion in and of itself. it is discrimination based on religion, but non-muslims are not forced to pray and muslims are.
btw, i am a devotee of the secular state and could never live in any kind of theocracy for 5 minutes!
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-16-2008, 07:46 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
why shoud the muslim need the state to compel him to obey God? in this hypothetical shariah state, are you praying because you wish to please God or because the state is making you?
i just know that i wouldn't want the state to force me to worship God.
Obviously the state can't REALLY FORCE anyone to pray or fast during Ramadhan just like you can't FORCE anyone to wear a helmet or seatbelt. FORCING would be using a gun or something like that. What the state does do is perhaps intervene and give counseling and maybe fine as a reminder. You are completely right in one sense. GOD will not accept an incincere prayer or a fast. And if the state were to force a Muslim to pray or fast at gunpoint that would be completely wrong.
Reply

snakelegs
01-16-2008, 08:38 AM
well, i'm used to secular society. i don't want the state reminding me of my duties to God and i fail to see why it should be necessary in the first place, but that's ok.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-17-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
well, i'm used to secular society. i don't want the state reminding me of my duties to God and i fail to see why it should be necessary in the first place, but that's ok.
As you said earlier, you are a non-Muslim and therefore see it from a different angle. But to most Muslims this is nothing different than the Ministry of Transportation airing road security ads on TV and giving tickets to people for breaking traffic rules. One is for your safety here on earth and the one which the Sharia state would do is for the Muslims security(heaven/hell issue) in the hereafter.
Reply

snakelegs
01-17-2008, 11:26 PM
i just found this which contradicts everything i've read before
now it seems that "no compulsion in religion" not only doesn't apply to muslims, but it also doesn't apply to people who are not "people of the book"

There is no compulsion to accept Islam

Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.

Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

[al-Tawbah 9:29]

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-18-2008, 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
I have clearly seen different analysis of this verse. I don't think the answerer can simply make bold conclusions on his own. That would be taking the whole verse only literally but totally out of context. I think it was revealed to me a few weeks before that the Sheikh who answers at islamq&a is a "SALAFI".

Here is a proper analysis of the verse with proper context and explanation.
Let’s read the verse in context 9:1-9:5:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 9:1-5)

This verses is always quoted out of context, they never post 9:6 or from 9:1 to 9:6. If we read from start it states that there was a treaty, which the Pagans of Arab broke. Thus Allah gave them 4 months as 9:2 states in order to amend the treaty. Verse 9:4 states that the punishment prescribed in 9:5 is ONLY to those who broke the treaty and NOT to those who abided by the treaty. Therefore the context of 9:5 is of war with the pagan Arabs who broke the treaty yet refused to amend it in 4 months.

Naturally, in war violence is expected. If a war is declared between Country A and Country B, because country B broke the treaty and refused to amend, then if president of country A states “wherever you find soldiers of Country B, you kill them and besiege them”, no one would truly find much wrong in that statement.

Killing in war is nothing peculiar, and there is yet to be a war where soldiers hugged and kissed each other. In additions, Dr. Zakir Naik writes in his book “Replies to the most common questions asked by non-muslims“:

“4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle
Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the Mushriqs [pagans] where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.”

Islam-critics remain shy of posting the next verse, 9:6, as it contains the answer to their deception:

“And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 9:6)

Quran does not only say that you release those who seek protection but it goes even further and states to protect them! In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

Hence even in war Quran promotes peace.

http://www.islamic-shield.com/2008/0...nt-verses.html
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2008, 03:47 AM
that has been my understanding of the verse also, when read in context.
but now i've got to wondering - what are the differences legally (besides marriage) in treatment between "people of the book" and non-people-of-the-book?
i think you are right about islamqa - it seems to be quite popular around here, but i've never cared for it and find their rulings very harsh.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
01-20-2008, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
that has been my understanding of the verse also, when read in context.
but now i've got to wondering - what are the differences legally (besides marriage) in treatment between "people of the book" and non-people-of-the-book?
i think you are right about islamqa - it seems to be quite popular around here, but i've never cared for it and find their rulings very harsh.
Well, it would be nice to learn more about it from our more knowledgebale brothers and sisters I am not really good at that.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-20-2008, 02:50 PM
A question if one may: Is there currently a state which practices this Dimmi Tax thingamajig?? Not heard of it if it exists. Please shed light on this matter please!

As for converting or losing your life, the Sikh history is full of times the Sikhs were martyed for being Sikh as they refused to convert to Islam by FORCE

NOTE (a few cruel ''muslim'' rulers do not make all muslims bad) the Sikh Prophets (5th Sikh Master - Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahaaraj Sahb Ji & 9th Master Dhan Guru Tegh Bahadur Maharaaj Sahib Ji) who were martyed by Moguls during the reign of Aurrengzeb and Shah Jahan (bear in mind they had their own parents locked up and tortured so had NO respect for any living person regardless of religion or ties) So, my point is you don't convert by force on the basis you're left with two choices. If you're heart refuses to believe in anything that is apposed by your own religion, then death is what is acceptable, and embrace it gladly!


(Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh - Pure Ones Belong To God, Victory To God)
Reply

Woodrow
01-20-2008, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
A question if one may: Is there currently a state which practices this Dimmi Tax thingamajig?? Not heard of it if it exists. Please shed light on this matter please!

As for converting or losing your life, the Sikh history is full of times the Sikhs were martyed for being Sikh as they refused to convert to Islam by FORCE

NOTE (a few cruel ''muslim'' rulers do not make all muslims bad) the Sikh Prophets (5th Sikh Master - Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahaaraj Sahb Ji & 9th Master Dhan Guru Tegh Bahadur Maharaaj Sahib Ji) who were martyed by Moguls during the reign of Aurrengzeb and Shah Jahan (bear in mind they had their own parents locked up and tortured so had NO respect for any living person regardless of religion or ties) So, my point is you don't convert by force on the basis you're left with two choices. If you're heart refuses to believe in anything that is apposed by your own religion, then death is what is acceptable, and embrace it gladly!


(Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh - Pure Ones Belong To God, Victory To God)
Now this is scary. I agree with you. I would also like to add that any attempts at forced conversion would result in more reluctance to convert and would probably back fire and result in the would be converters being the ones to convert.

You are right strong adherents of any religion would gladly accept death over converting.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-20-2008, 08:33 PM
I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs. This is why the Shahadah is taken to clarify their was no compulsion in belief and the person has done of it of his free will.

Only Allah(SWT) knows that which is in the hearts, minds, and soul. Therefore saying you are a Muslim will not benefit you if you hate Islam (which most propabably is the case if you are being forced to do it). Althought the verse:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

Is a command, it can also be seen as a fact. You can't force some one to believe...
Reply

snakelegs
01-20-2008, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs. This is why the Shahadah is taken to clarify their was no compulsion in belief and the person has done of it of his free will.

Only Allah(SWT) knows that which is in the hearts, minds, and soul. Therefore saying you are a Muslim will not benefit you if you hate Islam (which most propabably is the case if you are being forced to do it). Althought the verse:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

Is a command, it can also be seen as a fact. You can't force some one to believe...
this is common sense. however there are hadith that call for killing apostates.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-20-2008, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is common sense. however there are hadith that call for killing apostates.
Simply put, they better know what they are getting into before they get into (No one is foricing you to accept Islam as your belief!). Let's say internally one has gone to desbelief from belief, there is nothing forcing them to Apostate openly.

Ultimately, We cannot comprehend the implications of ones actions and Allah(SWT) knows best.
Reply

jd7
02-18-2008, 01:37 AM
Z. Al-Rashid “I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs”.

You have restated my point.

Your point is what I have never understood about Islam. Islam seems to be about returning society to Old Testament Law.

If God’s plan was to return folks to the “Law”, then what was the point of the New Covenant?

There was compulsion under the “Law” just as there is compulsion under Islam.
Reply

jd7
02-18-2008, 01:37 AM
Z. Al-Rashid “I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs”.

You have restated my point.

Your point is what I have never understood about Islam. Islam seems to be about returning society to Old Testament Law.

If God’s plan was to return folks to the “Law”, then what was the point of the New Covenant?

There was compulsion under the “Law” just as there is compulsion under Islam.
Reply

jd7
02-18-2008, 01:59 AM
Sorry about the double post, connection troubles.
Reply

- Qatada -
02-18-2008, 06:25 PM
jd7 :) Jesus son of Mary did not abolish the law, Paul did. Jesus established and practised the law throughout his life.


The final Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him) also continued the the covenant, however - many burdens put upon the Children of Israel were removed. God made the punishments strict to deter evildoers away from transgression, however - He also was and is willing to forgive people who are sincere and who fall into mistakes - since none of the children of Adam are prone from error.




Peace.
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2012, 04:50 AM
  2. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-25-2009, 10:48 PM
  3. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-02-2007, 04:36 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 11:37 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!