Dhimmis/non muslims in an Islamic State.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

The question is, why would anyone want to be a dhimmi?

Because they are already.
They don't need the Muslims whatsoever to become dhimmis.

For example, after defeating their nobility and other fighters in battle, the Muslim conquerors ran into the Jewish and Christian commoners. These commoners were offered a choice:

"Either you continue with your current religion, but then from now on, we will be your nobility and rulers, and then you will just keep paying your existing taxes to us that you used to pay to them. Alternatively, you can convert to Islam and be exempt from your existing taxes, just like we are."

This is utterly fair, because it is the religion itself that mandated that the Jewish and Christian commoners had to pay taxes to their nobility: Pay to God what belongs to God and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Since Caesar was now the Muslim conquerors, it meant that they still had to keep paying all their taxes, but now to the Muslim conqueror.

If these Christian commoners wanted to be liberated from these crushing taxes, they simply had to abandon the religion that imposed them. It is exactly the same reasoning as the erstwhile revolutionaries in Europe, including Karl Marx later on: It is the religion itself that mandates oppression, crushing taxes, and unequal man-made law. If you stick to that religion, you also implicitly agree to the consequences of doing that.

That is why no matter who rules the Jews and the Christians, it will always be fair that, concerning the commoners, the new rulers continue the existing regime of crushing, increasing taxes and unequal man-made law in which these commoners will remain commoners with restricted rights. So, why if you ask why are the Christian commoners always being oppressed? You can find the answer is in Christianity itself:

Because that is what they are here for.

Why?

Christianity convinces the lowly scumbag peasants that they should pay taxes and obey to their lords. Pray to the Lord!

Therefore: Why? Because you should give everybody what they ask for (=what they are convinced of).

Hence, I am utterly opposed to the idea that any new rulers would reduce taxes on the Christian commoner or lift the restrictions, inequities, or injustices that exist in their man-made law. It is completely out of the question to do that. They must always be treated in accordance with their own beliefs.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

(Peace be upon you)

Brother, I don't know from wherein you get your information, but I'd warn you to be careful, especially on the Internet, from allowing yourself to learn Islam from ignorant persons or from learning Islam via reading of anti-Islamic material. So, please for your own sake, again, I'd repeat, please be careful and understand that the best way to learn Islam is via trustworthy scholars.

To answer your question, during the Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him), Persian Empire fell and Zoroastrians were given the dhimmi status in the Caliphate.

Please internalize what Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stated: “To do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you, and to reject for others what you would reject for yourself.”

(And peace be upon you)

I am asking to confirm what I read. Cuz there are literally Muslims who say "All kafirs except the Jews and the Christians should convert or be killed" which sounds like a "convert or die" tactic. I.e. an insincere conversion, won't work.

It is basically encouraging hypocrisy at this point, wallah. Glad this isn't Islam tho.

Just to be at ease tho:

So ANY non muslim can be a dhimmi. Can any scholar confirm??

Bro, hi, and yes, that isn't Islam.

The people who say things like that are probably also likely to have other misinformation with them and are likely to also misinterpret shariah (Islamic law) in other ways. Therefore, always be careful, bro. The early Muslims used to say something like, "Indeed, this knowledge is the religion; so be careful from whom you take your deen (religion/way of life)."

In fact in the thread to which I'd linked in this thread, sister herb on that thread quoted on this point and I'll quote the relevant part only herein: "A dhimmi; Arabic: ذمي, meaning "protected person" refers to specific individuals living in Muslim lands, who were granted special status and safety in Islamic law in return for paying the capital tax. This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book, namely, Jews and Christians, but was later extended to include Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus and Buddhists."

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

I am asking to confirm what I read. Cuz there are literally Muslims who say "All kafirs except the Jews and the Christians should convert or be killed" which sounds like a "convert or die" tactic. I.e. an insincere conversion, won't work.

It is basically encouraging hypocrisy at this point, wallah. Glad this isn't Islam tho.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

The people who say things like that are probably also likely to have other misinformation with them and are likely to also misinterpret shariah (Islamic law) in other ways.

Jews and Christians are NEVER subject to Sharia law, neither to the rights, nor to the obligations. The Islamic rules clearly say that there is no compulsion in religion.

Hence Jews and Christians are always subject to Jewish Law (Hallakah) and Christian Law (Canonical Law).

Since Talmudic and Canonical provisions in their own religious laws insist that Jews and Christians must pay crushing taxes and accept serious inequities from their rulers, these provisions must be enforced by their rulers, even if these new rulers happen to be Muslims.

Hence, Muslim rulers have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to exempt Jews or Christians from the oppressing clauses in their own Jewish or Christian Law.

Nobody has the right to detract Christians from their Christian Law, or Jews from their Jewish Law. Hence, Muslim rulers are enjoined to enforce even the most oppressive provisions and clauses possible in their law, to which the person claims that he obeys, with total disregard of what that law may be. Hence, with their own Jewish and Christian laws insisting that Jews and Christians must pay crushing taxes to their rulers, Muslim rulers can never be exempt from effectively collecting them.

CONCLUSION: It is strictly forbidden (HARAAM) unto new Muslim rulers to reduce existing taxes on Jewish or Christian subjects, no matter how oppressive these existing taxes may be.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

I wanted to ask, who of the disbelievers can become a dhimmi?

The following historical example will show you how it really went, according to original sources from that period. When the Umayyad Caliph, Al-Walid I, conquered Damascus from Emperor Heraclius (7th century AD), the Umayyad Caliph obeyed the provisions in the Quran and kept employing the Christian tax collectors. John (Johannes) and his father Sarjun (Sergius) were expert scholars in Christian taxation procedures, in settling disputes, and in administering decisions in the appellate procedures concerning the oppressive and crushing Byzantine taxes. The enforcement of their decisions were now being handled by the Umayyad Caliph and his military administration.

John, an iconodule (lover of Christian image veneration), also got involved, in the dispute between iconodules and iconoclasts (adversaries of image veneration). John even wrote a famous invective against the iconoclasts: Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images. The new Byzantine Emperor, Leo III, however, was a staunch iconoclast.

Emperor Leo III reportedly sent forged documents to the Umayyad Caliph which implicated John in a Byzantine plot to attack Damascus. Upon learning about the plot, the Umayyad Caliph then ordered John's right hand be cut off and hung up in public view. John, however, managed to convince the Umayyad Caliph of the fact that the Byzantine documents were forgeries. Nonetheless, after diplomatic interactions between the Umayyad Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire, and as a concession made during long-winding negotiations with the Byzantine diplomatic mission in Damascus, and from the Umayyad diplomatic mission in Constantinople, the Umayyad Caliph still ended up conceding to the Byzantines, to dismiss John from his job as chief Christian tax collector.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

Yes, bro, hi, and yes, that isn't Islam.

The people who say things like that are probably also likely to have other misinformation with them and are likely to also misinterpret shariah (Islamic law) in other ways. Therefore, always be careful, bro. The early Muslims used to say something like, "Indeed, this knowledge is the religion; so be careful from whom you take your deen (religion/way of life)."

In fact in the thread to which I'd linked in this thread, sister herb on that thread quoted on this point and I'll quote the relevant part only herein: ""A dhimmi; Arabic: ذمي, meaning "protected person") refers to specific individuals living in Muslim lands, who were granted special status and safety in Islamic law in return for paying the capital tax. This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book, namely, Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus and Buddhists."

Yeah, I read that.

Cuz there are non muslims on another site who thinks that Islam encourages hypocrisy by forcing people to follow Islam, etc.

I feel sorry for them. And by the way some Muslims write, they make it sound like Islam indeed encourages hypocrisy, which is false.

This fatwa however clears matters:

https://islamqa.info/en/189207

Would I be correct to say that it is oppression to force people into Islam, to follow Islamic rule?

For I feel it is hypocrisy to scream "Islamophobia!" when that guy is like "kill or convert". And spews hatred to disbelievers around.

So I made it clear on the site that any non muslim can safely tread on an Islamic State. And that they won't be persecuted for their beliefs. Those who complain about persecution of Muslims should not complain if they themselves preach hatred for kafirs, imo.

But one question I have:

Would it not be sensible to impose modesty on everyone living under Islamic rule? we can not have people walk around semi-naked. It will bring fitnah.

So how is that dealt with?
Any scholar can confirm.

Allahu alam

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

but I am under restrictions imposed by the forum staff which appear to be preventing me from doing so.

As explained in the Helpdesk section, when a person accrues 50 infractions, their account automatically becomes restricted.