2. Does it oppress Non-Abrahamic Religious Followers? (I was told, on a Christian site, by a Christian who claims to have read the Quran, Hadiths and whatever the other thing is, and he seems to see himself as a expert on it, that it oppresses people, and especially those of non-abrahamic religious origin) Yes, I know, he is a Christian and might be just bashing Islam, but I am just trying to help learn of Islam, and at the moment, I am trying to help defend it on a Christian site, and I am about to give up, cause I have so little knowledge, I can't keep up with all the accusations.
3. Don't Non-Muslims have to pay a tax for living in a Muslim Nation?
I suppose by treason you mean he rebels. And as I said before this is not a condition. The Shari'ah does not define it and it was alien to Muslims for 14 centuries.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
It's not as simple as apostacising from Islam.
akh, I have to disagree; it is because the ahadith say it and the ijmaa' of the early generations clarifies it.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
But, what certain scholars may say is lump the two together i.e apostacising and commiting treason are (always) one and the same.
akhee, this is a misunderstanding. You will never see this word being used in the work of classical/traditionalist scholars. why? because they never needed to say it or use this line of argument to explain this hadd. They all understood what it really meant. The first people, who brought up the issue of treason, were some of the contemporary scholars and dai'is. And they did so to explain the ruling to people in the west. So they said "apostay is just like a treason. If an apostate rebels then he is committing a treason and what should the punishment for treason be?". Hence, in order to refute this error the traditionalist camp said that apostasy itself is a treason against an Islamic state: meaning the apostate does not have commit a treason by spreading fitnah or rebelling because him leaving Islam is itself a treason.
This is how the use of this word came into existence.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I am of the opinion that there is a difference between the two because otherwise we are oversimplicising this law.
brother then you are agreeing with the error of contemporaies and you are against the statement of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the ijmaa' of the Salaf. They never made any distinction or put this condition. The conditions are only those which define within the Shari'ah, which I mentioned in my previous post.
عن تميم بن أوس الداري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قال الدين النصيحة ثلاثا قلنا لمن يا رسول الله قال لله ولكتابه ولرسوله ولأئمة المسلمين وعامتهم - رواه مسلم
You make some good points but what you must understand about those harsh punishments:
* they require large amounts of evidence
* there first must be conviction by a judge and court system
* maximum punishment (not always given out)
* can be substituted for other ones.
Since the concept of justice is paramount to Sharia, it is very conceivable that not every adulterer, or apostate (or theif, etc) who is proven guilty will be given the maximum punishment. It is a case by case scenario.
One needs only to look into the administering of the apostacy ruling during Islam's beginning to note that out of many hundreds of apostates at that time, only 8 were actually sentenced to death.
Its the final word because nobody knows better than Allah.And why does capital punishment look so bad to you? Its followed in my country too for instance and we dont follow shariah.
Capital punishment is used for the worst of crimes. Not for crimes like Apostasy or Adultery.
Apostasy if used as means to undermine the state and cause tribulations is considered treason. Treason is punished by death, even in the 'civilized west':
Absolutely not. It is actually easier for non-muslims to live in a sharia state than muslims for the following reasons:
* non-muslims pay LESS TAXES in a sharia state (see answer to Q3)
* non-muslims are exempt from the harsh criminal punishments (death penalty, capital punishment etc)
* non-muslims are priority cases in sharia state (there are countless hadith/sunnah indicating the importance of treating dhimmis/non-muslims, one going along the lines of whosoever treats a dhimmi badly, the Prophet [saw] himself will stand in defence of that dhimmi on the day of judgement...in short that means treat your dhimmis well unless you want a one on one with the Prophet [saw])
Yes, non-muslims pay a tax like everyone else does for living in a muslim nation; however, it is actually LESS than what the muslims would have to pay AND the taxation is exempt from those non-muslims who are in the military (since that tax goes to funding the military).
I think the issue the original post was raising was in regards to the restrictions placed on non-Muslims under the Pact of Umar:
That is seen by some non-Muslims as the benchmark of what life would be like under an Islamic caliphate. Considering Muhammad stated that, "The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter".
That is seen by some non-Muslims as the benchmark of what life would be like under an Islamic caliphate. Considering Muhammad stated that, "The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter".
Lol, so the benchmark of Islamic caliphate is based on Umar [ra] and not Muhammad [saw]? Bit flawed logic there. That's not to downplay Umar's interpretation of Sharia (which is fine as far as I know of - the ''laws'' in that pact you gave do actually have an explanation - they aren't just arbitrary!), just that the benchmark should actually be the Prophet's version.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Lol, so the benchmark of Islamic caliphate is based on Umar [ra] and not Muhammad [saw]? Bit flawed logic there. That's not to downplay Umar's interpretation of Sharia (which is fine as far as I know of - the ''laws'' in that pact you gave do actually have an explanation - they aren't just arbitrary!), just that the benchmark should actually be the Prophet's version.
Just to clarify - why then do some Muslims use Umar as an example if the primary source of inspiration should be the scriptural sources and Muhammad? I've always been confused when I hear people elevate the first four Caliphates when the sole source should only be Muhammad and the scriptures. The Salafi being the best example of the arbitrary rules regarding the first three generations (I'm sure there are others).
Lol, so the benchmark of Islamic caliphate is based on Umar [ra] and not Muhammad [saw]? Bit flawed logic there. That's not to downplay Umar's interpretation of Sharia (which is fine as far as I know of - the ''laws'' in that pact you gave do actually have an explanation - they aren't just arbitrary!), just that the benchmark should actually be the Prophet's version.
Pray tell what are the reasons for these laws if not to make life hard for anone other than a muslim?
And actually the benchmark should be even worse than Umars because according to Mohammed "The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter". So the farther away the worse they are.
Pray tell what are the reasons for these laws if not to make life hard for anone other than a muslim?
The problem I have is the treaty which Muhammad had, even when he was in a position of dominance, never placed the same sort of restrictions on non-Muslims as Umar did. Personally, having read some history, I found that after Muhammad's death there were a number of people attempting to climb the greasy pole of power and in the process all of what Muhammad taught was thrown out the window in favour of establishing an empire.
If I were to ever become a Muslim, I'd ignore the first three generations and just look directly to Muhammad. When I hear in the first three generations of people being torn apart, people thrown off buildings, torture, massacres on a large scale - it is as far from the example Muhammad set as one can get.
And actually the benchmark should be even worse than Umars because according to Mohammed "The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter". So the farther away the worse they are.
On what basis - what evidence are you quoting regarding Muhammad? I hope it isn't out of context Qur'an quotation or Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah.
And proceeds to commit treason. It's not as simple as apostacising from Islam. But, what certain scholars may say is lump the two together i.e apostacising and commiting treason are (always) one and the same. I am of the opinion that there is a difference between the two because otherwise we are oversimplicising this law.
To me it does not sound practical to punish someone who has just simply left Islam. Al lot of evidence would be required and I don't think the courts or the government would benefit from punishing an individual who has just abandoned their religion. It does not raise a matter of public importance to me. Besides for some apostates it takes time for the truth to sink in...for example when I left my religion it took time for the truth to sink in after I had researched more into Islam. So there is a chance that the individual could have converted back to Islam during later on in life. In that case I would not consider the death penalty to be a suitable option.
I agree that it sounds practical when they left Islam and proceed to commit treason. If they have committed actions against the government and is of significant public importance, then I would say under these circumstances the death penalty should be employed.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Just to clarify - why then do some Muslims use Umar as an example if the primary source of inspiration should be the scriptural sources and Muhammad? I've always been confused when I hear people elevate the first four Caliphates when the sole source should only be Muhammad and the scriptures. The Salafi being the best example of the arbitrary rules regarding the first three generations (I'm sure there are others).
If I am wrong - please correct me.
1) You are correct; some folk do tend to raise the caliphates a bit too high (sometimes higher than the Prophet!).
2) The pact you gave was not by Umar the caliphate.
3) The pact is also considered dubious.
format_quote Originally Posted by Santoku
Pray tell what are the reasons for these laws if not to make life hard for anone other than a muslim?
Well I just did a little research and a wiki article came up. Interesting to note, the writers suggest this ''pact'' could easily have been falsified (made up). Check it out here
It was also interesting to note that on page one google search (at least I am honest!) for ''Umar's pact'', 90% of the links were anti-islamic propoganda hate sites, citing the same pact KG gave (and attributing it to Umar the caliphate). Now, I'm no sherlock holmes, but with that in mind, I think that wiki article is telling us something.
And actually the benchmark should be even worse than Umars because according to Mohammed "The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter". So the farther away the worse they are.
The benchmark should be the Prophet's example - because that is what all the caliphs were following. And that is what all the generations after would be following.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
2) The pact you gave was not by Umar the caliphate.
3) The pact is also considered dubious.
On point 2, I did understand from the article that the pact was suggested by the christians themselves not the muslims.
Unless you can show the arabic script so we can verify what it originally said not the translation then I agree with aamir that it remains dubious, especially that its coming from the "Jesuit" university of NewYork.
Is it true that in a shariyah state, if a muslim kills a non muslim, than he is not entitled to death sentence and is entitled to only pay blood money to the victim's family???
1) You are correct; some folk do tend to raise the caliphates a bit too high (sometimes higher than the Prophet!).
2) The pact you gave was not by Umar the caliphate.
3) The pact is also considered dubious.
Thank you for the correction; it just always seemed like the equivalent of Christians who say they follow Jesus but all they quote is Paul
Well I just did a little research and a wiki article came up. Interesting to note, the writers suggest this ''pact'' could easily have been falsified (made up). Check it out here
It was also interesting to note that on page one google search (at least I am honest!) for ''Umar's pact'', 90% of the links were anti-islamic propaganda hate sites, citing the same pact KG gave (and attributing it to Umar the caliphate). Now, I'm no sherlock holmes, but with that in mind, I think that wiki article is telling us something.
The above is from a Jesuit run university - hardly a hate site.
The benchmark should be the Prophet's example - because that is what all the caliphs were following. And that is what all the generations after would be following.
Good, and that means we can be critical of the Caliphs if they haven't lived up to the standard set by Muhammad?
Is it true that in a shariyah state, if a muslim kills a non muslim, than he is not entitled to death sentence and is entitled to only pay blood money to the victim's family???
I'll have to check on this tonight (at work right now, don't have my sharia text book on me - the one that I have linked in my sig). But that claim sounds awfully fishy.
format_quote Originally Posted by kawaiigardiner
Thank you for the correction; it just always seemed like the equivalent of Christians who say they follow Jesus but all they quote is Paul
Np about correction. Happy to help. It's funny; every now and again I come across a crazy pseudo-islamic tidbit (that may or may not be true) and at first I'm shocked at the sight of it but after doing research I find that claim has little backing (One guy branded a bukhari hadith, claiming it incited racism and it turned out that particular hadith didn't even exist!).
Well, just having some more looks at the ''laws'' it sounds stupid:
example: ''we shall not teach our children the Quran'' - er why not?
Plus, a certain well-known-to-be-completely-and-utterly-bull****-anti-islamic-site flaunted that pact around like nobody's business. That coupled with the wiki made my spider-sense tingle.
...Good, and that means we can be critical of the Caliphs if they haven't lived up to the standard set by Muhammad?
Well, we have to put things into context. The Islamic world changed after Muhammad [saw] - socially and politically; so if there were any deviations from the Prophet's example, we have to be wary of the context and understand why. Also, have to get accurate information - as I said earlier, I have come across crazy things about Islam on the net: it's very easy to find Islamic propoganda today; difficult to find accurate data on the subject (isn't it wonderful that we have this forum dedicated to finding the latter?!)
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks