Dhimmis/non muslims in an Islamic State.

[Serinity]

I wanted to ask, who of the disbelievers can become a dhimmi? Cuz I am confused, I've read that only christians and Jews can, others are to be killed or they should convert. Which sounds forceful, and not Islam. The other is - none should be ridiculed for what they believe in - i.e. any non muslim can be a dhimmi. And an ayat in the Qur'an implies that the Jizyah is to subjugate the disbelievers to Islamic Rule. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (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.9:29 http://legacy.quran.com/9/29 Can any scholar clarify? How will force bring sincerity? It won't.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

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

Peace

 

[islamirama]

Greetings,

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

Peace

Because they had a better life as dhimmis under Islamic rule then under their own tyrants. The non-Muslim people used to invite Muslims to conquer them so they can be free from the oppression of their rulers. The dhimmi tax is less than the Muslim tax (zakat) and they don't have to join the army. I can tell you the blacks would take that over this open hunting season on them in the western system right now.

 

[Search]

:bism: (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 :saws: (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.”

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

I wanted to ask, who of the disbelievers can become a dhimmi? Cuz I am confused, I've read that only christians and Jews can, others are to be killed or they should convert. Which sounds forceful, and not Islam. The other is - none should be ridiculed for what they believe in - i.e. any non muslim can be a dhimmi. And an ayat in the Qur'an implies that the Jizyah is to subjugate the disbelievers to Islamic Rule. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (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.9:29 http://legacy.quran.com/9/29 Can any scholar clarify? How will force bring sincerity? It won't.

 

[Search]

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

Thread:Can I be a dhimmi?

Greetings,

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

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

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.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

I would love to respond to your visitor message but I am under restrictions imposed by the forum staff which appear to be preventing me from doing so.

[/B]Thread:Can I be a dhimmi?

That thread became largely devoted to a discussion of Jewish lineage.

There was one good definition given though:

"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. The term connotes an obligation of the state to protect the individual, including the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion and worship, and required loyalty to the empire, and a poll tax known as the jizya. Dhimmi had fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslim religious subjects. This status applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the seventh century until modern times."

Who are the dhimmah being protected from?

Peace

 

[Search]

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

Greetings,

Hi.

Sorry, this may be out of the blue. That said, I wanted to confirm something; there have been "quoted" posts showing up as an alert on my settings page, but when I click to read them, they're not "there."

Have you been responding to some of my posts?

Even yesterday, I noticed in the thread on atheism, I didn't see your detailed response until much later because it hadn't shown up at all initially. So, I just wondered if you were being censored on IB?

Thanks for answering in advance.

Best Wishes,

 

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

Yes.

Peace

 

[Serinity]

:bism: (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 :saws: (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.”

:wa: (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??

 

[Search]

:bism:

:wa:
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."

:wa:

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.

 

[kritikvernunft]

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.

 

[Search]

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

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).

Of course you're correct. In shariah (Islamic law), different faith communities get to practice their faith as per the laws of their own faith and are subject to thereby their own laws.

 

[Search]

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

@kritikvernunft

I have quoted the part of the post in which I agreed with you; as for the rest of what you've written, that's not my understanding and therefore I have not quoted that part of the post.

 

[kritikvernunft]

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



Of course you're correct. In shariah (Islamic law), different faith communities get to practice their faith as per the laws of their own faith and are subject to thereby their own laws.

Hence, it is strictly forbidden (HARAAM) to treat Christian commoners as equals, since under Christian law they are treated as utterly unequal to their own ruling nobility. Therefore, Christian commoners must NEVER be treated as equal, since that would result in an outright violation of their own Christian Law. Christians must therefore be treated as unequal, inferior, and with very restricted rights, in complete respect of the provisions and clauses that govern the relationship between rulers (nobility) and the serfs (commoners) in Christian Law.

 

[islamirama]

[h=4]Duties of a Muslim towards a non-Muslim[/h]
https://islamqa.info/en/131777

 

[kritikvernunft]

...as for the rest of what you've written, that's not my understanding and therefore I have not quoted that part of the post ...

In fact, the issue is that new Muslim rulers must continue to collect the oppressive and crushing taxes already resting on Jewish and Christian populations before the conquest.

This means that in accordance with the provisions in the Quran, new Muslim rulers must NOT:

[1] refuse to exercise their power or refuse to collect these taxes
[2] exceed their power by collecting more crushing/oppressive taxes without following the procedures that allow to increase them
[3] refuse to follow the taxation procedures

Hence, new Muslim rulers must use the existing taxation forms and taxation organization to collect these oppressive and crushing taxes, establish a taxation department that resembles the existing one, and appoint Jewish and Christian tax collectors operating under supervision of the new Muslim management.

It simply means that it is not allowed (HARAAM) to terminate the employment contracts of Jewish and Christian tax collectors, who must continue to collect these oppressive/crushing taxes and continue to disburse them into the treasury of the new rulers.

The Quran does not allow for abolishing these taxes. Jews and Christians can only obtain exemption from these oppressive/crushing taxes by disavowing the very religion that mandates them. Jewish and Christian individuals who convert to Islam will, however, equally well be subject to Zakaat, just like other Muslims, with Zakaat being levied under the existing Islamic procedures in place for collecting them. It is not allowed either (HARAAM) unto the rulers to modify the Zakaat procedural system.

 

[kritikvernunft]

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.

 

[Serinity]

:bism:

:wa:
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."

:wa:

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

 

[Muhammad]

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.