The Rights of a Dhimmi (non muslim) & Muslim in an Islamic State.

[wilberhum]

i have seen dhimmi defined as unbelievers or non-muslim (under muslim protection) and i have also seen in more narrowly defined as referring specifically to christians, jews and sometimes other religions too.
so i am not sure if an atheist or agnostic would come under the term dhimmi or not. i am really curious now - does anyone know for sure?
were there even atheists and agnostics around in the early days of islam?
i know there were people of the book and there were idolators, but were there atheists?

It is my understanding that if you are not of the book, you are not welcome.
Leave or die.

 

[barney]

It is my understanding that if you are not of the book, you are not welcome.
Leave or die.

We Aggys and Athys would be classed as Idolaters, worshipping cars or pop idols or something.

Basically it's too weird a concept for people in those days to even think that God might not exist or that their and indeed all religion might be wrong, so if there were any aggys about they would have got the chop too.

 

[crayon]

If someone would create a true 100% democracy, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

There would be no need to talk about the rights of this group or that group because they would all be the same.

If every country would adapt this democracy, surly all wars would end and for the first time since there have been two tribes, the world would be at peace.

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

 

[Isambard]

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

Perfect for a specific group of muslims perhaps.....as long as you can somehow ignore the economic and political reprecussions that would ensure.

Not so perfect for everyone else:skeleton:

 

[crayon]

If by "everyone else" you mean non muslims, ie. Dhimmis, just check back with the original post in the thread, see how life would be for them.

And what do you mean by economic and political repercussions that would ensure?

 

[Amadeus85]

What do you mean they're not included as "dhimmi"? The full term used is "kaaffir dhimmi" (unbelievers under protection). Unbelievers who wage war and cause trouble against the Islamic State is termed "kaaffir harbi".

Jews and Christians are categorized as "ahle kitab" (People of the Book)

But when muslims conquer a land, what happens with atheists and agnostics who dont want to embrace islam?

 

[Isambard]

If by "everyone else" you mean non muslims, ie. Dhimmis, just check back with the original post in the thread, see how life would be for them.

And what do you mean by economic and political repercussions that would ensure?

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/52136-sharia-state-economics.html

Under a shariah state, I as a non-muslim, am rendered a second-class citizen. I cannot change or vote on laws I do not agree with. Nor am I allowed to openly dicuss my faith (or lack thereof).

Your 'perfect' state is elitist.

 

[wilberhum]

If the leader of a country were to implement the Sharia'ah 100%, it would be the most perfect state the world has ever seen.

Maybe if your a Muslim. But I have no desire to become a second class citizen or expelled.
I prefer to live where the government does not define my value by my religious beliefs.

 

[snakelegs]

living in a shariah state is not really amongst my worries.
but i am curious now - what is the definition of dhimmi?
does it only pertain to jews, christians (and some include other religions) or does it also include atheists and agnostics?
and did atheists and agnostics even exist then?
i have read conflicting things.

 

[Keltoi]

living in a shariah state is not really amongst my worries.
but i am curious now - what is the definition of dhimmi?
does it only pertain to jews, christians (and some include other religions) or does it also include atheists and agnostics?
and did atheists and agnostics even exist then?
i have read conflicting things.

Well, you have to keep in mind that during this time period there was no separation of church and state, therefore there weren't many vocal or even visible athiests or agnostics. If you came from Christian lands you were a Christian, if you can from Muslim lands you were a Muslim. That doesn't mean they all believed or were pious, but they were labeled as such.

 

[wilberhum]

Well, you have to keep in mind that during this time period there was no separation of church and state, therefore there weren't many vocal or even visible athiests or agnostics. If you came from Christian lands you were a Christian, if you can from Muslim lands you were a Muslim. That doesn't mean they all believed or were pious, but they were labeled as such.

I think that is a total breach of reality, but OK.

What about a Hindu?

 

[Keltoi]

I think that is a total breach of reality, but OK.

What about a Hindu?

How is it a "breach of reality?" You have to understand that athiesm was all but unheard of in the context of public action during this time period. Even the Romans would execute self-proclaimed athiests. When Christians were being persecuted by the Romans they were persecuted for being "athiests", as strange as that might sound now.

Fast forward till the time of the Crusades. If you were European, you were Christian(Catholic). If you were born in Syria...yeah, you were a Muslim. When the Byzantine Empire started to decay and was eventually invaded by Muslims, those average citizens of the Byzantine emperor were Christians. It doesn't matter if they believed in God or not, they were aligned with that faith for better or worse.

Hopefully that makes sense...we are indeed talking about a very different time and mindset.

 

[snakelegs]

well, in addition to christians and jews, there were plenty of idolators running around. maybe non-christian, non-jew were all considered idolators? there probably weren't really atheists and agnostics in the neighbourhood.
still, my question for a knowledgeable muslim remains unanswered:
does dhimmi status only apply to people of the book and are those that don't fall in to this category, a sub-category legally?

 

[Amadeus85]

What about a Hindu?

I think that Hindus were added to people of the book after the conquest of India by muslims. Thats why they paid the dhimmi tax.

 

[wilberhum]

I think that Hindus were added to people of the book after the conquest of India by muslims. Thats why they paid the dhimmi tax.

Right, in India. You can't kill all the people.

But what about the odd few in Spain?

 

[Uthman]

But when muslims conquer a land, what happens with atheists and agnostics who dont want to embrace islam?

Can somebody answer this question please? It came up in another discussion I was having, and I didn't really know the answer.

I wish Ansar was still around.

 

[Amadeus85]

BTW does anyone know what hapenns with Wilberhum?

 

[Faye]

well, in addition to christians and jews, there were plenty of idolators running around. maybe non-christian, non-jew were all considered idolators? there probably weren't really atheists and agnostics in the neighbourhood.
still, my question for a knowledgeable muslim remains unanswered:
does dhimmi status only apply to people of the book and are those that don't fall in to this category, a sub-category legally?

In Hidayah, the main book of Hanafi Fiqh, it says that Jizya, (and by extension, dhimmi status) is leveled on the Ahli Kitaab and Fire Worshippers, the first because of an order to Allah to that effect in Surah Tawbah, Ayat 29, and the second because it is proven in a Hadith that Rasoolullah SAWS took jizya from a Fire worshipper. And according to Imam Abo Hanifa, Jizya may also be leveled on a non-Arab idolatoror, but according to Imam Shafee, fighting them is mandatory, because the original order in the Ayat is: fight them.We know that it is permissible to level Jizya in the case of the Ahli Kitaab by the Quraan itself, and in the case of fire-worshippers by Hadeeth, but in all others the original order applies. And Imam Abo Hanifa's point is that enslaving idolatorors is permissible, so levelling Jizya on them is also permissible, because in each cases his life is spared, so he will earn and pay jizya to muslims and his living expenses will be from his earnings.

From what I understand from this, according to Imam Shafee, jizya is only leveled on Ahli Kitab with the sole exception being Fire-Worshippers. Thus Agnostics and Atheists do not qualify for dhimmi status and they would either be killed or enslaved.

Imam Abo Hanifa's position seems to indicate, though he does not clearly state it, that dhimmi status could be granted to an Atheist or Agnostic. His use of the term 'idolatorors' appears to cover all other religions. Furthermore, the logic behind his arguement is that if you can make a person a slave, you can also make him a dhimmi. I don't actually know whether Agnostics and Atheists can be enslaved, but if they can, they should be granted dhimmi status as well.

I am attaching a scan of the page of Hidayah from which I took my information

 

[Skavau]

In Hidayah, the main book of Hanafi Fiqh, it says that Jizya, (and by extension, dhimmi status) is leveled on the Ahli Kitaab and Fire Worshippers, the first because of an order to Allah to that effect in Surah Tawbah, Ayat 29, and the second because it is proven in a Hadith that Rasoolullah SAWS took jizya from a Fire worshipper. And according to Imam Abo Hanifa, Jizya may also be leveled on a non-Arab idolatoror, but according to Imam Shafee, fighting them is mandatory, because the original order in the Ayat is: fight them.We know that it is permissible to level Jizya in the case of the Ahli Kitaab by the Quraan itself, and in the case of fire-worshippers by Hadeeth, but in all others the original order applies. And Imam Abo Hanifa's point is that enslaving idolatorors is permissible, so levelling Jizya on them is also permissible, because in each cases his life is spared, so he will earn and pay jizya to muslims and his living expenses will be from his earnings.

From what I understand from this, according to Imam Shafee, jizya is only leveled on Ahli Kitab with the sole exception being Fire-Worshippers. Thus Agnostics and Atheists do not qualify for dhimmi status and they would either be killed or enslaved.

Imam Abo Hanifa's position seems to indicate, though he does not clearly state it, that dhimmi status could be granted to an Atheist or Agnostic. His use of the term 'idolatorors' appears to cover all other religions. Furthermore, the logic behind his arguement is that if you can make a person a slave, you can also make him a dhimmi. I don't actually know whether Agnostics and Atheists can be enslaved, but if they can, they should be granted dhimmi status as well.

I am attaching a scan of the page of Hidayah from which I took my information

This sort of confirms, at least by your analysis why I would never want to live under an Islamic state.

 

[Uthman]

In this day and age, were a proper Islamic state to be established, the western world would still be a more attractive proposition to Non-Muslims anyway. I think that's a no-brainer really. Historically, that wasn't the case, but nowadays it is.