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

[Skavau]

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.

Is what Faye says correct? About the potential plight of Atheists and Agnostics under an Islamic State?

 

[aamirsaab]

I'll post some info on this when I get home. Just book marking it for now.

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

As far as I can remember atheists and agnostics would be treated the same as dhimmis.

 

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

Is what Faye says correct? About the potential plight of Atheists and Agnostics under an Islamic State?

That Atheists and Agnostics would be either killed or enslaved under an Islamic state seems strange to me. I'll be the first to admit though, that Islamic law is a subject that I don't know much about. I'll wait to see what aamirsaab has to say on the issue, since he has much more knowledge about it than me.

Regards

 

[Faye]

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

Two points that need clarification here, I think. The first is that anything after 'from what I understand from this', is just my own extrapolation from my understanding of their positions, and not anything I know from a reliable source. The actual ruling maybe opposite to this, and I maybe mistaken.

The other point is that this text relates the opinion of two traditional scholars, who may never have met an Agnostic or Atheist. The ruling of modern scholars, even from those two schools of thought may not agree with this.

 

[aamirsaab]

Very brief info on this matter:

Dhimmis are under the dhimmat-Allah; as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.

Fundemental rights of a dhimmi:
* protection from all external threats
* protection from all internal tyranny and persecution

Some Hadith by the Prophet [saw], relating to dhimmis;
* One who hurts a dhimmi, he hurts me; and one who hurts me, hurts Allah
(Al Tibrani)
* Whoever hurts a dhummue, I shall be his complainant, and for whosoever I am a complainant, I shall ask for his right on the Day of Resurrection.
(Al Sunan, al-kubra Vol. 4 P. 205. narrated by Al Khatib)

Some muslim jurists like Ibn Abdin (1836 A.D) have argueed that since muslims are given responsibility to protect the blood and property of non-muslims and since the persecution of weak persons at the hands of strong is considered as one of the greatest crimes, the persecution of non-muslims in an islamic state will be considered to be a greater crime than the persecution of muslims by non-muslims.

One needs only to look through articles 1 through 20 of the declaration of human rights to see that they reflect the aims and objectives of the Shariah.

Source material used;
Sharia: The Islamic Laq
Author: Abdur Rahman I. Doi

If you'd like to purchase this book: clicketh me!

 

[Faye]

they enjoy complete religious...freedom

other than the right to try to spread their religion.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

other than the right to try to spread their religion.

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

 

[crayon]

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

I think they can practice it but not preach it, don't quote me on that though, not entirely sure.

 

[aamirsaab]

Can non-muslims in an islamic-state practice their religion in public?

How do you mean 'in public?' If you mean like can a Sikh wear his kirpan dagger, then yes (since hye enjoy complete religious freedom [provided they aren't ''recruiting'' but that's not really a problem given that it is a theistic state!])

 

[Whatsthepoint]

How do you mean 'in public?' If you mean like can a Sikh wear his kirpan dagger, then yes (since hye enjoy complete religious freedom [provided they aren't ''recruiting'' but that's not really a problem given that it is a theistic state!])

Yeah, that's what I meant. Can they also celebrate or worship in public? Can Catholics have processions, can Hindus have their festivals etc.

 

[aamirsaab]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Can they also celebrate or worship in public? Can Catholics have processions, can Hindus have their festivals etc.

I really don't know. The book I have doesn't go that far in detail - it just says (regarding dhimmis):''.....as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.''

So I'm guessing they'd be allowed to but cannot say for 100%.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I really don't know. The book I have doesn't go that far in detail - it just says (regarding dhimmis):''.....as such they enjoy complete religious, admin and political freedom.''

So I'm guessing they'd be allowed to but cannot say for 100%.

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.
Can they build new places of worship?

 

[aamirsaab]

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.

For a pure theisic state, it is a considerable amount of religious freedom. And given that it is an Islamic state, it is hardly going to be in the interest to allow preaching of another religion. It'd be like the Pope saying: yeah you muzzies can come round my house, benefit in every way possible, eat all my food, be protected by my own personel security force AND preach your own religion! Hell, on saturdays, you EVEN get to take over the rule as POPE!

Obviously this is an exageration but I think you see my point; for a thiestic state, the True Islamic state offers a great deal of religious freedom.

Can they build new places of worship?

Again, I don't know. From what little history I do know of, places of worship (other than Islam) were already present in those countries were Islam spread to. Now, there is this belief online (a mere google search of ''the Islamic state'' will show this) that absolutely no new places of worship (of non-muslims) can be built - but I've yet to see any ayat or hadith that clarifies it.
So I'd much rather hear people in general say: I don't know as opposed to: ''no you cannot build a new one''.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Obviously this is an exageration but I think you see my point; for a thiestic state, the True Islamic state offers a great deal of religious freedom.

I agree. That doesn't mean that the islamic state is the ultimate state though.

Again, I don't know. From what little history I do know of, places of worship (other than Islam) were already present in those countries were Islam spread to. Now, there is this belief online (a mere google search of ''the Islamic state'' will show this) that absolutely no new places of worship (of non-muslims) can be built - but I've yet to see any ayat or hadith that clarifies it.
So I'd much rather hear people in general say: I don't know as opposed to: ''no you cannot build a new one''.

Well, what if the old places of worship become more crowded?
Could you do some research on this one? Thank you.:thumbs_up

 

[aamirsaab]

I agree. That doesn't mean that the islamic state is the ultimate state though.

True, but then that's the main ''flaw'' of a true theistic state.

Well, what if the old places of worship become more crowded?
Could you do some research on this one? Thank you.:thumbs_up

I'll see what I can find out.

 

[Faye]

The fact that they can't preach their religion to others means that they don't enjoy complete religious freedom.
Can they build new places of worship?

They can't build new ones, but if the old ones get ruined, or broken down, they can rebuild. I'll post the reference tonight, Insha Allah.

As far as overcrowding is concerned, this has not historically been a problem, as the majority population usually did convert to Islam, if not in the first generation, then definitely in the second. After all, they can't recruit, any children of mixed parents are Muslim by default, and Muslims can recruit.

 

[Faye]

Here is the reference, from the book of Fiqh, Mukhtasir ul-Qudoori.

It says that it is not allowed to make new worshipping places in Muslim land, but if one gets destroyed, it is to be remade, and dhimmis cannot dress like muslims and cannot ride horses or bear weapons, and dhimmi status will not end if the dhimmi doesn't give jizya, or kills a muslim, or insults the Nabi SAWS or commits adultry/fonication with a muslim woman; that dhimmi status will only end if he goes to an enemy nation, or the enemy nation attacks the Muslim land and win.

Correction: the dhimmis cannot resemble muslims in their dress, or in what they ride (animals), or in their saddles (reins, harnesses, that sort of stuff), or in their hats and they may not ride horses and may not carry weapons.

 

[barney]

Here is the reference, from the book of Fiqh, Mukhtasir ul-Qudoori.

It says that it is not allowed to make new worshipping places in Muslim land, but if one gets destroyed, it is to be remade, and dhimmis cannot dress like muslims and cannot ride horses or bear weapons, and dhimmi status will not end if the dhimmi doesn't give jizya, or kills a muslim, or insults the Nabi SAWS or commits adultry/fonication with a muslim woman; that dhimmi status will only end if he goes to an enemy nation, or the enemy nation attacks the Muslim land and win.

Since riding Horses obviously relates to training cavalry, would that now be to include flying aircraft/helicopters or driving vehicals. There is no combat horse cavalry units outside of Afganistan, if Dhimmis are allowed to learn to drive they could drive a truck or a HUMMWV, if they are allowed to fly a helicopter they could with not much training,fly a gunship.

 

[Faye]

Here is another reference from Hidayah.
This has more detail. It adds that if the place of worship gets ruined, then it is necessary to rebuild it but in the same place, moving it is not allowed. Also, that private places of worship inside houses are exempt from this decree. Also that these rules ie, forbidding of making new places of worship, apply to cities and villages of Arabs, and to the cities of non-Arabs, but not their villages.

This is a summary, not a translation.

 

[aamirsaab]

Since riding Horses obviously relates to training cavalry, would that now be to include flying aircraft/helicopters or driving vehicals. There is no combat horse cavalry units outside of Afganistan, if Dhimmis are allowed to learn to drive they could drive a truck or a HUMMWV, if they are allowed to fly a helicopter they could with not much training,fly a gunship.

I believe that point refers to dhimmis participating in a battle - e.g training. So I guess it would include helicopters, cars etc. But that's only for war related times (since it is the muslims duty to fight in an islamic state - not for the dhimmis/protected people)