(PART 1 OF MY RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POST:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...an-villagers-kasur-district-3.html#post415646 )
Greetings
In all sincerity, the whole article is the culmination of misinformation, bias and stupidity. We see no references whatsoever, for reasons that will become self-evident, thus rendering the article overwhelmingly rant-based. In his attempt to appear neutral, the author obliviously shoots himself in the foot - as will be seen shortly.
Although you have not emphatically attacked the concept, you definitely exhibit a circumspect attitude towards it, most notably in post number 46. I hope to change your perceptions with a good reasoning.
I would maintain that dhimmitude does not have to be de jure to be real. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
We both agree that officially “dhimmitude” does not exist; and so you attempt to equate any adversity endured by non-Muslims today, to the status granted to non-Muslims under Islamic rule over 1400 years ago.
Throughout the discourse of this discussion we will analyse the veracity of your assertions.
To be regarded as a dihmi, non-Muslims must pay the Jizya tax; after all, there are two facts in life, death and taxes. In an Islamic state the Muslims had to pay the Zakah tax, which was incidentally HIGHER than the Jizya (yes, that’s right, non-Muslims had to pay lower taxes!)
A few weeks ago I wrote about the Jizya in great detail and refer you to that post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...g-convert-islam-family-says-2.html#post399975
Please go through it, as it will answer all your predetermined notions about Jizya.
The dhimmi is someone who lives in a Muslim society without being a Muslim (Jews, Christians, and occasionally "animists"). He has a particular social… status
Language, culture, religious practices, places of worship, modes of dress, judicial autonomy, protection of honour, protection of life and kind treatment etc can come under the “social” heading; all of which are protected in an Islamic state according to shariah law.
Modes of Dress:
Under the Ummayyid and Abbasid periods non-Muslims were encouraged to maintain their own modes of dress in order to preserve their social sovereignty (in some instances they were not allowed to imitate Muslim uniforms, such as military dress for defence purposes)
Religious practices:
Caliphs of old, particularly the first 4 (ra) who were all companions of prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), were very vigilant with regards to the protection of churches and synagogues.
Following is the text of the treaty whereby Jerusalem surrendered to the Muslims during the caliphate of Hazrat Omar bin Khattab (638 A.D.):
“
This is the charter which the servant of God, the Commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Aelia. He gives them the assurance of the preservation of their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, of those who set up, who display and who honour those crosses. Your churches will not be transformed into dwellings nor destroyed nor will any one confiscate anything belonging to them, nor the crosses or belongings of the inhabitants. There will be no constraint in the matter of religion, nor the least annoyance. The Jews will inhabit Aelia conjointly with the Christians, and those who live there will be required to pay the poll-tax, like the inhabitants of other towns. Greeks and robbers are to leave the town, but will have a safe conduct until they reach a place of security. Still, those who prefer to remain may do on condition of paying the same poll-tax as the rest. If any of the people of Aelia desires to leave with the Greeks, talking their goods, but abandoning their chapels and crosses, they will be granted personal safety, until they arrive at a secure place. The strangers in the town may remain on the same condition of paying the tax, or, if they wish, they may also leave with Greeks, and return to their land. …. All that this treaty contains is placed under the alliance and protection of God and of His Apostle.” (Sir William Muir. The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline and Fall.)
The following account, which is infamous in Islamic scholarship, is very revealing:
Next he (The caliph Omar) visited the biggest Christian church of the city. He was in the church when the time for the afternoon prayer came.
"You may say your prayers in the church," said the Bishop.
"No," replied Omar, "if I do so, the Muslims may one day make this an excuse for taking over the church from you."
So he said his prayers on the steps of the church. Even then, he gave the Bishop a script. It said that the steps were never to be used for congregational prayers nor was the Adhan [call to prayer] to be said there.
About social autonomy given by the Islamic state, Dr. Hamidullah writes:
“
In the time of the Prophet, the Jews of Madinah had their Bait al-Midras (both a synagogue and educational institute). In the treaty with the Christians of Najran (Yaman), the Prophet gave a guarantee not only for the security of the person and property of the inhabitants, but had also expressly left the nomination of bishops and priests to the Christian community itself”.
The best testimony of the freedom of faith enjoyed by the Christians in the days of the earlier Muslims is furnished by the Christians themselves. In the reign of “Uthman (the third Caliph), the Christian patriarch of Merv addressed the Bishop of Fars, named Simeon, in the following terms:
“
The Arabs, who have been given by God the Kingdom (of the earth), do not attack the Christian faith: on the contrary, help us in our religion; they respect our God and our saints, and bestow gifts on our churches and monasteries”
Possible criticism with regards to freedom of Religion:
Syed Ameer Ali, a Muslims scholar, writes: The non-Muslim subjects were not precluded from building new churches or temples. Only in places exclusively inhabited by Muslims a rule of this kind existed in theory. “No new Church or temple,” said Abdullah bin Abbas, “can be erected in a town solely inhabited by Muslims; but in other places where there are already Zimmis inhabiting from before, we must abide by our contract with them.”
In practice, however, the prohibition was totally disregarded. In the reign of Mamun, we hear of eleven thousand Christian churches, besides hundreds of synagogues and fire-temples within the empire. This enlightened monarch, who has been represented as “a bitter enemy” of the Christians, included in his Council the representatives of all the communities under his sway – Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabaeans and Zoroastrians; whilst the rights and privileges of the Christian hierarchy were carefully regulated and guaranteed.”
-Non-Muslims were not allowed to criticise or slander Islam.
-Non-Muslims were not allowed to propagate their faith amongst the Muslims; however, were free to do so amongst themselves and other communities.
Sanctity of life
Hazrat Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Alie’is salaam), prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) son-in-law said:
“Whoever is our Zimmi, his blood is as sacred as our blood and his property is as inviolable as our own property”
Hazrat Ali (RA) said this during his caliphate in response to the murder of a zimmi (whatever way you spell it) by a Muslim. When the charge was proved, Hazrat Ali (RA) issued order for the execution of the accused. It was only when the brother of the deceased received compensation and pardoned the murderer that the caliph (RA) agreed to release him.
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself gave judgement during his earthly lifetime when a case was brought forward concerning the unlawful killing of a Zimmi. The beloved prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the execution of the murderer and commented:
“I am responsible for obtaining redress for the weak”
Islam grants, therefore, right to protection of life to all of its citizens without any discrimination:
( Glorious Qur’an - 5:32)
”……. Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind…..”
Protection of honour
The author of Durr al-Mukhtar writes:
“It is imperative for Muslims to refrain from causing inconvenience to a Zimmi and to backbite him, for backbiting a Zimmi is as much prohibited as is to backbite a Muslim.”
Regarding protection of honour of non-Muslim citizen in an Islamic state, Dr. Hamidullah writes:
“The person, property and honour of every individual; whether indigenous or heterogeneous, are fully protected in the Islamic territory. The Sharh-al-Hidayah, which is a legal manual of current use, employs, for instance, the characteristic expression: “Defamation is prohibited, be it concerning a Muslim or a Protected (non-Muslim)”.
Another jurist of great authority, the author of al-Bahr-ar-Ra’iq says:
“Even the bones of the dead among the Protected (non-Muslims) have the right to be respected, even as the bones of Muslims; it is not allowed to profane them, because if the ill treatment of a Protected (non-Muslim) is forbidden in his lifetime on account of the protection which he enjoys, the protection of his bones against every profanation is equally obligatory after his death.” The jurists are unanimous in declaring that, if a Muslim violates a non-Muslim woman, he will receive the same punishment as is prescribed against the violation of Muslim woman.”
Judicial autonomy
( Glorious Qur’an - 5:43)
Allah addresses prophet Muhammad (pbuh):
“How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgement (for them)? …
In another verse the Qur’an grants the Christians freedom of resolving their disputes in accordance with their own law as contained in Gospel. It states:
(5:47)
‘Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judge not by that which Allah hath revealed; such are evil livers”
Dr Muhammed Sharif Choudry, in his book “what is Islam” writes:
*****
“…Islamic law is not applicable in case of purely personal matters of the non-Muslims. Such matters of the non-Muslims would be decided according to their personal law. It means that if anything is unlawful under Shariah for the Muslims but the same is not forbidden to the non-Muslims by their religion, the non-Muslims will be allowed to use it and the courts will decide their cases according to their personal law. For instance, marriage without witnesses or between the prohibited degrees, if allowed by their religion, will be allowed to stand.
However, the non-Muslim can also opt for settlement of their mutual disputes under Islamic law. The Qur’an says:
“if then, they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad), judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity, Lo! Allah loveth the equitable” (5:42).
Umar-bin-Abdul Aziz once asked for fatwa (verdict) in this respect from the famous saint Hassan al-Basri saying:
“
How it is that the Caliphs left the Zimmis free in the matters of marriages regardless of consanguinity and in the matters of drinking wine and eating pork?”
Hassan replied:
“
The Zimmis accepted to pay Jizyah only because they wanted to be free to live in accordance with their own personal law. You have only to follow what your predecessors did. You are not to deviate or to innovate”….”
*****
Kind treatment
Syed Ameer Ali writes:
“
It must be added, however, that the bigoted views of the later canonists were never carried into practice; and the toleration and generosity with which the non-Muslims were treated are evidenced by the fact that Zimmis could be nominated as executors to the wills of Muslims; that they often filled the office of rectors of Muslim universities and educational institutions, and of curators of Muslim endowments so long as they did not perform any religious functions. And when a non-Muslim of worth and merit died, the Muslims attended his funeral in a body”.
No better evidence can be produced in proof of kind treatment accorded to the conquered non-Muslims by the Muslim armies than the evidence of the non-Muslims themselves. When the Muslim army reached the valley of Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying:
“O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes”.
Incidentally, when the Christians invaded Spain whilst it was under Islamic Rule, many Jewish inhabitants decided to leave along with the Muslims because the Jews feared persecution by Christians and understood that they were treated well under Islamic rule.
I was surprised to find this on wikipedia also:
(
Alhambra Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Beginning in the 8th century, Muslims had occupied and settled most of the Iberian Peninsula.
Jews who had lived in these regions since Roman times, considered 'People of the Book', were given special status, and thus thrived under Muslim rule. During persecutions by Iberian Christians, such as the pogroms in Cordoba (1011) and Granada (1066), they were assisted by Muslims. Therefore Jews supported and sometimes even assisted their Muslim rulers never forgetting the harsh treatment they had suffered under the Visigothic rulers of the Iberian Peninsula prior to the arrival of Muslims to Spain.
The tolerance of the Muslim rulers attracted Jewish immigration, and Jewish enclaves in Muslim Spanish cities flourished as places of learning and commerce. Progressively, however, living conditions for Jews in Muslim Spain became harsher, especially after the fall of the Omayyad Caliphate to Catholic monarchs. “
To be continued...
