54 replies to this topic

[3dshocker]

This a rather old question that doesn't seem to have been resolved~

The problem for me in particular with Islam is the treatment of non muslims by an Islamic state. One only has to look at what happens to non muslims living in muslim countries and compare that to muslims living in non muslim countries to get an idea of the difference in discrimination and intolerance of the foreigner's who worship another religion. (odds of building a Masjid in canada vs building a church in saudi arabia for example)

However as most of the muslims on the forum have stated, (which I will accept for arguements sake) since there is no legitamite Islamic state, that comparison is not valid

So I did my research on how non-muslims would be treated inside an ideal Islamic state! and came accross more things, some of which surprisingly do not currently exist in so called Islamic countries.

The Jizya <--my old favorite
Essentially some sort of protection tax by the Islamic authority. From a non muslim perspective the tax itself is a sign of humilation and submission to the rules Islam. For a muslim who may not be sure what this is like, picture living in a foreign country where the government says that you must pay a fee for living on the land strictly due to religious differences. How would you feel in this situation?

No Power
Non muslims are not allowed to gain positions of authority that affect the state. i.e. a non muslim cannot become the president, mayor, councillor, or any position that offers them power over muslims. Though many muslims may know that it would be impossible to gain the position of president due to societal views in post 9-11 non muslim countries, legally they are allowed to pursue such a position. The equivilance of this rule is that you would be legally barred from gaining such power based on religious differences. How would you feel in this situation?

Marriage
A muslim man can marry a non muslim girl, but a non muslim man is not allowed to marry a muslim girl. The converse example being ofcourse a muslim living in a non muslim country and the exact opposite being the case. How would you feel in this situation?

Court
A non-muslim's testimony in court is not worth the same as a muslims testimony since their oath to tell the truth would be worthless. You can imagine the opposite quite easily, and how would you feel in this situation?

Freedom of Expression
The freedom of expression granted to non-muslims is at best the same freedom of expression which the muslims have. In the end this means they're not allowed to criticize Islam. The equivilant of this could be say to live in a country and not be able to criticize it's goverment. I'm sure many muslims in the third world already know how this feels.

Considering the treatment of non-muslims within the ideal Islamic state, how would you rate it on it's tolerance of religious differences? As opposed to say the tolerance offered by a non-muslim country within which you have lived?

[3dshocker]

P.S. let me know if i made a mistake in the list,

[Redeem]

Salam

In the examples you have given, you are comparing the laws of Islamic lands to that of the laws of western countries. Let us note that western countries really don't strictly adhere to any form of religion.

The Jizya <--my old favorite

The American government taxes me in everything I do daily. Do you think that is unfair?

You might argue, "but all people are taxed", but let me answer that by saying that Muslims in Muslim states also give a form of payment yearly. It is called Zakah, a percentage of wealth given yearly to the needy by all Muslims who are financially stable. So although both of these "taxes" have different names, they are required of all people living in an Islamic state.

And another thing! If the Islamic state is attacked, all Muslims are required to fight in it. But those paying Jizya are given free protection without having to lift a finger. Sounds mighty fair to me.

Some people argue that Muslims force Jizya on the Christians and Jews. Well, Zakah is compulsory for the Muslims also.

Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as Zakat) but now they have withheld it. (Sahih Muslim)

[3dshocker]

In the examples you have given, you are comparing the laws of Islamic lands to that of the laws of western countries. Let us note that western countries really don't strictly adhere to any form of religion.

duly noted*

The American government taxes me in everything I do daily. Do you think that is unfair?

I'd say no and personally I think taxes are too low in America.

You might argue, "but all people are taxed"

I would continue by saying that they are all taxed uniformly with a difference factor being the income that is made. It can be made into arguement that there is discrimination based on income but that is another topic for another time which I doubt anyone wishes to examine.

It is called Zakah, a percentage of wealth given yearly to the needy by all Muslims who are financially stable. So although both of these "taxes" have different names, they are required of all people living in an Islamic state.

I suppose that's the same as the welfare system. In any event it is a good thing

And another thing! If the Islamic state is attacked, all Muslims are required to fight in it. But those paying Jizya are given free protection without having to lift a finger.

As a non muslim I would prefer to be considered to fight along side countrymen. Non-muslims do have pride and dignity and it can't be sold for the option to be lazy.

Sounds mighty fair to me.

You would honestly be content with paying a fee that symbolizes discrimination against your religion, in return for not having to perform military service?

Some people argue that Muslims force Jizya on the Christians and Jews. Well, Zakah is compulsory for the Muslims also.

I think you're missing the point of the tax issue. The problem is not that there is a tax being placed against non muslims. The problem is, that the tax is being placed upon them because they are non muslims. The pride and dignity of a non muslim is forfeit upon accepting and submitting to such discrimination. Would it not be the same for a muslim if they were forced to pay special taxes for being a muslim?

[Redeem]

Salam.

Would it not be the same for a muslim if they were forced to pay special taxes for being a muslim?

Zakah, in a way, is a form of special tax that is forced on Muslims to pay. Refer back to the Hadith I wrote in my first post.

Jizya is a way for certain non-Muslims to contribute to financing the Islamic state they live in, without having to do things that would be in conflict with their own religious beliefs. For example, it would be grossly unfair to ask a Christian or Jew to pay Zakah, because Zakah is one of the five pillars of Islam, and they would be forced to submit to a belief that is not their own.

Just like Zakah, defense of an Islamic state has religious elements. If an Islamic state expected these non-Muslims to fight in holy wars (Jihad) with them, the state would actually be forcing them to go against their own beliefs, and these people would no longer have the right to freely practice their faith. It should be noted that some scholars believe that certain non-Muslims are exempted from paying Jizya if they wish to fight instead.

So as to protect the rights of these non-Muslims, and to allow them to practice their religions freely in Islamic lands (not to mention provide security without military service), the only main requirement they had was to pay a tax, one that had no religious connotations whatsoever.

Salam.

[3dshocker]

Jizya is a way for certain non-Muslims to contribute to financing the Islamic state they live in

Isn't that what the regular taxes are for? Certainly all people living within the Islamic state pay a general tax towards developing the country. The tax you see in almost every country that's applied uniformily to the population?

So as to protect the rights of these non-Muslims, and to allow them to practice their religions freely in Islamic lands (not to mention provide security without military service), the only main requirement they had was to pay a tax, one that had no religious connotations whatsoever.

If I converted to Islam and the Jizya would no longer apply to me then clearly it is a tax based on choice of religion?

I need to get some questions out of the way~
#1 - Is there a base tax that both muslims and non muslims would pay for the development of the country and welfare of the citizens within in.
#2 - What is the purpose of Jizya?

[Redeem]

What is the purpose of Jizya?

Jizya is a contribution by Dhimmi (those non-Muslims protected in Islamic States) to financing the Islamic State. Instead of being treated as slaves with no rights, they are allowed to practice their religion, and are under the protection of the Islamic state. Children and women are never required to pay Jizya, it is only for men (or boys who have matured).

Its counterpart is Zakah, a religious form of "tax" that is required of Muslims.

Salam.

[Younes]

As a non muslim I would prefer to be considered to fight along side countrymen. Non-muslims do have pride and dignity and it can't be sold for the option to be lazy.

Then you'd just enroll in the Islamic State's army and you wouldn't pay any Jizyah.

[Younes]

If I converted to Islam and the Jizya would no longer apply to me then clearly it is a tax based on choice of religion?

Yes, it is a tax based on choice of religion. Even if you'd convert to Islam and wouldn't want to pay Zakat, it would be taken from you, so it's not like only the Dhimmis would be getting taxed.

[Younes]

EDIT: Delete this post.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz, 30 January 2007 - 05:35 PM.

[anthony19832005]

Peace

I totally agree with bro Younes' last posts.

The problem is, that the tax is being placed upon them because they are non muslims.

You dont seem to understand. Ok here's my attempt at explaining this:

The Islamic state requires its citizens to pay taxes. Zakat is a religious tax for muslims and Jizya is a tax for non-muslims. Jizya is just a normal tax in order to pay for infrastructure, roads etc, just like in every other country. They're just called differently thats all.

If you wanted to join the army you would NOT even have to pay jizya! How fair is that.....you wont have to pay any taxes while muslims can serve in the army but still have to pay taxes.

You can drink alcohol with no problem but muslims cant. Christians and Jews can be ruled by their own religious laws, how fair is that. There are many more examples.



And finally, id like you to understand one thing. While most modern states are based on the brotherhood of Nationalism (people being born in a certain place and sticking together) , and Islamic state has no such restriction. You can be born anywhere on earth, be black or white and you are a citizen there. However, the Islamic state differentiates between muslims and non-muslims, because the law of the land is a religious one.


You also mentioned that non-muslims cant have a position of power over non-muslims which is simply untrue. Non-muslims are only barred from becoming Caliph (because thats a religious status), but they can be generals, mayors, diplomats, or anyother public job besides Caliph.

Salaams

[3dshocker]

The Islamic state requires its citizens to pay taxes. Zakat is a religious tax for muslims and Jizya is a tax for non-muslims. Jizya is just a normal tax in order to pay for infrastructure, roads etc, just like in every other country. They're just called differently thats all.

You could have simply directly addressed the two questions I posted in my last post

Just so that we're clear. You're saying there is no 'base tax' that is being paid by all the citizens. The muslims only have to pay this tax called Zakat, and the non muslims must only pay this tax called Jizya. No other taxes are involved. Is this what you're trying to say?

If so, are the Zakat, and the Jizya equal in value?

You can drink alcohol with no problem but muslims cant. Christians and Jews can be ruled by their own religious laws, how fair is that. There are many more examples.
...
because the law of the land is a religious one.

There's somewhat of a contradiction here. You're saying the law of the land is a religious one. I believe these include laws against alcohol, apostacy, adultery, homosexuality and everything else that Islam considers wrong...Yet all of these would be allowed in the non muslim areas?

To what extent can the non muslims decide the laws within their community? Is it possible to have a mini-america composing the non muslim areas of an Islamic state? Personally I'd be okay if my muslim neighbor would get stoned to death for commiting adultery as it his choice in being a muslim, and I wouldn't be affected by Islamic law for having consented sex with my girl friend.

You also mentioned that non-muslims cant have a position of power over non-muslims which is simply untrue. Non-muslims are only barred from becoming Caliph (because thats a religious status), but they can be generals, mayors, diplomats, or anyother public job besides Caliph.

Are you saying that aside from the role of president, non-muslims can gain any position they desire in politics and business?

[3dshocker]

Jizya is just a normal tax in order to pay for infrastructure, roads etc, just like in every other country.

I've noticed often that your views conflict with that of a significantly large number of muslims on the forum. I don't want to assume that one is muslim and the other is not, so do you have an exceprt from the Quran etc explaining that the Jizya is what you say it is? It'd be nice to get this off the list of things I dislike about Islam as it seems to be one of the two big things that bothers me. The other thing that bothers is me is the extent to which non muslims are allowed to behave as non muslims within muslim lands but lets take this one step at a time.

[Redeem]

so do you have an exceprt from the Quran etc explaining that the Jizya is what you say it is?

The Qur'an doesn't usually explain things in great detail (which is why the prophet Muhammad was sent to show people through his teachings and examples), but it has been known as such even by early scholars and Muslims, as is evident by their actions.

Let's think of it logically also. If Jizya really was a cruel punishment set on Dhimmis because they had been conquered, would they be allowed to have freedom? Would they have been given the options to either fight alongside Muslims, or pay a tax that would pretty much buy their way out of war? Would they be allowed to practice their religious beliefs in peace? And lastly, would the Islamic state promise them a convenant and security if it had no regard for them?

This law of Jizya will be abolished someday by prophet Isa (Jesus) himself. It served a great purpose when previous Islamic governments were strong and unified, but it hardly applies to today's world.

Salam.

[3dshocker]

would they be allowed to have freedom?

This is what I would like to verify. i.e. in my last post that stuff I said about a mini america within an Islamic state.

[Younes]

This is what I would like to verify. i.e. in my last post that stuff I said about a mini america within an Islamic state.

No.

[vishah]

Marriage
A muslim man can marry a non muslim girl, but a non muslim man is not allowed to marry a muslim girl. The converse example being ofcourse a muslim living in a non muslim country and the exact opposite being the case. How would you feel in this situation?


Nice to see you again, and may Allah show you the right path.
As per the question of marriage, I have to mention these points.

1-A man has a right over the women, and the man may persuade the women to leave the religion. It is also known that women do get more emotional than men, and can be bully ed and persuaded more easily. Therefore, as a protection for her faith and religion, it is prohibited.
2-It may be difficult for her to lead her life according to the rulings of Islam, because she has to keep the orders of her husband who is a non-muslim.
3- It may be difficult to adopt her child according to the rules of the Islamic faith.
4-Also, it may create problems in her life and in her marriage.

In conclusion, this law is actually for the protection of her own religion.

Court
A non-muslim's testimony in court is not worth the same as a muslims testimony since their oath to tell the truth would be worthless. You can imagine the opposite quite easily, and how would you feel in this situation?

The answer is simple. That is because we cant trust them. As said in the quran in surathul Al Imran chapter 3 verse 118
"118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom."

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression, yes it exists but with limits. There should not be any kind of insult, lie, backbiting or anything of these kinds. So taking those in mind, you are free to express your own thoughts

[vishah]

Marriage
A muslim man can marry a non muslim girl, but a non muslim man is not allowed to marry a muslim girl. The converse example being ofcourse a muslim living in a non muslim country and the exact opposite being the case. How would you feel in this situation?

Nice to see you again, and may Allah show you the right path.
As per the question of marriage, I have to mention these points.

1-A man has a right over the women, and the man may persuade the women to leave the religion. It is also known that women do get more emotional than men, and can be bully ed and persuaded more easily. Therefore, as a protection for her faith and religion, it is prohibited.
2-It may be difficult for her to lead her life according to the rulings of Islam, because she has to keep the orders of her husband who is a non-muslim.
3- It may be difficult to adopt her child according to the rules of the Islamic faith.
4-Also, it may create problems in her life and in her marriage.

In conclusion, this law is actually for the protection of her own religion.

Court
A non-muslim's testimony in court is not worth the same as a muslims testimony since their oath to tell the truth would be worthless. You can imagine the opposite quite easily, and how would you feel in this situation?

The answer is simple. That is because we cant trust them. As said in the quran in surathul Al Imran chapter 3 verse 118
"118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom."

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression, yes it exists but with limits. There should not be any kind of insult, lie, backbiting or anything of these kinds. So taking those in mind, you are free to express your own thoughts

Edited by vishah, 31 January 2007 - 01:26 PM.

[3dshocker]

1-A man has a right over the women, and the man may persuade the women to leave the religion. It is also known that women do get more emotional than men, and can be bully ed and persuaded more easily. Therefore, as a protection for her faith and religion, it is prohibited.
2-It may be difficult for her to lead her life according to the rulings of Islam, because she has to keep the orders of her husband who is a non-muslim.
3- It may be difficult to adopt her child according to the rules of the Islamic faith.
4-Also, it may create problems in her life and in her marriage.

Suppose a muslim woman loves a non muslim man enough to leave her religion for him? Then it is permitted for them to get married once she leaves?

118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

This is essentially telling you that the non muslims will taint the purity of the muslims if allowed I don't like this supremacist racist crap but I suppose it can't be helped in the Islamic state?

Freedom of expression, yes it exists but with limits. There should not be any kind of insult, lie, backbiting or anything of these kinds.

and so it's a fascist state. Free expression is one of those things I take seriously and these limits you have stated are just plain disgusting

[Younes]

Suppose a muslim woman loves a non muslim man enough to leave her religion for him? Then it is permitted for them to get married once she leaves?

No, it is not permitted and it won't be recognized by the State as a valid marriage. Even Muslim men can not marry any non-Muslim they want, they can only take believing, pious wives from among the Jews and Chrisitians. If a Muslim man or woman would get married to a Pagan it wouldn't be recognized by the State.

and so it's a fascist state. Free expression is one of those things I take seriously and these limits you have stated are just plain disgusting

I think that slander results in a court case in Canada, the same goes in the Islamic State.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz, 31 January 2007 - 06:01 PM.