About non-muslim witnesses in a Islamic state, yes they are ALLOWED (as long as they have a good reputation, not criminals etc)
The burden of proof required to convict someone of an offence in an Islamic Court is far higher than in Britain. The court does not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim are allowed to give testimony.
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetkhilafah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/home/category.php?DocumentID=14137&TagID=1"]Source[/url]
Offcourse the shariah courts would accept the testimony of non-muslims because for example if a muslim man were to rape a non-muslim woman and there were other non-muslim witnesses ,offcourse the testimony of the non-muslims would be accepted. If non-muslims weren't allowed to testify in court, the Islamic system would be in jeopardy because of some criminal muslims who might prey on non-muslims. Get me?
About the non-muslim being in a position of authority over a non muslim, yes you can check the history books, it's true. However as ive said before, they cant become caliph.
Another thing is that in a Islamic country, non muslims would be allowed to make, distribute and drink alcohol among themselves. As for having sex with your girlfriend is concerned....who will know? I have said before you need 4 witnesses and im not sure if this fornication law is applicable to non-muslims anyways. I have always been against the ideas of some modern muslims who want to build a "religious police" who will spy on people on the streets and ask couples who are together in public to show identification that they indeed are married etc. Islam tells us not to spy. "“O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion; indeed some suspicions are sins. And do not spy, nor backbite one another…”
Christians and Jews (not sure about others) are able to live their lives according to their own laws (old testament and/or New testament). So jews would be allowed to practice those nice punishments you read about in the OT
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?
Why would her would be-husband want to marry a corpse? In case you didnt know, the majority ruling on the matter is that a person who leaves Islam should be killed. -My view is the same as that of scholars such as Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam, who argued that the Koran does not prescribe death for someone because he or she is changing religion.
Free expression is one of those things I take seriously and these limits you have stated are just plain disgusting
Instead of saying "the ruler is a *insert bad word here*" you instead say "I dont like him, he does a lot of stupid things etc". As long as you dont insult and call people derrogatory names you are fine.
About the jizya, it is a tax just like zakat but minus the religious aspect of it, and that's why it's called jizya instead of zakat. These are the only state taxes in a Islamic state. Zakat is 2.5% of a muslim's income and I believe jizya can be as small as the equivalent worth of 1$, it could technically be almost symbolic. Jizya can change according to different places which have varying degrees of wealth. "Bukhari extracted that Abu Najeeh reported: “I said to Mujahid: “What is with the people of Al-Sham? They have to pay four Dinars, while the people of Yemen have to pay only one Dinar?” He said: “This was determined according to solvency.” If the Jizya became due on a capable non-muslim and he could not pay it, it will remain a debt on his neck and he would be treated like the debtor facing difficulty, thus he would be given time to pay it.
And lastly, please ponder on this:
A striking feature in the long history of Islam is that in its first four or five centuries it was ahead of western Christendom in scientific and philosophical endeavour and in economic development. And then from about the 12th, 13th centuries, long before colonialism, things changed. King Abdullah of Jordan said recently that this is because ijtihad, making decisions based on rational thinking, was disallowed, which led to today's dominant, literalist form of Koranic interpretation.
If we study the history of Islamic civilisation, around the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, something happened. Muslims and Muslim scholars perceived that they were at risk from being dominated by the west. Before, they were dominant and creative. Now, they try to protect themselves from being dominated by the other.
The first thing that you protect when being under threat of domination is morality, ethics, laws and rules. And this is what happened. So Muslims were less creative, much less confident and more defensive. This is what we have had for centuries now. I have never said that ijtihad was closed, because I think it never happened like that.
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetprospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7571"]Source[/url]
Edited by anthony19832005, 01 February 2007 - 09:06 PM.