Jump to content
Islamic Forum
missjupiter

A Question About Forced Conversion?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I understand that Islam dissalows forced conversion. Yet, non-Muslims were told to convert, pay tribute or fight and die - so aren't conversions under this threat of second class citizenry or war and death unacceptable since they are done under duress? I'd like to understand is this seems like a contradiction.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Hello,

 

I understand that Islam dissalows forced conversion. Yet, non-Muslims were told to convert, pay tribute or fight and die - so aren't conversions under this threat of second class citizenry or war and death unacceptable since they are done under duress? I'd like to understand is this seems like a contradiction.

 

Thank you.

I think the second option, pay tribute and live as second class citizens, is thought to be the process that allows such calls to not be "forced". Hopefully, one of the Muslim members here can shed further light on the subject and correct any inaccuracies I might have about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I mean if someone converts upon the threat/fear of having to be subdued as a non-Muslim? Is this not totally conversion under free-will since there is a threat.

Edited by missjupiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam

 

Muslims have to pay zakat 2.5% when their money reach nissab

Ahluzhimmah pay tribute i think it equivalent to one pound -not sure- but negligible and only for men who are able to afford.

Umar, the caliph met an old Jew begging, and assisting him;

 

Umar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". Holding him by the hand, he led him to his own house, and preparing food with his own hands fed him and issued orders to the treasurer of the Bait-al-mal that that old man and all others like him, should be regularly doled out a daily allowance which should suffice for them and their dependents

 

Allah knows the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can compare it to the taxes, citizin have to pay for the adnistration employee, police who will keep him, his family and his property save, court's members who will get him his right in case of troubles, those who will pave the roads,......

 

can you give us from history, an example about what you think proper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the second option, pay tribute and live as second class citizens, is thought to be the process that allows such calls to not be "forced". Hopefully, one of the Muslim members here can shed further light on the subject and correct any inaccuracies I might have about this.

 

Actually if the non-Muslims opt out for Jizyah in the beggining instead of going to war, they don't have to live as second-class citizens but can remain independent, i.e. rule themselves without Muslims interfering.

 

As for the original question, no, conversions are not unacceptable even though the non-Muslims are presented with the above mentioned options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the original question, no, conversions are not unacceptable even though the non-Muslims are presented with the above mentioned options.

 

Really? On what grounds? There is duress - fear of humiliation, death or war.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? On what grounds? There is duress - fear of humiliation, death or war.

 

If the people decide to pay the Jizyah, there is no death or war. If the people decide to pay Jizyah, they can rule themselves as they want. War and death are the last solutions. The fact is that the people do have an options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually if the non-Muslims opt out for Jizyah in the beggining instead of going to war, they don't have to live as second-class citizens but can remain independent, i.e. rule themselves without Muslims interfering.

I've had a couple of indepth conversations here that would seem to indicate otherwise, both of them dealing with the status of being a dhimmi:

 

(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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=729950"]Dhimmi, Following up on some off-hand comments[/url]

 

This discussion lead to the next one:

 

(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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=733073"]A Conversation With Khilafah(contact admin if its a beneficial link), Dhimmihood, the Caliphate, and citizenship[/url]

 

Both of these conversations affirmed the second class status of dhimmi in an Islamic state. If you would like, you may look them over and correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the people decide to pay Jizyah, they can rule themselves as they want.

I thought there were limits to how dhimmi could rule themselves. At least that is what seems to be said in (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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=37740"]this thread[/url]. I noticed that you participated in it as well, so perhaps you could easily clarify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

I understand that Islam dissalows forced conversion. Yet, non-Muslims were told to convert, pay tribute or fight and die - so aren't conversions under this threat of second class citizenry or war and death unacceptable since they are done under duress? I'd like to understand is this seems like a contradiction.

 

Thank you.

 

Are you talking about inside of an Islamic State or outside of it?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you talking about inside of an Islamic State or outside of it?

 

Salam.

I think she is speak of outside the Islamic state, although I suppose it is a choice available to any non-Muslim living in the state as well, to either convert, be a dhimmi, or else rebel against the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, inside and outside (if conquest is waged).

 

If the people decide to pay the Jizyah, there is no death or war. If the people decide to pay Jizyah, they can rule themselves as they want. War and death are the last solutions. The fact is that the people do have an options.

 

To me, jizyah and dhimmitude is a threat because they would not have the same rights as a Muslim. In some cases the jizyah was too high or people were required to give their children as tribute. I read that in some cases, the jizyah collection ceremony was humiliating, and they were humilated in other ways like disguishing dress, etc. Therefore, if someone converts at the threat of Dhimmitude, how is it accepted since there is duress - fear of not having the same rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought there were limits to how dhimmi could rule themselves. At least that is what seems to be said in (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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=37740"]this thread[/url]. I noticed that you participated in it as well, so perhaps you could easily clarify this.

 

This is how it goes:

 

1) Islam is presented to the non-Muslims

 

2) If they refuse, they are presented with the option of paying Jizyah

 

3) If they opt for Jizyah from the start, the Muslim won't attack them nor will they be invaded, nor will the Muslims enter their country. Thus the non-Muslims can remain independent and they can rule themselves as they want.

 

4) If they opt for war, then they will be invaded. They won't remain independent and cannot rule themselves as they want. Plus in addition Jizyah will be collected from them.

 

So there are two scenarios. Some people decided to opt for Jizyah from the start and they were not invaded and were allowed to rule themselves on the condition that they paid the tribute. In this scenario, there is no war and the Muslim armies don't conquer the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, inside and outside (if conquest is waged).

 

Discussing Jihad is against the forum rules, so I'll only touch on the aspect that doesn't involve violence: when the issue is about inside an Islamic State.

 

Are you saying that, inside an Islamic State, it is wrong for non-Muslims to live under the rule of the land?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discussing Jihad is against the forum rules, so I'll only touch on the aspect that doesn't involve violence: when the issue is about inside an Islamic State.

 

Are you saying that, inside an Islamic State, it is wrong for non-Muslims to live under the rule of the land?

 

Well, it depends on whether or not the Islamic rule was forced upon them or not.... But that's another issue. My question is why and how conversion on the premise of an ultimatum to convert, pay Jizyah or fight and die is acceptable, if the conversion is clearly made under the fear of:

 

1. living in a state where you do not have the same rights as Muslims;

2. having to pay tax (not all communities paid taxes like Western nations/Romans and Greeks did so this may have been something new to some);

3. enslavement;

4. violence or death.

 

These are all stressful prospects so isn't conversion made under duress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the outrage if muslims living in non muslim countrys had to pay a tax just for being muslim?

 

Along with the 2nd class citizenship ofc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it depends on whether or not the Islamic rule was forced upon them or not.... But that's another issue. My question is why and how conversion on the premise of an ultimatum to convert, pay Jizyah or fight and die is acceptable, if the conversion is clearly made under the fear of:

 

1. living in a state where you do not have the same rights as Muslims;

2. having to pay tax (not all communities paid taxes like Western nations/Romans and Greeks did so this may have been something new to some);

3. enslavement;

4. violence or death.

 

These are all stressful prospects so isn't conversion made under duress?

 

1) What rights do Muslims have that non-Muslims don't?

2) Muslims pay a tax as well. It's called Zakat (this answer goes for Scotia as well)

 

As for 3 and 4, you must be talking about wartime, which, like you said, is another issue.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you imagine the outrage if muslims living in non muslim countrys had to pay a tax just for being muslim?

 

Along with the 2nd class citizenship ofc.

 

Are you saying that there aren't people who are treated less than citizens in your world?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is how it goes:

 

1) Islam is presented to the non-Muslims

 

2) If they refuse, they are presented with the option of paying Jizyah

 

3) If they opt for Jizyah from the start, the Muslim won't attack them nor will they be invaded, nor will the Muslims enter their country. Thus the non-Muslims can remain independent and they can rule themselves as they want.

 

4) If they opt for war, then they will be invaded. They won't remain independent and cannot rule themselves as they want. Plus in addition Jizyah will be collected from them.

 

So there are two scenarios. Some people decided to opt for Jizyah from the start and they were not invaded and were allowed to rule themselves on the condition that they paid the tribute. In this scenario, there is no war and the Muslim armies don't conquer the country.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this fourth option, of becoming a tributary state of the caliphate. I suppose in addition to paying annual tribute to the caliphate, the tributary state would also have to align its foreign policy with that of the caliphate since you couldn't very well support policies that ran counter to the interests of the Islamic state.

 

But they could otherwise remain as they are, even as liberal as the US or greater so long a ever continued to demonstrate their submission to the caliphate? Would such a state be under the protection of the caliphate since it is paying the jizyah and would they have their own military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that there aren't people who are treated less than citizens in your world?

 

Salam.

 

Offically recognised as 2nd class citizens, nope i cannot think of any instances.

 

paying a tax just to be allowed to worship freely, nope cant think of a single instance.

 

Care to enlighten me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it depends on whether or not the Islamic rule was forced upon them or not.... But that's another issue. My question is why and how conversion on the premise of an ultimatum to convert, pay Jizyah or fight and die is acceptable, if the conversion is clearly made under the fear of:

 

1. living in a state where you do not have the same rights as Muslims;

i'm not sure what are the rights you are talking about,

while on the same time, the "Dhemi" have a lower obligations too, he don't have to serve in the army to face diffrculties and may be death (the armies at these times was very diffecult and low facielities, unlike now a days).

 

2. having to pay tax (not all communities paid taxes like Western nations/Romans and Greeks did so this may have been something new to some);

still, very low comared to the obligatory Zakah (2.5%), or the volanteery Sadakah

 

3. enslavement;

who ever enslave a person away of the allowed sourse (the fighting armies only in the war time and place, Dar Alharb ), he just doing a big sin,

 

4. violence or death.

in albukhary 6914, " who ever kills a "Dhemi", he will never get to the paradise,......."

"whoever hurt a "dhemi", i'll be his adversary (opposite) in the day of judgement"

Edited by AHMAD_73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offically recognised as 2nd class citizens, nope i cannot think of any instances.

why not try to think about the Africans in the States 1700s to 2000s?

 

2nd itwasn't to free worship, since it was only imposed on who can afford it among men only, the others worshiped without Gezziah. review my pst post

 

paying a tax just to be allowed to worship freely, nope cant think of a single instance.

i may agree here since "to worship freely" wasn't an option, what ever you pay, in the Catholic and protestant 300 wars (1511-1832).....

 

nor when the Catholic invaded Spain 1492 AC, review the succssive laws in such country, changing names, identities, religions, belief inspections,.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offically recognised as 2nd class citizens, nope i cannot think of any instances.

 

So a permanent resident of the U.S with a green card is recognized as a first class citizen?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×