Jump to content
Islamic Forum
missjupiter

Imperialism The West And Islam - Is It Allowed?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Imperialism is defined as:

 

a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means - Oxford Dictionary

 

"the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." - Dictionary of Human Geography

 

Therefore isn't the acceptance of slavery, and subordination of non-Muslims by the caliphate as dhimmis through warfare and threats and making them pay tribute, limiting their rights technically imperialism/religious imperialism? If not, please explain in detail. Hopefully I have phrased this question in a way that is not offensive. I would just like to understand. The rule about supporting imperialism got me thinking about this - or is only Western Imperialism imperialism?

 

Thank you.

Edited by missjupiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Therefore isn't the acceptance of slavery, and subordination of non-Muslims by the caliphate as dhimmis through warfare and threats and making them pay tribute, limiting their rights technically imperialism/religious imperialism? If not, please explain in detail. Hopefully I have phrased this question in a way that is not offensive. I would just like to understand. The rule about supporting imperialism got me thinking about this - or is only Western Imperialism imperialism?

Yes, according to that definition, a Caliphate would seem to be something akin to an exercise in imperialism, especially any Caliphate that extended its authority into non-Muslim peoples or territories occupied by non-Muslims. I am not sure how to apply the rule against supporting imperialism with discussion of the caliphate. Hopefully one of the moderators or Dot, the administrator, can step in and clarify the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some more research on the rule and the topic. Rule #31 in its current incarnation is relatively newer than other rules here, coming into place in July 2007. Subsequent to that time, I have found only one discussion of imperialism and the caliphate, (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=731647"]this one[/url], and a discussion of the link between the two only occurs in the last two posts, neither of which are written by a Muslim.

 

I guess I should thank you for bringing this up so that it can be clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purpose of Islamic expansion is to propagate Islam. Spread the message. The purpose is not to gain territory, or plunder wealth, etc. The proof for that is that an invading Islamic Army gives you the choice to become Muslim or come under the protection of the Islamic state and your life, wealth etc will be left alone. No one will harm you nor steal the wealth from your land. Maybe in a way you might call it that but it's not the same thing. Paying Jizyah is not a big deal. The Muslim citizens pay zakah and the non-Muslim citizens pay Jizyah.

 

I mean it's not like only the non-Muslims are being forced to pay. Everyone pays just like how people pay taxes in countries today. Of course the difference is we Muslims see zakah as a religious duty and not a tax.

 

The remarkably generous treatment of the populace of Emessa by Abu Ubaidah, when the Muslims left that city, throws light on the sense of justice and truth of this brave and noble general. On the conquest of Emessa, the Muslims had collected the Jizya from the local inhabitants. This tax, as has been explained before, was taken from non-Muslims in return for their exemption from military service and their protection against their enemies. But since the Muslims were now leaving the city and were no longer in a position to protect them, Abu Ubaidah called a meeting of the people and returned all the money taken as Jizya. "We are not able to help and defend you", said Abu Ubaidah. "You are now on your own." To this the people replied, "Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression and cruelty in which we existed before."1 The Jews of Emessa proved the most loyal in their friendship, and swore that the officers of Heraclius would not enter the city except by force. Moreover, not content with doing total justice in the matter of the Jizya in his own province, Abu Ubaidah also wrote to the other corps commanders in Syria to return the Jizya to the people who had paid it, and this was done by every Muslim commander before he marched away to join Abu Ubaidah at Jabiya. 2 Such an extraordinary and voluntary return by an all-conquering army of what it has taken according to mutually arranged terms, had never happened before. It would never happen again.

 

1. Balazuri: p. 143.

2. Abu Yusuf: p. 139

 

Taken from the book:

 

Khalid bin Waleed The Sword of Allah

 

Chapter 34: The Eve of Yarmuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purpose of Islamic expansion is to propagate Islam. Spread the message. The purpose is not to gain territory, or plunder wealth, etc. The proof for that is that an invading Islamic Army gives you the choice to become Muslim or come under the protection of the Islamic state and your life, wealth etc will be left alone. No one will harm you nor steal the wealth from your land. Maybe in a way you might call it that but it's not the same thing. Paying Jizyah is not a big deal. The Muslim citizens pay zakah and the non-Muslim citizens pay Jizyah.

Being a dhimmi is more involved than that (I linked to a couple of threads I was involved with 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?s=&showtopic=737786&view=findpost&p=1252299"]this post[/url] if you want to correct me) and nothing you have said challenges the appearance of imperialism in the Caliphate. I don't disagree that Islam requires expansion and the propagation of its message, so that isn't really the issue here. The question isn't whether Islam is justified in its expansion, but that the expansion seems to fit the definition of imperialism, something that the rules in this forum forbid its members from posting support of. Now I am sure there is a perfectly adequate explanation for how this rule does not interfere with expressing support for the caliphate, but you haven't offered it yet. Hopefully you or someone else can help with this. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purpose of Islamic expansion is to propagate Islam. Spread the message. The purpose is not to gain territory, or plunder wealth, etc. The proof for that is that an invading Islamic Army gives you the choice to become Muslim or come under the protection of the Islamic state and your life, wealth etc will be left alone. No one will harm you nor steal the wealth from your land. Maybe in a way you might call it that but it's not the same thing. Paying Jizyah is not a big deal. The Muslim citizens pay zakah and the non-Muslim citizens pay Jizyah.

 

I mean it's not like only the non-Muslims are being forced to pay. Everyone pays just like how people pay taxes in countries today. Of course the difference is we Muslims see zakah as a religious duty and not a tax.

 

Propagation of Islam or not, here's the definition:

 

 

a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means - Oxford Dictionary

 

"the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." - Dictionary of Human Geography

 

Therefore, fighting non-Muslims for propagating Islam or not fits in. If the non-Muslims refuse they can be fought and killed or enslaved if I am not mistaken - in such cases wouldn't their property be taken from them? Also, the unequal status of a dhimmii fits in. Your comment does not prove that it is not Imperialism. Gaining territory does fit in, otherwise what would be the point of venturing into non-Muslim lands?

 

Yes, according to that definition, a Caliphate would seem to be something akin to an exercise in imperialism, especially any Caliphate that extended its authority into non-Muslim peoples or territories occupied by non-Muslims. I am not sure how to apply the rule against supporting imperialism with discussion of the caliphate. Hopefully one of the moderators or Dot, the administrator, can step in and clarify the matter.

 

If the Caliphate system complies, with Islam, I doubt it will be a banned discussion. The rule just got me thinking about the definition of imperialism.

Edited by missjupiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Caliphate system complies, with Islam, I doubt it will be a banned discussion. The rule just got me thinking about the definition of imperialism.

 

It seems like a double-standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the caliphates are imperialistic. But now all imperialistic countries fall in the same generic category. They all range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like a double-standard.

Did you just quote yourself? I think I understand what you are saying, but it came across as a little funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just put in a request for clarification on the rule. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you just quote yourself? I think I understand what you are saying, but it came across as a little funny.

 

:sl:

 

Yes, the caliphates are imperialistic. But now all imperialistic countries fall in the same generic category. They all range.

 

No, imperialism is imperialism. It seems hypocrytical to denounce one form of imperialism, yet condone another. It's either evil or right. I would never support Imperialism that's why I will NEVER be a Muslim. I don't believe it is of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purpose of Islamic expansion is to propagate Islam. Spread the message. The purpose is not to gain territory, or plunder wealth, etc. The proof for that is that an invading Islamic Army gives you the choice to become Muslim or come under the protection of the Islamic state and your life, wealth etc will be left alone. No one will harm you nor steal the wealth from your land. Maybe in a way you might call it that but it's not the same thing. Paying Jizyah is not a big deal. The Muslim citizens pay zakah and the non-Muslim citizens pay Jizyah.

 

I mean it's not like only the non-Muslims are being forced to pay. Everyone pays just like how people pay taxes in countries today. Of course the difference is we Muslims see zakah as a religious duty and not a tax.

 

 

This sounds very much like the hated 'Christain crusades' of centuries ago (which some would say are still being pursued today).

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds very much like the hated 'Christain crusades' of centuries ago (which some would say are still being pursued today).

 

regards,

 

ron

 

I mean it's not like only the non-Muslims are being forced to pay. Everyone pays just like how people pay taxes in countries today. Of course the difference is we Muslims see zakah as a religious duty and not a tax.

 

If they had the choice to refuse conversion, refuse war and refuse jizyah as well then your statement would be true. Sounds like the Roman Empire that Jesus lived under in the first century - paying taxes to an foreign regime that was forced upon you yet you don't have the same rights as their elite....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The khilapha system is a kind and ethical system. To people of the west, it can be compared to something like the European Union. But it is more than that. If applied properly, the world would become one unified utopia. A brief historical comparision pf western imperialism and khilapha systems would show clearly how evil the first was, and how kind and ethical the second was.

 

I kindly suggest doing some unbiased readings.. for example do a comparison between the crusades in Palestine (starting from 1096) (slaughtering everyone and everything, including native Jews and Christians) and between Muslims in Spain (starting from 711) and how they spread civilization, justice and equality, at a time when all Europe was soaking in dark ages.

 

You may want to see this differently, its your choice. But rule #31 of this forum doesn't apply on historical khilapha system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The khilapha system is a kind and ethical system. To people of the west, it can be compared to something like the European Union. But it is more than that. If applied properly, the world would become one unified utopia. A brief historical comparision pf western imperialism and khilapha systems would show clearly how evil the first was, and how kind and ethical the second was.

 

I kindly suggest doing some unbiased readings.. for example do a comparison between the crusades in Palestine (starting from 1096) (slaughtering everyone and everything, including native Jews and Christians) and between Muslims in Spain (starting from 711) and how they spread civilization, justice and equality, at a time when all Europe was soaking in dark ages.

 

You may want to see this differently, its your choice. But rule #31 of this forum doesn't apply on historical khilapha system.

 

 

Can I ask why rule 31 doesn't apply to the Khilapha system? Does that mean it's not 'actually' Islam?

 

 

Regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The khilapha system is a kind and ethical system. To people of the west, it can be compared to something like the European Union. But it is more than that. If applied properly, the world would become one unified utopia. A brief historical comparision pf western imperialism and khilapha systems would show clearly how evil the first was, and how kind and ethical the second was.

 

I kindly suggest doing some unbiased readings.. for example do a comparison between the crusades in Palestine (starting from 1096) (slaughtering everyone and everything, including native Jews and Christians) and between Muslims in Spain (starting from 711) and how they spread civilization, justice and equality, at a time when all Europe was soaking in dark ages.

 

You may want to see this differently, its your choice. But rule #31 of this forum doesn't apply on historical khilapha system.

 

If it were a kind system, it never would have ended. There were more years of tyranny than justice. There definitely were some good years. I've mentioned this before, it would be interesting to develop a Constitution based upon a unified Shari'ah. I am curious to know what it looks like and how "ideal" government would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The khilapha system is a kind and ethical system. To people of the west, it can be compared to something like the European Union. But it is more than that. If applied properly, the world would become one unified utopia. A brief historical comparision pf western imperialism and khilapha systems would show clearly how evil the first was, and how kind and ethical the second was.

 

I kindly suggest doing some unbiased readings.. for example do a comparison between the crusades in Palestine (starting from 1096) (slaughtering everyone and everything, including native Jews and Christians) and between Muslims in Spain (starting from 711) and how they spread civilization, justice and equality, at a time when all Europe was soaking in dark ages.

 

You may want to see this differently, its your choice. But rule #31 of this forum doesn't apply on historical khilapha system.

 

Utopia under which empires like the Ottomans required dhimmis to give their children as tribute? Or the rape of nuns during the Islamic conquest of sicily (Buddhist nuns faced the same fate)? Utopia where non-Muslims cannot even ride a horse or camel, need permission to build or repair a place of worship, cannot hold high-ranking positions in the state or military, have limits of freedom of religion, yet they have pay to enjoy inferior status in such a Utopia. And what happens when they can't pay? This is not true equality! Was it just to tear down the church of the holy sepulchre, or attack the vatican, or for pilgrims to Jerusalem to be murdered or assaulted or kidnapped? (by the way these events occured before the Crusades). Thousands of people were killed by the barbarian Crusaders, yet tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered and enslaved in the conquest of India alone.

 

If this type of system is utopia, justice, equality and kindess according to you, then I wonder what that says about Islam if the humiliation of non-Muslims is seen as a good thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

No, imperialism is imperialism. It seems hypocrytical to denounce one form of imperialism, yet condone another. It's either evil or right. I would never support Imperialism that's why I will NEVER be a Muslim. I don't believe it is of God.

 

That's a pretty narrow view of things. Your attempt at making it black and white choice is anti productive to a proper argument.

 

And if you'll never become Muslim, may I ask you with all respect, why are you on this site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

Utopia under which empires like the Ottomans required dhimmis to give their children as tribute? Or the rape of nuns during the Islamic conquest of sicily (Buddhist nuns faced the same fate)? Utopia where non-Muslims cannot even ride a horse or camel, need permission to build or repair a place of worship, cannot hold high-ranking positions in the state or military, have limits of freedom of religion, yet they have pay to enjoy inferior status in such a Utopia. And what happens when they can't pay? This is not true equality! Was it just to tear down the church of the holy sepulchre, or attack the vatican, or for pilgrims to Jerusalem to be murdered or assaulted or kidnapped? (by the way these events occured before the Crusades). Thousands of people were killed by the barbarian Crusaders, yet tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered and enslaved in the conquest of India alone.

 

If this type of system is utopia, justice, equality and kindess according to you, then I wonder what that says about Islam if the humiliation of non-Muslims is seen as a good thing...

 

This has got to be one of the most factually devoid posts I have seen in the forum.

 

I would like to ask, where does missjupiter get her facts from? Half the things stated here, such as the giving of children as tribute in the Ottoman empire, or the rape of nuns in Sicily - did not happen. (By the way, there are no such people called Buddhist nuns. They are called monks, but hey, whatever suits you.)

 

There is no such rule that a non-Muslim cannot ride a camel or horse.

 

For repairing a place of worship, a permit is required - and this applies to both Muslim and non-Muslim places of worship.

 

Non-Muslims, in an Islamic state, do not have to serve in the army as they are under the protection of the Muslim army. To fight for a Muslim land, is a religious duty, that non-Muslims are excluded from. As for what they pay, I assume you mean jizyah. This jizyah has historically been low, and not unreasonable. Furthermore in Islam, we cannot force someone to pay for this if he does not have the means. I would also argue that Muslims too pay a tax, and it is called zakah, which is around 2-3% of annual income. So there's no injustice here, both groups are taxed.

 

About tens of millions of Hindus being slughtered in India, I challenge missjupiter or anyone else who believes this, to state their sources. Only those historians with an anti-Islamic agenda, will tell you this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims are nowhere close to having real power or pose a real threat to global powers of today, and here we are debating about so called "imperialism" of the Islamic state.

 

The real imperialism of today can be seen in Kashmir, Sheeshan (Chechnya), Palestine, Xinjiang, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not some false utopia.

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


×