• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Islam Promote Violence?

gnostic

The Lost One
Why should Muslims moved into conquered states? Why can't they leave?

Muslims want Palestinians to have independence, and they are conquered people, why do they fight against Israel rule?

If people rebel against Muslims rule, they are butchered. If Muslims rebel it is ok?
It still seemed you still have two rules. What do you do if you are conquered? Why should Muslims about allow to rule, but other nations can't rule Muslims?

It is still double standard. The fact of the matter is that Muslims always mixed their religion with their politics.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
gnostic said:
Oh, I forgot you Muslims .....

gnostic said:
Well, you Muslims do exactly the same thing.....

You muslims, you muslims, you muslims ...., do you have problem with muslims or with Islam?

You have to point that out before we go on because this thread is about Islam, not muslims as far as i know.
 

Peace4all

Active Member
fullyveiled muslimah said:
From Shariah:The islamic Law compiled by Abdur-Rahman I. Doi
Ch. 24 pg 426-429

Non-Muslims and Islamic Nationality

The non-muslims who live in an Islamic state and enjoy all their human rights which are enshrined in the shariah are called Dhimmis-the covenanted people. The dhimmis living in an Islamic state are guaranteed the protection of their life, property and honor exactly like that of a muslim. The rights diven to a dhimmis are of an irrevocable nature. It becomes every muslim's religious duty to protect life property, and honor of a non-muslim since it forms a part and parcel of iman.

The word dhimmah literally means pledged, safety, and guarantee. The non-muslims are called dhimmis because they are under the pledge of Allah, the Messenger of Allah (saw), and the pledge of the muslim community so that they can live under the protection of Islam. The pledge of security given to the non-muslims is like the political nationality given in the modern times on the basis of which people acquire all their rights as the nationals of a certain country and become liabvle to resposibility. The dhimmis from this point of view are "the people the abode of Islam" and hence the possessors of Islamic nationality.

Non-muslims under the Jurisdiction of a Muslim State

The muslim Jurists have classified the non-muslim citizens under different categories. There are usually five different kinds of non-muslims who may be found in any Islamic state:

1)Dhimmis- These are those who accept the hagemony of the muslim state whose matters are to be decided with the terms of the appropriate treaty. The Muslim state is duty-bound to abide by all the terms of the treaty.
2)The conquered people- These are those who have fought against the muslims and been defeated. They automatically become dhimmah. However, they will pay a fixed amount of tax called jizyah. Thier lives, property, honor, and places of worship will be protected in lieu thereof.
3) Those non-muslims who happen to reside in the state as its citizens.
4) Those who are temporarily in the muslim state i.e., tourists and temporary passers through.
5) Resident aliens who have adopted voluntarily to live within the muslim state.

It is essential to remove some misconceptions about the difference between the muslims and non-muslim dhimmis. Some scholars tend to give the misleading analogy of this distinction and compare it with Jus Civile or the Roman Pax Romana. It should be remembered that non-muslims are not outside the jurisdiction as is the case with Jus Civile. Likewise, muslims are not to consider themselves "Lords of the population of the globe" as they are not arbis Romanus, but merely the servants of Allah. Even as rulers muslims are merely the custodians of Allah's property and not the absolute owner, because everything existing in the heavens and the earth belong to Allah. The non-muslims therefore are equal before the law in all respects. The distinction between 'muslims' and 'dhimmis' remains one of political administration and not of human rights.

Since the dhimmis are under dhimmat-Allah, they enjoy complete religious, administrative and political freedom - a right guaranteed to them in return for their loyalty and/or payment of the jizyah which will be utilized in the defence and administration of the state.


Part two either later or tomorrow as I must prepare a meal to break my fast with.......enjoy the read.....

Masha' Allah. Frubals! I hope you enjoy your meal.:yes:
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Why should Muslims moved into conquered states? Why can't they leave?


Who said that this was about muslims conquering other people?

Muslims want Palestinians to have independence, and they are conquered people, why do they fight against Israel rule?

Firstly, who can guarantee that israeli rule is fair? Who says that the fight between the israelis and palestinians was one about religion? The fight is about ownership of land. Allah owns all the land not the israelis nor palestinians. Have you noticed that Israel has an organized military while the palestinian arabs do not? If Israel wants the land they should have bought it from the palestinians rather than used unfair military advantage over them. Even if they had offered to buy the land, it would have been the right of the palestinians to refuse it. If that had been the case, did Israel still have the right to attempt taking it by force? Since the palestinians have no organized military, how would you suggest they fight against a move they feel is unfair to them?


If people rebel against Muslims rule, they are butchered. If Muslims rebel it is ok?

No. If people fight muslims based on a religious prejudice, or insists on turning us out of our homes, or harms us unjustly of course we will fight. If muslims rebel we will be butchered if it is within our enemies capacity to do it. It has happened before in history that the muslims were utterly defeated in battle.

It still seemed you still have two rules. What do you do if you are conquered? Why should Muslims about allow to rule, but other nations can't rule Muslims?

If the muslims are conquered then we should submit to the terms provided they do not grossly oppose Islam. For instance, we cannot submit to rulership if it demands that we stop praying and fasting Ramadan. If any official catches any muslim in violation of these rules they will be punished. We cannot submit to a rule like that because Allah's commands are more important. We should rather to be punished by our rulers than punished by Allah. In any case it will be Allah's doing that we muslims have been conquered like that. It would have been due to our own sinfullness and spiritual weakness that Allah would allow it. In any case of that type of rulership over us, we should come to a treaty with our presumably non-muslim rulers that we not be harmed simply because we were defeated. A just rulership shouldn't have a problem with that.


It is still double standard. The fact of the matter is that Muslims always mixed their religion with their politics

Yes we do mix these things. Islam is a completed way of life. Due to this fact, it contains rules ofr governing an entire body of people. Any true Islamic state would in effect be a theocracy. It is important to note however, that the true islamic state does not exist any where in the world at present time. The governments of areas with a high muslim population are secular governments. They cannot be looked to for guidance on how the Islamic state is to be conducted. The laws of these governments contain few rules of shariah at best, and these are in gross error both in understanding and application.



I will most likely post the continuation of the situation of dhimmis in light of shariah tomorrow.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
fullyveiled muslimah said:
Who said that this was about muslims conquering other people?



Firstly, who can guarantee that israeli rule is fair? Who says that the fight between the israelis and palestinians was one about religion? The fight is about ownership of land. Allah owns all the land not the israelis nor palestinians. Have you noticed that Israel has an organized military while the palestinian arabs do not? If Israel wants the land they should have bought it from the palestinians rather than used unfair military advantage over them. Even if they had offered to buy the land, it would have been the right of the palestinians to refuse it. If that had been the case, did Israel still have the right to attempt taking it by force? Since the palestinians have no organized military, how would you suggest they fight against a move they feel is unfair to them?




No. If people fight muslims based on a religious prejudice, or insists on turning us out of our homes, or harms us unjustly of course we will fight. If muslims rebel we will be butchered if it is within our enemies capacity to do it. It has happened before in history that the muslims were utterly defeated in battle.



If the muslims are conquered then we should submit to the terms provided they do not grossly oppose Islam. For instance, we cannot submit to rulership if it demands that we stop praying and fasting Ramadan. If any official catches any muslim in violation of these rules they will be punished. We cannot submit to a rule like that because Allah's commands are more important. We should rather to be punished by our rulers than punished by Allah. In any case it will be Allah's doing that we muslims have been conquered like that. It would have been due to our own sinfullness and spiritual weakness that Allah would allow it. In any case of that type of rulership over us, we should come to a treaty with our presumably non-muslim rulers that we not be harmed simply because we were defeated. A just rulership shouldn't have a problem with that.




Yes we do mix these things. Islam is a completed way of life. Due to this fact, it contains rules ofr governing an entire body of people. Any true Islamic state would in effect be a theocracy. It is important to note however, that the true islamic state does not exist any where in the world at present time. The governments of areas with a high muslim population are secular governments. They cannot be looked to for guidance on how the Islamic state is to be conducted. The laws of these governments contain few rules of shariah at best, and these are in gross error both in understanding and application.



I will most likely post the continuation of the situation of dhimmis in light of shariah tomorrow.

Well said. :)
 

Peace4all

Active Member
gnostic said:
Why should Muslims moved into conquered states? Why can't they leave?
gnostic said:

Muslims want Palestinians to have independence, and they are conquered people, why do they fight against Israel rule?


Well, Israel aren't really being exactly "nice" to the Palestinian people. Now that Israel rules the country little by little the start taking more and more of Palestinian territory. Have you ever seen the checkpoints between the boundaries of Israel? Its almost like some dogs trapped in some internment camp. Thousands of homes are evacuated and destroyed. Here are some statistics in the Gaza Strip ALONE:

Number of completely destroyed homes in Gaza Strip: 4,662
Number of partially damaged homes in Gaza Strip: 22,807
Number of damaged public buildings in Gaza Strip: 30
Number of damaged security buildings in Gaza Strip: 340

(This is statistics from the U.S; god knows how many more homes could have been destroyed)

And you expect Palestine not to rebel? Does Israeli law and people treat Palestinian and Israeli people equally? Why did the US rebel from the British? We can closely compare this situation to the Hundred Year War. Britain took France and put it under their rules. However their still remained a 1000:1 ratio of French to British. Of course it was expected of the French to rebel.

When Muslims ruled the Holy Land:

Why didn’t Christian and Jewish people inside Jerusalem itself rebel against Muslim rule?
Even Muslim critics must admit that the rule under Muslims was very fair to both Christians and Jews; especially when you compare it to previous rules. While the Jews served as officials in Muslim courts in Spain and the Holy Land there was much Anti-Semitism. While 200 years after Christian mobs attacked Jewish settlements across Europe; by 1351, sixty major and 150 smaller Jewish communities had been destroyed, and more than 350 separate massacres had occurred because they blamed them for the Black Death.

gnostic said:
It is still double standard. The fact of the matter is that Muslims always mixed their religion with their politics.

Maybe, but you have to remember that Islam is a way of life not a once-in-a-week thing..
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
fullyveiled muslimah said:
If the muslims are conquered then we should submit to the terms provided they do not grossly oppose Islam. For instance, we cannot submit to rulership if it demands that we stop praying and fasting Ramadan. If any official catches any muslim in violation of these rules they will be punished. We cannot submit to a rule like that because Allah's commands are more important. We should rather to be punished by our rulers than punished by Allah. In any case it will be Allah's doing that we muslims have been conquered like that. It would have been due to our own sinfullness and spiritual weakness that Allah would allow it. In any case of that type of rulership over us, we should come to a treaty with our presumably non-muslim rulers that we not be harmed simply because we were defeated. A just rulership shouldn't have a problem with that.

Yes we do mix these things. Islam is a completed way of life. Due to this fact, it contains rules ofr governing an entire body of people. Any true Islamic state would in effect be a theocracy. It is important to note however, that the true islamic state does not exist any where in the world at present time. The governments of areas with a high muslim population are secular governments. They cannot be looked to for guidance on how the Islamic state is to be conducted. The laws of these governments contain few rules of shariah at best, and these are in gross error both in understanding and application.
What I fail to understand -- and I guess it's just because I've never lived where there is a state religion -- is why any government feels justified in telling its citizens what they may and not believe, who they may and may not worship, what they may or may not read or watch on TV. I'm afraid I simply cannot understand what makes people feel so strongly about their faith that they would resort to forcing other people to accept it. I guess I just don't get why Allah would insist that a Muslim who wanted to convert to Christianity be killed. It just doesn't strike me as very loving on his part. As long as you were free to pray and study and eat whenever you wanted to, why aren't you willing to allow Christians to pray and study and eat whenever they wanted to. What is really gained by forcing people to be outwardly compliant to some ideology they really don't believe?

Maybe you could just explain that to me.
 

kai

ragamuffin
the paying of jizyah is nothing more than protection money if you dont pay then what ,its also a little dated, i dont think it exists today so all dhimmis are seen to be outside the protection, such as in Iran where christians and bahais etc are victimized or saudi where christianity is actually banned. In my country if you ask someone to pay so the dont get attacked or property stolen its called extortion.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Katzpur said:
I guess I just don't get why Allah would insist that a Muslim who wanted to convert to Christianity be killed.

Where did Allah said such a thing?

It just doesn't strike me as very loving on his part. As long as you were free to pray and study and eat whenever you wanted to, why aren't you willing to allow Christians to pray and study and eat whenever they wanted to.

Who prohibited them from doing so, Katzpur?
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
kai said:
the paying of jizyah is nothing more than protection money if you dont pay then what

Nothing.

its also a little dated, i dont think it exists today

Excatly.

so all dhimmis are seen to be outside the protection,

:areyoucra

Then what all the christians are doing in most of the muslims countries around the world?

such as in Iran where christians and bahais etc are victimized or saudi where christianity is actually banned.

This about countries policies but not in the islamic dogma.

In my country if you ask someone to pay so the dont get attacked or property stolen its called extortion.

Who did so in ours?
 

kai

ragamuffin
The Truth said:
Nothing. so no one ever paid because nothing happens if you dont?



Excatly.



:areyoucra

Then what all the christians are doing in most of the muslims countries around the world? a lot of them are being persecuted



This about countries policies but not in the islamic dogma. true but that is the defence to everything that is brought up muslims are doing it but its nothing to do with Islam , Iran and Saudi are muslim countries but its nothing to do with Islam



Who did so in ours?
i am saying Jisyah is extortion !
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
kai said:
i am saying Jisyah is extortion !

Where is Jisyah now?

If you want to go back in history to know it's root and why they should pay such a thing then this is totaly another issue.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
kai said:
true but that is the defence to everything that is brought up muslims are doing it but its nothing to do with Islam , Iran and Saudi are muslim countries but its nothing to do with Islam

Can we say, England and USA are christian countries but it's nothing to do with Christianity?
 

kai

ragamuffin
The Truth said:
Where is Jisyah now?

If you want to go back in history to know it's root and why they should pay such a thing then this is totaly another issue.
as i said earlier i dont think it is used now but and its a big but countries like Iran use the fact that say Bahais dont pay jisyah to condone persecution on them, so jisyah is not the issue but no jisyah is
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
kai said:
as i said earlier i dont think it is used now but and its a big but countries like Iran use the fact that say Bahais dont pay jisyah to condone persecution on them, so jisyah is not the issue but no jisyah is

Oh my God, how many times we will say in here that ...

IRAN DOESN'T REPRESENT ALL THE MUSLIMS (MORE THAN 1 BILLION) FOR GOD'S SAKE. :banghead3
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Jizyah is not extortion money. Only those dhimmins are required to pay it who have been subdued in war due to them having attacked the muslims. These particular type of dhimmis pay this money, not all of them. It is a fair exchange since the muslims cannot be sure that they will not rebel against the muslims. What you fail to understand is that these are people who accept to live under Islamic rule. If they had wished to be released to their homeland they would have been let go. It's not a matter of 'or else', its a mtter of taking an oath with one another and agreeing to some very fair terms. A dhimmi has the right to retain their religion without harrassment as well as business dealings, so forth and so on.

Do you see something wrong with two groups of people agreeing to terms between themselves? You'd be surprised how many non-muslims actually like to live with the muslims. Just because you would not agree to such terms doesn't meant that the terms are wrong or unfair. It just means you don't agree. That is your right not to agree, but it doesn't change what Islam says. Please remember, these dhimmis are not kept without their consent. If they are consenting to that particular lifestyle, who are you or anyone else to say that it is wrong of them to do so, or it is wrong for muslims to have a country already established?

There must be law concerning how to treat non-muslims in a muslim state. It is not feasible to assume that just because the state is under shariah that non-muslims wil never enter it. Nor is it feasible to debar them from the country on the basis of religion,as that would be prejudice on the part of the muslims.

As far as the jizyah as a tax is concerned, I don't see why you feel its so bad. If I don't pay my taxes in the good old U S of A then I will be audited by the IRS. They are not even a part of the government, yet it is against the law for me not to pay them a portion of the money I worked hard for. If I continue to not pay these taxes, then I will be charged with tax evasion which is punishable by payment of fines and jail time. Also the taxes in this country fluctuate as the government see fit. They do not go to anything useful as far as I can see. The jizyah on the other hand is a fixed amount. If anyone is found not able to pay such a tax then it is remitted and the matter is left alone. If a dhimmi does not pay the jizyah due to lack of money, the state will not continue to mount the debt until it is impossible to pay. That's what happens in America when you can't pay. No one has forgiveness on you if you're poor or find yourself in financial strain. The IRS couldn't care less if you can't pay. Regardless of being poor, your credit ends up very bad and you are therefore prohibited from buying things you may even need due to bad credit. You must fight for debt forgiveness, and even then the price might be too high to pay. If you ask me the taxes here in America are way harder dealt with than the jizyah.

Funny how when a muslim state says pay taxes its oppressive, but when any secular state says pay taxes then it's the duty of the citizens to pay. It's not like the muslims are paying into the state as well. The wealthy among us are required by Islamic law to pay zakaat. All dhimmis are exempt from this no matter how rich they are. If the muslims refuse to pay zakaat despite having the wealth then they will be dealt with stiffly by the muslim state. There is no such dealings with the dhimmis of the state.
 

kai

ragamuffin
The Truth said:
Can we say, England and USA are christian countries but it's nothing to do with Christianity?
well speaking for the UK we are a secular country and our parliament doesnt do things in foriegn policy or demestic that is based on current religious belief.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
kai said:
well speaking for the UK we are a secular country and our parliament doesnt do things in foriegn policy or demestic that is based on current religious belief.

Countries like Egypt, Jordan, etc are just doing the same thing and they are indeed secular countries.
 
Top