Peaceful options?

[Ex Muslim]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

 

[Deathbydefault]

Poll Answer: No.

Islam itself describes what peace is, something close to complete submission to allah.
But almost everyone else describes it differently, and by those definitions Islam is not peaceful in the slightest.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists like myself and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

 

[Quintessence]

As there is peace and war in all humans, it's a fair bet to extrapolate that there is peace and war in all other aspects of human culture, including but not limited to religion, politics, education, and interpersonal relationships.

 

[Father Heathen]

Heh, the idea that an extortion racket would be part of god's divine plan is a pretty zany one.

 

[Ex Muslim]

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists like myself and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Well spotted on point 2

 

[Deathbydefault]

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

Perhaps a list of counter options?

1) they'll back off and keep their religion private while following human rights.

2) they will be forced into option 1.

 

[Kori]

Heh, the idea that an extortion racket would be part of god's divine plan is a pretty zany one.

Sounds familiar. Like scientology.

I voted no. But I do think there are Muslims that want peace and do not care about other Religions as long as they are left alone.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

If your boarders under attack or unforgiving oppressive enemy I guess could be seen as peaceful option.
But is not very applicable in times of peace.
If world was in permanent state of war with sword and shield , when applied is very peaceful

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, and no.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not by vocation.

 

[David1967]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

How about they add the option of live and let live, freedom for all to either choose for themselves which religion they want or reject religion altogether if they so choose with no repercussions or discrimination at all. And definitely no silly tax on non Muslims. Freedom of, or even from religion is a wonderful thing. I believe that God would prefer us to come to him of our own free will and not under duress.

 

[DawudTalut]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

Peace be on you.
Yes Islam is a religion of peace, according to Ahmadiyya Muslim.

Can one live in modern state without paying tax?

Some misunderstandings have to be removed:

"Dhamma is an Arabic word from which the word Dhimmi is derived, which means one who is granted every kind of protection and safety. It is clear from what has been said above that according to the Islamic law the Muslims and the non-Muslims stand on an equal footing in matters of fundamental human rights. No distinction was ever made between the rights of Muslims and nonMuslims. This Charter of freedom granted by the Holy Prophetsa was well expressed by Hadrat ‘Ali ra when he said: "Dhimmis have agreed to pay Jizyah for the reason that their lives may be treated as the lives of Muslims and their properties as the properties of the Muslims. Therefore, in these matters, there is no distinction between the rights of the Muslims and Dhimmis".4 Again we see that the pact concluded between Hadrat ‘Umar ra and inhabitants of Jurjan ran thus. "The lives, properties, communal life, identity and the religion of the population of Jurjan shall be safeguarded. No change shall be brought about in their status nor shall they be interfered with in any way".5 Equality between the Muslims and the nonMuslims: We have seen the provisions of the Charter of freedom defining the rights of the Dhimmis, or nonMuslims, permanently granted to them by the Holy Prophet sa......"
and much more on this issue:
Ref: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Minorities-in-an-Islamic-State.pdf

=====

Islamic Concept of the State
Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan
Review of Religions, February 1993
https://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000148.html

========
The Confusion as to the True Nature of Islamic Government .................................................. Divided Loyalties between the State and the Religion ...............................................
Should Religion Have Exclusive Legislative Authority? ............................................... 236 Islamic Statecraft ........................................................ 241
International Relations—The Principle of Absolute Justice Equally Applicable to All........... 245

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

 

[Laika]

Voted "Yes", but as with all ideologies and religions, it's "peace on our terms". everyone has limits.

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option

This is a little misleading, within Sunni Islam traditionally the Hanafi and Maliki schools believed everyone could be a part of the Islamic State

The Shafi school believed that non-Arab pagans and polytheists had to convert or die upon their conquest

The Hanbali school believed only Jews, Christians and Sabians could be a part of the Islamic State. With a difference of opinion regarding Zoroastrains

But the Islamic political system is very flexible, the two so-called fundamentalist states (Saudi Arabia and Iran), clearly don't call for the implementation of dhimmi status for non-Muslim citizens. And many Islamic scholars have warned that there is no need for the jizya today, although it is still supported by a significant amount.

If we view the political system in Islam, the preferred system is a democracy, but if this will lead to certain harms (e.g. Islamic laws being neglected) then a restricted democracy such as Iran will be preferred, then a constitutional monarchy then an absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia. But the principles of 'the lesser of two evils' and 'looking down the road' apply here and the aims of Islamic law should be looked at.

So for example, if a complete democracy will lead to neglecting Islamic law, a restricted democracy to some neglect of Islamic law but a monarchy no neglect of Islamic law although one fears it will lead to a brutal tyrant causing much upset with Islamic law and many deaths. Then one should chose which is more important: the neglect of some Islamic laws or an unjust ruler that leads to the deaths of many

To conclude and simplify, traditionally within Sunni Islam, the Hanafi and Maliki schools allowed polytheists and atheists to live in an Islamic state. The Shafi and Hanbali school allowed atheists but not polytheists. Although today the vast majority believe all should be allowed to live under an Islamic state.

My second point was about dhimmitude (or whatever you'd like to call it), I argued that there is no Islamic political system, only preferred and disliked systems based on circumstances and that the status of dhimmi is not supported (at least practically) by Shi'a or Hanabli jurists, also by many other ulama

I'd also like to point out the evidence you gave too was misleading. Evidence against the collection of the jizya from polytheists was mainly two, the one you mentioned but also the authentic ahadith "I have been commanded to fight them until they say there is no God but God" and this depends on whether you take fight to mean literally fight or not, and also the Arabic word translated as "them" was used in 3 different ways in the Qur'an - meaning a very general group of people, a specific group of people and an individual

Evidence for the collection of the jizya was mainly three. Two authentic hadith where Muhammad did take jizya from polytheists and chapter 2 verse 256 of the Qur'an: "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (largely interpreted to apply to non-muslims only and this too was seen by some to only apply to Jews, Christians and Sabians/'People of the Book'

Make of it what you will

I also wish you would define peaceful for us

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm unsure. Islam can certainly be a peaceful religion if interpreted accordingly, but the very notion that there needs to be an Islamic theocratic state, much less that this should be actively fought for and expanded, is a very troublesome one and needs to be dealt with. It's like how in my religion, we're not called upon to build a Christian theocratic state, because God's Kingdom is not of this world. This is clearly room for the secular sphere to operate alongside the secular sphere. (Sure there's been abuses of this concept throughout Christian history, but I think the teachings of Christ on this matter are rather clear.)

 

[Augustus]

The Hanbali school believed only Jews, Christians and Sabians could be a part of the Islamic State.

They'd have to remember who the Sabians were first.

This collective amnesia as to the identity of the Sabians was used by certain groups of Hellenised Arab pagans to claim that they were the Sabians and thus 'people of the book'.

[The fact that early exegetes really had no idea who the Sabians is one of a number of significant examples that show much of early exegesis was simply the best guesses of the scholars rather than representative of an unbroken chain of teachings from the time of the Prophet].

To conclude and simplify, traditionally within Sunni Islam, the Hanafi and Maliki schools allowed polytheists and atheists to live in an Islamic state. The Shafi and Hanbali school allowed atheists but not polytheists.

Also, in practice, the vast majority of Islamic States from the very beginning of Islam onwards have accepted all religious minorities as having the same status as 'people of the book'.

Although how people of the book were treated has varied significantly, from being punitively taxed, banned from riding horses, having to wear special 'neck seals' to show they had paid and having their beards tugged to humiliate them when handing over the Jizya, to being symbolically taxed 1 coin collectively which was paid by the ruler himself.

The concept has always been flexible, and open to revision or interpretation (for better or worse).

 

[Ex Muslim]

This is a little misleading, within Sunni Islam traditionally the Hanafi and Maliki schools believed everyone could be a part of the Islamic State

It's funny because the only part of my post you quoted was added after post #3

My OP was mainly concerned with what Muhammad himself said as he was the founder of Islam and the lawmaker, I wasn't focusing on the opinions of ulama of fuqaha.

But the Islamic political system is very flexible, the two so-called fundamentalist states (Saudi Arabia and Iran), clearly don't call for the implementation of dhimmi status for non-Muslim citizens. And many Islamic scholars have warned that there is no need for the jizya today, although it is still supported by a significant amount.

That's because non-muslims who go to them countries are treated as musta'min (only temporarily reside in the countries) and therefore don't have to pay Jizya. Ahlul Kitaab can't live permanently in Saudi as Muhammad had them driven out:

"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim." Sahih Muslim

There's a whole book on it here:

http://sunnah.com/muslim/32/75

Would you define the above Hadith as peaceful?

If we view the political system in Islam, the preferred system is a democracy, but if this will lead to certain harms (e.g. Islamic laws being neglected) then a restricted democracy such as Iran will be preferred, then a constitutional monarchy then an absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia. But the principles of 'the lesser of two evils' and 'looking down the road' apply here and the aims of Islamic law should be looked at.

So for example, if a complete democracy will lead to neglecting Islamic law, a restricted democracy to some neglect of Islamic law but a monarchy no neglect of Islamic law although one fears it will lead to a brutal tyrant causing much upset with Islamic law and many deaths. Then one should chose which is more important: the neglect of some Islamic laws or an unjust ruler that leads to the deaths of many

The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods:

1- He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.

‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.

‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.

2- Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him).

3- By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims. Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them. This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force. But because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with the laws of Allaah.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

If a man rebels and seizes power, the people must obey him, even if he seizes power by force and without their consent, because he has seized power.

The reason for that is that if his rule is contested, it will lead to a great deal of evil, and this is what happened during the Umayyad period when some of them seized power by means of force and gained the title of caliph, and people obeyed them in obedience to the command of Allaah.

https://islamqa.info/en/111836

Only option one is slightly democratic, but the decision is essentially made by a small number of "decision makers". Options 2 and 3 are more of what we're used to seeing in the Islamic World.

Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament).

https://islamqa.info/en/98134

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

https://islamqa.info/en/107166

 

[Ex Muslim]

To conclude and simplify, traditionally within Sunni Islam, the Hanafi and Maliki schools allowed polytheists and atheists to live in an Islamic state. The Shafi and Hanbali school allowed atheists but not polytheists. Although today the vast majority believe all should be allowed to live under an Islamic state.

My second point was about dhimmitude (or whatever you'd like to call it), I argued that there is no Islamic political system, only preferred and disliked systems based on circumstances and that the status of dhimmi is not supported (at least practically) by Shi'a or Hanabli jurists, also by many other ulama

I'd also like to point out the evidence you gave too was misleading. Evidence against the collection of the jizya from polytheists was mainly two, the one you mentioned but also the authentic ahadith "I have been commanded to fight them until they say there is no God but God" and this depends on whether you take fight to mean literally fight or not, and also the Arabic word translated as "them" was used in 3 different ways in the Qur'an - meaning a very general group of people, a specific group of people and an individual

Evidence for the collection of the jizya was mainly three. Two authentic hadith where Muhammad did take jizya from polytheists and chapter 2 verse 256 of the Qur'an: "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (largely interpreted to apply to non-muslims only and this too was seen by some to only apply to Jews, Christians and Sabians/'People of the Book'

Make of it what you will

There is only one group really pushing for an Islamic State today, do they let anyone other than Muslims live peacefully?

The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.

Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

[al-Tawbah 9:29]

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

https://islamqa.info/en/34770

Sorry I've come at you with lots of links and copy pasta but the idea here is to show that you've taken the opinions of Muslims who tried to be progressive and change Islamic views towards non - Muslims. If we look at Islamic sources (Quran and Sunnah) objectively it's easy to see that Muhammad wanted to have an all Muslim Islamic State, see verse 39 Surah Anfaal above.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" verse has clearly been abrogated, how can you possibly reconcile that verse with the following verses without accepting abrogation?:

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers." (Sura 5.51)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness, and know that Allah is with the godfearing." (Sura 9.123)

I could keep throwing verses at you but I'm sure you get the point by now.

[QUOTE="Agnostic Religiophile, post: 4663104, member: 59446
I also wish you would define peaceful for us
[/QUOTE]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/peaceful

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (4:34)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16)

"If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." (Sura 9.39)

Can you define peace for us and let us know if you feel the above verses fit in to your definition of peace?

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

I'll try to be concise and offer the mainstream view, not that of Muhammad al-Munajjid. Islamic studies is a science, in any science we follow the mainstream e.g. 3% of scientists believe climate change isn't man-made, we follow the 97% that do, not the 3% that don't.

Claim number 1: Non-Muslims don't pay the jizya in Saudi Arabia and Iran becuase they're not permanent citizens. Non-Muslims can be permanent residents in Saudi Arabia, just not citizens. For Iran, there are many non-Muslim citziens.

Also the Hanafis (45% of Muslims, not 2%) allowed non-Muslims to enter everywhere except Muhammad's mosque and the Shafis everywhere except the Hijaz region

Claim number 2: A Muslim can come to power by 4 means only. The mainstream position is that they can come to power by any means, whether it be democracy or a bloody revolution generally speaking

Claim number 3: Islamic states don't allow their citizens to live peacefully. There are 3 fully claimed Islamic states in the world today, 2 allow them to live largely peacefully, the other doesn't

Claim number 4: The jizya can be taken only from Jews and Christians. As I said, this is the traditional Hanbali position, the other 3 Sunni shools don't agree. It is also not largely supported today

Claim number 5: Islam forces others to pay the jizya, this is no longer the dominant opinion. It was for the vast majority of history with only a few dissenting views. This largely changed with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Ashoor, he viewed the verses of the sword as specific to the time of revelation and event. This opinion has subsequently been adopted by the vast majority of scholars

Regarding the verses of the Qur'an you cite, I'll try to give to mainstream view:

Surah 5 Ayat 51 - There seems nowadays to be a difference of opinion regarding the translation, some believe it to mean friends, others believe it to mean protecting allies. Traditionally it was viewed as friends although the vast majority didn't forbid Muslims from treating non-Muslims well

Surah 8 Ayat 12-13 - Surah al-anfal is an overview of the battle of Badr, some say revealed before it, most say after. This is no dissenting opinion on this. The Muslims believe they won the battle due to God's divine intervention through the angels that struck off the finger tips and heads of the combatants of the Quraish

Surat 9 Ayat 73 - This was revealed after the battle of Tabuk, referring to the unbelievers Muhammad was at war with

Surah 9 Ayat 123 - "near" is interpreted to mean the people of the Arabian peninsula, as you know, that non-Mulsims of the Arabian peninsula were kicked out

Surat 4 Ayat 34 - There is a proper ijma on this that it means beat lightly i.e. on the wrist and shouldn't leave a mark, nor should it be done in revenge or be forceful in a way that will cause pain the the wife such as grabbing her. Also it was is not advised, such as many other issues, for example in the Maliki school a wife could techinally mow the lawn then take £10 from he husband but it is not advised if it is done in a hateful way, unjustly and in a manner that would cause the husband to be upset etc

Surat 48 Ayat 29 - I'm not too sure about this but from the old hanafi books I've read it was used to explain why slaves can only be taken from non-Muslims and why they can be killed after capture (in certain circumstances) whereas Muslims can't

Surat 17 Ayat 16 - This is as it is, God destroys some people such as the people of lut for rejecting messengers when it is clear, commiting sin when they know better etc

Surat 9 Ayat 39 - This explains that it is obligatory for abled Muslims to fight when they are called to fight i.e conscription and will be in grave sin for not doing so

All I did there was offer the mainstream interpretation, not that of modernists or Salafists. You and I are not fully qualified to interpret to Islamic law. I can only offer the view of the majority that are qualified

Are the verses peaceful? No. Is a general telling his army to strike the heads of enemy combatants with a sword in the 7th century in defence peaceful? No. But Muslims aren't pacifists, nor am I, so I don't have a problem with them understood in context. By the way nobody is using the verses of the sword either, all "jihadi" groups are engaged in rebellion becuase traditionally you could rebel against a non-Muslim (with conditions of course) and if someone who prefers man-made law over Islamic law and doesn't work towards an islamic state (within the right conditions) is an apostate