W
WonderAndAwe
Guest
I thought they believed every prophet was untouched by Satan at their birth.
- Status
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
**I’m growing a little tired of reminding posters of the rules on inter-religious dialogue. If the recent news events have you so worked up, you cannot post charitably, then I suggest you not get involved in threads such as this.
Stay on topic.
Post charitably. **
Stay on topic.
Post charitably. **
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
I’ll give it another try, any more violations and the thread is closed.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I’ve never heard anything like that. Can you give me evidence to back this up such as a passage from one of the Classical books of Fiqh?
- If you actually look at the different Muslim nations throughout history, Dhimmi status has been given quite freely. The Qur’an lists the Jews, Christians, and the Sabians as being the Ahl al Kitab, the people of the book, which have such protection, and as Muslims came into contact with more religions, by means of Qiyas (analogical reasoning) Muslim scholars classified any religion that has some sort of scripture as falling into the category of protected religions, and they included Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and many many more religions under this category.
- You say that the dhimma system puts restrictions on their faith. Can you give me some examples of such restrictions and how they equate to “co-existence based upon Islam being the dominate [sic] faith and the non-Islamic faiths being the subjugated ones.”?
The Zakat is a religious requirement, yes, but it wasn’t a voluntary thing. The State collected it as a mandatory tax imposed on all financially able Muslims, and the Jizya was also collected as a tax. They were roughly the same in value, so I don’t see how that equates to subjugation.
Also, as I previously said, the Muslim countries of today have abolished the Jizya tax, so it’s not really relevant anymore.
Well if you are going to conquer the world by waiting for people within your lands to convert and not actually do any conquering then you’re never going to conquer the world. If the Netherlands decided one day to conquer the world but they were going to do it by waiting for everyone within their borders to turn Dutch, world conquest just isn’t going to happen.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
While I research the above (do you happen to have any links for the sources you wish me to use?), let me ask this- What does Islam teach to do with non-Muslim communities that refuse to participate in a dhimmi contract?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Bakmoon- Would this site meet your source request- shafiifiqh.com ?
B
Bakmoon
Guest
What do you mean by a “dhimmi contract”? The status of dhimmi is just a classification of people as being a protected group.
I’m looking for quotes from the actual classical books of Fiqh. Each of the four Madhahib (i.e. Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) has books that are generally accepted within that school. I am asking for either a quote from such a book or a generally accepted modern book that is summarizing the overall position of one of the schools.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
What do you mean by a “dhimmi contract”? The status of dhimmi is just a classification of people as being a protected group.
The Dhimmi contract- What a person who is classified as a part of a protected group is granted by the Muslim community and what is expected of them.
Under the teachings of Islam, what is the Muslim community supposed to do regarding those non-Muslims who, though they qualify for “protection” (not all groups qualify as such; these groups either convert, are forced to convert, leave, forced to leave, put to death, etc), refuse such status and/or refuse the conditions placed upon them (such as not being able to publically display their faith or build new places of worship)?
I’m looking for quotes from the actual classical books of Fiqh. Each of the four Madhahib (i.e. Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) has books that are generally accepted within that school. I am asking for either a quote from such a book or a generally accepted modern book that is summarizing the overall position of one of the schools.
Yes and I’m asking you for a link to those works that you would find acceptable. I don’t have the works myself and I’m not going to spend money (I’ve found sites that would allow me access to those works for money and/or will sell me the works) on it. If you can’t find such a link for me, does the site I linked qualify to you as a reliable source for information for this discussion?
The Dhimmi contract- What a person who is classified as a part of a protected group is granted by the Muslim community and what is expected of them.
Under the teachings of Islam, what is the Muslim community supposed to do regarding those non-Muslims who, though they qualify for “protection” (not all groups qualify as such; these groups either convert, are forced to convert, leave, forced to leave, put to death, etc), refuse such status and/or refuse the conditions placed upon them (such as not being able to publically display their faith or build new places of worship)?
I’m looking for quotes from the actual classical books of Fiqh. Each of the four Madhahib (i.e. Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) has books that are generally accepted within that school. I am asking for either a quote from such a book or a generally accepted modern book that is summarizing the overall position of one of the schools.
Yes and I’m asking you for a link to those works that you would find acceptable. I don’t have the works myself and I’m not going to spend money (I’ve found sites that would allow me access to those works for money and/or will sell me the works) on it. If you can’t find such a link for me, does the site I linked qualify to you as a reliable source for information for this discussion?
B
Bakmoon
Guest
- As I have previously stated, the Muslim scholars have been of the opinion that through Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, any group of religious people who have some kind of scripture are classified as people of the book and receive protection.
- Can you give any proof that such conditions are in fact required by Classical Fiqh?
I am willing to accept that this site gives a fair summary of the works it cites, so if it cites a book saying that such a book teaches something or that such a book is regarded as being representative of the Shafi’i madhhab then I am willing to accept it. If the site gives a Fatwah without giving such citation then I won’t accept such a position as being representative of the Shafi’i madhhab. I think that is fair.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
See Section 11- “NON-MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)”
E
eddie_too
Guest
I think the answer to the original question depends on what muslim you ask.
remember, islam has no central teaching authority. it only has the Koran and as with any written document, the Koran is open to a myriad of interpretations.
so, there is no definitive answer to the question. it totally depends upon the muslim you ask.
remember, islam has no central teaching authority. it only has the Koran and as with any written document, the Koran is open to a myriad of interpretations.
so, there is no definitive answer to the question. it totally depends upon the muslim you ask.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I’m familiar with this book. It is one of the standard summary books of Fiqh for the Shafi’i Madhhab. It doesn’t say anything about the Dhimma having to acknowledge Islam as the foundation of society and governance. All it says is that non-Muslims have to follow the ‘rules of Islam’ which the inline parenthetical note identifies with the seven conditions laid out in §11.5. I think we can both agree that the rules laid down are wrong, but I don’t think that they are substantially worse than the restrictions certain Church councils laid on Jews and Muslims in Europe for example.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-Ok, I’ll do some more research regarding Islam being the foundation of society and governance under the dimma contract. Such should be rather apparent by the conditions laid upon the “protected” people listed in that source. I should also be rather apparent regarding what actions where to be taken if a non-Muslim violated said conditions. The last part of Section 11, I believe 11.12, should give a clear indication to the answer to this. If one (the one here being a non-Muslim) violates the conditions of the dhimma contract, one is given the same options that Islam proscribes to prisoners taken in war.
-Comparing this to the unjust persecution and discrimination of Jews and Muslims under the Church (and here I’m just going with the Church, it’s more complex than that, but that’s another topic) only works if said unjust persecutions and discriminations are what the Church actually taught and had similar codifications within Christian holy works. This is not the case.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
It is true that it states in 11.11 the following:
But note that it says this only applies when the subject’s agreement has been violated. What does the text mean by this term? Section 11.9 defines this as if they violate the rules of Islam (which the text previously identifies with the conditions laid down in 11.5) or refuses to pay the Jizya tax, and section 10 defines 5 more things which break the agreement such as adultery, spying, converting Muslims, murdering a Muslim, or blasphemy.
The text exhaustively lists these 17 conditions (the seven conditions in subsection 5, refusing to pay the Jizya, and the five conditions of subsection 10) as constituting the violations of the agreement.
Actually many such rules were laid down by the decree of local church councils, which although are not infallible, was part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church as exercised at that time.
For about 300 years the local councils of Toledo in Spain laid down many canons punishing the Jews. The worst in my opinion was Canon 8 of the 17th Council of Toledo in which the Synod of Bishops decreed that the Jews were to have all of their property confiscated and then taken as slaves with their children to be raised as Christians.
Some of these restrictions were later confirmed by Ecumenical Councils. For example the IV Council of the Lateran stated in Canon 69 reaffirmed the third council of Toledo’s ban on Jews holding public office and further stipulated that anyone who helps a Jew gain public office after receiving a warning should be punished. Canon 68 of the same council required Jews and Muslims to dress distinctively, and banned them from appearing in public at all during Holy Week.
Does this mean that someone could point to the Catholic church and say that it teaches religious subjugation (like some in the new atheist movement claim it does)? Of course not. The Catholic Church no longer says anything like that. Similarly most Muslim countries no longer have such requirements on non-Muslims so we should similarly look at those rules as not being considered normative anymore by most Muslims. That’s not to say we shouldn’t make our voices heard when discrimination against non-Muslims does occur in Muslim countries, but we shouldn’t paint all Muslims with the same brush in such an instance either.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
It is true that it states in 11.11 the following:
But note that it says this only applies when the subject’s agreement has been violated. What does the text mean by this term? Section 11.9 defines this as if they violate the rules of Islam (which the text previously identifies with the conditions laid down in 11.5) or refuses to pay the Jizya tax, and section 10 defines 5 more things which break the agreement such as adultery, spying, converting Muslims, murdering a Muslim, or blasphemy.
Of note is that your above proves that the basis for the “protected” status of non-Muslims is the supremacy of Islam and it’s usage for the foundation of society and governance. “Protected” non-Muslims are in violation of the conditions of their “protected” status if they violate the rules of Islam, refuse to pay an Islamic tax (Jizya), and the list of specific crimes against not other citizens, but against other citizens who are Muslim.
Also of note is what actions are allowed against non-Muslims who violate the conditions of their “protected” status. The author specifically refers to these non-Muslims in violation are to be handled in a similar manner to prisoners of war, not in a similar manner to other criminals.
As for the Jizya tax, you’ve earlier supported it’s usage as not unjust because Muslims had to pay a different tax. This reasoning is faulty because the purpose and usage of each tax is different.
The text exhaustively lists these 17 conditions (the seven conditions in subsection 5, refusing to pay the Jizya, and the five conditions of subsection 10) as constituting the violations of the agreement.
And, once again, what does Islam mandate for those individuals or groups who refuse to enter into a dhimma status?
Actually many such rules were laid down by the decree of local church councils, which although are not infallible, was part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church as exercised at that time.
For about 300 years the local councils of Toledo in Spain laid down many canons punishing the Jews. The worst in my opinion was Canon 8 of the 17th Council of Toledo in which the Synod of Bishops decreed that the Jews were to have all of their property confiscated and then taken as slaves with their children to be raised as Christians.
Some of these restrictions were later confirmed by Ecumenical Councils. For example the IV Council of the Lateran stated in Canon 69 reaffirmed the third council of Toledo’s ban on Jews holding public office and further stipulated that anyone who helps a Jew gain public office after receiving a warning should be punished. Canon 68 of the same council required Jews and Muslims to dress distinctively, and banned them from appearing in public at all during Holy Week.
Does this mean that someone could point to the Catholic church and say that it teaches religious subjugation (like some in the new atheist movement claim it does)? Of course not. The Catholic Church no longer says anything like that. Similarly most Muslim countries no longer have such requirements on non-Muslims so we should similarly look at those rules as not being considered normative anymore by most Muslims. That’s not to say we shouldn’t make our voices heard when discrimination against non-Muslims does occur in Muslim countries, but we shouldn’t paint all Muslims with the same brush in such an instance either.
Your above is based on the actions of members of a faith and not on what that faith actually teaches. You need to show where each faith has similar actual teachings and/or how my point concerning the unjustness/etc of the dhimmi contract and system isn’t based on the actual teachings of Islam.
But note that it says this only applies when the subject’s agreement has been violated. What does the text mean by this term? Section 11.9 defines this as if they violate the rules of Islam (which the text previously identifies with the conditions laid down in 11.5) or refuses to pay the Jizya tax, and section 10 defines 5 more things which break the agreement such as adultery, spying, converting Muslims, murdering a Muslim, or blasphemy.
Of note is that your above proves that the basis for the “protected” status of non-Muslims is the supremacy of Islam and it’s usage for the foundation of society and governance. “Protected” non-Muslims are in violation of the conditions of their “protected” status if they violate the rules of Islam, refuse to pay an Islamic tax (Jizya), and the list of specific crimes against not other citizens, but against other citizens who are Muslim.
Also of note is what actions are allowed against non-Muslims who violate the conditions of their “protected” status. The author specifically refers to these non-Muslims in violation are to be handled in a similar manner to prisoners of war, not in a similar manner to other criminals.
As for the Jizya tax, you’ve earlier supported it’s usage as not unjust because Muslims had to pay a different tax. This reasoning is faulty because the purpose and usage of each tax is different.
The text exhaustively lists these 17 conditions (the seven conditions in subsection 5, refusing to pay the Jizya, and the five conditions of subsection 10) as constituting the violations of the agreement.
And, once again, what does Islam mandate for those individuals or groups who refuse to enter into a dhimma status?
Actually many such rules were laid down by the decree of local church councils, which although are not infallible, was part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church as exercised at that time.
For about 300 years the local councils of Toledo in Spain laid down many canons punishing the Jews. The worst in my opinion was Canon 8 of the 17th Council of Toledo in which the Synod of Bishops decreed that the Jews were to have all of their property confiscated and then taken as slaves with their children to be raised as Christians.
Some of these restrictions were later confirmed by Ecumenical Councils. For example the IV Council of the Lateran stated in Canon 69 reaffirmed the third council of Toledo’s ban on Jews holding public office and further stipulated that anyone who helps a Jew gain public office after receiving a warning should be punished. Canon 68 of the same council required Jews and Muslims to dress distinctively, and banned them from appearing in public at all during Holy Week.
Does this mean that someone could point to the Catholic church and say that it teaches religious subjugation (like some in the new atheist movement claim it does)? Of course not. The Catholic Church no longer says anything like that. Similarly most Muslim countries no longer have such requirements on non-Muslims so we should similarly look at those rules as not being considered normative anymore by most Muslims. That’s not to say we shouldn’t make our voices heard when discrimination against non-Muslims does occur in Muslim countries, but we shouldn’t paint all Muslims with the same brush in such an instance either.
Your above is based on the actions of members of a faith and not on what that faith actually teaches. You need to show where each faith has similar actual teachings and/or how my point concerning the unjustness/etc of the dhimmi contract and system isn’t based on the actual teachings of Islam.
W
WilT
Guest
W
WilT
Guest
W
WilT
Guest
No. I don’t believe Islam can co-exist (peacefully) with another dominate religion or religions. It’s my understanding that Islam will only be at peace when it enslaves all other religions through fear, intimidations and…
D
drac16
Guest
If I tell you, you won’t believe me, because you’ve already arrived at a conclusion (as you illustrated in your first paragraph). All I see is fear coming from you. If you have fear, you can’t understand anything I say because there’s too much static in your energy.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
We have read the news reports concerning the atrocities committed by ISIS.
- Status