Submission or Obedience?

[rikkk1958]

You are right ralph, Sister Amy and Muslim woman used the kindest words here for their posts and I do not intend to be rude to them. It was just basic questions but sometimes you do not get direct answers due to the fact that they are trying to make the teachings of Islam as peaceful at it might sound. However, I truly believe that Mohammed was trying to say how it is and not how Sister Amy interprets them. Actually I admire her articulation of the teachings of Islam but how wasted is her knowledge when the truth was already taught by Jesus. Sometimes it bothers you because in spite of their intellect they could not get the real message. The reason why I posted this thread is because it seemed the “submission” concept is the root of Islamic belief and cause of unruly behavior by Muslims. For me this word has magic in it, like a devil in disguise, manipulating the minds of people, together with its teachings can make a great deal of destruction, not only to the true word of God but to the world as well.

 

[algebra]

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
This is a guarantee of protection from Muhammad to Yahna bin Rawbah and the people of Allah; their ships, their caravans on the land and sea shall have custody of Muhammad , he and whosoever are with him of Ash-Sham people and those of the sea. Whosoever contravenes this treaty, his wealth shall not save him; it shall be the fair prize of him that takes it. Now it should not be lawful to hinder the men from any springs which they have been in the habit of frequenting, nor from any journeys they desire to make, whether by sea or by land.

and again

Narrated 'Amr bin 'Auf Al-Ansari: (who was an ally of Bam 'Amr bin Lu’ai and one of those who had taken part in (the Ghazwa of) Badr): Allah’s Apostle sent Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarreh to Bahrain to collect the Jizya. Allah’s Apostle had established peace with the people of Bahrain and appointed Al-‘Ala’ bin Al-Hadrami as their governor. When Abu 'Ubaida came from Bahrain with the money, the Ansar heard of Abu ‘Ubaida’s arrival which coincided with the time of the morning prayer with the Prophet. When Allah’s Apostle led them in the morning prayer and finished, the Ansar approached him, and he looked at them and smiled on seeing them and said, “I feel that you have heard that Abu. 'Ubaida has brought something?” They said, "Yes, O Allah’s Apostle’ He said, “Rejoice and hope for what will please you! By Allah, I am not afraid of your poverty but I am afraid that you will lead a life of luxury as past nations did, whereupon you will compete with each other for it, as they competed for it, and it will destroy you as it destroyed them.”

This is a treaty between Mohammed and some northern arabian tribes, after they paid jizyah - it is clearly "protection" money.

 

[algebra]

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah’s Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah’s behest with regard to them.

 

[Reuben_J]

But at any rate, the question was about submission and obedience, not servitude. And when I read the Qur’an, I see a Merciful Lord, and so I strive to be a grateful servant. My Lord provides sustenance for me–food, and shelter, all my needs. My Lord protects me from evil in the world, from harm. I obey God willingly, because I have the will to choose.

I don’t agree. Muslims pride themselves being servants of Allah.

It is master and slaves kind of relationship. Muslims are at the whim and fancy of Master Allah and can only expect for Allah’s justice. Muslims on their part are expedient; that include death if it is for the good cause of Master Allah.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t agree. Muslims pride themselves being servants of Allah.

Correction: Muslims pride themselves being slaves of Allah.

 

[Sister_Amy]

A note on jizya:

In the mythical land known as “Islamic State” (none exists, so I called it mythical), the government is supposed to run on Islamic principles, instituting Islamic law, Islamic judges and so forth, and securing the freedom of religion for the population.

If there are groups of non-Muslims living in that society, they are encouraged to establish their own court systems so they can rule by their own laws, instead of bowing to Islamic courts with which they might disagree. In this way, they are not forced to follow Islamic law if they are not Muslims, provided they’ve established their own laws and courts.

Also, the Islamic state is responsible for raising an army to defend itself. That’s what countries still do today, in case you didn’t notice–they have armies and militaries to defend themselves or sometimes even to attack others. An Islamic State (mythical, remember) would also have an army. Muslims would be obligated to serve in it if necessary, to protect the population from any aggressor.

Because non-Muslims are not so religious obligated to serve in the army when the need arises, and because non-Muslims don’t pay mandatory charity to the poor and needy in the society, they instead pay a tax. Muslims, on the other hand, must be willing to go fight, and they also have to pay a portion of their wealth to the state. While non-Muslims simply pay a tax which is to be used for funding the military (which is protecting them from an aggressor because they are also part of the Islamic state).

That is what I understand about jizya. And I will appreciate if posters can refrain from making snide remarks regarding my intelligence or intentions.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

… , returned their tax monies.

Jizyah and non-Muslim Minorities

…During the reign of the second caliph, `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the Roman emperor Heraclius raised a huge army to repel the Muslim forces.

It was thus incumbent upon the Muslims to concentrate their efforts on the battle.

When the commander of Muslims, Abu ‘Ubaydah (may Allah be pleased with him) heard this news, he wrote to his officials in all conquered cities in Syria and ordered them to return the jizyah which had been levied in those cities.

He also addressed the public saying; “We are returning your money because we know that the enemy has gathered troops. By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us.

We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allah helps us to rout the enemy.”

Thus, a huge amount was taken form the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders.

They exclaimed, “May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property.”

The jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state’s military forces, it was exempted from the jizyah.

Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty.

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544994

some related info:

ISLAM DENOUNCES TERRORISM

HARUN YAHYA

…In many ways, local populations found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia.

Religious communities were free to practice their faith – to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service.

They were therefore called the ‘‘protected ones’’ (dhimmmi).

In effect, this often meant lower taxes, grater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with closer linguistic and cultural ties than the hellenized, Greco-Roman elites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians.

 

[rikkk1958]

A note on jizya:

In the mythical land known as “Islamic State” (none exists, so I called it mythical), the government is supposed to run on Islamic principles, instituting Islamic law, Islamic judges and so forth, and securing the freedom of religion for the population.

If there are groups of non-Muslims living in that society, they are encouraged to establish their own court systems so they can rule by their own laws, instead of bowing to Islamic courts with which they might disagree. In this way, they are not forced to follow Islamic law if they are not Muslims, provided they’ve established their own laws and courts.

Also, the Islamic state is responsible for raising an army to defend itself. That’s what countries still do today, in case you didn’t notice–they have armies and militaries to defend themselves or sometimes even to attack others. An Islamic State (mythical, remember) would also have an army. Muslims would be obligated to serve in it if necessary, to protect the population from any aggressor.

Because non-Muslims are not so religious obligated to serve in the army when the need arises, and because non-Muslims don’t pay mandatory charity to the poor and needy in the society, they instead pay a tax. Muslims, on the other hand, must be willing to go fight, and they also have to pay a portion of their wealth to the state. While non-Muslims simply pay a tax which is to be used for funding the military (which is protecting them from an aggressor because they are also part of the Islamic state).

That is what I understand about jizya. And I will appreciate if posters can refrain from making snide remarks regarding my intelligence or intentions.

First of all, I do not like the idea of disrespecting Muslims here. Our arguments will always center on our faith. Sometimes we get carried away.
I have asked Sister Amy about the “protection tax” and she offered a mythical Islamic State response which will create another question. Why mythical? In what sense the response has to be mythical and not real? On the other hand, Muslim Woman offered a story of an Army defending a Muslim State from aggression so that the non-Muslims will not be harmed. Therefore I now know that the protection money according to Sister Amy should be used based on a mythical Islamic State, while Muslim Woman said the protection tax should be paid to the Army who will defend the Islamic State from aggression.

I also asked Sister Amy about her fundamental rights honored in Islam. I have not received her response yet if that fundamental rights have any room for the Shariah Law?

She said that she had the free will as a Muslim to choose her religion. That I believe if she is outside of Saudi Arabia, the seat of the Muslim faith. I respect her choice anyhow.

 

[ralphinal]

A note on jizya:

In the mythical land known as “Islamic State” (none exists, so I called it mythical), the government is supposed to run on Islamic principles, instituting Islamic law, Islamic judges and so forth, and securing the freedom of religion for the population.

It would be a time consuming topic, but we might consider discussing why existing Islamic Theocracies are not Islamic States, or even if it is possible for one to exist.

If there are groups of non-Muslims living in that society, they are encouraged to establish their own court systems so they can rule by their own laws, instead of bowing to Islamic courts with which they might disagree. In this way, they are not forced to follow Islamic law if they are not Muslims, provided they’ve established their own laws and courts.

And that looks possible. Tell me, would they be able to eat what they want or wear what they want as well?

Also, the Islamic state is responsible for raising an army to defend itself. That’s what countries still do today, in case you didn’t notice–they have armies and militaries to defend themselves or sometimes even to attack others. An Islamic State (mythical, remember) would also have an army. Muslims would be obligated to serve in it if necessary, to protect the population from any aggressor.

Not an issue.

Because non-Muslims are not so religious obligated to serve in the army when the need arises, and because non-Muslims don’t pay mandatory charity to the poor and needy in the society, they instead pay a tax. Muslims, on the other hand, must be willing to go fight, and they also have to pay a portion of their wealth to the state. While non-Muslims simply pay a tax which is to be used for funding the military (which is protecting them from an aggressor because they are also part of the Islamic state).

Again, not really an issue

That is what I understand about jizya. And I will appreciate if posters can refrain from making snide remarks regarding my intelligence or intentions.

Assuming that the state could exist, I do have questions. When collecting the tax, are there proceedures? Would we be allowed to have crosses and eat pork? Drink alcohol? Build churches? Impose penalties different than Islam? For example, must adultry be a capitol offence?

 

[inJESUS]

If the Sharia is the Utopia and Allah delights in it, i wonder why it doesn’t exist despite islamic efforts.

 

[Reuben_J]

If the Sharia is the Utopia and Allah delights in it, i wonder why it doesn’t exist despite islamic efforts.

I also find it strange that there is no Islamic state in existence. Yet it does happen that harsh earthly punishment is meted out for crime that’s committed between man and Allah as if the judges know what is in the hearts of men (and women).

 

[inJESUS]

I also find it strange that there is no Islamic state in existence. Yet it does happen that harsh earthly punishment is meted out for crime that’s committed between man and Allah as if the judges know what is in the hearts of men (and women).

i don’t know if the judges who condemn people to death should be considered sinless in Islam, otherwise sinful people will be condemning sinful people to death and this is what i don’t understand . They tell you these are horrible crimes that may ruins houses, but then i wonder what is the punishment of the man/woman who ruins a dozen house with their tongue? the answer is “punishment after death” but what if they repent? no punishment…so mercy…yet adulerous men/women should be put to death as if there is no room for their repentance…but where is mercy? why should be the adulterous in mind who ruins people’s houses live as if nothing happened and has room for repentance and if a woman once commits adultry, stone her?

the Bible says the wages of sin is death, but let the sinless cast the first stone. The OT makes it clear that sins deserve death, but the same OT makes it almost impossible to carry the capital punishment according to the Talmud and Jesus explained that he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, and no one did because no sinful man has the right to kill another man in the name of righteousness when he is guilty with the sins as well. The offenses of capital punishments are : murder, rape, adultry, idolatry, kidnapping, occult, homosexuality,pre-marital sex, bestiality, blasphemy, not observing the Sabbath, slandering parents. Who would be left to pull the switch?

Rabbi Dan Polish says:

While the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation–and the Talmud nearly drove the executioner to extinction.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [more than] one person in 70 years [would be denoted as a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.”

There are many restrictions on the evidence admissible in capital cases, and unless a warning (hatra’ah) was given (to ascertain the offender’s intent), a verdict of “guilty” could not be passed. In addition, the process had to be witnessed by two unrelated witnesses, and the timing of the warning (several seconds before the act) was crucial.

Muhammad, again, picked and chose without understanding neither the OT nor Jesus’ words, like he picked the camel and forbid the pork meat as if the OT bases it on animal dislike. Then he picked some capital punishment and again without knowing the impediments on their application so we see him asking for hands to be chopped and women to be stoned yet he allowed for himself what he did not allow for others.

I read a book of a French woman who was totally lost…she lead a very sinful life and knew nothing about religion…she was at the point of commiting suicide when she encountered a vision of the Lord that changed her life completely. The woman ended up a missionary in Lebanon, feeding and sheltering and teaching children during the wars and later became a monk . No such thing would have existed if killed under Islamic sharia. Just a simple example like this shows the weakness of Islamic arguments about Justice and mercy when both seem to be used arbitrary.

 

[inJESUS]

I also find it strange that there is no Islamic state in existence. Yet it does happen that harsh earthly punishment is meted out for crime that’s committed between man and Allah as if the judges know what is in the hearts of men (and women).

the Jewish temple was destroyed and Jews cannot apply all their laws, the Caliphate in Islam is destoyed and Muslims haven’t been able to live their laws for centuries and won’t be as many tried to restore the Caliphate and failed and are still failing by God’s grace…yet Allah says he “perfected” the Arab’s religion, a perfection not seen for thousands of years…unless i missed something.

As to hearts of men/woman, you surely heard of pharisic legalism…what matters is the appearance, leave the intentions aside as the woman must be stoned regadless of anything…she is a “threat” to the ummah but a woman who seduces a married Muslim man which might lead to him divorcing his first wife is not a threat to families but a “bliss” to men.

 

[Sister_Amy]

First of all, I do not like the idea of disrespecting Muslims here. Our arguments will always center on our faith. Sometimes we get carried away.
I have asked Sister Amy about the “protection tax” and she offered a mythical Islamic State response which will create another question. Why mythical? In what sense the response has to be mythical and not real? On the other hand, Muslim Woman offered a story of an Army defending a Muslim State from aggression so that the non-Muslims will not be harmed. Therefore I now know that the protection money according to Sister Amy should be used based on a mythical Islamic State, while Muslim Woman said the protection tax should be paid to the Army who will defend the Islamic State from aggression.

I understand the money is to go to the army which would protect the Islamic state.

The reason I referred to an Islamic state as being “mythical” is that one does not exist today. There are 56 Muslim countries and no Islamic state. The distinction is based on the structure of the government, that it doesn’t abide by Islamic principles. Most countries will incorporate varying degrees of Islamic Law into their governance (1% in Turkey, maybe 80% in Saudia) but they do not rely on it exclusively. There has been no Islamic state since 1917. So nowhere should anybody be paying jizya.

I also asked Sister Amy about her fundamental rights honored in Islam. I have not received her response yet if that fundamental rights have any room for the Shariah Law?

I really don’t understand this question at all. The point of Shari’ah is to protect and honor fundamental rights. To protect rights is exactly why it is instituted.

She said that she had the free will as a Muslim to choose her religion. That I believe if she is outside of Saudi Arabia, the seat of the Muslim faith. I respect her choice anyhow.

Okay then.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It would be a time consuming topic, but we might consider discussing why existing Islamic Theocracies are not Islamic States, or even if it is possible for one to exist.

Of course it is possible for an Islamic state to exist, no matter how flawed it might be. The fact I was attempting to underscore however is that no Islamic state exists today. None has since 1917. The countries in existence today might incorporate parts of Islamic law but they do not depend on it entirely, instead favoring models of governance which are at odds with Islamic Law. But ultimately the matter is subjective and not conducive to this kind of discussion–there is no enumerated standard which we can check to see if a country qualifies. Yet the scholars of Islam are in agreement that there is no islamic state in the world today.

And that looks possible. Tell me, would they be able to eat what they want or wear what they want as well?

Yes

Assuming that the state could exist, I do have questions. When collecting the tax, are there proceedures? Would we be allowed to have crosses and eat pork? Drink alcohol? Build churches? Impose penalties different than Islam? For example, must adultry be a capitol offence?

Have crosses? Yes. Eat pork? Yes. Drink alcohol? Yes (although there might be a provision like it has to be done in private… I dunno.) Build churches–ABSOLUTELY! Impose different penalties than Islam, sure. The point is that the court system should really (or maybe ideally) be based on Christian law. So consult your own scriptures to determine whether adultery is or isn’t a capital offense, but indeed that is the point of the court system which ought to be established, with judges who are capable of interpreting their own laws.

 

[Sister_Amy]

If the Sharia is the Utopia and Allah delights in it, i wonder why it doesn’t exist despite islamic efforts.

Shari’ah means Islamic Law, and it does exist.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I also find it strange that there is no Islamic state in existence. Yet it does happen that harsh earthly punishment is meted out for crime that’s committed between man and Allah as if the judges know what is in the hearts of men (and women).

Earthly punishment is for acts of the limbs, not the condition of the heart.

 

[inJESUS]

There has been no Islamic state since 1917…

can you explain please? which country applied the sharia 100% and when?

 

[inJESUS]

Shari’ah means Islamic Law, and it does exist.

isn’t an Islamic state a country that abides fullly by the sharia? i know the sharia exists in extents, but i am sking about a country that can be called rightfully Islamic state applying the Sharia as intended.

 

[rikkk1958]

Sister Amy pointed out that the Shariah Law protects the fundamental rights of the individual. I guess she is referring to protecting the individual for committing unruly behaviour because that individual is afraid of the Shariah Law. Did I get it right?