A must read!
Content:
1. Introduction
2. Background Of Quran 9:29
3. Rebuttal
4. Conclusion
1. Introduction
Glen Roberts, who runs the site “The Religion Of Peace” has written a further article on the Quranic verse, 9:29. Glen devoted an article to our piece on 9:29 not long ago, which can be seen here: “Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29”. Then we wrote an article back in response to his claims, which can be seen here: “Surah 9:29 – Tabuk | Response To ‘Religion Of Peace’”. He has returned with another piece, this time trying to respond to the evidences we presented. Most of the claims he made are either misrepresentations of what we wrote or at times he deliberately misleads his readers. Much of the article he has written is his own commentary, rather than presenting historical…
View original post 7,963 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
As always Brother Kaleef goes with detail refutation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another great article and response by brother Karim and DTT.
Is it too much to ask for the critics of Islam, to at least be honest about facts? It seems that they cannot build a case against Islam without resorting to deceit, misportrayals, misinterpretations, cherry-picking, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The upshot is that the quran is incomplete and unclear.
This “word of allah” requires outside, man-made sources in order to be understood. Why couldn’t allah say all of this is the book itself?\
The answer is that the quran is a bunch of man made nonsense.
LikeLike
I already feel the escalation coming….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s always the crosstians that start the insulting comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SOME VERY IMPORTANT POINTS THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE EMPHASIZED:
If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them! Since when they give jizya it is prohibited to fight them, but they are still abiding to their unbelief. Now, is the justification for war being an unbeliever and not paying jizya? The answer is again no, since all jurists agree that jizya is not taken from women, children, the old, …etc So if the reason for war was being an unbeliever + not paying jizya then jizya would have been taken from women, children, the old …etc So the only remaining option is that the cause of war that can be concluded from Q.9:29 is that it is ḥirāba, a term that comes from the noun ḥarb meaning war, wwhich basically means the ‘intent of waging war’. Hence Q.9:29 is in line with the Islamic justification of war: the vast majority of jurists, from Hanbalis, Malikis, al-Shafi’i in one opinion, and Hanafis as well as in Twelver Shi’ism, state, that the justification of war is ḥirāba and not unbelief in itself. And as the verse Q.9:13 preceding Q.9:29 makes it clear:
How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.
Qurʾān – 9:13
And the attestation to that is that Q.9:29 was revealed after an aggression: The very early exegete, Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 104H) explained that this fighting was revealed in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s (ﷺ) campaign against the Byzantine empire. The Prophet ﷺ sent al-Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi as an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain Shurahbeel committed the shocking crime of tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army was dispatched to confront the Ghassanids for their crime, the Vicarius Theodorus summoned a large force of Roman soldiers to engage in war against the Muslims in the Battle of Mu’tah. Thus, this verse was revealed in regards to fighting within an existing war against an enemy political entity, namely the Byzantine empire, which lead to preparations for the expedition of Tabuk.
An important remark by the great scholar al-Buti:
الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين … فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.
The verse [Q. 9:29] commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heathcliff is that you?
LikeLike
@Shaad
No, I’m a different person 🙂
LikeLike
AJP
“The answer is again no, since all jurists agree that jizya is not taken from women, children, the old, …etc “
You have got to be kidding me right? ARe you really that dense?
So your profit and goat command that christians and jews pay 25% of their income in a discriminatory tax, and you claim that this somehow is “not taking” from the women and children in the families who are forced to cough up this huge portion of income?
You really are a piece of work.
Your profit and his hairy god sound like mafia extorting protection money. How can you worship such a creature, and how can you follow the example of such a gangsta?
“How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.”
Incredibly vague here. YOu think that you should go to war for “oath breaking”? The US should bomb those countries that “broke their oaths” by trading with Iran when they agreed on an embargo?
Yes, you really are a piece of work.
Yet, as I said, your holey book is dependent on man made sources to give it context – there is absolutely nothing in the text that shows your allah is calling for anything other than all out war on disbelievers.
If you disagree, then please show me where in the text it says otherwise.
LikeLike
Wait wait wait wait wait….seems there’s a confusion here, first things first, Joel can you please tell me where you got this percentage bro?
LikeLike
@Joel
It’s very clear that you didn’t get this simple logistic argument so let me break it even further for you:
1. Assume that the justification for war in Islam is disbelief + not paying jizya.
2. Therefore, with that assumption, non-Muslim women, children, monks, old, .. should be paying it.
3. But all Muslim jurists agree that this is not the case based on Prophetic and the four Rightly-Guided caliphs’ precedent.
4. Therefore the justification for war in Islam can’t be disbelief + not paying jizya.
I already showed the other argument that shows that similarly it can’t be disbelief, so the only remaining option is ḥirāba (intent of waging war) and that’s exactly the opinion of the scholars from Hanbalis, Malikis, al-Shafi’i in one opinion, and Hanafis as well as in Twelver Shi’ism.
Also the jizya was never at a 25% rate.
LikeLike
AJP
Thanks for breaking down your poor argument.
Your quran – the word of your god – is dependent on the written works of men to give it context and meaning.
That aside, given that women, children and the elderly are unlikely to be in the job market at the time of mohammed, your point is nonsense.
The men who would be supporting these exempt groups would have to take wealth that should have rightly gone to their upkeep and hand it over to oppressive islamic authorities.
It isn’t hard – if you extort money from earners, the people that the earner is working for lose those earnings.
This is further evidence that the god you worship is not a god at all – it is simple “logistic” that if you extort money from the breadwinner of the family, then you are taking from those who are dependent on that breadwinner. In other words, allah and his messenger taught an internally contradictory practice that even a child could see through.
LikeLike
Joel,
You clearly did not even understand the breakdown of the argument.
Also if necessary part of the Jizya can be returned in the form of Zakat to help the poor, children, elderly, indigent, etc. even among those who are non-Muslims as long as they are friendly to the Muslim community, and not enemies.
LikeLike
Joel, you wrote
“Your quran – the word of your god – is dependent on the written works of men to give it context and meaning.”
If you have even a 1% of knowledge in regards to the Quran, you would know that the Prophet is the explainer and teacher of the Quran. See Quran 16:44.
“That aside, given that women, children and the elderly are unlikely to be in the job market at the time of mohammed, your point is nonsense.”
A lot of women used to work in the life time of the Prophet. Khadija, the Prophet’s wife is a good example. Your argument is thus refuted.
LikeLike
ibn
“You clearly did not even understand the breakdown of the argument.
Also if necessary part of the Jizya can be returned in the form of Zakat to help the poor, children, elderly, indigent, etc. even among those who are non-Muslims as long as they are friendly to the Muslim community, and not enemies.”
You are a bigot, your profit was a bigot and your god was incapable of logical reasoning.
Would you think it fair if we made muslims pay a “muslim tax” that did not apply to anyone else? Maybe we should start applying some of these sharia prejudices to muslims themselves?
Your god failed to understand the ramifications of his law – if you take money from a breadwinner, then you are necessarily taking it away from those he is breadwinning for. It really isn’t hard, ibn, your god causes hardship and poverty for his created beings.
He’s a monster.
LikeLike
flying
“If you have even a 1% of knowledge in regards to the Quran, you would know that the Prophet is the explainer and teacher of the Quran. See Quran 16:44.”
LOL!!
Surah 16:44 is vague. It makes no mention by name of subsequent man made works that would be required to explain the word of allah. The plain reading is that your god imparted some written materials – which seem to have been subsequently lost.
Worse still for you is that 16:44 supports my point – the quran claims to be clear, yet muslims like yourself need to add to it to give it context, meaning, and value. In other words, the quran is wrong about itself, and it is absolutely and undeniably reliant on outside, man made sources to give it context.
“A lot of women used to work in the life time of the Prophet. Khadija, the Prophet’s wife is a good example. Your argument is thus refuted.”
Classic – a bold-faced assertion followed by a stupidly triumphant claim of refutation. LOL!!
Most women did not work at that time because they were raising kids – khadijah worked because she was widowed and had no other means of supporting her brood of offspring.
You are, thus, refuted.
LikeLike
@Joel
You couldn’t even understand my breakdown of that already simple argument, nowhere in that argument do we need to know the reason why jizya wasn’t taken from them…
LikeLike
AJP
“You couldn’t even understand my breakdown of that already simple argument, nowhere in that argument do we need to know the reason why jizya wasn’t taken from them…”
Wut? What are you even talking about? Your argument is irrelevant. My points stand: your holey book is reliant on human commentary to make sense of it and give it context, and jizya causes suffering amongst children, the sick, the elderly, and women even when they don;t have to directly provide the funds to pay the evil, discriminatory jizya tax.
LikeLike
Joel
Wut? What are you even talking about? Your argument is irrelevant. My points stand: your holey book is reliant on human commentary to make sense of it and give it context, and jizya causes suffering amongst children, the sick, the elderly, and women even when they don;t have to directly provide the funds to pay the evil, discriminatory jizya tax.
I say;
Idiot. Hybrid creature worshiper like you will not understand the truth, fact and history because Islam has come to correct you from you idol worship and from polytheism.
It is a fact that non Muslims flourished under Muslim rule and only fools like you will deny that. All Jews including Zionist Jews learn the history of Muslims saving them from wicked Christians who would have exterminated them. If Jizya tax is bad as you think, all their(Jews and Christians) would have died without living to tell their children the story.
This is a Zionist Jew telling you the Jizya tax did not harm his ancestors.
Thanks.
LikeLike
You left out verse 14, in the context of Surah 9:
“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people”
Some Muslims today take Surah 9:30 and see it is connected to verses 28-29 and see themselves as carrying out “Allah’s curse be upon them”.
Surah 9:29 does not say, “fight the people of the book because they oppress each other” (Byzantines/Chalcedonian Creed vs. Monophysite Copts, Jacobite Syrians and Armenians; and Nestorians vs. Zoroastrian Persia).
Neither does it say here anything about the Battle of Mu’ta (629 AD) (which was the battle that resulted from the killing of Al Harith, the emissary to the Ghassanids, according to Islamic sources), or the expedition of Tabuk (630 AD – no garrisons or soilders were found, so it seems that they waited until 636 to carry out the verses, but it does seem that Omar and Khalid applied the verse and attacked the Byzantines first at the Battle of Yarmouk ( 636 AD).
It says “fight them because of their beliefs and practices” and verse 28 and 29 indicates that Allah will make them rich by the jiziye tax that they will get from the Christians and Jews. So the attacks of Umar Ibn Al Kattab and the Jihads of the Muslims after that were all unjust. Later, the Copts and Syrians and other minorities could not complain because of fear of persecution and violence, and it was too late. As one Coptic Christian Evangelical said to me, “The Muslims deceived my people at the beginning; for later it became worse.” The minority Christians slowly converted to Islam over the centuries because of the economic and social pressures of being “Dhimmi” – really, it amounted to being a second class citizen.
What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.
Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”
LikeLike
@Ken Temple
I addressed your misunderstandings above:
If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them! Since when they give jizya it is prohibited to fight them, but they are still abiding to their unbelief. Now, is the justification for war being an unbeliever and not paying jizya? The answer is again no, since all jurists agree that jizya is not taken from women, children, the old, …etc So if the reason for war was being an unbeliever + not paying jizya then jizya would have been taken from women, children, the old …etc So the only remaining option is that the cause of war that can be concluded from Q.9:29 is that it is ḥirāba, a term that comes from the noun ḥarb meaning war, wwhich basically means the ‘intent of waging war’. Hence Q.9:29 is in line with the Islamic justification of war: the vast majority of jurists, from Hanbalis, Malikis, al-Shafi’i in one opinion, and Hanafis as well as in Twelver Shi’ism, state, that the justification of war is ḥirāba and not unbelief in itself. And as the verse Q.9:13 preceding Q.9:29 makes it clear:
How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.
Qurʾān – 9:13
And the attestation to that is that Q.9:29 was revealed after an aggression: The very early exegete, Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 104H) explained that this fighting was revealed in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s (ﷺ) campaign against the Byzantine empire. The Prophet ﷺ sent al-Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi as an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain Shurahbeel committed the shocking crime of tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army was dispatched to confront the Ghassanids for their crime, the Vicarius Theodorus summoned a large force of Roman soldiers to engage in war against the Muslims in the Battle of Mu’tah. Thus, this verse was revealed in regards to fighting within an existing war against an enemy political entity, namely the Byzantine empire, which lead to preparations for the expedition of Tabuk.
An important remark by the great scholar al-Buti:
الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين … فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.
The verse [Q. 9:29] commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.
LikeLike
If we can believe the bias sources about Al Harith and the Ghassanids, the issue was settled by the battle of Mu’ta. That no garrisons were found later in the expedition of Tabuk should have finished the matter, if that is the context.
It was wrong to hold the whole Byzantine empire at fault for what the Ghassanids did (even it is true that they did that). What Umar did was unjust and wrong to wage all out war against both Byzantine and Persia – the words for fighting and slaying and killing – from the same Q-T-L root – قتل – in Farsi, this Arabic word is the word for “murder”, “killing”, in the 10 commandments. “Do not murder” قتل مکن (Farsi)
LikeLike
Ken Temple,
“That no garrisons were found later in the expedition of Tabuk should have finished the matter, if that is the context.”
Could you give us ONE authentic Hadith where it says that no Byzantine was there at Tabuk? As far as history is concerned, nearly every single source on this incident tells us that the Byzantine (Roman) army was there, but they left the area when they found out that the Muslims are coming heading towards them.
LikeLike
If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them!
That is what is says: “fight those of the people of the book who do not believe in Allah [ Muslims can interpret our believe in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity as just that, and do] , nor forbid what Allah forbids [ like pork and wine] UNTIL they submit and pay the Jiziye.”
History shows that the Muslims, from Umar onward, accepted the Jiziye from the Christian and Jewish communities that were left that wanted to hold onto their religion but agree not to evangelize, not to build new churches, and not to criticize Islam, etc. – Dhimmi principles started with Pact of Umar 1 (second Caliph, 634-644 AD) and developed into Pact of Umar 2 (Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz in 717-720 AD).
Also, with Surah 9:28, it is obvious that they wanted to get money – “if you fear poverty, Allah will soon reward you”
Seems obvious as to why Umar attacked and the commentary by Ibn Kathir proves this.
LikeLike
> the words for fighting and slaying and killing – from the same Q-T-L root – قتل – in Farsi, this Arabic word is the word for “murder”, “killing”, in the 10 commandments. “Do not murder” قتل مکن (Farsi)
How does the fact that they share the same root disprove their difference as explained by al-Buti?
>> If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them!
>
> That is what is says
It says that if they submit and agree to pay the jizya then they shouldn’t be fought, which in turn implies what I wrote above. Do you understand this simple logical deduction or should I clarify even further?
> Dhimmi principles started with Pact of Umar 1
Can you give me a single authentic isnad for this fabricated “Pact of Umar” that you’re ascribing to the caliph Umar b. al-Khattab? The very same Umar who said in his death bed – after having been stabbed by a dhimmi – that the next caliph should “abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of God and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not overburden them beyond their capabilities”
LikeLiked by 2 people
It was developed further under a different Caliph, Umar 2 – Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz – from 717-720 AD – the Dhimmi principles were expanded and developed from Umar 1 to Umar 2. Those are from your sources, not ours.
A totally unjust and ugly system.
LikeLike
“Although unlikely to have been written by Umar I (the second of the “rightly guided Caliphs”) – and thus many apologists call it “unauthentic”, it is “authentic” in the sense that many Muslim sources (e.g. see above) use the same or similar terms in outlining dhimmah contracts for non-Muslims.
When we consider evidence from a range of Muslim and non-Muslim sources (you can also find such sources quoted on pro-Islam websites) we find that the key conditions of the Pact are supported. This, I think, tends to confirm the veracity (if not the literary authenticity) of the Pact beyond all reasonable doubt.
A fairly quick reading of the various mandatory conditions shows that any “insult” to Islam is a breach of the Dhimmah, as is any proselytisation or “harm” (of any kind) to a Muslim (although Abul Kasim’s list does not explicitly include Insult to Islam/Mohammed/Allah, this might be construed from item#4).
In addition to the conditions of the Pact, the dhimmi also had to pay the Jizya.
The Jizya
In addition to the mandatory laws of the Dhimmah (which varied from place to place and across time in minor ways) another way in which a “Dhimmi” could put himself outside the law was by the failure to pay the Jizya – a special head-tax levied solely on non-Muslim minorities. Of the four main Sunni schools, those of Malik, Shafe’i, and Hanbal hold that failure to pay the poll-tax deprives them of protection.
The Jizya is often called a “poll-tax”, though this is a partial misnomer in that a “poll-tax” in western thought is usually something that has to be paid (where used) in order to become enfranchised – i.e. have political representation through voting rights. The dhimmi never has a say in who governs him (according to various Sharia law systems), thus a better understanding of “Jizya” is as a “head tax”, a sum payable “per head” of the dhimmi population since this reflects the manner in which it was levied – per head of able bodied male Kaffir is one typical levy system.
Although not in the conditions of these Dhimmah, the Jizya is established in the Koran and failure to pay this is also a breach of the Dhimmah (as confirmed by Malik, Shafe’i, and Hanbal), which renders the person not paying (or the community as a whole, less often) liable to be treated as “people of defiance and rebellion”; which in turn means that the life and property of the “outlaw” (i.e. the person/people in breach of their dhimmah) is “fair game” for the Muslims.
Being a little cynical, describing the jizya as a “head-tax” is entirely apt, since it allows the Dhimmi to keep his head on his shoulders.
The Hedaya, a Hanafi Sharia law Manual has this to say…
“[The] capitation-tax [Jizya] is a sort of punishment inflicted upon infidels for their obstinacy in infidelity, (as was before stated;) whence it is that it cannot be accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner, by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing posture : (according to one tradition, the collector is to seize him by the throat, and shake him, saying, “Pay your tax, Zimmee!) It is therefore evident that capitation-tax is a punishment; … Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels, and a substitute for personal aid in respect to the Muslims, (as was before observed;) – but it is a substitute for destruction with regard to the future,”
Thus in the Hanifi school – which was the most liberal of the four with regard to Jizya – the Jizya is clearly identified as a “humiliation” and a “substitute for destruction”. Thus we can see who it primarily was the such “protected persons” as Dhimmis were actually protected from. In other words: Jizya is a protection racket and if you don’t pay you will be killed.
One renowned modern Muslim commentator, S. Abul A’la Mawdudi writes:
“They [Jews and Christians] should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.”(Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, 1993 edition, vol 2, page 183.)”
Jon MC
LikeLike
Ken Temple,
That is a lot of nonsense. A lot of copy-pasting from Anti-Islam sites. You can cherry-pick any scholar you want to give the worst interpretation for Islam’s holy book. I challenge you to show me ONE single authenic hadith where the Prophet himself humiliated those who paid Jizya. One will be enough.
We will be writing an article very soon on Jizya and how it was applied in history, we will bury your lies once and for all, God willing.
LikeLike
the verse itself in Surah 9:29 uses a word that is all about humiliation. صغرون
LikeLike
The very source you quoted this propaganda from states that it was “unlikely” to have been written by Umar the First:
“My Commentary on the Pact of Umar:
Although unlikely to have been written by Umar”
But only accepts it because some “scholars” in history accepted it.
LikeLike
Yes, I freely admit and understand that – that is why I included it – it was developed by later Muslim scholars and Jurists and the many quotes by Muslim scholars demonstrate this – it was from Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz Caliphate time. (717-720 AD) and even developed beyond that in more details.
LikeLike
We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
LikeLike
“According to ibn Hazm (994-1064 AD) circa. 350 years after Mohammed:
“These are the Rules and Regulations that were imposed by ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattab on the Christians of Syria, after conquering their land. The purpose of these rules was to make them submissive and contemptible. Christians were in no way to exhibit any sign of their unbelief, or anything forbidden in Islam; since Allah, the supremely Glorified and Honoured, had said:
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (K8:39).
“They are forbidden to build churches, or monasteries, in their cities or nearby areas. They are not allowed to renovate such buildings. They must allow any Muslim to lodge in these buildings for three nights, and provide him with food. They must never shelter a spy, nor show any duplicity to Muslims. They are not to teach their children the Qur’an. They must not display any sign of their unbelief, or forbid their relatives from converting freely to Islam. Furthermore, they must show reverence to Muslims, and give them pride of place at their assemblies. They should avoid appearing like Muslims in their clothing, their head covers, their shoes, and the parting of their hair. They must not speak the language of Muslims, nor use their names. They are not allowed to use a saddle on a beast of burden, nor bear a sword, nor any other weapon. Their rings must not bear any Arabic inscriptions. They must refrain from selling wine. They must have the front of their hair cut, and wear their own kind of clothing all the time, and must use belts. They are not to display a cross or any of their books, as they are passing Muslims on their way. Their dead must not be buried nearby a Muslim cemetery. They should not ring their bells in a loud manner; equally, they must not raise their voices while reading their Scriptures in their churches. They are forbidden to parade their palm branches (on Palm Sunday.)
Now should Christians ever deviate from obeying these rules, Muslims would cease to honour the covenant that had protected them. In that case, Muslims can deal with them as if they have become people of discord and trouble [fitnah].”
According to a legal treatise composed by the great Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf (d. 798), Caliph Umar II Caliph (717-720 AD), thus not the Umar (supposedly) quoted above, wrote the following to one of his governors, who seems to have become a little lax …
“…do not allow any cross to be exhibited without smashing and destroying it; no Jew or Christian may be allowed to ride upon a saddle, but must use a pack-saddle, and let none of their womenfolk use a padded saddle, but only a pack-saddle; formal decrees must be issued in this respect and the public restricted from disobeying them. No Christian may wear a kaba, nor a fine cloth nor a turban! It has been reported to me that several Christians under your jurisdiction have relapsed into the custom of wearing turbans, no longer wear belts at the waist, and let their hair grow freely without cutting it. Upon my life! if this happens in your entourage, it is on account of your weakness, your incompetence, and the flatteries that you heed, and these people know, in resuming their former customs, what kind of person you are. Keep a watch on all I have forbidden and do not contradict those who have done it. Peace.”
As can be seen, the things that Umar II is objecting to are items found within the Pact(s) of Umar above.”
Jon MC
LikeLike
The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule.
From the Tafseer of Ibn-Kathir (1301–1373) circa. 700 years after Mohammed:
[Sahih] Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salaam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab [the second of the “Rightly guided Caliphs” and one of Mohammed’s contemporaries], may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.
The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari [died 78AH/697 A.D.] that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab , may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham:
`In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion.
We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration, nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passer-by. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.
We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.
We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicise practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk [i.e. proselytise for Christianity] or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.
We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.
We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor.
We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.
We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.
We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’
When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, ‘We will not beat any Muslim.’
These are the conditions that we [the Christians] set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’
LikeLike
@Ken Temple
As expected, you couldn’t provide a single authentic isnad of this “Pact of Umar” to the caliph ‘Umar b. al-Khattab. Many thanks for confirming my position.
(By the way in some version of the pacts it’s the Christians themselves who set out those harsh conditions on them, how can you claim that this is historically reliable is beyond me.)
LikeLike
Later Muslim Jurists wrote it and developed it, based on Umar 1’s pact and developed to Umar 2, and the quotes provide lots of Muslim Jurists and scholars who agreed.
LikeLike
Ken Temple,
////”[Sahih] Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salaam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.”////
This Hadith was uttered in relation to Banu Qurayzah tribe, it has nothing whatsoever to do with dhimmis (even though some scholars may have misused it):
https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/05/05/hadith-do-not-greet-jews-force-them-to-narrow-road-explained/
LikeLike
Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf (d. 798),
Caliph Umar II Caliph (717-720 AD),
Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hazm
Abul A’la Mawdudi
These are all significant Muslim scholars and Jurists (Fiq) and they all believed they were interpreting the Qur’an and basing their opinions on the original conquering of Omar Ibn Al Khattab.
Once the Muslims got power over everything, in military and political sucess and unjust conquering – they could do whatever they wanted to, and it sure seems like they did, wearing down the Christians and Jews into little non-significant groups with not much rights to do much of anything.
Many converted to Islam because those rules put on them wore them down slowly over the centuries.
LikeLike
So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews?
‘Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth.’
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/so-what-did-the-muslims-do-for-the-jews-1.33597
Article by David J Wasserstein, Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University.
LikeLike
In the west, the Ottomans accepted the Jews from Spain and other parts of the Roman Catholic Europe and the evil methods of the Spanish Inquisition – I agree that Islam was more compassionate and “saved Jewry” at that time. (1400s-1500s)
LikeLike
@Ken Temple
> Later Muslim Jurists wrote it and developed it, based on Umar 1’s pact
You’re again ascribing this pact to ‘Umar b. al-Khattab when there’s not a single authentic isnad that links it to him.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Many converted to Islam because those rules put on them wore them down slowly over the centuries.
I say;
Don’t attribute conversion to Islam to Jizya-Tax. Why are Christians making tax a boogyman because it is administered by Muslims?
Many Christians and Jews did not convert to Islam and they are still were there were today without converting to Islam and no one forced them. The Jews flourished under Muslim rule despite paying their taxes-Jizya.
Under Muslim rule, there were so many rich non Muslims while still paying their taxes-Jizya. There were many poor Muslims as well. It is disingenuous to believe Jizya-tax makes Christians and Jews poor under Muslim rule.
USA collects tax every year to help the country and the poor. Why is it bad for Muslims to collect tax? Do you want the Jews and Christians not to pay tax?
Or do you want Muslims to change the name of their tax system from Jizya to tax? Or do you want non Muslims to pay zakat every 3 months, about 1% or more of their total wealth every year? Then mandatory contribution from Muslim wealthy people to help the country? Muslims have a lot of taxes to pay than the Jizya but Ken Temple and other missionaries would like to make it bad.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Intellect
What people are missing is two things:
1. In the Islamic conception, taxes above zakat aren’t lawful unless they have a specific reason that benefits the whole community, so when jizya is taken from the ahl al-dhimma it’s because of a reason that they benefit from it, which is that (1) they receive stipends from bayt al-mal (public treasury) for their poor, (2) they’re exempt from military service, (3) they’re assured of being protected by Muslims from any external of internal threat.
2. There are actually two types of jizya: jizya sulhiyah = defined as the tax that is collected from non-Muslims when they sign a peace treaty, its amount, name, exemptions… etc are all determined by mutual agreement. jizya ‘anwiyah = defined as the tax that is taken from combatants after overcoming them in war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the combination with all those other rules that were developed under Omar 2 and beyond – Christians were not allowed to evangelize or debate with Muslims or criticize Islam (even in a respectful manner) build new churches, etc. – total lack of freedom and actually means that Muslims did not give freedom of religion.
There is no way of knowing if the taxes were even fair, as Islam did not allow freedom of thought – as evidenced by how Saudi Arabia, Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan operate, etc. – it was a totally unjust system.
LikeLike