What was the logic behind taking jizya from Dhimmis (Non-Muslims). It has been considered as an extra burden on Non-Muslims. Many Muslim rulers including (Aurangzeb) had been detested for levying Jizya.
What is the basis for receiving such amounts from Non-Muslims as per Quran and Ahadees?
Was this levy compulsory to be levied and there are no exceptions / exemptions?
Was it more than the amount Muslims had to pay in respect of Zakaat and Ushr & Usheer?
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
My understanding is that muslims were required to pay zakaat and encouraged to do sadaqa. Additionally, they were required to fight in wars. The non-muslims were exempt from fighting and therefore required to pay a tax for the protection they received from the muslim state.
The above is for the early state established in Arabia. I'm not sure about Aurangzeb's time but can't see any valid reason for him to levy this tax.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
To phrase it modern terms ....
In an Islamic state, every Muslim is in theory subject to conscription and obligated to comply with it if called because to fight for the state is to fight for Allah SWT. The state, which acts in place of Allah SWT on earth, expects Muslims to risk their life for Allah.
Non-muslim citizens are exempted from the obligation to fight. There is no expectation for non-muslims citizens of an Islamic to be willing to put their lives on the line for Allah.
However, in return, they are expected to put their money on the line instead.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
So historically, were non Muslims kept away from fights. If we take example of Auranghzaeb, he had many Hindu officials at main positions, who might have fight for him including his fights against Shiva Ji.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
So historically, were non Muslims kept away from fights. If we take example of Auranghzaeb, he had many Hindu officials at main positions, who might have fight for him including his fights against Shiva Ji.
Non muslims who participated in fights were normaly exempted from giving jizya
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
If we look at it the other way round non-Muslims not paying tax would have an advantage over Muslims who pay zakat - zakat caps savings so the tax would do the same.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
peace psyah
As the Zakat was obligatory for Muslims, Non Muslims (e.g. Hindus) were also supposed to pay such obligation as per their religion (e.g. in form of mannat, chadhawa on Mandir, etc). On the other hand Zakat is 2.5% of your net assets, what was the rate for Jizya? Apparently it seems to be on higher side, considering the controversies and disliking for the rulers who levied it.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
peace psyah
As the Zakat was obligatory for Muslims, Non Muslims (e.g. Hindus) were also supposed to pay such obligation as per their religion (e.g. in form of mannat, chadhawa on Mandir, etc). On the other hand Zakat is 2.5% of your net assets, what was the rate for Jizya? Apparently it seems to be on higher side, considering the controversies and disliking for the rulers who levied it.
If jizya was higher ... then it sort of encourages people to consider becoming Muslim at least for economic reasons ... Shari'ah promotes or facilitates the ease in becoming a Muslim.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
That makes it more controversial and a tool to conversion and other religion may consider it as intolerance by Muslims.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
That makes it more controversial and a tool to conversion and other religion may consider it as intolerance by Muslims.
Peace muqawwee123
It may well be the case ... some may consider not having "freedom of speech" yet "institutional dawah" as intolerance also ... but no one can argue that is the natural bias of a Shari'ah ...
Muslims aught to be good to each other, but also good to non-Muslims "as a tool for conversion" - It is not to say that the jizyah is unnecessary exploitation ... because compared to the 40% tax on income of today's standards - a small tax on savings rather than income is far fairer even if it is up to 50% tax on savings ... It is because income is not touched until savings are made.
Is it intolerance? I don't think so ... especially when you start to weigh out actual figures ... Is it intolerance to charge international students much more for their studies than local students? Is it discrimination to have people pass an English test to let them in the country?
Or perhaps you can consider jizyah in another context ... Assume there was a war and then there were slaves ... prisoners of war ... they pay a ransom to be set free ... or they are allowed freedom in the country so long as they pay their ransom money in installments ... consider that a jizyah ... when it comes to logic there are many ways to look at it. I don't feel any of them even if they give Islam a preference is unfair. It would be unfair if the state made them pay and didn't let them leave ... but people were free to leave that state.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
didn't jizyah also provide protection?
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
^ exactly
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Religion divides. It causes rifts.
You can come up whatever explanation. But separate taxes for separate religions. Division. Not healthy/
Religion divides. Religion poisons.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
lol says the sharaabee.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Religion divides. It causes rifts.
You can come up whatever explanation. But separate taxes for separate religions. Division. Not healthy/
Religion divides. Religion poisons.
Peace sharaabee
A few years back I would disgree, but not now ... I agree religion divides, but so does politics, sport, nationalism, racism, language and the list goes on ... The good thing about our religion is that the divide is kept civil and the form of conduct is compassion and understanding. There is no basis to demean another person - there are differences in conduct but these are explicitly understood by both parties.
Religion also unifies people just like others things can unify people, such as sport, music, etc, etc ... any driver to divide can also be a driver for unity it depends on how it is used.
What makes it silly is that people focus on the division caused by religion and the unity caused by other orders ...
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Do muslims pay zakat to non muslims?
if not then why would they pay extra tax. tax should be levied on everyone fairly and it should be only used for welfare of the society regardless of the religion.
jizya is an old arabic system which is more like protection money for non muslims.
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
muslims used to pay zakat directly to islamic government and welfare works were carried out for all the communities.........
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Non muslims who participated in fights were normaly exempted from giving jizya
So in other words, it was at discretion of rulers to exempt somebody from Jizya and there was no consensus of religious scholars on this issue?
Re: Jizya tax - What was the logic?
Peace there fluffmaster
Give me a break. Stop trying to defend this by bringing up divisions from sports and music. How often do we see jazz music lovers kill country music lovers?
Many religious folks including muslims view people from other religion in a negative way.. they think they are inferior and will go to hell..or that they will start from a disadvantage when they die and are facing the "heaven or hell" test. How many times do we hear the threat of "You'll see on judgement day" ?
There are way too many practices and rules in religion that divide society.. and that is simply unhealthy for today's globalized and multicultural world. That's it. It's just unhealthy.. it's just counterproductive in us trying to build a cohesive society.
Any religion that refuses to adapt to the changing world will have to come up with nonsense excuses for its primitive practices. Some of these rules or practices might have been genius moves back the but they simply dont make sense today. The problem is that religious rules and regulations are viewed as ACTUAL directions from an ACTUAL director and controller of the universe. This leads to the notion of "why should religion adapt? religion is forever. its applicable always and always".
If only we realized that religious rules and religious stories are all manmade fictitious notions used by scholars/warriors/sages of the past to control/guide the sheep population.
Christians have done a much better job in realizing some of the stuff in their books is just nonsense and backward... many of them are Christian today simply from a cultural perspective. I wish more Muslims did the same.
Don't bother typing up 10000 words in response. I have seen enough long posts full of circular logic and issue evasion from you to know your type.