Other religions in Arabian Peninsula (Split from "Ok to Azaan" thread)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *

Nope, it is an idiotic system. It needs to be abolished asap.
[/QUOTE]

yeah yeah, i know by now that most hindus begrudge indian muslims their seperate laws.

but nevertheless, they are there for the protection of the Muslim community, atleast in intent.

Therefore, your contention that any law that distinguishes between Muslims and non-Muslims in applicaiton is all that evil that you whine it is, is bull.

Zakat is a very specific term and it is specific to Muslims. As recognition of the non-muslims share in the community they give jizya.

shut it already.

First you asked about why non-muslims pay jizya. Then you wanted to become khalifa. Now you want to have a mandir in Jeddah. At the same time you want to abolish stupid laws in India. Might as well, start from India and work your way upwards :k: In other words, stick to one topic so we can thrash you properly. Right now, its becoming a four-some.

Isn't foursome haram?

Ravage, Hindus don;t begrudge muslims special laws. If that was the case, sikhs should have their laws and christians theirs. It is stupid appeasement. Civil code under secular rule should be universal. that is the stupidity. I cannot wait till the muslim code is thrown out.

Prism man..chanda, if you do not have lateral thinking capability blame your parents. it's genetic.

Muslim civil code and separate laws for minorites in the khilafah are the same idiocy on two separate sides. we can play connect the dots but you are short a pencil. ;)

the mandir goes back to equal freedom of religion. let me put it to you this way. The khilafah cannot be practially established because it assumes a homogenous populace and silly concepts like dar-ul islam and dar -ul kaffir etc.. It is a polarizing phenomenon is the world when trading blocks andpolitical unions are what are driving close realtions between peoples and nations.

^ No, actually its called dodging the issue at hand, cz you have run out of answers. :hehe:

Its ok. You are over-whelmed. But nice try :k:

And, by the way... that whole argument presented above that there can not be any mandir in Arabian peninsula... seems kinda weak to me. May be its true. May be its not. But even if it is... its only restricted to Arabian peninsula.

Muslim khilafat was spread much farther and there were plenty of temples etc all over the khilafat... Infact, one of the very principles of muslim khilafat is to make sure that all non-muslims have perfect right to follow their faith and pray as they wish. So Islamic khilafa has nothing to stop non-muslims from having temples.

It appears the larger issue is the supression of rights for non-Muslims in Muslim lands. This custom of not allowing kuffaar in certain areas of Arabia or the freedom to practice other religions is an extremist and repressive position - in the birth place of Islam of all places.

KSA does not allow the practice of other schools of thought of Islam in its border let alone other religions. Other muslim countries are not quite the same.

as far as not allowing non muslims in the holy cities was more of a practical solution to avoid terrorists who wanted to cause damage there from entering, rather than a religious edict.

I have no issues with finding a practical solution for ppl from other faith for entering the holy cities as long as they respect the sanctity of the places. From what I know engineers, project mgrs etc of other faiths have been in mecca and medina for teh plannign of hotels and all in the city.

places of worship in the kingdom, sure lets have them. saudis approach is not the right one.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Isn't foursome haram?

Ravage, Hindus don;t begrudge muslims special laws. If that was the case, sikhs should have their laws and christians theirs. It is stupid appeasement. Civil code under secular rule should be universal. that is the stupidity. I cannot wait till the muslim code is thrown out.

Prism man..chanda, if you do not have lateral thinking capability blame your parents. it's genetic.

[/quote]

sounds very begrudging to me. anyhow, this isnt the issue.

You completely dogdged everything I was saying by taking the argument along another track. If you lack the intellectual honesty to admit that you're flummoxed, you should blame your parents. Its either genetic, or its your silly, bigoted, pettiness-inducing upbringing.

This thread has gone off into another direction.

Anyway found this from ‘rough guide to history of islam’ written by a non muslim.

In 635 Umar :razi: ordered the expulsion of jews and christians from Arabia, however in the conquered territories jews and christians were allowed to practice their faith freely.

This is probably what was mentioned in my earlier post.

Yes, we wouldnt want a split thread to be split again :slight_smile:

Anyhow, it appears that Caliph Umar might have been the first to order their expulsion. To me, and I do not wish to start a sectarian discussion here, this basis is not sufficient to overcome the number of instances during the Prophet’s lifetime where he acted in ways demonstrating the role non-muslims could play in the Muslim state.

Considering that we have his example, and that he didnt expel minorities, but infact arranged treaties with minorities for their accomodation and protection in the state, I believe that the instance you mention was either a mistake of the historian or that of the second caliph.

Yes but the main point is that Umar :razi: did it cause the prophet :saw: said “Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.”

And remeber Prophet :saw: himself expelled the Jews from Medina

You probably still wont accept it cause of sectarian differences but the main facts are that non muslims were expelled and according to some scholars are not allowed to permanently reside in arabia.

Also bear in mind that this order of expulsion came just a short time before prophets :saw: death. After the treaties and all his dealings with non muslims.

M, you repeatedly mention that the Prophet expelled the jews, but miss out on the context.

Why did he repeatedly make treaties with minorities in the state?

As for Caliph Umar, I maintain that he might have been mistaken, and when we have two role models to follow, we should follow the Prophet.

Had the Prophet said what you say he did, he would've acted on it in his lifetime. Infact, he did the contrary.

In my view, the whole argument that non-muslims shall not be in Arabian peninsula is very weak. Arabian Peninsula does not mean Mekkah and Medinah alone. It includes everything from Dubai to Yemen and the whole of Saudi Arabia. It just doesn't make any sense to expel non-muslims from the whole peninsula. Ok, so if they are to be expelled from Mekkah and Medina, its one thing, and someone has to show me whether the Prophet (Peace be upon him) did it or not.

In my view, the present rulers of Saudi Arabia are worried about their own powerbase .... and as Fraudz said, they don't even let other sects of muslims to be in Saudi Arabia, much less other religions. So its futile to take them as an example of what Islam represents.

Are you saying the hadith is weak or false.

The treaties were made BEFORE he gave the order of expulsion, after they had proven to be untrustworthy. This was probably the reason for the command. And the command was given just before his death.

Clearly Umar :razi: carried it out cause he heard it from the prophet :saw:. And it has been authenticated by the scholars and is historically true. As you know we hold him in high regard and not to act against prophets :saw: command. You say he may have been mistaken, a huge mistake and very difficult one to carry out dont u think. Although it probably did not include every single non muslim (slaves?), most were probably expelled.

Lets be honest you would not accept Umar :razi: actions anyway so Lets just leave it at that, otherwise this would just keep going in circles.

Also Prism Man if you read the site I posted ealier it says that there has been disagreements amongst scholars as to what is the arab peninsula.

The facts are that Jews and Christians were expelled in the early period of islam, because “no two religions can coexist in the arab peninsula”

OK found the following article which explains the reasons for their expulsion. The few non muslims were allowed to stay as long as they stuck to their agreement, but were expelled when they broke it.

Source

Expulsion Of Jews And Christians From Arabia

At the time of his death the Holy Prophet had expressed the view that in Arabia there should be only one religion, namely Islam. During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, all the tribes in Arabia had accepted Islam. There were only a few pockets of non-Muslims, the Jews in Khyber, and the Christians in Najran.

During the caliphate of Abu Bakr, many tribes who had accepted Islam apostatized. As a result of the apostasy wars, all the apostate tribes were defeated and they once again accepted Islam. During the brief period of his office, Abu Bakr allowed the status quo to continue with regard to the Jews and the Christians.

At the time of the conquest of Khyber, a treaty was executed with the Jews hereunder they were allowed to cultivate the lands on the payment of one half of the produce to the Muslim state at Madina. The treaty also provided that the Jews could be turned out of Khyber, whenever the Muslim state deemed it necessary.

When Umar became the Caliph he deputed his son Abdullah to Khyber to collect the revenue. As Abdullah lay sleeping on the roof of a house in Khyber at night, his bed was overturned by the Jews causing him an injury in the arm. Umar investigated the matter and found that the Jews were bent on mischief. Umar accordingly passed orders expelling the Jews from Khyber. They migrated to Syria. They were allowed to carry their movable belongings with them. Their immovable property in Khyber was distributed among the Muslims.

The Christians of Najran near Yemen had a pact with the Holy Prophet "hereunder they were allowed to live in peace unless they indulged in any hostile activities against Islam. It was also stipulated that they would not indulge in usury. When Umar became the Caliph it was brought to his notice that the Christians of Najran had violated the peace pact in as much as they were indulging in usury, and were also guilty of activities hostile to Islam.

Umar summoned the representatives of the Christians of Najran, and apprised them of the charge of violating the terms of the treaty. In a vainglorious mood the deputationists said “If that was that, they might be expelled.” Umar accordingly passed orders for their expulsion. Arrangements were made for their settlement in Iraq. They were allowed to carry their entire movable property with them. Their immovable property was acquired by the state on payment.

Umar instructed his officers in Iraq that all possible assistance should be provided for the settlement of the refugees from Najran in Iraq. The Christians were exempted from the payment of Jizya for the first two years.

With the expulsion of the Jews and the Christians from Arabia, the country became an exclusively Muslim land. Umar has thus the distinction of being the first ruler under whom Arabia became the exclusive preserve for Islam.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by M: *
Are you saying the hadith is weak or false.

[/QUOTE]
Bingo!

Therefore, given that we do not assume that minorities would be violating the laws applicable to them under agreement with them, there is no reason to expel them.

This is proven by the fact that neither the prophet, nor the first caliph expelled anyone. Nor the second caliph, until it was brought to his notice that they were violating the agreement.

The Prophet’s ‘wish’ seems to have been added as an afterthought, and doesnt mesh with anything that follows in the explanation.

Could you explain what the prophet :saw: meant when he said these.

Also since were not scholars and I have quoted one, could you bring some evidence from a scholar (preferrably a sunni one) to support the claim that non muslims can reside in the arab peninsula. Since that would clearly go against the sayings of the prophet :saw:.

Otherwise we will just have to disagree.

PS. I dont think I can take too much more part in these debate, too much uni work. Ok wasalaam

I don't understand how a place, a locale can be earmarked such.

God willed it?

Why?

And if christians were expelled because of usary....

Does that translate that Muslims are not allowed to accept interest in business investments? Saudi's on oil revenues?

Since they’re your scholars, I guess you should be familiar with the specifics of each’s rulings. I can merely point out that the article you quote cites 2 out of 4 sunni Imam ruling for the expulsion of minorities from hijaaz. I presume the other two would differ otherwise they would be quoted too.

But Im sorry, Im not familiar with enough of their books to cite an exact reference.

It merely goes against reason to ignore all these events before and after the life of the Prophet that indicate differently, and take the scholars you cite as gospel truth. Especially since neither they, nor the historians, nor the caliphs were infallible.