Brother diwana says that the red part of my comments are wrong. Plz prove it, I stand by my comments.
004:048
**Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. **
Here hindu means Mushrikeen In islamic terminology, lest someone should contest over it.
Peace
Brother diwana says that the red part of my comments are wrong. Plz prove it, I stand by my comments.
004:048 *Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. *
Here hindu means Mushrikeen In islamic terminology, lest someone should contest over it.
Peace
Peace Raj_ind
It is true that shirk will not be forgiven as the Qur'an says, but what is in red is not true, because shirk although not forgiven has to be paid the good deeds will be first weighed against any sins. Some sins will be forgiven and will not be weighed out but those such as shirk will always be weighed out it may be that a person will have such good deeds that they outweigh the sin of shirk and then his destiny for the Hereafter is with Allah (SWT) to Decide .... such is the case but in reverse with a believer who is a criminal.
As-Salamu 'Alaykum
Before I begin, just to clarify that shirk is not forgiven if you do without repenting from it and giving up shirk.
Peace Raj_ind
the reason for your such statement is very simple: you’re comparing oranges with apples here! If you’re going to judge something by our standards then apply it as a whole. From our perspective associating partners with Allah Ta’ala or denying His existence is worst sin in the sight of Allah Ta’ala and it can’t be forgiven unless you repent and give it up. The other sins you mentioned are secondary not saying that they’re not important. So, who should have the privilege to enter the Jannah: someone who committed some sins but his good deeds could outweigh his sins or someone who was a “good” person (by humanly standards) but denied His Lord or worshiped others beside Him?
Why do we’ve to judge whether a person is good or bad by humanly made laws/standards, which are not consistent in country to country let alone era to era? Is it Islam or Muslims’ fault that someone decided or choose to be a hindu or any other faith believer? Why wouldn’t a sinner Muslim have the chance to enter Jannah when He affirmed and believed in His Lord and obyed Him but fell short of some of his obligations?
according to who and how so?
Again, this has been prescribed by our Creator and He knows what is best for us. Hence, we judge it by His laws and not by inconsistent man-made laws!
It is not like you don’t pay any taxes now! You don’t realize that how the money bankers, your own people, are scamming you and in return you get nothing.
Dhimmi (non-Muslims living under the protection of Islamic state) contracts are between the authority of a country and those who are not citizens of the country. In any country, the rights and obligations of citizens and non-citizens of the country differ. Unless you can show me otherwise.
Jizya is a normal tax which is looked at as a fee or even a normal tax that dhimmi need to pay. It is measured based on their ability to pay. In some cases they are exempted if they are poor and are included in the welfare system of the Muslims! The dhimmis following under following conditions are exempted from the jizya:
(See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi’, al-Umm¸ pp. 172-1)
I wonder how many democratic countries exempt such people from paying taxes!?
Dhimmis are absolutely protected by Islamic state and its citizens and they aren’t allowed to be harmed by external or internal people. Killing a dhimmi is a great sin. Muslims citizens should also support the poor dhimmis by financial means.
As far concerning, what happens to a Muslim who kills a dhimmi, I’m ignorant of the Shari’i ruling. I’ll get back to you later on this one
peace and Allah knows best!
Re: Worst sin that wont be forgiven by ALLAH?(Split from is India secular thread)
After the answers given above I have very little to add. Thanks Psyah and Alahkabanda.
I think the basic problem in non-muslims as well as muslims is that we look at things partially. We see things which our brain want to. Its just our human nature.
In the same Quran it is said somewhere I do not remember exactly where and how but Allah asks; Do you think we promise you Jannah?(without doing the good deeds)
(Someone can quote exact verse)
1- No one is entitled to get to jannah unless some basic but important requirements are met.
This includes anyone in this world. If a muslim commits crimes and does not repent then what right a 'muslim' has to Jannah? Just because of the name or calling himself/herself muslim?
Or
Some acts done as ritual or even great acts of good done to show off?
All will be considered null and void as per islamic teachings.
2- It is true that shirk will never be accepted as a an act for going to heaven and it applies to everyone, including those who call themselves muslims. So it is not just that somehow hindus are selectively targeted. So those so called muslims who commit shirk in any form or method will not be accepted for jannah also.
3- Being muslim does not mean that a ticket is issued to enter jannah with no expiration or validation.
4- No one has any guarentee for jannah anyway. Do the good deeds and wish for the best.
**True muslims do not think jannah is their right.
The downfall of people starts when they become sure of going to jannah.**
(Please don't think that somehow I think I have great connection to almighty. All I am saying is based on how I understand muslims think or as I understand reading about islam)
Re: Worst sin that wont be forgiven by ALLAH?(Split from is India secular thread)
Please read below;
"It is not by your wishes nor the wishes of the People of the Book: whoever does wrong shall be punished for it, and he will find none other than Allah as a protector or helper." [4:123]
"Or do you think that you shall enter the Garden (of bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Apostle and those of faith who were with him cried, 'When (will come) the help of Allah?' Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!" [2:214]
Peace Raj_ind
It is true that shirk will not be forgiven as the Qur'an says, but what is in red is not true, because shirk although not forgiven has to be paid the good deeds will be first weighed against any sins. Some sins will be forgiven and will not be weighed out but those such as shirk will always be weighed out it may be that a person will have such good deeds that they outweigh the sin of shirk and then his destiny for the Hereafter is with Allah (SWT) to Decide .... such is the case but in reverse with a believer who is a criminal.
Peace brother psyah.
What I understand from ur post is that if a MUSHRIK has done exceptionally good deeds than he may be forgiven by ALLAH? Even if he doesnt repent? If I understood correctly, than Plz provide me the reference for ur statement if U have any, or is it so that U are speaking out of ur own understanding?
BTW what I understand is that if someone repents his sin of associating partners with ALLAH, ie shirk, than he becoms a Muslim, than what is the big deal if he is forgiven? Coz all muslim stand the chance of being forgiven if they repent.
[quote]
Posted by Allahkabanda
the reason for your such statement is very simple: you're comparing oranges with apples here! If you're going to judge something by our standards then apply it as a whole. From our perspective associating partners with Allah Ta'ala or denying His existence is worst sin in the sight of Allah Ta'ala and it can't be forgiven unless you repent and give it up. The other sins you mentioned are secondary not saying that they're not important. So, who should have the privilege to enter the Jannah: someone who committed some sins but his good deeds could outweigh his sins or someone who was a "good" person (by humanly standards) but denied His Lord or worshiped others beside Him?
Why do we've to judge whether a person is good or bad by humanly made laws/standards, which are not consistent in country to country let alone era to era? Is it Islam or Muslims' fault that someone decided or choose to be a hindu or any other faith believer? Why wouldn't a sinner Muslim have the chance to enter Jannah when He affirmed and believed in His Lord and obyed Him but fell short of some of his obligations?
[/quote]
Well brother, Plz bear in mind that my post was not to criticize any sharai law as such, but in different context. I think that ur above quoted comment is in agreement to my own understanding, which is being reflected in red part of my post. ie.....a hindu(read mushrik) has no chance of making it to paradise (unless he repents and thus becomes a muslim). While a muslim (a sinner maybe) may be forgiven and granted entry in paradise.
As for justification of jaziyah, I m not raising any question, what I was emphasizing upon,was that how Muslims are obiliged to treat hindus, if they form a government, and U have pointed that hindus stand deprived even of their citizenship of their country once muslims take over and form a government. I think that U have helped me made my point. Thanks.
[quote]
As far concerning, what happens to a Muslim who kills a dhimmi, I'm ignorant of the Shari'i ruling. I'll get back to you later on this one
[/quote]
I will be waiting what U have to say on this, but this may help U to make things a bit clear.
[quote]
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50:
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
[/quote]
[quote]
according to who and how so?
[/quote]
I think that above quoted hadith answers ur this question too.
Peace.
Please read below;
"It is not by your wishes nor the wishes of the People of the Book: whoever does wrong shall be punished for it, and he will find none other than Allah as a protector or helper." [4:123]
"Or do you think that you shall enter the Garden (of bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Apostle and those of faith who were with him cried, 'When (will come) the help of Allah?' Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!" [2:214]
Peace diwana.
The reason for starting this thread was that U colored, some of my comments, red and declared them wrong. Following were claims which were made by me.
2.Hindus are to be treated as second class citizens in muslims's land. Obiliged to pay Jaziyah.
3.Even if a muslim kills a hindu, he doesnt deserved to be killed in Qisas(equality of punishment).
None of the verses U quoted contradicts any of my statement. I never have said that all muslims are destined to jannah, but all muslims have a chance to enter jannah if ALLAH wants them to enter, but no hindu(mushrik) will be granted entry there coz ALLAH himself says that he wont forgive the sin of shirk, but any other if HE wills.
[quote]
It is true that shirk will never be accepted as a an act for going to heaven and it applies to everyone, including those who call themselves muslims. So it is not just that somehow hindus are selectively targeted. So those so called muslims who commit shirk in any form or method will not be accepted for jannah also.
[/quote]
What kind of irrelevent statement is this? Calling self a muslim or being a muslim are two different things. If one commits a shirk than he ceases to be a muslim, its simple. I can call myself a muslim at one hand and praying to an idol on other, but that naturally wont make me a muslim. when I talk about a muslim, I mean one who believes in TAUHEED and RISAALAT. And there is no question of targetting anyone as U said, its question of belief only.
Looking forward for some real stuff which can prove that the red coloured part of my post was wrong as U claimed.
Peace.
BTW what I understand is that if someone repents his sin of associating partners with ALLAH, ie shirk, than he becoms a Muslim, than what is the big deal if he is forgiven? Coz all muslim stand the chance of being forgiven if they repent.
to become a Muslim, one needs to follow a complete Islamic procedure. A hindu can give up worshiping different idols; however, this doesn't mean that he is a Muslim now. Why wouldn't a Muslim be entitled to forgivness? Why should a non-Muslim, who associated paretners with God or rejected His existence and rejected His true message, should be entitled to forgivness just because he is a good human from human's standards? Please answer m questions, thank you!
Well brother, Plz bear in mind that my post was not to criticize any sharai law as such, but in different context. I think that ur above quoted comment is in agreement to my own understanding, which is being reflected in red part of my post. ie.....a hindu(read mushrik) has no chance of making it to paradise (unless he repents and thus becomes a muslim). While a muslim (a sinner maybe) may be forgiven and granted entry in paradise.
if this is the case then I don't see the point of discussion because no Muslim would disagree with Islamic teachings. You say, you're not criticizing, yet your statements say otherwise:
[quote]
Hindus have to be treated as second class citizens in Muslims's lands, with no political and social rights.
[/quote]
As for justification of jaziyah, I m not raising any question, what I was emphasizing upon,was that how Muslims are obiliged to treat hindus, if they form a government, and U have pointed that hindus stand deprived even of their citizenship of their country once muslims take over and form a government. I think that U have helped me made my point. Thanks.
ok, agreed upon but how does it show that they'll have no social or political rights because this is what you claimed! Since this is a hypothetical situation, no one told Hindus to fight with Muslims, they could just have become an ally. Hence, Hindus are deprived of citizenship because they lost their country to different people.
I will be waiting what U have to say on this, but this may help U to make things a bit clear.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50:
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
as I've told you that I don't know the rulings regarding this issue; so, I don't want to say something incorrect. However, the hadith you quoted doesn't prove that the kafir we're talking about here is a dhimmi. and Allah knows best!
I think that above quoted hadith answers ur this question too. Peace.
I don't think so. Even if we assume that it is true then this was pat of the contract they formed with an Islamic state; hence, this doesn't deprive them of any social or political right.
Brother 'Raj_Ind': Are you God? If you are not God than who you are to say what Allah would do and what Allah would not do?
Allah says in Quran that he would not forgive who does shirk but in the end Allah can decide what punishment he would give for whatever sin a person does. That punishment could be very minor to very severe, and no one has any right to say what punishment Allah would give for what sin. Anyhow, Allah is most just and obviously it would be wrong to expect from Justice of Allah that Allah would measure 'sin of shrik' in same way for people who are born Muslims and those who were not born Muslim.
You should think that other than Allah, no one knows or can say that if you were born Hindu, you would have become Muslim or would have been a member of Hindu extremists killing, raping and murdering Muslims, destroying Mosques, and burning book of Allah. If you were born Muslim that does not mean that you became any special, as person born Muslim or non-Muslim, all are equal creation of Allah, and it is Allah who decided how he is going to test a particular person ... as a born Muslim or born non-Muslim.
Allah is the best judge and he would judge people not on what they did or do, but what opportunity in life they got, what they are, how they think, and what they would have done under various circumstances ... and obviously Allah is capable of knowing a person inner character to judge that person best.
As for forgiving shirk ... let me give you few lines from Quran:
Surah Al-Baqrah ... Ayah 51-52:
YUSUFALI: And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.
YUSUFALI: Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.
Now, worshiping calf when they were born in the religion of Tawheed, knew Allah from their birth, Were Sahabi of a Prophet [Musa (AS)] who was like Prophet (SAW) in many ways, and most important is that at the time they started doing shirk they had Messenger of Allah with them [actually, two Nabi was with them ... Prophet Musa (AS) and Prophet Haroon (AS)] ... still they started doing shrik with no excuse ... (at least Hindus have excuse that they are not born Muslim and are following the teaching of their parents) ... so, one can say that shirk of Jews at that time was worse of Shrik ... Still we can see that Allah forgave them. So ... please do not speculate what Allah would do and what he would not to others (who are nothing to you but are creations of Allah for Allah). Only Allah knows best what he would do to whoever amongst his creations ... and thus you should start thinking about what Allah has said in Quran for your own self, and be worried about yourself.
Note: In Quran Allah has said that he would not forgive Shrik ... and you can see that there is no condition attached to that ... for instance, no Ayah says that Allah would not forgive Shrik ... UNLESS ... a person do shirk and then ask for forgiveness ... still we know that Allah do forgive and forgiveness of Calf worshipers by Allah shows that there is nothing that Allah would not forgive. It also shows that forgiveness of Allah is always above punishment of Allah, especially when it is to do with sins that is between Allah and his creations ... In other words ... Allah is 'Rahman and Rahim' for his creations multiple times more than Allah is 'Qahhar and Jabbar' for his creations ... and Allah loves amongst his creations who show character of 'Rahman and Rahim' more than those who are Zalims and show character of 'Qahhar and Jabbar', regardless of they are Muslims or non-Muslims]
Anyhow, one thing is clear and that is: On day of judgment, one can expect Allah to be most merciful and most forgiving (Rahman and Rahim), and it may not be surprising that Allah might forgive all sins that is between him and his creations (Human), be that sin is Shrik or whatever, as in the end humans are creations of Allah.
On the other hand, humans would be least forgiving (rather will not forgive anyone, even their parents or children) on judgment day, so whatever sin (or wrong) a person does against other beings (Muslim or non-Muslim, human or animal), they would surely going to see punishment for that sin on judgment day, because Allah being just would not do injustice to anyone (any of his creations), and thus would punish every human for their sins or wrongs what one human does towards other humans (as that would be justice to the person wronged).
Peace diwana.
The reason for starting this thread was that U colored, some of my comments, red and declared them wrong. Following were claims which were made by me.
2.Hindus are to be treated as second class citizens in muslims's land. Obiliged to pay Jaziyah.
3.Even if a muslim kills a hindu, he doesnt deserved to be killed in Qisas(equality of punishment).
None of the verses U quoted contradicts any of my statement. I never have said that all muslims are destined to jannah, but all muslims have a chance to enter jannah if ALLAH wants them to enter, but no hindu(mushrik) will be granted entry there coz ALLAH himself says that he wont forgive the sin of shirk, but any other if HE wills.
What kind of irrelevent statement is this? Calling self a muslim or being a muslim are two different things. If one commits a shirk than he ceases to be a muslim, its simple. I can call myself a muslim at one hand and praying to an idol on other, but that naturally wont make me a muslim. when I talk about a muslim, I mean one who believes in TAUHEED and RISAALAT. And there is no question of targetting anyone as U said, its question of belief only.
Looking forward for some real stuff which can prove that the red coloured part of my post was wrong as U claimed.
Peace.
The red part assumes that muslims were somehow treatd special and my post and others showed you otherwise, hence I used word targetting.
Anyone can have chance to heaven provided some basic conditions are met as I said before.
Just because an idol worshiper stops worshiping idols does not mean he becomes muslim.
I mentioned about muslims commiting shirk not be entitled to enter in Jannah. You say he ceases to become muslim so thats understandable. But both hindus and muslims will have chance if repent. No special privilege to born muslim. To be muslim, there are other bad deeds beside shirk which need to be avoided and to get entry to heaven.
Just doing the great good deeds and avoiding shirk may also not be enough even for a muslim. Hope you get this point also.
But having said this, at the day of judgement anything is possible. We cannot make judgement on almighty's will. Just hope for the best.
However, reading the bold part of your post, it seems like you will be doing the same thing:
Keep asking same question over and over again despite someone writes a book of explanation.:)
[quote]
Posted by Allahkabanda
to become a Muslim, one needs to follow a complete Islamic procedure. A hindu can give up worshiping different idols; however, this doesn't mean that he is a Muslim now. Why wouldn't a Muslim be entitled to forgivness? Why should a non-Muslim, who associated paretners with God or rejected His existence and rejected His true message, should be entitled to forgivness just because he is a good human from human's standards? Please answer m questions, thank you!
[/quote]
Well, its not for me to answer, ALLAH knows best.
[quote]
if this is the case then I don't see the point of discussion because no Muslim would disagree with Islamic teachings. You say, you're not criticizing, yet your statements say otherwise:
[/quote]
[quote]
*Hindus have to be treated as second class citizens in Muslims's lands, with no political and social rights. *
[/quote]
How my statement says something that U suspect I m criticizing? Are dhimmis equal to Muslim in a Muslim state? I m speaking about plain fact how hindus have to be treated.
[quote]
ok, agreed upon but how does it show that they'll have no social or political rights because this is what you claimed! Since this is a hypothetical situation, no one told Hindus to fight with Muslims, they could just have become an ally. Hence, Hindus are deprived of citizenship because they lost their country to different people.
[/quote]
Well what social and political rights can hindus have in a muslim government? they wont be allowed to built their places of worship. Their places of worships (Read temples) will be destroyed. If U dont agree that hindus wont have political and social rights, than kindly let me know how so? And no its not a hypothetical situation too, coz ALLAH has given the right to muslims to attack different kuffar nations and bring them to Islamic fold. I dont think that U can afford to differ.
[quote]
as I've told you that I don't know the rulings regarding this issue; so, I don't want to say something incorrect. However, the hadith you quoted doesn't prove that the kafir we're talking about here is a dhimmi. and Allah knows best!
[/quote]
Well if he is not a dhimmi than there is no point talking about Qisas, and that too by one of the noble companion. Defintely he was talking about dhimmi.
[quote]
I don't think so. Even if we assume that it is true then this was pat of the contract they formed with an Islamic state; hence, this doesn't deprive them of any social or political right.
[/quote]
Since it is a Sahih Bukhari than there is no question of ur assuming or not assuming, it is bound to be true. And now its ur turn to let me know what kind of social and political rights a dhimmi can have in a Islamic state.
Peace.
[quote]
Posted by Saleem
Brother 'Raj_Ind': Are you God? If you are not God than who you are to say what Allah would do and what Allah would not do?
[/quote]
Peace brother Saleem. I m no one to say anything on behalf of GOD. But if I say something, it must be with proof and in this case I have given a verse from holy quran which clearly states which sin ALLAH wont forgive in ay case. And I hold the right to quote any verse of holy quran to prove my point if I can.
[quote]
Allah says in Quran that he would not forgive who does shirk but in the end Allah can decide what punishment he would give for whatever sin a person does. That punishment could be very minor to very severe, and no one has any right to say what punishment Allah would give for what sin. Anyhow, Allah is most just and obviously it would be wrong to expect from Justice of Allah that Allah would measure 'sin of shrik' in same way for people who are born Muslims and those who were not born Muslim.
[/quote]
Well brother, its not for me to speculate what ALLAH will be doing. ALLAH can do anything he pleases, but uptill now, I have holy quran with me and I can only quote from it. There is no point speculating how he will be measuring any sin of born non muslims.
[quote]
You should think that other than Allah, no one knows or can say that if you were born Hindu, you would have become Muslim or would have been a member of Hindu extremists killing, raping and murdering Muslims, destroying Mosques, and burning book of Allah. If you were born Muslim that does not mean that you became any special, as person born Muslim or non-Muslim, all are equal creation of Allah, and it is Allah who decided how he is going to test a particular person ... as a born Muslim or born non-Muslim.
[/quote]
Let me add that killing, raping, and murdering muslims and destroying mosque is not reserved for extremist hindus only, there are more muslims than extremist hindus who have been doing this job since the rise of Islam and up to today. I agree with rest of ur statement.
Let me add that I m very much impressed by ur post. I like the way U describe Islam to a non muslim ie not describing to them tormants of hellfire but defining how merciful ALLAH is.
Thanks for ur post.
Peace.
Hindus have to be treated as second class citizens in Muslims's lands, with no political and social rights
Social and political rights entail right to life, property, education, freedom of expression, assembly. (to name a few) Now, if you haven't noticed, even animals follow a somewhat similar pattern of rights, they live, claim land, education can be teaching one to survive, choosing a leader of the clan from the herd (if you may). So you're suggesting that Hindus are not even entitled to the rights embedded as essential needs in human beings by God Himself, that too in the land of the believers?
DHIMMI - Non-Muslims living in the Khilafah
…
The Dhimmi
Dhimmi are those citizens of the Khilafah that hold different beliefs and values to the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. The word dhimmi is derived from the Arabic word dhimmah, which means pledge or covenant (‘ahd).10
The state makes a pledge to treat the dhimmi in accordance with the specific terms of the peace treaty made with them (if applicable) and not to interfere in their beliefs, worships and those actions that contradict Islam but were permitted to the dhimmi by the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as drinking alcohol. In all other areas they are viewed and treated in the same way as Muslims unless belief in Islam is a condition for the action.
There are many ahadith ordering good treatment of the dhimmi and not abusing them or treating them as second-class citizens.**The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”11
** The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”12
The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi states:
The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.13
Judiciary
One of the accusations against Islam’s treatment of dhimmi is that a dhimmi is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim and his oath is not acceptable in an Islamic court.
Bat Ye’or states:Every legal case involving a Muslim and a dhimmi was judged according to Koranic law. Although the very idea of justice implies equality between parties, a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim. Since his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court his Muslim opponent could not easily be condemned. In order to defend himself, the dhimmi was obliged to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense.14
**The rule of law applies to everyone within the Khilafah and there are no exceptions. It is obligatory for the Islamic State to judge in cases concerning the dhimmi with justice and no discrimination against them is allowed.
Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an: ** And if you judge, judge with justice between them.
Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15
The most famous example of this justice is in the legal trial of a Jew who stole the coat of armour of Imam Ali (ra) as he was travelling to a battle. The judge Shurayh made no exception for Ali (ra) even though he was the Khaleefah, a Muslim and also off to fight in a battle so was in desperate need of his armour. Shurayh ruled in favour of the Jew and accepted his testimony in court. Full details of the trial can be read here.
The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy).
It may be claimed that the condition of ‘Adl applies only to Muslims who refrain from committing the kabeera (major) sins. This is incorrect. ‘Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because ‘adaala (trustworthiness) was stipulated in the testimony of the Muslim as well as in the testimony of the non-Muslim, by using the same word without distinguishing one from the other.
Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:O you who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draws to one of you, at the time of bequest, two witnesses, ‘adl (trustworthy) from among you, or two others from other than you.16
He (swt) meant non-Muslims by saying other than you. He said ‘two ‘adl witnesses from Muslims or two ‘adl from other than Muslims.’ So how can the ‘adaala be defined as not committing a kabeera (major) sin and insistence on committing a sagheera (small) sin regarding a non-Muslim? Also how can we reject as a witness the one who disobeyed his parents once, but accept as witness the spy, just because spying is not from kabeera sins? Therefore, the valid meaning of ‘adl is the one that abstained from that which the people consider violation to the uprightness.17
Criminal Punishments
Another accusation is that Muslims are given a lesser punishment for crimes against dhimmi. In the case of murder it is alleged that a Muslim is not killed for the murder of a dhimmi whereas a dhimmi is killed for the murder of a Muslim. Bat Ye’or states:The punishment that a guilty Muslim received for a crime would be greatly reduced if the victim were a dhimmi.18
**Again this is a false accusation. Punishments for crimes are applied equally to both Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction. The only distinction is that dhimmi will not be punished for those actions which are permitted for them such as drinking alcohol, whereas a Muslim would be. **The Prophet (saw) said, “The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”19
It is narrated in a hadith “that the Messenger of Allah (saw) killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid and said, ‘I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah’.”20
**This hadith clearly indicates that if a Muslim kills a mu’ahid he is punished with death.21 This equally applies to the killing of a dhimmi as discussed earlier. **
Economy
**The dhimmi enjoy the same economic benefits as Muslims. They can be employees, establish companies, be partners with Muslims and buy and sell goods. Their wealth is protected and if they are poor and unable to find work they are entitled to state benefits from the Khilafah’s Treasury (Bait ul-Mal). **
Historically, many dhimmi prospered within the lands of the Khilafah. Cecil Roth mentions that the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Ottoman State attracted Jews from all over Western Europe. The land of Islam became the land of opportunity. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders.22
The poor dhimmi will receive state benefits if they are in need.‘Umar ibn al-Khattab once passed by an old dhimmi begging at doors, and said: “We have not done justice to you if we have taken jizya from you in the prime of your youth and neglected you in your old age.” He then ordered from the treasury what was suitable for him.23
With regards taxation the shari’ah has put the condition of belief on some of the taxes, which means they are applied differently between the Muslims and dhimmi. Muslims for example are ordered to pay the Zakat but dhimmi are exempt, whereas dhimmi are ordered to pay the jizya (head tax) but Muslims are exempt.
Jizya
The most misunderstood Islamic taxation is the jizya. Some historians paint a picture that the jizya tax was so high that dhimmi were forced to convert to Islam to avoid it. Others bring out arbitrary jizya rates such as 50%.24
The obligation of the jizya is derived from the following verse of the Qur’an.
Allah (swt) says:Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (saghiroon).25
The ‘subdued’ (sighar) mentioned in this verse means the dhimmi must submit to the rules of Islam. It does not mean physical humiliation.26
The jizya tax is applied to all mature, male dhimmi who have the means to pay it. **Women and children are exempt as are the poor who have no livelihood.27
**
The jizya is applied according to the prosperity of the dhimmi. In the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) he established three different bands of jizya depending on the prosperity of the person. The jizya rates for different provinces (wiliyat) of the Khilafah in the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) are shown below.
http://www.khilafah.com/images/stories/General/dhimma1.jpg
In sahih Bukhari it has been narrated by Abu Najeeh who said, “I said to Mujahid: ‘What is the matter with the people of Ash-Sham who pay 4 Dinars and the people of Yemen pay 1 Dinar?’ He said, ‘This was decided based on prosperity.’”31
It is forbidden for the Khilafah to overburden the dhimmi with heavy taxation.The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”32
‘Amr ibn Maymun said, “I saw ‘Umar four nights before he was assassinated sitting on top a camel, saying to Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman and ‘Uthman ibn al-Hunayf, ‘Review the affairs under your charge. Do you think that you have burdened the tenants with what they cannot bear?” ‘Uthman replied, ‘I have levied on them an amount that I could double and they would still have the ability to pay.’ Hudhayfa said: ‘I have imposed on them an amount that leaves a large surplus.’”
Abu Ubayd commenting on this said: this is the legal rule in our view for the imposition of jizya and kharaj; they are levied in accordance with the capacity of the dhimmis to pay, without burdening them and without adversely affecting the fay’ of the Muslims; however, no limit is imposed on it.33
When collecting the jizya this cannot be collected by abusing and torturing the dhimmi as some have claimed.It is narrated from Hisham bin Hakeem, who said; “I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say; ‘Allah will punish those who punish the people in the Dunya.’”34
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was brought a huge amount of wealth – Abu Ubayd: I believe, he said “Of jizya” – and he (‘Umar) said: “I think you must have placed the people in hardship (for such wealth).” They said: “No, by Allah, we did not collect anything that was not given voluntarily and of their own free will.” He said: “Without using the stick and without stringing (them up).” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Praise be to Allah, who has not caused this to happen at my hands or during my authority.” 35
With regards the Kharaj (agricultural land tax) this applies equally to Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction.
Community Relations
Muslim and dhimmi communities live together, side by side in the Khilafah. They are not persecuted, hated and forced to live in fear by the Muslims.
The dhimmi neighbours have the same rights as Muslim neighbours with no distinction. The Prophet (saw) said: “Jibril (Angel Gabriel) kept recommending treating neighbours with kindness until I thought he would assign them a share of inheritance.”36
Muslims and dhimmi will visit each other, be courteous and socialise together. The Messenger of Allah (saw) used to visit the poorly from amongst the dhimmi.
It is narrated that a Jewish valet who used to serve the Messenger of Allah (saw) was once taken ill, so the Messenger of Allah (saw) visited him.37
Thomas Arnold describes the relations between dhimmi and Muslim communities in Spain under Islamic rule.The toleration of the Muhammadan government towards its Christian subjects in Spain and the freedom of intercourse between the adherents of the two religions brought about a certain amount of assimilation in the two communities. Inter-marriages became frequent; Isidore of Beja, who fiercely inveighs against the Muslim conquerors, records the marriage of ‘Abd al-Aziz, the son of Musa, with the widow of King Roderic, without a word of blame. Many of the Christians adopted Arab names, and in outward observances imitated to some extent their Muhammadan neighbours, e.g. many were circumcised, and in matters of food and drink followed the practice of the “unbaptized pagans.38
The Christian Arabs of the present day, dwelling in the midst of a Muhammadan population, are a living testimony of this toleration; Layard speaks of having come across an encampment of Christian Arabs at al-Karak, to the east of the Dead Sea, who differed in no way either in dress or in manners, from the Muslim Arabs.39
Government
Another accusation is that dhimmi cannot be civil servants within the Khilafah or be members of the government.
It’s true that a dhimmi cannot hold any ruling position within the Khilafah. This is because the Shari’ah has restricted these positions to those who believe in the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. This is no different to any ideological state within the world today.
Muhammad Asad states:One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him. On the other hand, no ideological organization (whether based on religious or other doctrines) can afford to entrust the direction of its affairs to persons not professing its ideology. Is it, for instance, conceivable that a non-Communist could be given a political key position – not to speak of supreme leadership of the state – in Soviet Russia? Obviously not, and logically so: for as long as communism supplies the ideological basis of the state, only persons who identify themselves unreservedly with its aims can be relied upon to translate those aims into terms of administrative policy.40
Having said this dhimmi can be civil servants and directors of the administrative government departments. Discrimination against dhimmi for civil service posts is forbidden.
The evidence for this is from the Islamic rules on hiring (Ijara) where it is permitted to hire any person whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because the evidences for hiring came in a general form.
Allah (swt) says;And if they suckled for you, do give them their wage.41
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Allah (swt) said; I will challenge three people on the day of Judgement.…. and a man who employed a labourer, he received from him (the work) but did not give him his wage.”42
The Messenger of Allah (saw) himself once hired a man from the tribe Banu Ad-Deel who was a non-Muslim, which indicates that it is permitted to hire a non-Muslim just as it is to hire a Muslim.
All the above three evidences are general. Therefore, it is permitted for a non-Muslim to be a director of a government department or an employee in that department, for they are all hired staff, and the evidences about hiring are general.43
Although dhimmi cannot hold ruling positions within the government this does not mean they cannot politically participate within the Khilafah.
One of the pillars of the Islamic ruling system is consultation (shura). This function is institutionalised within an elected council called the Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah) that forms part of the Khilafah government.
The Majlis al-Ummah is an elected council whose members can be Muslim, non-Muslim, men or women. These members represent the interests of their constituencies within the state. The majlis has no powers of legislation like in a democratic parliament but it does have many powers that act as a counterbalance to the executive powers of the Khaleefah.
Members of the majlis can voice their political opinions freely without fear of imprisonment or rebuke. This makes the Majlis ul-Ummah a very powerful institution for accounting the Khaleefah and his government that the dhimmi can fully participate in.44
Religion
A widespread accusation against the Khilafah is that Islam was spread by the sword forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam or die. This claim in particular is used to create fear and opposition within western countries to the re-emergence of a Khilafah in the Muslim world.
Islam categorically forbids forcing anyone to convert to Islam.
Allah (swt) says:Let there be no compulsion in religion 45
Thomas Arnold states:The toleration extended towards the Christian Arabs by the victorious Muslims of the first century of the Hijrah and continued by succeeding generations, we may surely infer that those Christian tribes that did embrace Islam, did so of their own choice and free will.46
**Islam has also forbidden tempting non-Muslims away from their beliefs and worships.**The Messenger of Allah (saw) wrote to the people of Yemen: ‘Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and he is obliged to pay the jizya.’47
The meaning of ‘will not be tormented for it’ means the dhimmi are left to follow their beliefs and worships.48
Therefore dhimmi are allowed to follow their own beliefs, the rules of their religion and perform actions with although forbidden in Islam were permitted to them by the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as drinking alcohol, eating pork, marriage and divorce.49
**The dhimmi places of worship are also protected by the Khilafah. **The existence of centuries old Churches, Synagogues and Temples throughout the Muslim world is clear evidence to this fact.
Since these areas are the only areas a religion such as Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism has detailed rules for, the dhimmi will generally face no conflicts between their religions and living within the Khilafah.
Conclusion
The dhimmi are citizens of the Khilafah and enjoy all the rights of citizenship such as protection, guaranteed living and fair treatment. They also enjoy the right of being treated with kindness, leniency, justice and clemency. **They can join the Islamic armed forces and fight alongside the Muslims if they choose to do so, but they are not obliged to fight as the Muslims are. **They are viewed by the ruler and the judge in the same light as the Muslims are viewed without any discrimination in terms of managing their affairs and when implementing the rules of transactions (mu’amilat) and the penal code (hudud) upon them.
**Therefore, the dhimmi enjoys all the rights, equally and exactly as those enjoyed by the Muslims and is in no way classed as a second class citizen.****50
**
References
1 Joseph Farah, October 26, 2006, Between the Lines Commentary, Meet the Dhimmicrats
2 Melanie Phillips, ‘Dhimmi Britain,’ January 14, 2004, Melanie Phillips’s Diary
3 Narrated by Sulayman Bin Buraida, Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294
4 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘The Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change,’ Al-Khilafah Publications, p. 6
5 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p. 247
6 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State. The Introduction and the incumbent reasons,’ translation of Muqadimatud-Dustur Aw al-Asbabul Mujibatulah, Article 184
7 Ibid
8 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Volume 2, translation of Shakhsiya Islamiyya, Dar ul-Ummah, Beirut, Fourth Edition, Chapter Al-Must’amin
9 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Article 7f
10 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Op.cit., Chapter Ahkam adh-dhimmi
11 Narrated by Yahya b. Adam in the book of Al-Kharaaj
12 Reported by al-Tabarani in Al-awsat on good authority
13 Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi, Al-furuq
14 Bat Ye’or, ‘The Dhimmi, Jews and Christians under Islam,’ 1985 Associated University Presses, p. 56
15 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5, Surah al-Ma’idah, Verse 42
16 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5, Surah al-Ma’idah, Verse 106
17 Ahmad ad-Da’our, ‘The Rules of Testimonial Evidences,’ Translation of Ahkaam al-bayyinaat, Chapter: Conditions (shuroot) of the witness
18 Bat Ye’or, Op.cit., p. 57
19 Narrated from Amru bin Shuaib from his father from his grandfather
20 Al-Bayhaqi, extracted from the hadith of Abdurrahman Al-Bailimani
21 Abdurrahman Al-Maliki, ‘The Punishment System,’ translation of Nidham ul-uqubat, Dar Ul-Ummah, Beirut, Second Edition, Chapter: Al-Qawad
22 Cecil Roth, ‘The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia’
23 Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam, ‘The Book of Revenue,’ Translation of Kitab al-Amwal, Garnet Publishing Ltd, p. 42
24 Jewish (dhimmi) tax 50% ?* Jews for Allah
25 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 9, Surah at-Taubah, Verse 29
26 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Article 7a
27 Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom, ‘Funds in the Khilafah State,’ translation of Al-Amwal fi Dowlat Al-Khilafah, Al-Khilafah Publications, 1988, p. 58
28 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25
29 Ibid, p. 37
30 Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom, Op.cit., p. 61
31 Sahih Bukhari
32 Narrated by Yahya b. Adam in the book of Al-Kharaaj
33 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 37
34 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., 271
35 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 40
36 Sahih Bukhari
37 Ibid, on the authority of Anas
38 Thomas W. Arnold, ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ Second Edition, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, New Delhi, p. 128
39 Ibid, p. 47
40 Muhammad Asad, ‘The Principles of State and Government in Islam,’ Dar al-Andalus Ltd, Gibraltar, 1985, p. 41
41 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 65, Surah at-Talaq, Verse 6
42 Sahih Bukhari, narrated from Abu Hurairah
43 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., 235
44 Ibid, p. 247
45 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 2, Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 256
46 Thomas W. Arnold, Op.cit., p. 47
47 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25
48 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Op.cit., Chapter Ahkam adh-dhimmi
49 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Articles 5&6
50 Ibid
Peace diwana
Thanks for ur informative post.
One thing I want to ask, can a idolators/hindu be among dhimmi?
It depends on who u consider a second class citizen. As per our secular values, one who is not granted right to practice his or her religion is a second class citizen.
First of all who is mu’ahid? and there is no specification given of the above quoted hadiths, which makes it impossible to verify the claims made in above statement. While the hadith I have quoted is from sahih bukhari with exact numbers, which proves that a Muslim doesnt deserve the prescribed punishment for murdering a non muslim. There is no point arguing over it.
Brother plz check what u are copy pasting is correct or not, lest it will do injustice to the whole discussion. For instance plz check it out how many old churches and synagogues still exist in Saudi Arabia, the only shariyah-abiding Nation in the world today. And plz also check it out how many non muslims are citizens of this only Islamic country in the world. results can be depressing for U if U think that Islamic nation should protect dhimmis and their places of worship. Given the fact that jews/christians/idolators once used to reside in Saudi Arabia practising their religion.
And since our topic of discussion is muslim treatment towards hindus/idolators, let me tell U that its obligatory for a muslim to break idols, and thus hurt religious sentiments of hindus.
Islam QA - Obligation to destroy idols
Think again brother, using ur own common sense.
Peace.
[/INDENT]
As usual you keep changing the questions and disregarding the answers.
1- I only tried to post an article to give you a different perspective of the story and answer.
I have posted the article without my comments since there are contents which are based on older times centuries ago and may not even be considered useful or practical these days.
For centuries people have changed the way they ruled over each other and ideas and laws have taken at times 180 degree turn even in one country.
What was best for the time was adopted keeping the core values intact.
I personally am not a believer of khalifaism. This has been shown in my past posts.
2- I think by definition of dhimmi cited in the article there seems to be no distinction if a person is idol worshiper or not to be considered dhimmi. I am not an expert on its definition though.
3- The article has clearly shown that non-muslims WERE allowed to practice their religion then why keep bringing this so called ‘second class citizen question’???
Try not to make me give up on you my friend.
4- The definition of Muahid is in the article. Please click the link.
I took out some parts of the article and placed …
since I wanted to post the article where it was most relevant.
Bold parts did mention that there was no difference in the value of life of non-muslim to a muslim in terms of the punishment of the crime.
But off course you had to come up with ANOTHER irrelevant question ignoring the very relevant answers. Obviously you thought it was relevant.
Citing KSA will not help you my friend. I am not sure if they have what one will call sharia laws. Many muslims do not agree with their version anyway. KSA has no citizenship and hence not even muslims can get citizenship there.
In regards to keeping non-muslims safe, throughout the history non-muslims were safeguarded by muslim states and even during time of fall of Spanish rule Jews were protected and were given safe haven in Turkey.
There were regions which had more tolerance than others. Nothing to do with Islam but personal choices of the rulers.
Many non-muslims or even idol worshipers were appointed governers by muslims even in India ruled by muslims. Both muslim and non-muslim armies fought against a common enemy. No distinction in terms of religion.
About hindu idols breaking, I will say again, idol worshiping is one of the worst sin considered in Islam. But breaking idols in islamic countries have not been popular. Invaders did this but not really at their homes.
For centuries the statues of Buddha were kept safe in Afghanistan until recently a few people out of of no where came, and decided to destroy them.
For centuries Hindus in India and non-muslims in Spain florished and even took part in government, civil services, army, finances, education and inter-faith marriages.
Also it has been mentioned somewhere (Idiots Guide to islam… book series?), that even british army used those statues as target practice when they tried to conquer Afghanistan. They were not muslims.
And it has been shown throughout this thread that I am using common sense as well my special senses but you seem to have not.
I know you will ask again many questions even irrelevant to keep the thread going. Please do some research with open mind and not put all the responsibility on others for you questions.
Perhaps the thread need to be closed at some point when it gets even sillier or I stop answering.
Peace diwana,
[quote]
Posted by diwana
As usual you keep changing the questions and disregarding the answers.:)
[/quote]
Oh really?
[quote]
1- I only tried to post an article to give you a different perspective of the story and answer.
I have posted the article without my comments since there are contents which are based on older times centuries ago and may not even be considered useful or practical these days.
For centuries people have changed the way they ruled over each other and ideas and laws have taken at times 180 degree turn even in one country.
What was best for the time was adopted keeping the core values intact.
I personally am not a believer of khalifaism. This has been shown in my past posts.
[/quote]
But U went off topic anyways, coz topic is about hindus and not dhimmis, my understanding says that hindus/idolators arent considered dhimmis, the link I provided for support clearly gives U information how noble sahabas broke idols which were associated with belief of some non mulsims. Since they were not supposed to do any such thing with dhimmis, it clearly proves that idolators/hindus were not considered among dhimis. Its just like 2+2=4 if u are willing to accept plain truth.:).
[quote]
2- I think by definition of dhimmi cited in the article there seems to be no distinction if a person is idol worshiper or not to be considered dhimmi. I am not an expert on its definition though.
[/quote]
So does the writer of this article seems not to be an expert, while the noble sahaba were. When they broke idols, they made it very much clear that religious rights of idol worshipper wont be granted. Automatically they were out of fold of dhimmis. Is it so hard to understand? Hence defination of dhimmis in ur article has every chances to be wrong islamically.
[quote]
3- The article has clearly shown that non-muslims WERE allowed to practice their religion then why keep bringing this so called 'second class citizen question'?????
Try not to make me give up on you my friend.:)
[/quote]
U are more than welcome to give up on me if U feel like brother.
The link provided by me clearly shows with reference of authentic ahadiths that sahaba and muslims frequently broke idols which were associated with some ppls belief. U can keep singning ur article shows anything. But, plz think whether idols were broken by sahaba or not? If yes, than how can u or ur writer of the article claim about equal rights? And if not, than keep the guts of saying NO.
[quote]
4- The definition of Muahid is in the article. Please click the link.
I took out some parts of the article and placed ......................
since I wanted to post the article where it was most relevant.
Bold parts did mention that there was no difference in the value of life of non-muslim to a muslim in terms of the punishment of the crime.
But off course you had to come up with ANOTHER irrelevant question ignoring the very relevant answers. Obviously you thought it was relevant.;)
[/quote]
Now I know who is a Mua'hid, thanks. Ur article can mention anything, but its of no use unless it provides evidence to prove what it says, where it fails. While ur article failed to provide any source which can prove that punishment for a muslim and a dhimmi is equal, at the other hand U are frequently ignoring hadith provided by me to prove that a muslim is not eligible of death punishment for murdering a dhimmi. dont U believe in ahadith? U can pat ur back by declaring ur answer as relevent, but for me its worth nothing.
[quote]
Citing KSA will not help you my friend. I am not sure if they have what one will call sharia laws. Many muslims do not agree with their version anyway. KSA has no citizenship and hence not even muslims can get citizenship there.
[/quote]
My dear brother, KSA is the only country today who seems to have any regard for shariyah. Muslims can reject their version of shariyah while sitting in countries which allows every unislamic activity from RIBA to MUSIC. Its just like pot calling kettle black. I was not talking about citizenship of KSA, but was trying to let U know that 100% of citizen of KSA are muslims, in a land were all religions used to live and practice their religion.
[quote]
In regards to keeping non-muslims safe, throughout the history non-muslims were safeguarded by muslim states and even during time of fall of Spanish rule Jews were protected and were given safe haven in Turkey.
[/quote]
Oh thanks for providing knowledge. But was it turky which gave up Islamic laws to give way to secular laws or I m mistaking?
[quote]
Many non-muslims or even idol worshipers were appointed governers by muslims even in India ruled by muslims. Both muslim and non-muslim armies fought against a common enemy. No distinction in terms of religion.
[/quote]
Brother I thought I was talking about muslsims who have any regard for Islamic laws, ie laws of ALLAH. Pl dont give me reference of muslims who were hooked by secular values. We have example of Akbar the great and his Deen e Ilahi with us, but was that Islamically relevent?
[quote]
About hindu idols breaking, I will say again, idol worshiping is one of the worst sin considered in Islam. But breaking idols in islamic countries have not been popular. Invaders did this but not really at their homes.
[/quote]
I can agree coz I m not discussing religion here. U say that breaking idols was not popular in Islamic countries, will U deny those ahadith which states of sahaba breaking or encouraging breaking idols?
[quote]
For centuries the statues of Buddha were kept safe in Afghanistan until recently a few people out of of no where came, and decided to destroy them.
[/quote]
That few ppls came from some Islamic madarsa if U dont know about them. And they could have boasted to be shariyah abiding unlike their mentors. Destroying Buddha was supposed to be a noble action as per their religious teachings.
[quote]
For centuries Hindus in India and non-muslims in Spain florished and even took part in government, civil services, army, finances, education and inter-faith marriages.
Also it has been mentioned somewhere (Idiots Guide to islam... book series?), that even british army used those statues as target practice when they tried to conquer Afghanistan. They were not muslims.
[/quote]
How Islamic of muslim rulers, and british army alike, isnt it?
[quote]
And it has been shown throughout this thread that I am using common sense as well my special senses but you seem to have not.:)
[/quote]
Once again ur supernatural powers have impressed me a lot. How correctly U have judged about my non existant senses. Full marks to U.
[quote]
I know you will ask again many questions even irrelevant to keep the thread going. Please do some research with open mind and not put all the responsibility on others for you questions.
*Perhaps the thread need to be closed at some point when it gets even sillier or I stop answering. *
[/quote]
See ur supernatural power is amazing indeed. U know a lot of things beside everything, how impressing.
I have started worrying about my health when u stop answering my silly questions.
Peace anyways.