Issue 16
Issue 16[@ 15:52]: Slide show – The Noble Koran – 9:29 – Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and fight against those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah [voice – the Poll Tax] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.
Rebuttal 16: The critics of Islam have gripes against history. Firstly, as to why Muhammad did not offer himself for crucifixion? Secondly, why did he along with his followers successfully escape from his persecutors in Makkah? Thirdly, why did he take up arms in self-defense? Fourth, why did he succeed against well equipped armies despite being outnumbered? Fifth, why did he overcome the Makkans? Sixth, why was he able to establish a transparent and successful government with full accountability? The answer to the last gripe is in the verse that is shown in the slide in the movie and is addressed in this rebuttal below:
9:29. Fight against such of the people who despite having been given the Scripture [and were not following its standards of civility – as recorded in secular history,] do not (really) believe in Allâh and the Last Day, [and had no sense of accountability – which can be independently verified in history] and who do not hold unlawful what Allâh and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful [and forbidden], and do not subscribe to the true faith, [i.e. law of the land, thus requiring Police action and a fight on the mob for enforcement of Law and Order and the values that a state stands for]…
The keyword in above verse is unlawful [and forbidden]. These clauses are only valid and enforceable in context of a sitting government and its set of written laws including taxation. No government can be functional without law enforcement and tax collection.
The law enforcement was warranted then as is now in “civilized” societies of the world. Some of the unlawful and forbidden activities requiring full force of the law are sampled from Quran as follows:
Loan Sharking
2:275. Those who practice usury and interest, (their condition is such as) they will not be able to stand except like the standing of one who has lost his reason under the influence of satan. That is so because they say, `Trade is just like usury and interest.’ Whereas Allah has made trade lawful and made interest unlawful. Then whosoever has received (this) admonition from his Lord and keeps away (from usury and interest) he may keep whatever (interest) he has taken in the past. His matter rests with Allah. As for those who revert (to the practice of usury and interest) it is these who are the fellows of the Fire, therein shall they live for long. “2:276. Allâh annuls usury and interest and promotes charity. Allâh does not love any persistent and confirmed disbeliever and an arch-sinner.
2:277. Verily, those who believe and do deeds of righteousness and regularly observe the Prayer and go on presenting the Zakât shall have their reward from their Lord; they shall have no cause of fear, nor shall they ever grieve.
2:278. O you who believe! take Allâh as a shield and forgo all outstanding gains from usury and interest if you are indeed believers.
2:279. But if you do (it) not, then beware of war from Allâh and His Messenger. But if you turn away (from such an unlawful transaction) then you shall have your principal (without interest) back. (Thus) you shall neither deal unjustly nor be dealt with unjustly.
4:161. And (also on account of) their taking interest and usury though they were forbidden it, and because of their misappropriating people’s belongings. And We have prepared a woeful punishment for those among them who disbelieve.
Bankruptcy Protection
2:280. If any (debtor) be in straitened circumstances there shall be respite (for him) till (his circumstances) ease. But that if you remit (the debt) by way of charity (for the sake of God), it is better for you, if you only knew.Usurpation of Property and the Wild West mentality, where there is no sense of accountability
17:33. And do not kill anyone, the sanctity of which Allâh has upheld (and has forbidden you to slay) except for a just cause. And We have given, of course, to the heir of the person who is killed unjustly the right (to demand retribution or to forgive). But let him not exceed the (prescribed) limits in killing (the murderer) because he is indeed helped (and protected by law).4:29. O you who believe! do not consume your (- one another’s) property amongst yourselves by unlawful means, rather it be a trade based on free mutual consent. And do not kill your people. Surely, Allâh has been Ever Merciful to you.
4:30. But whoever does any such thing aggressively and unjustly, We shall certainly cast him into Fire. And this is ever easy for Allâh.
Health and Safety Code
16:115. He has made unlawful for you only carrion (that which dies of itself), blood (flowed out), the flesh of swine and that which has been sacrificed in some other name than Allâh’s. But he who is constrained (to do this) not desiring it and having no intention either to disobey or to exceed the limits (of necessity), will find that Allâh surely is Great Protector, Ever Merciful.2:173. He has forbidden you only (to eat carrion) that which dies of itself, the blood, the flesh of swine and that over (the sacrifice of) which the name of someone other than Allâh has been invoked. Yet he who is constrained (to use them) without desiring (them) nor going beyond the limits (of bare necessity), incurs no sin. Surely, Allâh is Great Protector, Ever Merciful.
Incest
4:23. Forbidden to you (for marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, and your maternal aunts, and the daughters of a brother, and the daughters of a sisters, and your (foster) mothers who have given suck to you, and your foster sisters, and the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters who are being brought up under your care and have been born of your wives (by their former husbands,) unto whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in unto them (- their mothers), then there is no blame on you (in marrying their daughters), and the wives of your sons who are from your own loins; and (it is forbidden to you) to keep in wedlock two sisters (at one and the same time), except what has already passed, (you have to divorce one of them). Surely, Allâh is Most Protector (against faults), Ever Merciful.4:24. And (you are also forbidden to marry) already married women who are in a wed-lock. Yet those (captives in war) whom your right hands possess (are permitted to you for marriage even if not formally divorced by their former husbands, since their captivity is equivalent to divorce). This is the law prescribed to you by Allâh. All (women) beyond those (mentioned above) are lawful to you, provided you seek (their hands) by means of your wealth (- by granting dowers), marrying them properly and not (committing fornication) to pursue your lust. You shall, for the benefits you draw from them (by regular marriage), pay them (- your wives) such of their dowers as have been fixed. There is, however, no blame on you (in increasing or decreasing the amount of dower) which you (- husband and wife) mutually agree upon, after it has been (once) fixed. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Human trafficking – Sex Trade
7:33. Say, `Verily, My Lord has forbidden all (acts of) indecency, open and hidden, and every (kind of) sin and aggression, which is never justifiable; and (He forbids you also) to associate with Allâh that for which He has sent down no authority, and to say concerning Allâh that which you do not know (that it is in fact said by Him).’24:3. The fornicator and adulterer cannot have sexual relations (without lawful marriage) except with a fornicatress and adulteress or polytheistic woman (of low morality), and the fornicatress and adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her except a fornicator and adulterer or a polytheistic man (of low morality). And this (adultery and fornication) is forbidden to the believers.
25:68. And who invoke none as god along with Allâh and who do not kill anyone whom Allâh has forbidden (to be killed), except for a just and lawful cause, and who do not commit fornication and adultery; and he who does (these things) shall meet the punishment of (his) sin.
Human Dignity and Defamation
49:11. O you who believe! let no people look down upon another people for the (latter) people may be better than they, nor let women (look down) upon other women, who (- the women who are treated lightly) may be better than the other ones. And find not fault in one another (in order to defame your own people), nor call one another by nick-names. Bad is the reputation of wickedness after the (profession of) belief. Highly unjust are the people who would not abstain from what they are forbidden.Anti-State conspiracy and Sleeper Cells
58:8. Have you not seen those who were forbidden (to hold) secret counsels and yet repeatedly returned to what they were forbidden to do, and they conferred together secretly (encouraging) sin, transgression and disobedience to the Messenger? When they come to you they greet you (with words) with which Allâh has not greeted you, but they say one to another, `Why does Allâh not cause us to suffer for what we say (hypocritically).’ Sufficient for them is Gehenna (to reckon with them satisfactorily). They shall enter it. What an evil resort!58:9. O you who believe! when you hold secret counsels do not confer to promote sin, transgression and disobedience to the Messenger. Rather confer (to promote) piety, and righteousness and restrain from evil. And take Allâh as a shield, (Allâh) before whom you shall be gathered together.
58:10. Holding secret counsels (with evil intentions) is (the work) of satan (who does it) to cause unrest and distress to those who believe. Yet he can do them no harm at all except by the leave of Allâh. Therefore let the believers repose their trust in Allâh.
9:29….until they pay the Jizyah (- the commutation tax), provided they can afford it, and they are content with their state of subjection (having become incorporated in the Islamic government)[as payment of tax is the first step towards citizenship and the rights that it confers. Conforming to tax laws is in letter and spirit “Oath of Allegiance” to the state, else Internal Revenue Service has no option but to act against such a person, legally and if needed by police action].
The Jizyah is a sliding tax rate, up to a maximum of 12 dirhams annually (see Rebuttal 15d, under Muhammad’s Charter to Christians) and that too provided they can afford it, while it also exempted them from compulsory military service. On the other hand, the Muslims had a fixed 2.5% property tax aka Zakat, annually and still mandated them to serve in the military. By pure numbers and responsibilities, factually it was Muslims who were discriminated against as compared to non-Muslims citizens that Robert Spencer disparagingly calls Dhimmis while ignoring the undertaking of Dhimma by the Muslims [-see Rebuttal 15d].
Apparently, United States of America borrowed fundamentals of its constitution from the verse in reference:
“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” – Benjamin Franklin
By enforcing Laws as outlined in the verse in this issue, one can conclude that Shariah is more in effect in Western countries than in Muslim countries themselves. Sounds scary?
References:
Oath of Allegiance (United States) – Wikipedia.
Benjamin Franklin – Wikpedia.
Holy Quran – Nooruddin.
From ikram:
Below is a historical and etymological analysis about Jezyah – Poll Tax, as identified by Dr. Zahid Aziz.
“The Vindication of Jezyah” by M. Y. Khan, The Light, p. 25-26, January 8, 1977. [pdf]
“Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, Thou shalt not escape calumny.” Shakespeare
“The disciples of Abraham, of Moses and Jesus,” says Gibbon, speaking of Jezyah, the much misunderstood poll-tax imposed at times by Muslims on their non-Muslim subjects, “were solemnly invited to the more perfect revelation of Muhammad, but if they preferred the payment of a moderate tribute, they were entitled to the freedom of Conscience and religious worship.”
The question of this “moderate tribute” introduces us to a subject so often misunderstood and so repeatedly misinterpreted that it seems to have lost its very identity. Islam preached compromise. In Islam, tribute or war were the three conditions offered to those unbelievers who, like the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza, acted perfidiously towards the Faithful who, in spite of their being members of the league of allied tribes, conspired against Islam and aided the enemies of the Prophet; who actually stoned, harassed and murdered the Muslims; who, in spite of their social, moral and spiritual degradation, made strenuous effort; to propagate their pernicious practices; and who instigated the Jews against the believers and fomented hatred and agitation amongst the Christians to check the growth of Islam, which stood for pace. In spite of all this, Islam was catholic enough in its dealings towards its avowed enemies. When it asked the unbelievers to accept its principles, it had not the least tinge of intolerance. They were so asked simply to give them a fresh chance after their repeated infidelity to engagements – a sort of grace, so to say. This was an attempt to create a universal brotherhood on equal footing, to render the lives and properties of these new converts in the fold immune from danger or attack, and to put an end to hostility and enlarge the sphere of peace and order. If it was not acceptable, the next alternative attempt to grant liberty, equality and fraternity was made by asking them to pay a tax which, in the words or Gibbon, was “moderate,” or according to Scheffler was a “trifling matter,” It is well to remember that the latter is a person anxious to represent the conditions of Christians under Turkish rule in as black a colour as possible.
Islam is the golden means. The imposition of Jezyah meant the establishment of a relation between the protectors and the protected and was accompanied by a great emphasis on the responsibility that the conquerors owed to the conquered. If this, too, was not acceptable, it virtually meant the forcing of wars upon the Muslims. In all times and in all countries a neighboring foe who would come to no terms is the most undesirable being. The only fate that awaits him is that he completely submits to his aggressive neighbor, or his territories are annexed, or that he is reduced to a tributary chief. Even today, if any nation fails or refuses to pay indemnity or rejects stipulations she is threatened by an ultimatum or war. Either a State should be a member of the League or retain neutral or fight – these three alternatives exhaust the possibilities of political relationships.
The sources of income in an Islamic State were (1) the tithes, (2) the land tax and (3) the capitation tax or Jezyah. This Jezyah was not the only source of revenue, but only one of the three sources, and to fully understand its character we have to pay regard to, first, the original language to which the word belongs, and the meaning in which it is used in it, secondly, the date, when it was imposed in Iran and Arabia, and, lastly, the object of Islam in adopting it. The word “Jezyah” is used in fact by the lexicographers in the same sense as khiraj. The words adopted in Arabic from foreign languages are more often than not misrepresented by modern writer. The book Maqati-ul-ulum, which is an authority on words and their usage, affirms that the word “Jezyah,” which is applied to the tax taken from the Zimmis, is a foreign word Arabicised. Its root is Gazya and in Persian it is used in the same sense as khiraj. Thus “Jezyah” is originally a Persian word. It further affirmed that Jezyah was in vogue in Arabia long before the advent of Islam. It is, moreover, an established fact that the word “Gaziat” in Persian conveys the same sense from very ancient times, and with reference to events of a very distant past. For example, in B.C. 5, the Athenians levied it on the inhabitants of Asia Minor [ref: George Zeidan]. Its imposition involved upon them the responsibility of protecting them against the Phoenecians; in other words, it was a protective duty. The Romans, after their conquest of Gaul, levied it on its people at the rate of between 9 to 15 guineas a year, or seven times, so to say, higher than that imposed by the Muslims on their non-Muslim subjects. The Persians, in their turn, imposed it on their own subject. The rates of Jezyah and Khiraj current in Arabia were codified in the days of Nausherwan [ref: Malcolm: History of Persia, Vol. 1, ch. 1, pp. 145-6]. “He imposed the capitation tax upon the Jews and the Christians.” This is not a technical term invented by Muslims, nor has it anything to do with agreement or disagreement in religious matters. Nausherwan and his people were coreligionists, but the tax imposed by him was called “Jezyah.” Imam Abu Jafar Tabari, the greatest historian-writer of the administration of Nausherwan, says with reference to the question:
He adds that when Omar conquered Iran he followed the same rules. This statement is confirmed by Allama Abu Hanifa in “Kitab-ul-Akhbar-wal-tawal.”
The object of Nausherwan in introducing Jezyah, as explained by Tabari, was that as armies protect countries and as they undergo personal sufferings, it was only fair that their Governments should reserve a sum from the public treasury which might be a compensation for their risks.
From Omar Raja:
Assalamu alaikum.
If anyone is interested, see my exchange between myself and Jaime Morris regarding so-called abrogation of verses in the Quran with particular reference to the 9th chapter though the topic started out as something different. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-terrorists-say-Allah-Akbar-while-killing-a-person
In the last exchange so far I put forth the argument:
Firstly, the Quran only speaks of abrogation of previous scripture and not verses to be with in the Quran itself, so this notion of one verse being abrogated by a later revelation is unknown to Quran. For those interested, see my post on Quora here regarding this subject: Omar Raja's answer to Why does the Quran retain abrogated verses?
Secondly, I mentioned 9:13 because it shows that principle of fighting in self-defense is mentioned in even one of the latest revelations and even though as you rightly say 9:13 is specifically speaking in terms of the idolators of Makkah. The 9th chapter is in fact regarded to have been revealed in 9 A.H. (9 years after Hijra or the migration from Makkah to Madinah which took place in the year 622) which comes to the year 631, just one year before the Holy Prophet Muhammad passed away. So the argument then becomes that the principle of self-defense was done away with in Islam, more or less, just one year before the Prophet Muhammad passed away.
And that is disproven by the very fact that the same chapter 9 speaks of the famous Tabuk expedition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. When he learned of the Byzantine’s (Roman) empire’s plan to encroach upon Arabia, the Holy Prophet Muhammad marched a very long distance of 380 miles to the city of Tabuk (midway between Madinah and Damascus), but when he saw that there were no enemy troops there, what did he do with his force of 30,000? He did not allow his forces to continue on and invade the enemy territory; he instead made alliances with local tribes for 10 days and then returned home. He thus abided by the Quranic principles in its true letter and spirit of “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but be not aggressive” (2:190) and “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it.”(8:61-62).
So the Prophet’s Muhammad’s own example of the Tabuk expedition in the year 9 A.H./631 C.E. shows this to be the case which was spoken of as an “hour of hardship” (9:117) upon the Muslims. So the command to fight given in 9:29 is subject to these conditions of fighting in self-defense as a last and final resort when war is being forced upon them and if their enemies incline to peace after initiating war they too must incline towards peace; thus to misconstrue it otherwise is belied by the Prophet’s own historical example. It cannot be given the extreme interpretation which you are suggesting.
As to conflicts that would later arise between the Muslim and the Arab and Persian empires and the concept of Jizya see my post on Quora: Omar Raja's answer to If Jihad was merely a defensive war, then why did the Prophet and his four immediate successors go on invading civilized lands to spread faith?
I’d like to invite you to contribute your comments to the discussion on the Lahore Ahmadiyya blog regarding this subject: http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2011/09/09/issue-16/
Jaime Morris writes in reply:
You need to ensure strict brevity of your arguments and focus on the discussion at hand, not going off on ill disciplined tangents every second paragraph.
Few of us have the luxury of being on benefits, retired, or being funded by a religious community as a spokesperson, or whatever other peculiarity gives one so much free time. Remember, you are arguing a point on an online social media platform not using intimidation through sheer enormous size of each comment. Also, some references to reliable credible well known sources would be good – e.g. non-Muslim experts without an axe to grind, but not Karen Armstrong. Just because you write something purporting to be a fact does not make it so, especially when your version is Islam is considered apostasy by all other sects/movements, and you are 1% in the U.K, even if pesrsonally I prefer your version of Islam.
Any comments or feedback would be appreciated.
From Yahya:
Thank you Omar Sahib. Keep up the good work.