I think the cornerstone for Ancient Islamic Republic of Tribalistan has been set!!
The next step would be to implement the same jazia on Shia-ites, Sunnis etc, I guess!
Source: Duniya News!
The decision was taken in a jirga!
Jazakmullah Khairan !
PKPolitics Discuss » Video Links
Sikhs In Khaibar Agency succumb to the Extremists, Ready to pay Jazia!
(52 posts)-
ucsher
MemberPosted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 15:31 # -
ucsher the word haters=religious for these !
blast them into eternity!
Mulla!
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 15:46 # -
chechen
MemberYou can criticize that their is no Islamic government to take Jizya but do not ridicule the commandments of Allah SBT.
Context of Jizya in light of Quran.
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (The Noble Quran, 9:28-29)"
I'd like to point out that many people were exempt from the "Jizyah" or "taxes":
"Jizyah: the root meaning is compensation.......there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifah), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service." [2]
As to the fighting, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started spreading the Message of Islam to the Arabs, he had to eventually deal with 365 Pagan Arab tribes, 3 Jewish tribes (Bani Qaynuqaa, Bani Al-Natheer, and Bani Quraytha) and some Christian tribes as well.
Remember the famous incident during the Khilafa of Abu Bakr RA. Muslims could not guarantee safey of a non Muslim tribe living in far stringes of Islamic Empire and the Jizaya was given back to them.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 15:56 # -
What happened to thoses jewish tribes in Madina?
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:01 # -
chechen
MemberThey are in "promised" aka usurped land of Israel
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:08 # -
an entire jewish tribe of bani qainu qah is buried under masjid nabwi, if you dig 2 to 3 feet you will find 800 peoples bones!
look into famous seerah book raheeq al makhtoom!
Mulla!
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:09 # -
chechen
MemberThe biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa, and later Banu al-Nadir, provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar and Fadak were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira, the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qurashites and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequently, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
This is referenced in Sura 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." This is what Allah said not some human historian.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:24 # -
NNL
memberUscher
Arey yaar the Sikhs also had ruled in that area for a long periodPathan badla agar nahin ley ga tou kia karey.
So Noorani Mulla ji was the Tribe that was killed in the time of the Prophet (saas) for treason whose bones you say are buried under the Masjid -e- Nabvi was not part of Islam and thus the Decision taken by the Holy Prophet (saas) is also wrong ?
Your comments please.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:40 # -
I do not know if the decision was wrong.....
but this is what happened...how can I question decisions made by Rasool Allah...
I only read it in the books and think....
what do you think ? was it justified to cut the necks of surrendered humans ? even after they give you all of their money and women ? would you cut thier necks ....?
Mulla!
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 16:45 # -
if this news is true then it is a very sad news.
Government should protect and help Pakistani Sikhs from them.Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 17:32 # -
expakistani
MemberThere are certain elements you must need to take out from society to have peace.... i think that was the logic behind killing of so many Jews.
Allah and Nabi knows better.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 17:40 # -
crocodile
BlockedAww...so much love i see in the post..so much care and compassion for minorities....:)
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 17:46 # -
ucsher
Member@crocodile
jo cheez pehlay hi na honay k barabar hu us ka jitna bhi khayal kiya jai kum hay!
but i guess tum sari zindagi magarmuch(crocodile) ke aansoon baha baha ke har cheez ko hi darama samjhnay lagay ho ;););)
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 18:01 # -
crocodile
Blocked"har cheez ko hi darama"
How ? Explain with quotation from my posts!
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 18:29 # -
ucsher
Member@croc
lo dekho...ab aik puranay dramay ko disprove karnay k liyay aik naya drama karnay ka keh rahay ho!!!chal chor na dramabazi yaraa
kabhi kabhi apnay pe bhi huns liya kar
te mojan kar;)
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 19:05 # -
Soon after the Battle of the Trench was over,Prophet claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him "asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts." Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.htmlIt is not clear why the Archangel needed Muslim's help to wipe out the Jews if he had "a procession of angels"
Sa'd's verdict who had received as a serious wound in the previous Battle of the Confederates was "that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280To separate men from the boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.And as Chechen proudly posted "... the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery".
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 20:12 # -
This begs a question
He is called Rahmatulil Alameen ( Mercy to mankind).???????
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 20:21 # -
chechen
MemberIt was mercy that led Prophet SAS to obey the orders of Allah SBT to execute that tribe. No if and but. Prophet SAS was and will remain Mercy to Mankind until doomsday. The circumstances surrounding the treachery of that tribe were known to Allah and his Prophet to carryout that order. He never carried out anything for his personal ego or enmity. How can one explain his magnanimity in general amnesty for tens of thousands who were captured after final conquest of Makkah. The ones who expected sword got freedom? Why?
If someone is deliberately highlighting that incident to question the mercy of the Prophet as described in Quran it is tantamount to blasphemy. The only place that incident is mostly questioned is Jewish chronicles out to malign the great Prophet.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 23:32 # -
crocodile
Blocked"The only place that incident is mostly questioned is Jewish chronicles out to malign the great Prophet. "
good point chechen i missed that.
Posted 2 years ago on 02 Jun 2009 23:40 # -
Sahnaz
MemberNo wonder again jews cm in sight..smtime i really feel pity fr jewz..they r getting killed frm christian and muslims since thousand of year. i think they need to do jehad.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 3:05 # -
NNL
memberBoss you can abuse and accuse and say anything you wish
Just dont start saying that Punjabis are racists and are racially biased
the thread will be called biased and uselessPosted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 3:31 # -
ucsher
Member@Chechan, Crocodile
Right now I am having problems in even coming to terms with something like that as, to be honest with you, I din't know much about this cruel Incident anyway .
But Since the point raised by Chechan is general in nature i.e
[[[If someone is deliberately highlighting that incident to question the mercy of the Prophet as described in Quran it is tantamount to blasphemy]]]
You mean if some one is just asking why even 12-13 years old were killed ??
I hope even Hindus and Sikhs get this blasphemy order working in their favor some how so that those who narrate their cruel doings with all the fervor & zeal of this world(i.e how they used to identify & then kill muslims by forcing them to show their circumcised genitals) could remain silent even on this issue!!!
*Though apologies for comparing the later incident with the prior without even ensuring cent percent as to whether the hindus & sikhs in fact killed some minors or not!
@Chechan
[[[The only place that incident is mostly questioned is Jewish chronicles out to malign the great Prophet]]]You mean the way the cruel killings of muslims by Hindus and Sikhs are mostly questioned by muslims of Pakistan?
I have very little doubt that some one even among the off springs of those Barbaric Hindus and Sikhs is not raising the same lame point as you are!
@NNL
Perhaps the non-muslim Historians that you quoted in one of your previous posts weren't aware of every thing that took place between muslims and the non-muslims at that time, after all!
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 3:36 # -
chechen
MemberThere were all men not chidren. Where does it say they were 12 year old? The man who recommended the punishment was from that tribe. Allah's revealed that Ayat in the Quran. Are we questioning Allah's words: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." They were definitely not 12 year olds. The links Peter is giving are educational institutions that have mostly orientalists with agenda to defame Islam and its Prophet SAS.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 4:05 # -
NNL
memberlol
@ uscher nice oneBut if you were betrayed in a middle of the war and were forced to open up 2 fronts. What would u have done. here again is a lesson in history which most of the Jews would themselves be denial off.
The Jews were confronted and asked to leave Madina they refused.
And moreover He(saas) when asked then what the Jews wanted
they asked for their own Arbitrator of their own choice and then choose that the Jewish law be applied to them. It was no surprise to them when their own law was served to them.The Jewish states that all the Men be killed and women and children be sold as captives.
So why cry foul when they get served according their own laws when they wanted it.
Lol cant have it both ways my friend.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 5:54 # -
ucsher
Member@Chechan
Try and remember as to when exactly did you start growing pubes!
Though if you were are an exceptional case then here is the general proven knowledge in this regard!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_age_do_you_start_getting_pubic_hair
Another point to be noted is that in some cases these hair can grow as early as 6, 7 years of age (that is if you are a well built guy or girl )
which in turn raises the question that why would God implement such a flawed "litmus test" to separate Men from the Boys!
Accept it guys
Our ordinary methods tell us how average we were, so stop portraying yourself as some exceptional creatures who enlightened the whole word!Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:14 # -
@Chechan
Which links are you talking about? I have given only links to the Hadeeths on this thread.
The prisnors you mentioned were innocent women and children.
what was their crime to become slaves? Is this what Allah wanted?What happened to the entire jewish population of Madina?
The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who had called Medina home, for more than 1000 years. They were easy targets. Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative enterprise.What about Bani Mustaliq??
Bukhari, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following Hadith.
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:What about Khyber???
What happened to women and children of Khyber?
What happened to Safia's husband Kinana?
Why was he tortured to death?
This is what Seeratul Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham
page 515 reads:"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:18 # -
i some how feel sorry for them..who has been pressurized to pay Jaziya .
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:18 # -
ucsher
Member@NNL
Well even if it was a jewish law, it wouldn't have stopped a rehmatulil-alameen who by the looks of thing was in total control of the things there to have exempted jews from such a barbaric & cruel punishment & showed them for once how big a heart He and Islam has got!
Where was all that afo-u-darguzar of Taif, shab-e-abi-talib, & that incident in which taht old women used to throw garbage on him (although it semmed to be controversial) etc??
How can a person who can even stand all kind of atrocities of non-muslims of taif and Mecca on himself can be suddenly so rigid when it comes to treating others with the same cruel punishments?
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:28 # -
NNL
memberlol Peterpan cant you bring anything other than from Ibn Ishaq
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:32 # -
NNL
memberUscher mera dost
JEWS ASKED TO BE TREATED ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN LAWS AND VIA ARBITRATOR OF THEIR OWN CHOICE.
DID THEY MAKE THEIR JUDGE IN RASOOL ALLAH>
NO
They didntThey choose their own judge and their own laws to be judged with,
Now they complain it wasnt fair.My friend you cant have it both ways.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:34 # -
ucsher
Member@Beenia
Its perfectly fine to feel like that unless & "some how" you are a "lakeer ka faqeer" & a robotic person whose all feelings are operated by a special manual;)
Aieen-e-nau se darna, tarze-kohan pe arna
Manzil yahi kathan hay, qaumoon ke rastoon main!
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:34 # -
NNL
memberPeterpan
Didnt Kinna kill his Brother ? Mahmud Ibn Maslama
Cmon man do better
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:36 # -
NNL
memberBanu Nadir and Banu Qainuqa why werent they dealt the same treatment they did the same thing in Battles of Uhud and Badr respectively ?
Same crimes in all 3 of them and one gets a separate punishment use those God Given brain cells
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:40 # -
@NNL
you are not talking about those innocent women and children.What was their crime??What about Kinana's wife Safia?
Her husband is tortured to death,her entire family members are killed during day time.
Yet this seventeen years woman marry happily the same night.Do you want non muslims to believe this joke?
Do you know what was her Mahar??? .....NADA...ZILCH.Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 6:53 # -
chechen
MemberThe .edu link was origin in that link. There are authentic links. May be same but didn't check it.
http://www.searchtruth.com/list.php
The women and children had no crime. Remember slavery existed until 20th century. What was the crime of black slaves women and children until 1960's. It was the time when slavery was rampant but the treatment that was given to those slaves was incredible and in a way much better than emancipated slaves of 20th century. The slave concubines were protected and their offsprings wer entitled to all that was given to legal wives and chidren including inheritance. I am no expert but need to read and find more about the teratment of slaves. Ever heard of slave dynasties ruling large sections of Muslim world at one point or other? The Mamluke slaves, the Delhi slave sultanate come to my mind.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 7:29 # -
NNL
memberPeterpan My friend Go and study the Jewish law and then make the Human Rights Appeal.
lol
just to start you here is the Jewish Law.
“When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy 20:12)
They got what they wanted.
Umm-e-Safia (ra). Her Mahr was that by being married she was freed from Slavery.
He [the Prophet Muhammad - Ed.] then told Safiyyah that he was prepared to set her free, and he offered her the choice between remaining a Jewess and returning to her people or entering Islam and becoming his wife. "I choose God and His Messenger," she said; and they were married at the first halt on the homeward march. (Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based On The Earliest Sources (George Allen & Unwin, 1983), p. 269Peterpan Kinana wasnt totured my friend Dont go believing in the only myth you got.
See the Mureder of his brother by Kinana.
Posted 2 years ago on 03 Jun 2009 15:44 # -
@NNL
you want to deny that Kinana was not tortured because you think Ibn Ishaq was perhaps a jew, hence jewish propogenda.
Well how about Sunan Abu Dawud? This hadith provides substantiation that the torture of Kinana over the treasure actually happened.Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
The Prophet fought with the people of Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and whatever they took away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no treaty (with Muslims).
They carried away a purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab who was killed before (the battle of) Khaybar. He took away the ornaments of Banu an-Nadir when they were expelled.
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) asked Sa'yah: Where is the purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab?
He replied: The contents of this purse were spent on battles and other expenses. (Later on) they found the purse. So he killed Ibn AbulHuqayq, captured their women and children, and intended to deport them. They said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to make a contribution of eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of wheat to each of his wives. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000)The translator says in a footnote that:
2427. It contained a large quantity of gold, silver and ornaments. It valued nearly ten thousand dinars. A woman who was married usually borrowed ornaments from this purse. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation and explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, XIII. Kitab al-Kharaj Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imrah, Chapter 1112: On The Law About The Land of Khaibar, p. 853)
As for Safia, you say she was given a choice of joining her people after freedom or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with the Prophet.
A choice?? We have to remember that Prophet had killed most of her people and banished the rest of them. So giving the choice to join her people is not much of a choice.
This story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat and Ibn Hisham's Seerah.
......She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account"......The story tells you that Abu Ayyub was concerned for the safety of the prophet because he had killed Safiyah's father, husband and many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a woman after killing her loved ones. It should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death.
Who was Rayhana?
Rayhanah was the most beautiful woman of Banu Quraiza tribe. She refused to marry and she refused to convert. There fore she remained a slave of the Prophet.How did Prophet marry Juwairiyah ?
Who was she? Another Booty of war from a jewish tribe.
In a Hadith narrated by Aisha, she says
"....She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her.......As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her....."In all these cases the Prophet has no problem as he had his Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married.
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess(Q. 4:24 )
The above verse shows that the Holy prophet did not believe that slaves have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own life, but if Prophet and his devout followers attacked your town and captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahid who would rape you all with Allah's blessings.
Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 5:24 # -
@Chechan
Almost all Islamic site describing these Ghazwats states
".According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers."
you yourself said "The women and children had no crime. Remember slavery existed ....."As we read the history of Islam, we see this was indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam.(Remember Prophet waged over sixty wars according to Tabari). With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions.
Yet the question remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave?
If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn?t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all? Did he not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them to follow?Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 5:37 # -
@Chechan
To talk about slavery would require a lengthy discussion.
I would love to discus with any knowledgeble person.
Muslims generaly do not know about history of slavery in Islam.
That how many captured slave women were brought to Arabia by Musa bin Naseer from Spain. How many women slaves were brought from India.How slavery flourished in Islamic Empire.
Where were all those slave markets all over Muslim land?Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 6:02 # -
chechen
Memberhttp://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/362
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/94840
Q)I often hear Christian missionaries criticizing Islam and accusing it because Islam permitted slavery, and saying that this is a transgression against man’s freedom and rights. How can we respond to these people?.
A)Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam is something that annoys the wise person and makes him point the finger of accusation towards the ulterior motives that lie behind these questions.
That is because slavery is well established in Judaism and Christianity, where it has taken unjust forms. They have many books which discuss that in detail and condone it. Therefore it makes you wonder: how can these churchmen call people to Christianity when Christianity condones and legitimizes slavery?
...... ContinuedPosted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 7:58 # -
larki
Blockedok how would u feel if the muslims living in christain lands and hindu lands will have to pay for their stay there?
it might become a trend, what?Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 8:58 # -
i feel its totally unjust on our part to take extra tax from non muslims ,in the name of Jazia .
Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 9:23 # -
chechen
MemberFight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (The Noble Quran, 9:28-29)"
Beenai,
It is not what we may think, it is what Allah says and it is not as media has unjustly portrayed.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, said: "They pay capitation tax so that their properties and lives may be as ours."
Let us see what noted non-Muslims say about Jizyah:
The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:
This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Call To Islam, pp. 79-81)
The historian Adam Mitz is of the view that because of Islamic tolerance toward non-Muslims and by virtue of the protection granted to them, they paid the Jizyah in accordance with their financial capacities. This Jizyah was like the present-day national defense tax. Only persons who could perform military service were obliged to pay it. So Monks and ascetics were exempted, except for those who could afford to pay.
Christians have been constantly criticizing Islam's stance regarding Jizyah. They say that it is meant to oppress them. Besides the fact that this concept is also found in their Bible, Jizyah is not meant to discriminate against the Christians or Jews.
Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat which the non-Muslims are not required to pay.
Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway
'The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation to Islam, p. 77)
Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 14:20 # -
@larki:
"ok how would u feel if the muslims living in christain lands and hindu lands will have to pay for their stay there?"...
WE DO! FACT.
Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 14:26 # -
ucsher
Member@oriel
I hope you are talking about money and not trying to make some indirect philosophical point!
though if it indeed is some kind of tax
then is it something that the non-muslims are exempted from?Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 15:34 # -
@Chechan
I am not a christian.
Why are you trying to compare with Christianity and Judaism in order to justify Slavery in Islam??
You misunerstood me, Peterpan is my nick name.Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 15:35 # -
skyfacts
Blockedchechen,
you may find a couple of rules followed in JAHILIYAT but islam allowed these contineu,and some of these rules were cancelled after a some time.
One reason behind these rules were the obviouse nature of these rules.the others may be you can come up with.
The rules followed by muslims in captured areas may be helpfull to come up with first.
The opponents dont have knowledge of SHANI NAZOOL at all.
And portrying this as,jumping into the bed,barbaric act...etc.
a normal behaviour is the same what we can expect a male and female after a marriage.
The matter as a whole should be discussed as slavery in ISLAM.
AND slavery was act upon ,but was stopped by religion after that.
chechen i think you got my point.
And also chechen when you come up this islamic discussion discussion pls insist also on the SHANI NAZOOL of any rules of islam and other pre-requisite knowledg of islam,as you know the opponents have just copy and pasting a comment and made it available for the discussion they have nothing of the back ground knowledge of making a decision .
chechen you know it but they dont know in deep anything,so dear pls take care of this also.
And this ignorance may also confirm to you the AZAAB under which pakistan currently is.jazakallaho khair.
Posted 2 years ago on 04 Jun 2009 18:25 # -
skyfacts
Blockedpeter
He is called Rahmatulil Alameen (Mercy to mankind).???????
yes get rid of evils by the blessings og GOD, what another name you can give him.
Read through also in our HOLY BOOK QURAN about this whole Jews community you will find the obvious reasons for doing so.(The above verse shows that the Holy prophet did not believe that slaves have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own life, but if Prophet and his devout followers attacked your town and captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahid who would rape you all with Allah's blessings. ).
Jahiliyat ki had honey chaheye.
Do you think that all the males are raping their wives by the GODS blessings?Just a minimum requirement of Islamic knowledge is lacking with you, and you are going to discuss it with more knowledgeable person.kia baat he.....
YES shia think of this QURAN as developed by the sahaba RTA itself.cuz QURAN was collected by a sahabi and about sahaba RTA shia's point of view is clear .from you its smells like that as you belong to shia's community theirfore doubts in QURAN.but shia's also having pick and choose exercise among sahaba,they called their own IMAMS masoomeen although some of their IMAAMS are sahaba RTA.BUT THEY called other sahaba RTA as not massomeen and you can go through MAUDOODI'S BOOK KHILAFAT AUR MALOOKIAT.The opinion abt sahaba RTA is the same as shia's think abt sahaba.
IT IS PROVED NOW THAT MAUDOODI IS HAVING SHIA TEACHERS MOSTLY.
Posted 2 years ago on 05 Jun 2009 3:39 # -
chechen
MemberPeter, Your name warranted response based on historians that are recognized in West like Arnold. Whatever, no one is justifying slavery. Unlike the West and other religions that thought about treatment of slaves only in 20th century, Islam started emancipation of slaves 1400 years back and that need to be recognized and appreciated. The social prevailing landscape in the world at that time was not conducive that state to banish slavey outright. It was phased emancipation. It was wisdom of Allah SBT revealed to His Prophet SAS.
Posted 2 years ago on 05 Jun 2009 3:56 # -
larki
Blocked@ Oriel
bakwas band karo
you pay taxes to the govt not to the church
ppl pay taxes to the govt of pakistan not to the taliban.
period .Posted 2 years ago on 05 Jun 2009 7:50 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.