Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Jahangiram

Dhimmi Criticism And An Islamic State

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah) (salam) I'm aware that blasphemy and missionary activity isn't allowed under an Islamic state. That's fine and dandy, but is legitimate questioning and criticism allowed by dhimmis? What about debates? Any references to classical texts and reliable hadiths will be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. The Islamic state isn't a dictatorship. One example from the past paradigm is the Zoroastrian right to practice the incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. This ruling was based on the precedent that Prophet Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming in contact with them and having knowledge of their practices. An Islamic state is essentially no different to a modern day Western democracy.

The concept of "dhimmi" today is, however, entirely inapplicable. There is a strong contextual difference between the past and present. Integral to the formation of a "dhimmi" was the concurrent condition of warring parties undermining the stronghold of Islam.

The Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi states in the selection of the Tafsir Nemooneh that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those Muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and dhimmis' lives and properties on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. The Islamic state isn't a dictatorship. One example from the past paradigm is the Zoroastrian right to practice the incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. This ruling was based on the precedent that Prophet Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming in contact with them and having knowledge of their practices. An Islamic state is essentially no different to a modern day Western democracy.

Yeah, that's not true according to Shia sources.

علي بن الحسن بن فضال عن عمرو بن عثمان عن الحسن بن محبوب عن علي بن رئاب عن زرارة عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال : ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قبل الجزية من اهل الذمة على ان لا يأكلوا الربا ولا يأكلوا لحم الخنزير ولا ينكحوا الاخوات ولا بنات الاخ ولا بنات الاخت فمن فعل ذلك منهم برئت منه ذمة الله وذمة رسول الله قال : فليس لهم اليوم ذمة

Sahih from Al-Tadhib. Zurarah reports from Jafar al-Sadiq who said, "The Messenger of Allah accepted the jizya from the people of dhimma upon the condition that they not take interest (riba), eat pork, or marry their relatives. Whoever does that is outside the dhimma of Allah and His Prophet." And he said, "They have no dhimma today."

But wait, you are allowed to take jizya money from the profits Christians make from their pork and alcohol! What consistency.

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن محمد بن مسلم قال: سألت أبا عبدالله (عليه السلام) عن صدقات أهل الجزية وما يؤخذ منهم من ثمن خمورهم ولحم خنازيرهم وميتهم، قال: عليهم الجزية في أموالهم يؤخذ منهم من ثمن لحم الخنزير أو خمر وكل ما أخذوا منهم من ذلك فوزر ذلك عليهم وثمنه للمسلمين حلال يأخذونه في جزيتهم

Sahih from Al-Kafi. Muhammad ibn Muslim asked Jafar al-Sadiq about the jizya of Ahl al-Dhimma, from their profits from alcohol, pork, and dead meat. He said, "They are obligated to pay the jizya from their wealth, take from them from the profits from their pork, or alcohol, and spend what you obtain from them."

An Islamic state is essentially no different to a modern day Western democracy.

Shia conception of an Islamic state only acknowledges the rights of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ("People of the Book"). The jizya cannot be taken from anyone else (like Hindus or Buddhists). They must live in a perpetual state of war with the Muslims. Though, the Hanafis and Maliki Sunnis disagree and accept the jizya from anyone (as if this inconsistency vouches for Islam's truth). On top of this the diyah for injuries between Muslims and dhimmis is not the same. There is no qisas if a Muslim kills a dhimmi. And, non-Muslim "blasphemers" can be summarily executed with no trial or evidence. All from the glorious, wise words of the Shia Imams.

Do you think that's fair? Is this the Islamic state you equate with democracy and equality? Wakey wakey.

Edited by bored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shia conception of an Islamic state only acknowledges the rights of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ("People of the Book").

The jizya cannot be taken from anyone else (like Hindus or Buddhists). They must live in a perpetual state of war with the Muslims. Though, the Hanafis and Maliki Sunnis disagree and accept the jizya from anyone (as if this inconsistency vouches for Islam's truth).

On top of this the diyah for injuries between Muslims and dhimmis is not the same. There is no qisas if a Muslim kills a dhimmi. And, non-Muslim "blasphemers" can be summarily executed with no trial or evidence.

All from the glorious, wise words of the Shia Imams.

No, they're your inglorious words. I want narrative proof of each of these points.

Do you think that's fair? Is this the Islamic state you equate with democracy and equality? Wakey wakey.

My eyes are wide open. I'm receptive to the truth for it is worth. Islam is intuition and reasoning hand in hand. If any of your arguments are true, if you manage to prove them, then there must be a reason, contextual basis for the ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inferno, what you say is of historical interest, but its not relevant to the topic. Can anyone answer the OP and not deflect the issue please?

Excuse me? It's absolutely relevant. I answered your question supplemented with proof. What more do you want? If you disagree, start talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? It's absolutely relevant. I answered your question supplemented with proof. What more do you want? If you disagree, start talking.

Well allowing dhimmis the freedom to consume alcohol and pork is unanimously agreed upon by the qudama and even sunni jurists, but it doesn't necessarily imply that theological debates are allowed between dhimmis and muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no distinction between "legitimate" criticism by people living in an Islamic state and non-legitimate criticism. No Imami scholar has ever made this distinction (not talking about present day clerics).

Ali ibn Babawaih al-Qummi “Sheikh al-Saduq” (d. 381 AH/991 CE)

Whoever insults the Messenger of Allah, the Commander of the Faithful, or any of the Imams, his blood immediately becomes lawful (to shed).

Al-Hidaya fi al-Usul wa al-Furu, p. 295:

ومن سب رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) أو أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) أو أحد الأئمة صلوات الله عليهم فقد حل دمه من ساعته

Ali ibn al-Hussein “Sharif al-Murtada” (d. 436 AH/1044 CE)

As for insult of the Prophet, the Twelver Shia are unanimous: Whoever insults the Prophet, a Muslim or dhimmi, he is killed…

It is related from Malik ibn Anas that whoever curses the Prophet from the Muslims is killed, and not asked to repent. And whoever curses the Prophet from the Jews or Christians is killed, unless he converts to Islam. This position from Malik corresponds to the Twelver Shia…

It is related from Layth ibn Saad that a Muslim who insults the Prophet is not considered, or asked to repent, but is killed in his place, and the Jew and Christian likewise. And the Twelver Shia agree with this.

Al-Intisar, pp. 480-481. (Apparently, al-Murtada distinguishes between punishment for insulting, and cursing.)

سب النبي ومما كأن الإمامية منفردة به: القول: بأن من سب النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) مسلما كان أو ذميا قتل في الحال. وخالف باقي الفقهاء في ذلك، فقال أبو حنيفة وأصحابه: من سب النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) أو عابه، وكان مسلما فقد صار مرتدا، وإن كان ذميا عزر ولم يقتل. وقال ابن القسم عن مالك من شتم النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) من المسلمين قتل ولم يستتب، ومن شتم النبي عليه السلام من اليهود والنصارى قتل إلا أن يسلم. وهذا القول من مالك مضاه لقول الإمامية. وقال الثوري: الذمي يعزر. وذكر عن ابن عمر أنه يقتل. وروى الوليد بن مسلم عن الأوزاعي ومالك فيمن سب رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) قالا: هي ردة يستتاب، فإن تاب نكل به وإن لم يتب قتل قالا يضرب مائة ثم يترك حتى إذا هو برئ ضرب مائة ولم يذكرا فرقا بين المسلم والذمي. وقال الليث في المسلم يسب النبي (عليه وآله السلام): إنه لا يناظر ولا يستتاب ويقتل مكانه، وكذلك اليهودي والنصراني وهذه موافقة للإمامية

Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Tusi “Sheikh al-Tusi” (d. 460 AH/1067 CE)

Whoever insults the Messenger of Allah, or any of the Imams, his blood has become liable to shed, and it is lawful for whoever hears that to kill him, so long as he does not fear through his killing for himself or others. If he fears for himself, or any of the believers, injury at that time, or in the future, then he should not confront him.

Al-Nihaya, p. 730

ومن سب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، أو واحدا من الأئمة عليهم السلام، صار دمه هدرا، وحل لمن سمع ذلك منه قتله، ما لم يخف في قتله على نفسه أو على غيره. فإن خاف على نفسه أو على بعض المؤمنين ضررا في الحال أو المستقبل، فلا يتعرض له على حال

Ibn Zuhra al-Halabi (d. 585 AH/1189 CE)

Whoever insults the Prophet, other Prophets, or any of the Imams, he is killed. And there is no claim against the person who hears that, and kills him without the permission of the ruler. The proof for all this is the consensus of the (Twelver Shia) community.

Ghunya al-Nuzu ila Ilmi al-Usul wa al-Furu, p. 428

ويقتل من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وغيره من الأنبياء أو أحد الأئمة عليهم السلام، وليس على من سمعه فسبق إلى قتله من غير استئذان لصاحب الأمر سبيل، كل ذلك بدليل إجماع الطائفة

Ali ibn Ahmed al-Amili “Shahid al-Thani” (d. 1011 AH/1602 CE)

Whoever insults the Prophet, or any of the Imams, he is killed. And it is permissible for anyone who is made aware of it to kill him. This is even without the permission of the leader, or judge, so long as he does not fear for himself or his wealth, or a believer’s life or wealth. With these (factors present), the permissibility (of killing) is denied. This ruling also extends to (insult of) the Prophets, because their glorification and perfection is known in Islam, and their insult is apostasy. This also includes the mother of the Prophet, and his daughters, not specifically Fatima alone. And perhaps the ruling could be restricted to her alone, because there is a consensus on her purity.

Sharh al-Luma al-Dimashqiya, vol. 9, p. 194

وساب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله، أو أحد الأئمة عليهم السلام يقتل ويجوز قتله لكل من اطلع عليه (ولو من غير إذن الإمام) أو الحاكم (ما لم يخف) القاتل (على نفسه، أو ماله، أو على مؤمن) نفسا أو مالا فينتفي الجواز، للضرر، قال الصادق عليه السلام أخبرني أبي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قال: الناس في أسوة سواء من سمع أحدا يذكرني بسوء فالواجب عليه أن يقتل من شتمني ولا يرفع إلى السلطان، والواجب على السلطان إذا رفع إليه أن يقتل من نال مني. وسئل عليه السلام عن من سمع يشتم عليا عليه السلام وبرء منه قال: فقال لي: هو والله حلال الدم. وما ألف رجل منهم برجل منكم دعه. وهو إشارة إلى خوف الضرر على بعض المؤمنين. وفي إلحاق الأنبياء عليهم السلام بذلك وجه قوي، لأن تعظيمهم وكمالهم قد علم من دين الاسلام ضرورة. فسبهم إرتداد. والحق في التحرير بالنبي صلى الله عليه وآله أمه وبنته من غير تخصيص بفاطمة صلوات الله عليها. ويمكن اختصاص الحكم بها عليها السلام، للاجماع على طهارتها

Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini (d. 1989 CE)

Whoever insults the Prophet—I seek refuge with Allah—it is obligatory upon whoever hears that to kill him, so long as he does not fear for his life or honor, or the life or honor of a believer. And with (these factors present), it is not permissible. And if he fears for his wealth, or the wealth of his brother (in faith), this is also permission to abandon his killing. This is not contingent upon the permission of the Imam, or his representative. And this situation is the same for whoever insults any of the Imams, and also Fatima al-Zahra. If he returns to insulting the Prophet (after the killing had been averted due to fear), then kill him, with no doubts.

Tahrir al-Wasilah, Book of Punishments (al-Hudud)

من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والعياذ بالله وجب على سامعه قتله ما لم يخف على نفسه أو عرضه أو نفس مؤمن أو عرضه، ومعه لا يجوز، ولو خاف على ماله المعتد به أو مال أخيه كذلك جاز ترك قتله، ولا يتوقف ذلك على إذن من الامام عليه السلام أو نائبه، وكذا الحال لو سب بعض الائمة عليهم السلام، وفي إلحاق الصديقة الطاهرة سلام الله عليها بهم وجه، بل لو رجع إلى سب النبي (ص) يقتل بلا إشكال

Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei (d. 1992 CE)

It is obligatory to kill whoever insults the Prophet, by whoever hears it, so long as he does not fear injury upon himself, his honor, his wealth, or similar things. This extends to insult of the Imams, and insult of Fatima al-Zahra. The allowance to kill him does not rest upon the permission of the judge/legal authority.

Minhaj al-Salihin, vol. 2, p. 43

يجب قتل من سب النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) على سامعه ما لم يخف الضرر على نفسه أو عرضه أو ماله الخطير ونحو ذلك ويلحق به سب الأئمة (عليهم السلام) وسب فاطمة الزهراء عليها السلام ولا يحتاج جواز قتله إلى الاذن من الحاكم الشرعي

Ayatullah Mohammad Reza Golpaygani (d. 1993 CE)

Whoever insults the Prophet, it is permissible for whoever hears that to kill him, so long as he does not fear injury upon himself, his wealth, or others from the people of faith.

Durr al-Mandud, vol. 2, p. 242. (In the entirety of the scholarly literature, Golpaygani’s analysis of blasphemy is the longest, and most in-depth. Though, most of it is irrelevant for the purposes of this paper.)

.من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله جاز لسامعه قتله ما لم يخف الضرر على نفسه أو ماله أو غيره من أهل الايمان

Islamic Penal Code of Iran (Qanun-i Mujazat-i Islami Iran)

Article 513: Whoever insults Islamic sanctities, or any of the glorified Prophets, the Pure Imams, or her excellency Fatima al-Zahra, should be executed if it equals insult of the Prophet, and otherwise should be sentenced to imprisonment for one to five years.

Discretionary and Deterrent Punishments; Section 2 – Insult of Religious Sanctities or State Officials

هر کس به مقدسات اسلام و یا هر یک از انبیای عظام یا ائمه‌ی طاهرین (ع‌) یا حضرت صدیقه‌ی طاهره (س‌) اهانت نماید اگر مشمول حکم ساب‌ النبی باشد اعدام می ‌شود و در غیر این صورت‌ به حبس از یک تا پنج سال محکوم خواهد شد

http://www.iranhrdc....shia-islam.html

The only modern scholar who is opposed to killing blasphemers is Ayatollah Saanei. Yes, the same one who accused the present Iranian regime of terror and torture, and was subsequently "demoted" by Jame-e-Modarressin of Qom. Oh, well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lek ya ghabi im not talking about blasphemy, i already acknowledge its punishable. Im talking about something else entirely. Perhaps you can help, you seem to have access to all these classical sources.

(salam)

Brother, don't flatter him. His whole post was just a copy and paste from here: http://www.iranhrdc....ml#.UUz34BzDmFU

(wasalam)

Edited by Crescent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well allowing dhimmis the freedom to consume alcohol and pork is unanimously agreed upon by the qudama and even sunni jurists, but it doesn't necessarily imply that theological debates are allowed between dhimmis and muslims.

Are you unaware of the debates between Imam Ali ar-Ridha and the Christian and Jewish and Atheist scholars, during the Abassid empire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Brother, don't flatter him. His whole post was just a copy and paste from here: http://www.iranhrdc....ml#.UUz34BzDmFU

(wasalam)

Pathetic, these e-scholars all turn out to be charlatans at the end of the day. Wouldn't be surprised if he was an Aryan supremacist.

Are you unaware of the debates between Imam Ali ar-Ridha and the Christian and Jewish and Atheist scholars, during the Abassid empire?

Good point....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...