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
Ejaz

Dhimmis worse than dogs and pigs and excrement in terms of impurity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salaam Alaykum,

In Jawahir al-Kalam, Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi states:

Quote

 “It may even [be said that] they [i.e. dhimmis] are worse than dogs, pigs, or dried excrement and similar things; even if we [theoretically] deem it permissible for these objects to be allowed in them [i.e. mosques], but not these [i.e. dhimmis].”

Source: Najafi, Jawahir al-Kalām vol. 21, 286-7.

What is the meaning/context of this?

Edited by Ejaz
Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this (impurity) why there are other laws such as the punishment for killing:

Quote

Thus, a Muslim who kills an infidel, including a dhimmi, will not be killed in turn, when the Muslim is not a habitual killer of infidels. Wasa’il al Shi’a Vol. 19, pg 79-81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ejaz said:

Is this (impurity) why there are other laws such as the punishment for killing:

This contradicts other narration by the prophet who says he will stand beside the dhimmi when he or she gets oppressed by the Muslim on judgement day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, THREE1THREE said:

This contradicts other narration by the prophet who says he will stand beside the dhimmi when he or she gets oppressed by the Muslim on judgement day. 

Thank you brother. Can u please give me a reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Muslim retaliation against non-Muslims
If the killer and the victim are both from the People of the Book, the parents of the victim have the right to retaliation. Also, if an infidel kills a Muslim, the killer infidel can be retaliated in response for killing a Muslim. But if a person from the People of the Book is killed by a Muslim, the Muslim killer cannot be retaliated in response . According to the jurists, one of the conditions for the execution of Muslim retribution is the similarity of the murderer and the victim in religion. A Muslim can only be retaliated against a Muslim, and a Muslim's retaliation against an infidel is not permissible.the affluence  of fans of this idea is in degree that Sahib Jawahir called it as Ijma , the one of Proponents of this case is formula of "Naf'i' Sabil" infidels over muslims  that if in case of permissibly of retaliation of  muslim  versus Infidel ,because of dominance of parents of killed infidel  over life of killer Muslim then  reasons for this belief is the rule of denying the mustache of the infidel will have domination  over life of the Muslims that is against mentioned formula .

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/کافر_ذمی

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/قاعده_نفی_سبیل  (Formula of ' Naf'i' Sabil ' )

Furthermore, Muslim law makes provisions for the limited autonomy of at least some non-Muslim communities within the framework of a wider Islamic jurisdiction. Laws pertaining to jihad specify the rights and responsibilities of the dhimmi as well as those of the Muslim. Thus, contrary to Peters, the Muslim code of jihad applies not only to Muslims, but to all people, although in fact it may be that only dhimmis and Muslims accept this code. The fact that Islamic law is not universally accepted does not detract from its international status any more than the fact that the codes established by the League of Nations were disregarded by Hitler undermines their international character.

Quote

—those who lie in wait for you: if there is a victory for you from Allah, they say, ‘Were we not with you?’ But if the faithless get a share [of victory], they say, ‘Did we not prevail upon you and defend you against the faithful?’ Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will never provide the faithless any way [to prevail] over the faithful. (141)

The distinction between crusade and just war, based on whether the war is fought for purposes of conversion or suppression of heresy or fought for secular purposes does not apply to jihad, which was justified by reason of the rational superiority of shari’ah law to its rivals. Hence, Muslims typically have not distinguished religious purposes from just political purposes. This point is not lost on Peters:...

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-just-war-theory-muhammad-legenhausen

 

Quote

It has been reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, said: "There is no Riba between us and the people who fight us".

It has been reported that Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him, said: "There is no Riba between a Muslim and a Dhimmi".

On the other hand, we find hadith like:

It has been reportes that it was asked to Imam al-Baqir, peace be upon him, "Is there any Riba between me and the polytheists"? The Imam answered: "Yes". 

https://www.al-islam.org/ask/what-is-the-justification-for-the-opinion-of-some-maraji-that-it-is-permissible-to-collect-interest-from-non-believers-or-from-non-muslim-banks/abbas-di-palma

https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-nasir-makarim-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-18-what-purpose-jizya

Quote

The prescriptions of shari'ah provide guidance for the best way to live for all humanity. Other ways may be tolerated within the framework of the Islamic polity, as dhimmis have been given a large degree of latitude enabling them to live in accordance with their own laws. But Islam does not proclaim that it is a matter of indifference as to which law, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, one is to follow. Islam prescribes tolerance for other ways at the same time that it proclaims its own way as commanded by God.

Unfortunately, Jews, Christians and Muslims have been-and often continue to be-intolerant of one another. The remedy to this malady is not to stand back and claim that it does not matter which way one follows because all have been divinely ordained, as Nasr seems to suggest; nor can Muslims accept the remedy offered by Hick of a tolerance based on the idea that all the religions are mere human responses to the divine.

https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol14-n4/misgivings-about-religious-pluralisms-seyyed-hossein-nasr-and-john-hick-dr-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ejaz said:

Salaam Alaykum,

In Jawahir al-Kalam, Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi states:

What is the meaning/context of this?

Just to clarify, the original post refers to the entering of Mosques. I haven’t looked at the sources myself but it is from an article titled “The Legal Status of Religious Minorities: Imāmī Shīʿī Law and Iran's Constitutional Revolution”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ وَٱلصَّـٰبِـِٔينَ مَنۡ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا فَلَهُمۡ أَجۡرُهُمۡ عِندَ رَبِّهِمۡ وَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡہِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُونَ (٦٢)

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.


×
×
  • Create New...