Jizya: a Tool of Oppression and Humiliation

[Haik Monsieur]

Jizya: a Tool of Oppression and Humiliation

Khalil Fariel

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay Jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of humiliation. [Quran 009:029]

“Jizya” in the verses above is the most embarrassing term for Muslims living in secular world because; it is their divinely prescribed means of humbling and humiliating non-Muslims. No sect of Muslims is immune to this discomfiture since it is not dismissible or negotiable like many other practices of Islam where modern apologists always find a way out through their tired out tactics. This is Quran; the book of their god testifies flagrantly, if non-Muslims want to live under Islamic rule, they should subjugate themselves by paying protection tax to their masters. Fiddly interpretations don’t help much here in Muslims’ cause and “Jizya” (better called “humiliation tax”) remains a blemish on the facade of this so-called religion of peace and tolerance.

Any discussion on “Jizya” will not be apt without expounding the political make up of Islam. If it was not for the fighting spirit and valiance of seventh century Arabians, this burden world abide should have been either faded behind the drapery of history or constrained within the orb of northern part of Arabia without ever being able to influence the outer world. This seventh century bigotry in its soul has no depths to entice any outside the sphere of its own dominion for the very reason of being essentially a tribal system that once was the social composition of Arabia in the north. All that Muhammad, the man once belonged to this part had to do was to organize certain tribes under one roof without sacrificing much of then existing norms. He did the job and in doing so, didn’t venture to get rid off the pre-existing tribal prescripts instead he assimilated them into his making. Jizya was one of these Muhammad annexed conveniently to his frame of reference.

To be fair to history; Jizya was not entirely an Islamic initiative or the making of its prophet Muhammad. (Emphasis on the word “entirely”) A certain form of Jizya had existed among the pre-Islamic tribes of Northern Arabia. This fact is attested by the famous historian Philip. K. Hitti in his History of Arabs. A society in its absolute sense had never been in existence at north. All what subsisted there was certain assemblages that never flourished or converted into a society for reasons; most of the time they were nomads wandering throughout the dessert. Ghazw or raiding others for feeding mouths was an accepted norm of that time. As Hitti noted, it (Ghazw) was a manly occupation of Bedouins where fighting mood was a chronic mental condition. Among the tribes, everything that belonged to the other guaranteeing material gain made a legitimate target. The context made it necessary for a weaker tribe or a sedentary settlement on the borderland to buy protection from the stronger tribe by paying what it then called Khuwwah which later became Jizya when Muhammad reshuffled the scenery. Apart from booties acquired through raids and wars, Jizya turned out to be a good source of income for believers when they were constantly occupied in spreading the newly founded religion by means of violence. To sum up, by imposing Jizya on subjugated unbelievers Muhammad was reinstating the tribal norms into his making and broadening an abject backward practice.

Many arguments are forwarded by Muslims for Jizya but more they attempt to justify their own menace, creepier it turns out for listeners especially when the concept of human rights has become a general awareness among civilized beings. The very concept of purchasing one’s rights of existence and paying for it is bizarre in excess, especially if arguments for it are coming up from the other end.

Unfortunately, it is what Islam is all about. Once trapped; souls become seasoned to the shackles so that any means of defense will be imbibed and launched, very much phenomenal; perhaps owing to the hollowness in human psyche.

Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar of Umm-al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia who has PhD in Christian doctrines and scriptures, also owns somewhat a lengthy article on this very subject of Jizya. Perhaps the most comprehensive piece of work on the issue which covers all aspects and posturing almost all arguments for it; Just having a glance at his work will pay more than ample to make out how feeble arguments for Jizya turns out to be on course. Dr As-Saqar is fallacious for making tu quoque arguments to secure his side. He is trying hard to find the concept of “Jizya” in older scriptures and old times that preceded Muhammad. Thus the best polemical work provided in defense of Jizya itself is flawed in fundamentals.

The rest of this article will be focused on arguments for Jizya as proposed by Muslim apologists in order to refute where refutation is due. I am not going to touch any irrelevant parts at all for the very purpose of discussing Jizya from an independent framework. Endorsing Jizya on a bizarre pretext; some others prior to Muhammad were also doing the same to some is not something I am too concerned of. If Muslims want to defend their position, it should be done within the bounds of Islam and not by pointing fingers to others in “they too” manner. Therefore, I will omit those tu quoque pieces and will examine whether there any sound arguments have been sponsored by the other side.

Let us see those arguments for Jizya one by one:

1. Islam lends its own civilized features to the nations that come under its rule by elevating the Jizya to become not merely a poll-tax paid by the conquered to the victorious but as a binding covenant made between the Muslim nation and the peoples who eventually came under Islamic rule. [Dr. Monqiz-As-Saqar]

In fact the very concept of Jizya is not to either honuor non-Muslims or to bind them in any covenant with Muslims. Imam Malik attests it in his Muwatta:
Jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them [Malik’s Muwatta Book 17: 17.24.46]

I am sure neither Dr Saqar nor other Muslims will have disagreements on humbling is diametrically opposite to elevating. Besides, Quranic verse itself attests Jizya is to be levied on non-Muslims to keep them perennially under subjugation. To be specific; as a measure of inflicting significant distress;

2. The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule [Dr. As-Saqar]

Too lame a statement that doesn’t even necessitate refutation. None can force another to pay a sum that is beyond the latter’s capacity. It doesn’t make Jizya reasonable by any chance. All it means about is Muslims couldn’t impose more Jizya because the payers were incapable of it. Well, in such cases imposition will not serve them.


3. Islam gave unique guarantees to the People of Dhimma that were and will never by encountered by humanity. In return for very few dirhams to be paid by men who are able to go to war and fight, they enjoy living in security and absolute protection by Muslims in addition to the security of their churches and faith. [Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar]

Let Dr. As-Saqqar’s own sources refute this:

"The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.''' [Ibn Kathir’s Commentary on Quranic verses 9:29]

Ibn Kathir sheds light on how Omar the second Caliph of Islam dealt Dhimmis. The account above is throughly refuting Dr. Saqr's claim Islam gave unique guarantees to the people of Dhimma.

[To be continued...but comments are invited and highly encouraged]

Khalil
_________________
________________________________

[Chewchy]

Well, that and the treatment to non-muslim Persians (ancient Persia) went a long way in converting them... No compulsion mind you

[Haik Monsieur]

Sorry.., I want this thread on top once again so that all especially Muslims can comment on it. Thus I can finish the article omitting no points.


K.
_________________
________________________________

[Anunaki]

the question is how islam and arabs exterminated entire nations, languages, cultures, traditions, languages.

how samaritan people became from a nation of ten of thousands people to 156 samaritans in the end of 19th century.
THE TRUE FACE OF GENOCIDAL ISLAM

how muslims arabized houndreds of the most ancient peoples in the world.

how zoroastrians (original people of iran) became small minority 1% of total population.

same with the copts in egypt.
same with assyrians\arameans in syria.

how saudi arabia is the one and the only country in the world without official religious minorities.

and so on.....




i think that jizya is one of the answers!

[Anunaki]

very interesting article. i will read it later!

thank you!!!

[Rat_bytes]

Interesting... They basically made it so people couldn't afford to be non-Muslim.
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri

[Haik Monsieur]

>>>Continuing from the opening post:

The account of Ibn Kathir is clear without even necessitating an explanation. It shows how the second Caliph of Islam treated Dhimmis under his reign. What we see is Dhimmis were not even had their basic rights of worship under Islamic rule.

Now here one of the arguments for Jizya follows:

[Mersk]

They don't make Muslims the way the do .. they are quite laughable if more these days.

Maybe these idiots do not understand, like the countless no. of MAM, Allah authorizing HAM to go ahead with raping non - Muslims is not an act of a Holy Father.

Anyone could have done that, and many ancient people with their Gods did and some without do so too. But Muslims have to insist on their belief their is the one true God allowed to commit rape and murder.

Might as declare war on Muslims today and go rape Muslim women, loot Muslims, plunder their land to be in touch with the Holy One, to collect jizya for compensation on his behalf. What morons Islam make.
_________________
MAM = Muslims acting as Muslim Affairs Ministers for Modk. HAM = Last Profit of Islam.

[Haik Monsieur]

Sorry trying once again to bring this on top. I didn't come across any Muslim defense so far so that I can finish this article. Any arguments from Muslims' side?
_________________
________________________________

[Ex-muslimah]

Doesn't seem to be a jolly good work there
_________________
The Borg is si-fi's Islam. The "Collective" is the Ummah and they assimilate the kaffir.

*http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/* - For if you are in a forced marriage in the UK