It's wahhabi season again.

I saw this article and was curious as to what some of the posters here thought about it. It's by a Syrian philosopher named Sadik Al-Azm. I seem to be pilloried as anti-islamic for saying the same thing as this fellow on the boards from time to time. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to whether or not this fellow's comments are acceptable, or whether he needs a fatwa.

Islam: 'Conflict with democracy' centres on non-Muslims' status

Rome, 26 July (AKI) - Syrian philosopher Sadik Al-Azm believes that while "there exists a conflict between Islam, in its original form, and democracy, this problem can be solved easily".

"To do this Islam needs to jettison certain laws, first and foremost the concept of 'ahl al-dhimma'" the so-called 'protected' status granted to followers of the only two other religions recognised by Muslims - Judaism and Christianity, "Al-Azm said in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI).

In practice, ahl al-dhimma, which is gaining popularity in an increasingly Islamised Iraq, allows non-Muslims, and only Christians and Jews at that, to follow their religion, while effectively stripping them of their political rights and privileges.

Abolishing ahl al-dhimma "paves the way for the concepts of citizenship and equality of all people before the law" Al-Azm , who lectures at universities in Lebanon, Syria and Germany, told AKI.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1150011786

Seems quite reasonable. Still, I'm sure that there are some perfectly unreasonable objections.

"jettisoning certain laws" ...

people do not like their freedom taken away and some don't like change at all.

But, as regards those two items, there is a fundamental (so to speak) contrast: the people whose freedom has traditionally been taken away (the minority religions in islamic nations) and those who don't like change (conservative muslims).

This doesn't address people who are Hindu or Shinto or Buddhist.

The Laws will need to be secular if the people want a prosperous society.

I wonder if Hindus, Shintoists or Bhuddists are really even on the radar (although this fellow might have though of them). Not being "people of the book" (i.e. Abrahamists), they're not technically entitled to any "protection" (dhimmitude) at all, being "idolaters" and "polytheists". It would be an interesting leap to see islamic civil law suddenly extend social and economic protection and recognition to anyone other than muslims and the historically subservient classes. A hoped-for leap, but not an expected one, frankly.

Is "ahl al-dhimma" in the Qur'an itself or an interpretation from other source?

The concept comes straight from the Quran - Q 9: 29, where one is to make war on the unbeliever "until they are killed, convert, or pay the tax with both hands (i.e. submit as a dhimmi)" I don't know if the term "dhimmi" is used specifically, but I think there's also mention about "holding your hands off them" if they pay or somesuch. So much of Sura 9 would have to be denied, I think. This could be a hard prospect, considering that the Quran is considered the direct word of God (although transferred through Mohammed and his scribes; not sure how that's direct any more).

The concept comes straight from the Quran - Q 9: 29, where one is to make war on the unbeliever "until they are killed, convert, or pay the tax with both hands (i.e. submit as a dhimmi)" I don't know if the term "dhimmi" is used specifically, but I think there's also mention about "holding your hands off them" if they pay or somesuch. So much of Sura 9 would have to be denied, I think. This could be a hard prospect, considering that the Quran is considered the direct word of God (although transferred through Mohammed and his scribes; not sure how that's direct any more).

What the hell are you talking about, Geoff? The Qur'an doesn't say "until they are killed, convert, or pay the tax"...in fact, here is what Q: 9:29 actually says.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

There is absolutely no forcing people to the Islamic faith in the Qur'an. You fight people who are unbelievers by making yourself better than they are.

I wonder if Hindus, Shintoists or Bhuddists are really even on the radar

They're definitely on the radar in places like Malaysia, where Islamic governments forbid conversion from Islam to other religions or other religions from proselytizing to Muslims. There was a recent case of a woman who was Hindu but adopted by a Muslim family when she was orphaned. She continued her Hindu worldview throughout her life and eventually married a Hindu man and had several children -all raised Hindu.

Someone discovered that she had briefly in her life, been adopted by a Muslim family which by Islamic law made her Muslim regardless of what she actually believed. They stripped her family apart and put her and her children in reform camps, forbidding her husband from contacting her.

I think the Islamic authorities finally ruled that her children can continue to be Hindu if she agrees to renounce Hinduism and accept Allah.

This is a fine example of the efficiency of theocracy. It would be nice to see Islamic law change, but the goal of it is to dominate the world with one religion and Islamic fundamentalists make no bones about that fact.

What the hell are you talking about, Geoff? The Qur'an doesn't say "until they are killed, convert, or pay the tax"...in fact, here is what Q: 9:29 actually says.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Besides, this only applies to Muslim nations/Muslim territories.

I have read 9. At-Taubah, three times and it calls for subjugation of all lands, and people to the Islamic Faith, only the Jews and the Christians are allowed to pay Jizyah, after they have been totally subjugated.

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jizyah

view
In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax imposed on able bodied non-Muslim men of military age. The tax is not supposed to be levied on slaves, women, children, monks, the old, the sick,[1] hermits and the poor,[2] though these provisions were abandoned in later periods of Muslim history.[3] Non-Muslim citizens who pay the tax are permitted to practice their faith and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy as well as being entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service amongst numerous other exemptions to levies upon Muslim citizens.[4][5][6]

Taxation from the perspective of people who came under the Muslim rule, was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes,[7] but now lower under the Muslim rule[4][8][9] and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the payer's subjection.[7]



Definitions
Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:

Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the laws enforced by the Muslim State."[10]

Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate" and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".[11]

Shaikh Sayed Sabiq, in the Fiqh Alsunna (a commonly used source of fiqh), also states that the underlying root of the word jizya is jaza, and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the Muslims) from the people of the book".[12]

Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from 'idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."[11]
Al-Marghinani, in his classical 12th century legal commentary The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat"[citation needed]

Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".[13]

Edward William Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain".[14]

Ibn Rushd explains that jizya is in fact a broader concept than just a head-tax. It also includes monies exacted in times of war from infidel enemies – what is normally understood in English by the word ‘tribute’ – as well as levies (‘ushr) on infidel merchants who are trading in the Dar al-Harb.[15]
In practice, the word is applied to a special type of tax, levied upon the non-Muslim adult males living under an Islamic state.

I have read 9. At-Taubah, three times and it calls for subjugation of all lands, and people to the Islamic Faith, only the Jews and the Christians are allowed to pay Jizyah, after they have been totally subjugated.

Three times? Well, I've probably read it 50 times over the years, to be honest. The verse doesn't permit forcing people to the Islamic faith. During the Rashidun Caliphate, lots of land was conquered, yet they were not forced to convert to Islam. Lots of places where early Islam was spread was done so willingly. If you read on the Caliphate's spread into the mighty Persian empire, you would have known that many Persians themselves willingly adopted Islam and fought against their oppressors. The jizya is not a difficult payment; it is for able-bodied men who have sources of income. If you're poor, the jizya will be a small payment, whereas, logically speaking, the richer pay higher taxes. Making Islam the dominant religion is not done by violence. The word fight can be interpreted in many ways. The second definition dictionary.com gives us is,

2. any contest or struggle.

Fighting other religions is making the people of yours superior to them by knowledge and arguing. As the Prophet Muhammad said,

The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.

What the hell are you talking about, Geoff? The Qur'an doesn't say "until they are killed, convert, or pay the tax"...in fact, here is what Q: 9:29 actually says.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

What the hell are you talking about Kadark? The passage clearly says:

Q 9: 29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Some translate it as "pay with both hands" or the like. It refers to that punitive jizya you're so fond of, and the oppression which must accompany it. I wonder at your cognitive abilities.

There is absolutely no forcing people to the Islamic faith in the Qur'an. You fight people who are unbelievers by making yourself better than they are.

There certainly is! Q 9:6, 9:11. In fact, the entirely of Sura 9 is about the innate wrongfulness of Christians and Jews: it makes the case that they must be converted. Not to mention Q 2: 256 and that useful "for" between the phrases about how religion can't be compulsed for the right direction is henceforth distinct from error. People have been forced into islam, and forcibly kept in it for over a millenium. Where have you been? :confused: And what about Q 9: 111 "fight in the way of allah and slay and be slain"?? You're out to lunch, I think.

Three times? Well, I've probably read it 50 times over the years, to be honest. The verse doesn't permit forcing people to the Islamic faith.

It certainly does, when the other proscribed outcomes are i) death and ii) dhimmitude, with accompanying punitive jizya.

Fighting other religions is making the people of yours superior to them by knowledge and arguing. As the Prophet Muhammad said,

The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.

:rolleyes: Well that certainly explains the ol' "lesser jihad" (which always ends up being a greater jihad), it seems. Don't pretend, ok? It's just silly. Mohammed also said "If a man leaves religion, kill him."

What the hell are you talking about Kadark? The passage clearly says:

Q 9: 29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Some translate it as "pay with both hands" or the like. It refers to that punitive jizya you're so fond of, and the oppression which must accompany it. I wonder at your cognitive abilities.

I know it says pay the jizya; the other things you mentioned, however, it does not. That was my point. Obviously, the jizya is a mandatory payment non-Muslims must make in Muslim nations.

There certainly is! Q 9:6, 9:11. In fact, the entirely of Sura 9 is about the innate wrongfulness of Christians and Jews: it makes the case that they must be converted. Not to mention Q 2: 256 and that useful "for" between the phrases about how religion can't be compulsed for the right direction is henceforth distinct from error. People have been forced into islam, and forcibly kept in it for over a millenium. Where have you been? :confused: And what about Q 9: 111 "fight in the way of allah and slay and be slain"?? You're out to lunch, I think.

Those verses refer to what Muslims are obligated to do on the battlefield to protect themselves. There is no "turn the other cheek" in Islam. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, you fight them back in self-defense. Allah does reward those who fight in battle as protectors, not aggressors.

I know it says pay the jizya; the other things you mentioned, however, it does not. That was my point. Obviously, the jizya is a mandatory payment non-Muslims must make in Muslim nations.

Allow me to repost the ayah:

Q 9: 29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

So it does mandate continued fighting; war. In 9:5 it commands that war shall be ceased if they "repent and establish worship", meaning islam. Later in sura 9 it praises those who "slay and are slain" for islam; i.e. in war with other religions. What else is one supposed to think?

Those verses refer to what Muslims are obligated to do on the battlefield to protect themselves. There is no "turn the other cheek" in Islam. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, you fight them back in self-defense. Allah does reward those who fight in battle as protectors, not aggressors.

The bolded phrase sort of illustrates the problem. But who is it that decides what constitutes a "broken treaty" so that war can be unleashed? What does islam think about those who prevent the spread of islam, and what does islam do to those who try and spread other religions in islamic territory?

And, in any event, the thread is about the above philosopher. Do you agree or disagree with his process or conclusions?

1) Is it caring for Iraqis to force them to pay a "Muslim" tax to maintain the US military presence indefinitely? Yes or No? Why would the US millitary want such a tax paid and why would they try to sell it as "caring" for and protecting Iraqis.

(PS: If you really think such a Muslim-tax would be because the US military cares for Iraqis then quit reading right now)

2) Is it a coercion to invite half-starved Iraqis (who barely have food never mind they have to pay the "Muslim"-tax) to "willing" become born again Christians who are then no longer subjugated and do not have to pay the caring-for-Muslims-protection-tax. Come on - this isn't coercion? A blind man riding by on a bus can see it's coercion.

3) For those Iraqis that are captured fighting against the US military and turned into slaves - when they are promised their freedom once they renounce Mohammad and convert to Christianity - this isn't coercion? Again, come on pull the head out.

4) What about Polytheists or Scientologist etc...? What is their place in a "Muslim" country?

Michael.

Anyone who thinks that Persians - a 2000 year old Empire with their own religion, culture and language happily converted to an Arab religion, venerated an Arab Prophet, changed their culture and gave up speaking Parsi (that's "Farsi" in Arabic) has not a single clue about human history. They were conquered and they were terrorized.

Suggesting that the conquered and enslaved Persians willing accepted their conquest and this foreign religion called Islam is so absurd as to boarder on the ludicrous. What next? The people of Europe happily became Christian?!?!? Why just look, they're Christian. Hell, Mexicans are Catholic, gee the Conquistadors came with flowers and honey and the Aztecs turned on their rulers and happily adopted the Spanish language and Catholicism. The people of Nanjing willing invited to Japanese to liberate them from their Chinese overlords. The Native Americans really did bring turkeys and cranberries and carried Jesus crosses back to their primitive tents. :bugeye:

It's so fanciful it could be farcical except real people were destroyed, raped, and murdered.

If you really want to learn a little about this time period you could start by reading how the innovative and advanced city-states along the Eastern Mediterranean, renown for their sculptors, mechanical engineers, philosophy, mathematicians, etc.. where literally reduced to substance farming. Bloody substance farming!! Gee how did that happen. A people so well integrated into the Roman/Byzantine Empire that they even produced a Roman Emperor. They were advanced nations -reduced to substance farming. That is, barely making enough food to live - that's it. I've heard many Islamic apologists suggest that the Europeans would have never advance if it were not for the Muslims passing on.... European literary and scientific works. :bugeye: That is, the Islamic Golden age is famed for saving and maintain the polytheistic Greek works. In a a millennia, 1000 years, the people of the ME still hadn't regained their former glory. Actually, they never did. They were eventually surpassed by the very same Europeans who works they use as a claim to a pseudo-fame



Anyway, scholar in the opening post is correct. The only way "Islamic" countries (that is, country's with majority Muslim populations) will progress forward is by moving past, mentally and culturally, some of their religous indoctrination. They will have to "reinterpret" the Qur'an and maybe even rewrite some of it - again. They will have to accept that this is the year 2007 not 707. That's just a simple fact. If not, then they will eventually suffer the same fate all nations do that do not move with the times. See China 1800s versus 2000s.

The positive note is the ME has already reinterpreted and dropped some of their long running "Islamic" traditions, for example, Zoroastrians are kind of free to worship again, Slavery is now illegal, Turkey is secular and speaks Turkish again, Farsi is replacing Arabic again in Iran, Chinese females are Religious leaders over men, polygamy is banned in some "Islamic" coutnries. There is some movement into the 21st century. Maybe there is some hope after all?

Michael

1) Is it caring for Iraqis to force them to pay a "Muslim" tax to maintain the US military presence indefinitely? Yes or No? Why would the US millitary want such a tax paid and why would they try to sell it as "caring" for and protecting Iraqis.

(PS: If you really think such a Muslim-tax would be because the US military cares for Iraqis then quit reading right now)

2) Is it a coercion to invite half-starved Iraqis (who barely have food never mind they have to pay the "Muslim"-tax) to "willing" become born again Christians who are then no longer subjugated and do not have to pay the caring-for-Muslims-protection-tax. Come on - this isn't coercion? A blind man riding by on a bus can see it's coercion.

Well put.

4) What about Polytheists or Scientologist etc...? What is their place in a "Muslim" country?

Michael.

According to some observers...elsewhere. Not in that muslim country, which is, after all, muslim, and could never be anything else. You gets what you pays for. As advertised. No returns or exchanges.

What an amusing bit of hypocrisy, the demand for the acceptance and/or accomodation of every revisionist-for-the-present-day islamist precept in the Western world, coupled with that frothing outrage at the merest suggestion that there be tolerance for that other, those horrid kufr - as if they were full citizens or humans or something - that characterizes modern, latent islamism. No overt calls for jihad, just a how-devily-dare-you exclamation at the gall, the sheer nerve of some evil Westerner daring to suggest that other religions might be seen as equal, or - allah preserve us - even acceptable to convert to. Does not the Quran contain everything a human needs to know, or believe, or think? Is islam not perfect? Are all other "Abrahamic" faiths (a title much invoked in the West by CAIR and its ilk for the object of fellow-feeling and unified co-theism in the face of criticism, yet strangely not much in vogue in Persia or Saudi Arabia in the last thousand years) not inherently inferior? And how would our world crumble, if we couldn't believe these things? We might end up having - gasp - no faith at all! And that, of course, is unthinkable. It would be akin to Tiny Tim throwing away his crutch - more Dawkins than Dickens.

But what of these Scientologists and Polytheists and Atheists and whatnot, if they don't want to go, yet refuse to be oppressed? I suppose they generally go underground.

Six feet or so, probably.

The real question is why do we Western and Eastern nations even allow such dribble to be taught at all in our countries? We should have minimum standards set and any religions caught stepping over the line will be labeled as a Cult outlawed. To be reallowed "legitimate" (a privilege) Religion status each Religion must clean up their act.

This means no second class citizens period. No discrimination period. I am still curious if there are any orthodox Synagogues that do not allow for African or Chinese or other members of humanity typically thought not to be "Jewish" looking. Although I have been assured before that this isn't the case at least in the USA. Anyone can become Jewish and accepted into the Religion.

I think that the polygamy, dhimmitude and slavery must be throughly rejected under all circumstances and then things are beginning to be getting into line. Religion just like everything else in society must meet society's standards. It's just that simple. No one get s a free pass just by claiming to be religous. That's preposterous. I personally think all religions should teach that they are but one manner of thinking about life and one's place in it, no better and no worse then the next. I suppose that's asking for too much though.

Michael