The session has just started. Please feel free to join us with your questions.
After the session has ended, you can view the whole dialogue by clicking Recent Sessions, or the archive.
For feedback and suggestions, please e-mail us at Living.Shariah@iolteam.com
Name
Shadi
- Egypt
Profession
Question
In fact, I, as a Muslim, see that the term "dhimmi" enjoys more privileges in the Muslim state than the term "citzen" in the secular states. Then, why we Muslim feel ashamed to explain the privileges of "dhimmis " which far exceeds the privileges of "citizen". Why Christian feel sensitive to such term that is based on considering their rights and protecting their interests. In more than one hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked Muslims to be kind, just, and fair to dhimmis, to the extent that he pointed out that a Muslim who harms a dhimmi is harming the Prophet himself, and Allah Almighty and the Prophet will be angry at any Muslim who infringes upon the rights of a dhimmi.
In short, I think we, Muslims, have to be proud of our Islamic literature and terms that are very accurate and significant, and not to hurry to please the Westerners by saying that "dhimmis" is no more there after the creation of the term "citizenship".
Thanks, wa as-salam
Answer
I fully agree with you. The confusion arises because of the lack of understanding of both the meaning and concept of dhimmah. First, dhimmi comes from dhimmah which literally means covenant. As such the term dhimi means a covenanted person. The word covenant here means that he or she has the covenant of Allah, His messenger and the Muslim community that their legitimate right shall be safeguarded. It is a more profound and protective concept than citizenship. Minority citizen rights could be marginalized even in free democratic society based on one vote whereas dhimmah means that their rights as stipulated in the primary sources of Islam, the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah, cannot be revoked or diminished even by the majority of society.
Dhimmah does not mean or imply, as some may allege, that the dhimis are second-class citizens; it is actually greater respect for their identity and religious sentiments. For example, Muslims are required to pay Zakah, which helps finance needs such as services, defence and social security. All citizens, Muslims and dhimis, have equal access to such services without discrimination. If the Shari`ah required dhimmis to pay Zakah exactly like their fellow Muslim citizens, it may be insensitive to their religious identity. The reason is that Zakah is not merely a tax, even though it serves the purposes of taxes. Zakah is an Islamic concept and is one of the five pillars of Islam. To ask a dhimmi to pay Zakah implies requiring him to tacitly believe in one of the pillars of Islam that he does not believe in. On the other hand, if he shares the cost of above services under a different and more neutral title, it is even more respectful and the term jizya that is used for dhimmis’ share literally comes from jaza’ which means something in return for something, i.e. services, defense and social security in return for financial contribution.
Name
zaki
- Malaysia
Profession
research assistant
Question
What is the real purpose to divide non-Muslims to dhimmi and harbi? is it the divine order? In a multiracial and multi-religion community, is that term can be applied? Shall the term be eliminated one day according to the changing of time?
Thank you.
Answer
All nations in the world, past and present, distinguish between those who choose to live in peace with their fellow citizens and those who are hostile and engage fighting and aggression against the community. The Qur’an does make such a distinction; for example, in chapter 60, verses 8 and 9: verse 8 establishes principles of kind and just treatment of persons of other faith communities so long as they coexist peacefully with Muslims; verse 9, on the other hand, speaks of the opposite situation concerning those who fight unjustly against Muslims, drive them out of their homes or help others to do so. The latter group are to be treated according to the Qur’an, chapter 2, verses 190-195, that provides the only grounds for using forces if other means fail to stop aggression or oppression against Muslims.
So the issue then is not eliminating a term or changing it. What is more important are the humane, accommodative attitudes and acceptance of others in a multiracial and multi-religious community on the basis of peace and justice to all.
Name
Arif
- Indonesia
Profession
Accounting Firm
Question
Dear Dr. Badawi, According to Holy Qur'an Muslims are not permitted to elect or inaugurate Jews and Christians as Muslims' leader, many western media accuses us (Muslims) that Qur'an discriminates or subjugates Jews & Christians. What is your responses?
Answer
Your statement as it stands is too sweeping. The crucial question is what is meant by “leader”. If it means the head of a state or the overall Muslim ummah, then it is obvious that he should be a Muslim. Unlike secular systems, the objective of Islamic government is to safeguard and protect faith, also to look after the mundane needs of society. In fact the heads of states in Islam, or the caliphs, are entitled to lead the prayers and to give sermons from the pulpits of mosques. Furthermore, without even specifying honestly as Islam does that the head of state should embrace the faith of the majority of religiously committed citizens, he can be elected as well by majority vote. In other words, if you apply the principles of one vote the great majority of voters will choose a person who believes in their faith and protect it. In this case the Islamic concept is a much more honest and direct statement and does not hide behind niceties or “hypocritical political correctness”. For example, there has been a great deal of controversy when John F. Kennedy, very charismatic person, was elected as president of the US because he was a catholic. Today president G. W Bush draws much of his support from evangelical Christians.
If it is meant by a leader someone in high position in the state, that does not require believing in Islam or understanding of its rulings (such as minister of justice when Shari’ah is the law of the land), I am not aware of any text in the Qur’an or sound hadith that bars him from high position in the state. In Muslim Spain people of other faith communities were appointed to the equivalent of ministerial positions and it is claimed even than a Jewish Rabbi was appointed as “prime minister” by one of the caliphs.
Nowhere in the Qur’an does it sustain the claim that the Qur’an discriminates against or subjugates Jews, Christians or any faith community for that matter. On the contrary it calls for treating non-Muslim in kindness and justice (see chapter 60, verses 8, 9 among similar ones.)
When the Qur’an speaks negatively about people of other faith communities (or for that matter against some Muslims) it speaks only about their negative deeds such as aggression, oppression or similar aberrations. In that case, the statements in the Qur’an should not be generalized, as often done, to include all people. This does not to claim, however, that all Muslims throughout nearly 14 centuries were angels and no one ever violated the Qur’anic precepts; these aberrations on the part of some Muslims rulers are to be blamed on them as violators of Islam, not blamed on Islam itself which prohibits any form of injustice to anyone.
Name
S H
-
Profession
Question
Why do you label non-Muslims as Dhimmi? Does not this mean that they are second-class citizens?
Answer
No, that is not true. Please go to first question for more details
Name
Sameh Elladen
- Canada
Profession
Question
We always read in the history of caliphs that they used to give people of countries they conquered the option to either accept Islam, pay the jizya or death. Does this apply to dealing with any non-Muslims living as minorities in Muslim countries? If not, could you explain the approach of caliphs and why they used to give these three options?
Answer
First of all, the answer to previous questions makes it clear that minorities in Muslim countries are not required to accept Islam, cannot be aggressed against and when they pay jizya, it is their contribution like their fellow Muslim citizens to financing the services of the state, which are available to all. We have explained earlier why it was called jizya rather than Zakah.
As to those citizens of other countries they are divided into two groups: the first group includes those who peacefully coexist with Muslims and refrain from intimidating or persecuting their minority Muslim subject; for such a group, chapter 60, verse 8/9 apply to them and they should be treated in kindness and justice. The other group are those who are hostile to the Muslims and commit acts of aggressions, oppression or Muslim minorities or use force to prevent Muslims from peacefully sharing the message of Islam with others. In such situation it is necessary to stop these injustices, even if force had to be used. In this case jizyamay have an additional meaning or symbol that hostility had ended.
What has been discussed so far are the normative teachings of Islam based on my humble understanding of its two primary sources. However, when evaluating history of Muslims we may note the following:
1. There have been instances where caliphs made peace and war decision on the basis of their evaluation of the world in which they lived. These were circumstantial administrative decisions that fall within the category known in Islamic jurisprudence as As-Siyasah Ash-shar`iya (Shari`ah-oriented politics). Being circumstantial decisions, they cannot be regarded as part of basic and sustained legislation.
2. some Muslim rulers may have violated the basic Islamic precepts concerning relations with the other, in which case their violation cannot be blamed on Islam itself.
Therefore, the three options were in the context of actual or potential aggression or oppression against Muslims in their particular historical contexts rather than a general rule in itself. In the context of our own historical reality and with the international bodies (such as the United Nations) and international covenants and treaties, some applications of these historical three choices may be less relevant.
Name
Fateh Z.
- Canada
Profession
Question
If citizenship is now the basis in Muslim/non-Muslim relations in Muslim countries, how could non-Muslims get the choice not to fight in the army, if there is any fear of their loyalty and sincerity to their country?
Answer
Like the distinction made earlier between Zakah and jizya and the reason for that distinction, defense of the community includes also a religious elements. For the Muslim who is defending his country or community against an outside attack, his actions are also regarded as jihad, which is also an Islamic religious concept. Because of concern about religious sensitivities (like the case of zakah) it is fair to make the obligation of defense, or as we call it today draft in the army, optional for non-Muslim citizens.
It is not true, however, to say that the reason is that they cannot be trusted. For example, the Sahifa or agreement signed between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the main Jewish tribes in Madinah stipulated that both Muslim and Jewish citizens of Madinah jointly defend Madinah against any outside attack. Likewise, many scholars are of the view that if a non-Muslim citizen or dhimmi wishes to serve in the army, jizya will be waived on account of his participation.
Name
Mumtaz
-
Profession
Question
Respected scholar, how can the position of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries viewed in the modern context? Are they to be considered dhimmis. Are they still liable to jizya?
Answer
As mentioned before, terms themselves may not be as crucial as the concept behind them. There is a precedent where Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, agreed not call jizya by that name when a tribe did not like the term. He told them that they could pay their contribution in the name of charity. Furthermore, in today’s world which is different and where geographic boundaries represent the grounds for citizenship, that distinction is less significant. Some contemporary scholars are of the view that in the present context where all citizens are required to pay taxes, the specific name jizya is irrelevant.
Name
Hani
-
Profession
Question
I do not know why some people think of Dhimmah as offensive. I understand Dhimmah to mean " a pledge" that obligate Muslims to treat their non-Muslim co-citizens in a respectable way. What is the problem here?
Answer
I fully agree with you and this was discussed in some detail earlier in the session.
Name
Sam
-
Profession
Question
Why do you levy jizya on non-Muslims? it is not acceptable at all to overburden people with financial obligations just because they have a different religion.
Answer
As explained earlier, it is not true that Islam overburdens non-Muslim citizens financially because Muslims also are required to pay Zakah. All citizens are entitled to the services of the state just as all tax payers in modern states are entitled to these services. Furthermore, jizya is to be imposed only on those who are financially able to pay it just as modern taxation systems stipulate; classical jurists exempted from the payment of jizya those who are poor, in fact the poor among the non-Muslims are entitled to receive financial help rather than paying jizya.
Name
ahmed
- United Kingdom
Profession
consultant
Question
Are Muslims in the UK considered to have a contract with the Government? For example, I came here as a baby, and did not agree to any terms or sign any contract. The UK government is arresting, spying on and imprisoning Muslims regularly, not to mention their disgraceful foreign policy which is oppressing Muslims. If there was a contract surely current affairs would have negated this agreement. Or is it only binding on one side and not on the other?
Answer
There is absolutely no ground to condone any injustices done to Muslims or others for that matter. However, the implied contract when a person immigrates to another country and becomes a resident or citizen is to live in peace, justice and equality with the rest of the community or country. If a person is born from immigrant parents the contract is not invalidated since the person is free to leave this country when he or she is adolescent like other citizens for that matter. So what we are dealing with is not a situation where there is alleged violation of a specific explicit contractual provision. What you described is a matter of internal political and legal battle which is common not only to Muslim citizens but to all citizens who feel that the government has trespassed its limits and abused its mandated powers. The solution in this case has to be also political/legal without being disloyal to the country or committing unjustified acts of violence against the innocents.
Name
khaled assaf
- Canada
Profession
teacher
Question
Does the concept of dhimmah apply to Muslim minorities living in Western countries? Do they have to pay tribute to the states they live in?
Answer
I recall hearing the mufti of Bosnia saying that if Muslim minority in Europe are treated in the same way that Islam treats non-Muslim minorities they will be in a much better situation than their situation today. I agree with him because the non-Muslim minority in Shari’ah are allowed to follow their religious personal law (for example marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, etc.) even if it is not consistent with the law applicable to the majority which is composed of Muslim communities.
Furthermore, under normative Shari’ah rules, their specific religious needs are fully accommodated. What Muslims citizens pay today is not “tribute” since they were not conquered in the lands where they lived; they only pay taxes like all other fellow citizens in return for the benefits they enjoy and the services they has access to.
Name
Nafees
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
As-salamu `Alaikum Dear respected Brother, May Allah continue to give you strength in spreading His message.
My question is how can ordinary Muslims counter the recent fallacious arguments put forward by orientalist scholars and Christian missionaries who are used to twisting hadiths and Qur'anic verses, when apart from scholars like yourself there is so little information for us to counter their arguments in a way that can appeal to the western ears.
Answer
First, Jazakum Allahu khairan brother.
I agree that Muslims need to learn more about Islam in depth. We need to be aware of the erroneous and twisted information that is being circulated widely against the religion of Allah, Islam. I am hopeful that with the available means of communication such as islamOnline.net and other means that more young Muslims will take the study of Islam from its pure sources more seriously, and I do pray that through their understanding, motivation and efforts they will be able, with the help of Allah, to let the divine light of Islam shine in the hearts and minds of Muslims and their brothers and sisters in humanity.
