Peaceful options?

[Agnostic Religiophile]

But for the question is Islam a peaceful religion, combatant jihad is permitted in 2 cases (according to consensus): in defence and to end the oppression of Muslims (where Islam is restricted heavily)

And there is a difference of opinion about the third, this is regarding non-Muslims in the Arabian peninsula. The Hanafis allow it, they Hanbalis don't. The Shafis interpret the Arabian peninsula as Hejaz and the Malikis interpret it as Hejaz and Yemen. Hanafis make up 50% of Sunnis, Shafis 36% Malikis 12% and Hanbalis 2%

Sooo... yes for half, largely no for the other half?

 

[Ex Muslim]

I'll try to be concise and offer the mainstream view, not that of Muhammad al-Munajjid. Islamic studies is a science, in any science we follow the mainstream e.g. 3% of scientists believe climate change isn't man-made, we follow the 97% that do, not the 3% that don't.

Claim number 1: Non-Muslims don't pay the jizya in Saudi Arabia and Iran becuase they're not permanent citizens. Non-Muslims can be permanent residents in Saudi Arabia, just not citizens. For Iran, there are many non-Muslim citziens.

Also the Hanafis (45% of Muslims, not 2%) allowed non-Muslims to enter everywhere except Muhammad's mosque and the Shafis everywhere except the Hijaz region

How can you determine what is mainstream Islam and what isn't? You've mentioned Saudi and mainstream Islam in Saudi is salafism, as practised by munajjid.

You're missing my point, I don't really care about which countries enforce Jizyah and which don't, Islamic texts do order the Jizyah tax.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur'an 9:29

Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, "Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley." This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.
Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Tafsir Ibn Kathir

"It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by Jizyah..."
Milestones (Ma'alim 'ala Al-Tariq) p.73
Sayyid Qutb

This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.' They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah...

[The Islamic State] cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.

As regards the question, "What do the non-Muslims get in return for Jizyah?" it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic State allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.
Commentary on Qur'an Chapter 9:29
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Tafhim al-Qur'an

The point I'm making is that it's part of Islam to enforce Jizyah tax. Whether Muslims do so or not is a different matter, but the fact remains it's in Islam and is proof of its hostility towards non Muslims.

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

I said NOT al-Munajjid, Salafism is NOT mainstream. Mainstream Islam is the contemporary view of the 4 Sunni schools of thought.

I or you cannot argue about the interpretation of Islamic law, I'm offering the mainstream view, that is all.

Was Ibn Kathir a great scholar of the Qur'an? Without a doubt he was.

But from scholars one takes what they agree with and leaves what they don't. Only using what they agree with as support.

If the 14th century when Ibn Kathir was around, did the jizya have to been taken from everyone it applied to? For the vast majority it did.

But that changed for two reasons, the first being that Ibn Ashoor applied the rule of the reason for revelation and the event surrounding the revelation to the verses of the sword. This has been adopted by most scholars.
The second being the belief that where Islam is not restricted, it is the land of Islam, not the land of war. This is widely followed too.

There is nothing wrong with opinions changing, at one time charity was classed as obligatory, that is no longer the case. At one time everyone agreed that decorating mosques was wrong, that is no longer the case. The rules of engagement became less restrictive, that too has changed through out history. Theology has changed quite a lot too, in early Islam there were debates about very basic aspects. Ruling regarding prayer has changed too. This list goes on.

You use Ibn Kathir and most historical scholars, that's fine. I use Ibn Ashoor and the consensus of the contemporary scholars, that's fine too. Both methodologies are recognised/legitimate. But my point is that mainstream Islam (the contemporary view of the 4 traditional Sunni schools of thought) does not agree and there is now a consensus on this issue. That may change, if it does, then so be it, I'll be happy to inform you of the mainstream opinion

 

[Ex Muslim]

I said NOT al-Munajjid, Salafism is NOT mainstream. Mainstream Islam is the contemporary view of the 4 Sunni schools of thought.

I or you cannot argue about the interpretation of Islamic law, I'm offering the mainstream view, that is all.

Was Ibn Kathir a great scholar of the Qur'an? Without a doubt he was.

But from scholars one takes what they agree with and leaves what they don't. Only using what they agree with as support.

If the 14th century when Ibn Kathir was around, did the jizya have to been taken from everyone it applied to? For the vast majority it did.

But that changed for two reasons, the first being that Ibn Ashoor applied the rule of the reason for revelation and the event surrounding the revelation to the verses of the sword. This has been adopted by most scholars.
The second being the belief that where Islam is not restricted, it is the land of Islam, not the land of war. This is widely followed too.

There is nothing wrong with opinions changing, at one time charity was classed as obligatory, that is no longer the case. At one time everyone agreed that decorating mosques was wrong, that is no longer the case. The rules of engagement became less restrictive, that too has changed through out history. Theology has changed quite a lot too, in early Islam there were debates about very basic aspects. Ruling regarding prayer has changed too. This list goes on.

You use Ibn Kathir and most historical scholars, that's fine. I use Ibn Ashoor and the consensus of the contemporary scholars, that's fine too. Both methodologies are recognised/legitimate. But my point is that mainstream Islam (the contemporary view of the 4 traditional Sunni schools of thought) does not agree and there is now a consensus on this issue. That may change, if it does, then so be it, I'll be happy to inform you of the mainstream opinion

Ibn Ashur looks good, more Islamic scholars like him

Does this mean that the verses relating to Jizyah are now redundant and can in essence be thought of as reformed?

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

Ibn Ashur looks good, more Islamic scholars like him

Does this mean that the verses relating to Jizyah are now redundant and can in essence be thought of as reformed?

Yes because today it seems there is a basic ijma on the jizyah not being the only broadly permissible political system but maybe not because it can't be ignored or classed as redundant due to so many great scholars interpreting the verses that way, as well as a few that still do so

Now I don't believe the jizya has been scrapped completely, you techinally can't make it forbidden in a general sense. To explain the great scholar Maududi (although I'm not sure if he himself is mainstream) believed the jizya should only be applied to recently conquered people and from a secular point of view this is what would make most sense I believe. I also believe this is the mainstream opinion as the scholars against the jizya today claim it isn't relevant, meaning in current circumstances. The evidence for this was from an old book of Shafi jurisprudence that believed the constitution of Medina was never abrogated. Meaning all political systems are classed as neutral under Islamic law and only judged as liked or disliked based on the circumstances and their harms or benefits. So it would be a benefit if it quelled rebellion e.g. on those newly conquered, but if there was no need then a more plural system would be liked due to there subsequently being less oppression

I think I should also try to explain why for the vast majority of history, the idea that jizya must be taken from those who it applied to, was dominant. I believe, apart from the culture of the time and the supremacy the Muslims felt, it was because Islam has a scholarly tradition and respect for the companions of Muhammad. The companions believed them not to be specific and it is said that at the time the Arabs were very aggressive. Thus leading to Muhammad's companions understanding it in such a way and as scholars take 90% of their views from their teacher/s nobody ever say it any other way, bar a few. This being the preferred opinion due to the culture (aggressive war being just) at the time. Then as a new culture (defensive war being the only just war) came the other opinion became preferred. Wether we understand it or not in the context of the revelation I think can be argued for because all the violent verses relating to humans in the Qur'an were during a battle, if not an overview or leading up to (as a command) and the permission for defensive warfare seems a lot more like a declaration. And argued against (in favour of the verses not being specific) due to the hadith "I have been commanded to fight them until they say there is no God but God" although it wouldn't then apply to monotheists and depends how you understand "them" in Arabic (applying to a general group, specific group or an individual). I've also read from Bernard Lewis that as Muslims co-existed with people of other faiths the Muslim's views did become less aggressive, I can think of a couple more reasons too but we'll leave it at that.

Also some rulings such as laws regarding the storage of raisins were seen in their context by many so recognising the context of revelation wasn't a foreign idea at all

 

[Akivah]

I voted No. The only peace that Islam believes in, is the peace of the grave.

In my experience, the more peaceful a Muslim is, the more secular they are.

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

I voted No. The only peace that Islam believes in, is the peace of the grave.

In my experience, the more peaceful a Muslim is, the more secular they are.

Could you tell us these experiences? I'm interested

 

[NewChapter]

under ideal Islamic State conditions (caliphate, not the terrorist group) Muslims should give non-Muslims one of three options:

1) become Muslim. If the kuffaar accept Islam and move within the borders of the state, they are to be treated as the muhajiroon were treated. If the kuffaar accept Islam but choose to remain outside of the state, they are to be treated as the Bedouin tribes of the desert are treat.

2) if the kuffaar reject Islam, they must pay tax to the Islamic state in order to be spared.

3) if the kuffaar refuse options 1 and 2, then on Muhammad's orders the Muslims are to fight the non-Muslims.

Option 2 only applies to monotheist non-Muslims. Polytheists and atheists aren't given that option. We're given a more binary set of choices: convert or die.

Not a great list of options for us and certainly not very peaceful.

The evidence is taken from the following authentic Hadith below:

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that whenever the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent an expedition he would elect an Ameer (and then would advise them), ‘If you appoint someone for an army or an expedition first fear Allah (swt) and treat all the Muslims who are with him well, raid and fight in the name of Allah (swt), those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Do not take the booty and do not be traitors; do not mutilate nor torture. Do not kill children. If you see your enemy from the disbelievers, invite them to one of (the following) three and if they accept your offer do not fight them further: Invite them to Islam and if they accept ask them to relocate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, inform them that if they do so they will take similar to what the Muhajireen took. If they move to Dar ul-Muhajireen they will be eligible for this, otherwise they will be like the Muslim Bedouins living outside of Dar al-Islam and will get nothing from the Fai or the booty. (The final offer) if they reject to become Muslims is to ask them to pay Jizya. If they respond and pay, accept it from them and do not fight them. Otherwise have full reliance in Allah (swt) and fight them.’” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

No Islam is not a religion of peace if it teaches wife-beating. Beating means violence, the opposite of peace. Koran 4:34:

Noble Qur'an translation
...As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct...beat them (lightly, if it is useful)...

Yusuf Ali translation
...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct...beat them (lightly)...