Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
4 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2011 - 3:50AM #11
Alex
Posts: 31

I see from your note, Abdullah, that for the Hanafi, idol-worshippers may either be given dhimmi status (pay the jizya) or be enslaved.  So I infer that idol-worshippers are not necessarily treated by the Hanafi the same as the People of the Book, since People of the Book (Christians, Jews) will be given dhimmi staus and not enslaved.  Thanks for clarifying this for me (assuming I have this correct now).

The reason I mentioned the Shafi’i in my earlier note is based on Reliance of the Traveller, as was discussed on another thread a couple of months ago.  It is my understanding that Reliance of the Traveller is a compilation of the laws of the Shafi’i school.  It is posted at:
www.goldcoastmuslims.com/resources/RELIA...

This text says:
“O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax ...”

A note inserted in the text of the English translation here by a modern scholar quotes the Qur’an to explain this:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29)”

As for those who are not Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians, Reliance of the Traveller says:
“O9.9
“The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”

A note from a modern scholar clarifies this point in the translation, saying that these people are to be fought:
“because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)”

This is what you said in your last note, Abdullah, that the view of the Shafi’i school is that non-Muslims who are not People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians) are to be fought to force them to accept Islam and not offered the possibility of dhimmi status.

The translator of Reliance of the Traveller has inserted a note into the text here pointing out that the Hanafi school takes a very different view:

“... according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).”

That’s where I got the original idea that the Hanafi were different from others concerning the paying of jizya by those who are not People of the Book.


In searching around, I have now found

www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20Risala%20...

The Risala : A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh;  'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 -
386/996);  Translated by Alhaj Bello Mohammad Daura.

I don’t know if this is an authoritative document or translation.  Maybe you can advise me on that.  It says in section 25.13c that jizya it taken from Magians and Christian Arabs.  It has been my understanding that Magians means Zoroastrians, but again maybe I’m confused about this.

This would imply that the Maliki restrict jizya and dhimmi status even more than the Shafi’i, since the only Christians included would be Christian Arabs and it seems that Jews are completely excluded.

However,  Ibn Rushd in The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer says that Malik said that all polytheists are to pay jizya.  This is at the top of page 465.  This book can be seen by going to

books.google.com/books?id=EoxF3tbjf4AC&d...

and then “search inside” for jizya to get to pages 464 and 465.

This would seem to contradict the statement in The Risala: A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh mentioned above.  Maybe Malik had one view and his school came to take a different view.  Or maybe one of these sources is incorrect.  I’d appreciate any further information that might explain this apparent discrepancy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2011 - 3:58PM #12
Abdullah.
Posts: 882

Hi Alex


them articles seems to be right, but there is far more to getting a comprehensive view in all of this than a limited opinion of one Scholar, thus we really cannot make a final comprehensive view from this as to what the stance of those madhabs will be; there is a lot more to be taken into consideration, such as peace treaties, enslaving idolators [rather than being killed], and inviting them to Islam before they are fought, and for how long, etc,; also there is the issue of one madhab swtiching to the view of another madhab if it is considered the better and more suitable option, etc, 


but if we were to judge on the assumption that any particular given madhab, will invite the idolators to Islam for a period of time, and warn them of confrontation too, and thereafter declaring war on them. maybe a wisdom of that is that, Islam comes with such compelling arguments and signs of Truth, that after the period of dawah [invitation to Islam], the rejectors of faith should be fought as they have basically chosen to become enemies of their creator; also fighting them might make them give up their rebellious attitude against such an obvious Truth, and the fear of dying and meeting their maker might jolt some sense into them and they might accept Islam due to that, hence saving themselves from an eternity in the fire


but as I say, there is so much more that the Scholars could take into consideration before they adopt a line of action towards idolators, and espeically in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the way of peace treaties and adopting more lenient views is given precedence


 


hope this helps


Peace


 


ps: the wisdom of giving the people of the Book dhimmi status maybe that, since the people of the Books religions were originally God-revealed [allthough now distorted] thus they may have more of a disposition where they stand a better chance of gradually coming into Islam  


but ultimately i think it is important to consider that the Hanafi school is one of the recognised valid schools of mainsteam Islam, and it's understanding of this issue is that dhimmi status can be given to a non Arab idolator; if it should be correct that dhimmi status is not given to an Arab idolator, maybe that is because the arab idolators being more closer to Muslims, would have been exposed to Islam so well that their rejection of islam is bound to be a denial of what they know to be the Truth, and thus God may not consider such people to be worth breathing His air


enslaving Arab-idolators may apply too in the traditional fiqh, and the institution of slavery in islam is a rehabilitation institution [where prisoners are rehabilitated and in oerwhelming cases, then freed], where slaves are given unprecedented rights and treated with human dignity and respect and virtually as a member of the Family, thereby exposing them to a most beutifull Message of islam in action; many thousands who were enslaved, ended up converting to Islam...; read about this very effective prisoner rehabilitation system in Islam on the following link:


qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 3:40AM #13
Alex
Posts: 31

I understand your point, Abdullah, about the complexity of these legal systems and the difficulties in assuming that the simple words of a single text reflect the actual legal rulings as they are applied.  However, these legal codes, like the Hidayah which you call the main book of Hanafi fiqh, are very helpful to those of us who don’t have a real education in Islam.  I’m wondering if there is any such text codifying the law as taught by the Hanbali school.  Also, is there a better Maliki legal code book than The Risala which I cited earlier? 

You explain that since idolators are not People of the Book they can be treated differently from Christians and Jews.  But what about those who are not Christians or Jews but who are also not actually idolators (if “idolator” specifically means idol-worshipper or polytheist)?  Would every non-Muslim who is neither a Christian or a Jew be treated as an idolator?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2011 - 3:49PM #14
Abdullah.
Posts: 882

 


There are Hanbali fiqh books and other Shafi one's too, but not sure wether any are available online; regarding the hanbali modern translations though, one should be carefull that they are not distorted by Wahhabi's, for Wahhabi's claim Imam Hanbal for themselves


The word in Arabic for 'idolator' is 'mushrik' and i think a better translation of it would be 'associator' for it means one who associates partners with Allah, so it dont litterally have to be an idol worshipper, for in Islam all non muslims are considered to be associators, iether by worshipping something else other than the one and only true God; Allah [swt] or iether by rejecting the Message of Islam and thereby associating their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He Directs


In the following verse Allah says:


Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though if she attracts you. And not marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though if he attracts you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the fire but Allah beckons by His grace to the garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His signs clear to mankind; that they may receive admonition�. (al-Baqarah, 221).

And a Muslim scholar explains:


The above verse of the Holy Qur�an along with many other statements of the Qur�an and Sunnah clearly mention the impermissibility of Muslims marrying non-Muslims. Therefore, a marriage between a Muslim and someone from another religion will not be lawful or even valid according to Islam. The exception, however, is mentioned in the following verse:

�(Lawful unto you in marriage are chaste women who are believers and chaste women among the people of the book�. (al-Ma�idah, 5).

Thus, it would be permissible, in principle, for Muslim men to marry women from the people of the book (ahl al-Kitab) namely Christian and Jewish girls.


qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=...


the word actually used for 'unbeliever' in that verse is 'mushrikoun' [the male and female indicator of it] which is the plural of mushrik, thus we can see how they are considered to be all non-muslims; it is only due to another verse giving an exception to the ahli kithab [christian and jews] is it understood that ahli kithab women are allowed for muslim men


the ahli kithab are considered to be mushrikoun as well, but they have also been given the title ahli kithab as they have had a Book revealed to them in the past


Also another decicive evidence of that i'd say is in the following verses:



Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. -- Sura 4:48 


Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). -- Sura 4:116



it is seen in the above verses that ALlah never forgives the sin of associating partners with Him [which is called 'shirk'], thus we know from this that anyone who dies whith shirky beliefs or not having repented from shirky actions, is never forgiven and remains in hell forever


“Surely, those who disbelieve and did wrong; God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever.” (Quran 4:168-169)


“Surely, God has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire wherein they will abide for ever.” (Quran 33:64)


“And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever.” (Quran 72:23)


we can see from the above verses that a kaafir [desbeliever] is never forgiven iether, hence this goes to show how desbelief in Islam is synonymous with shirk


Also the fact that only the ahli kithab and idolators are being mentioned in them fiqhy excerpts [the fire-worshippers [zoroastrians?] are regarded to be a group a christian sect I think of the past] makes it seem all the more that what is meant by 'idolator' is all non-muslims other than the ahli kithab [and fire-worshippers]


I think there is no contradiction between what is said in the risala of the Maaliki fiqh, and what is mentioned of that jizya is collected from all non-muslims, but that the latter one is a more comprehensive view; this is what i meant that a limited statement in one fiqh book can be misleading to those without all the contextul knowledge

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2011 - 2:58AM #15
Alex
Posts: 31

Are there fiqh books of the (non-Wahhabi) Hanbali, the Shafi’i (other than Reliance of the Traveller), or the other schools that are translated into English?  Even if they are not available online, I would be very interested in knowing what books are available.  As far as I can see, the Hidayah is not online but it is available in English; it is very useful to have your opinion of it as a key Hanafi text.

You say that non-Muslims who are not Christians or Jews are all treated as mushrikoun who are not people of the book. I guess that there is the one exception of the “fire worshippers,” who, you indicate, may actually be Zoroastrians or some past Christian group.  I have also found, as I said before, the word Magians used and I think this may also indicate Zoroastrians.  In any case, this would be a relatively small group today, so the generalization about the treatment of non-Muslims who are nether Christians or Jews would apply to almost everyone who fit that definition.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2011 - 8:12AM #16
Abdullah.
Posts: 882

Sorry Alex i'm in the dark just as you are really regarding the shafi and hanbali fiqh books; some search's did not bring up anything on Hanbali fiqh books apart from some online fiqh sites:


www.ibnfarooq.com/lessons.html


www.scribd.com/doc/8488561/Fiqh-Made-Eas...


www.muhaddith.org/fiqh.html [this one contains download of fiqh of all four madhabs]


the following is a shafi fiqh book in english:


Manual Of Islam (AL-MAQASID) by imam an nawawi


Here is a site that lists the various shafi fiqh books:


www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e24.html 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 26, 2011 - 3:35AM #17
Alex
Posts: 31

Thanks again for all of your help, Abdullah.  You have certainly given many important insights concerning the outlook of traditional Islam.  I’m sure we’ll be in contact on Beliefnet in the future.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 04, 2011 - 1:42PM #18
Abdullah.
Posts: 882

Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Alex wrote:


Thanks again for all of your help, Abdullah.


 


you are welcome alex, it's the least i could do to help


Alex., let me give you an example of how views can differ from what we read in fiqhy excerpts when they are put into context


A great contemporary [but at the same time, strictly traditional] Shaykh, Shaykh hamza Yusuf who adheres to the Maaliki madhab explained how Islam is to deal with non-muslims in general; he said that there are three abodes in islam, the abode of islam, the abode of war [any non-muslim country who is belligerent against Muslims/Islam and who Muslims do not have a peace treaty with] and the abode of treaty, he further explained the latter by saying that any non-Muslim country that has an embassy in a Muslim country is considered a friendly country and it is not allowed to declare war on that, thus according to Islamic law today, there would bo no jihad and 'dhimmitising' [ I think the site 'dhimmitude' would be interested in this word ] against/of the general non-Muslim world for nearly all of them have diplomatic relations with the Muslim world


He also said that 'jihad' [defensive war] is only against belligerence, thus non-muslims who would rather peacefully co-exist with Muslims have nothing to worry about


so your best bet is to try put in a question to a mainstream Scholar and he will give you a contextual answer


 


Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Alex wrote:


You have certainly given many important insights concerning the outlook of traditional Islam. I’m sure we’ll be in contact on Beliefnet in the future.


 


InshAllah!


 


Peace


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook