foqia khan
MPA (400+ posts)
The term "dhimmi" enjoys more privileges in the Muslim state than the term "citzen" in the secular state.
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 (pbuh)himself, and Allah Almighty and the Prophet(pbuh) 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".
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 Quran 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.
Treatment of Dhimmis
Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:
"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."
To this the citizens said in reply:
"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."
Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.
Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians
When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.
foqia khan
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 (pbuh)himself, and Allah Almighty and the Prophet(pbuh) 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".
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 Quran 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.
Treatment of Dhimmis
Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:
"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."
To this the citizens said in reply:
"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."
Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.
Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians
When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.
foqia khan
