Explaining the Explanation ("Part III")
-
Just a response to a response to a response to a debate.
Before I begin, I wish to remind that I am not claiming (nor am I denying!) the concept of ?Jizya? was corrupted by the early generations, but still I will keep an open mind about their practice being taken out of context by the later generations. If the Jizya or the rate of Jizya is unjustified, it is not justified according to Allah (SWT). After all, following ahadith which tell us about the early generations living two centuries before the ahadith were written is not the same as following the early generations or what they were enjoined to follow!* Besides, it is a standard of Muslim belief that the Word of Allah (SWT) (i.e. the Qur?an) is preserved, and if it were not then InshaAllah one will not be blamed providing that the central message of the Qur?an is kept in mind and applied in all matters. This is precisely the point of Amina Wadud?s statement that I featured in the article ?Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World? (Part II)?.
- Bassam Zawadi cites verse 9100 of proof that the early generation of Muslims (i.e. the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)) were hadith-followers!
?And the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; that is the mighty achievement.?
Qur?an 9100
Firstly it is not talking about Sunnism (i.e. eating with the left hand and killing apostates etc. etc.) but if we look at verse 999 we see that it is talking about those who believe in Allah (SWT) and spend their wealth and means for the cause of pleasing Allah (SWT) (which is why He is pleased with those who follow them in goodness)
?And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be the nearness of Allah and the Messenger?s prayers; surely it shall be means of nearness for them; Allah will make them enter into His mercy; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.?
Qur?an 999
Again this is the reason it mentions Allah (SWT) being pleased with the foremost Muslims in verse 9100. Secondly, the basis of Zawadi?s idea is that the ahadith originated from the first Muslims. The ahadith were written down a long time after the companions had passed away and so we are back to the usual argument (let alone the fact that the Qur?an does not mandate any source of religious law besides the Qur?an). Not all of the companions would have known all of the ahadith (since the majority were supposedly witnessed by only one or two people) whilst not all events in the ahadith had taken place at the time in which this verse was revealed. To say that the ahadith are actually necessary for guidance and more importantly to be a Muslim is thus highly illogical (let alone the fact that the religion was completed in Sura 5 (see verse 3)). Secondly Bassam Zawadi does not realise that if he accepts and declares mandatory any ahadith which are false or taken out of context (i.e. too many of them) then he is committing the worst sin and is a big hypocrite
?And who is more unjust than one who forges a lie against Allah, or gives the lie to the truth when it has come to him? Will not in hell be the abode of the unbelievers??
Qur?an 2968
Why would Allah (SWT) make a mishmash of unpreserved narrations as the criterion for right and wrong? It is stupid to think this and to not realise that Allah (SWT) really made it easy by giving us the Qur?an
?Say What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say I do not bear witness. Say He is only one Allah, and surely I am clear of that which you set up .?
Qur?an 619
?Surely this Qur?an guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.?
179
So the Qur?an is complete for guidance.
?Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am your Lord, therefore serve Me. And they broke their religion (into sects) between them to Us shall all come back.?
92-93
The Qur?an is the truth (240-42, 291, 2119, 2147, 2176, 548, 16102). See also the verses 1032-33. The Qur?an is the sole guidance (263, 291, 2176, 619, 6114-115, 6157, 7144-147, 7169-171, 12111, 1827, 2145, 3923, 456 etc.). Therefore those who introduce new sources of religious law are innovating and diverting Islam. All sects are forbidden and unnecessary.
?Allah has revealed the best announcement, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him.?
Qur?an 3923
So according to some basic logic, Bassam Zawadi is a sectarian idol-worshipper.
Having written/read the article ?Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World? parts I and II, it would be an appropriate time to write/read the answer to the claim that verse 929 of the Qur?an is a standalone statement. ?Skynightblaze? clings to this verse as a justification of his entire cause, but his assertion is but a simple and deliberate error
?Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it, Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.?
Qur?an 7516-19
?Skynightblaze? thinks that he can simply interpret a verse on its own whilst wilfully ignoring its explanation (complete) through verses 930-35. He thinks that 936 is contradictory to 929 (although he cites verse 2557). Let us test this notion by emphasizing the key words
?FIGHT those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.?
Qur?an 929
?Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and FIGHT the polytheists all together as they FIGHT you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).?
Qur?an 936
Verses which serve as a basis for 929 and a compliment to 936 are
?They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.?
Qur?an 932
(So the Jews and Christians here have the motivation to fight the Muslims.)
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
(So as Islam spreads the Jews and Christians will become more and more averse.)
?O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way, announce to them a painful chastisement.?
Qur?an 934
Islam prohibits greed, corruption and the hindering of people from Islam, thus the activities of the polytheists here will put them at odds with the Islamic way of life and incite them to prohibit Islamic practices (e.g. those described in 929).
?Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).?
Qur?an 936
According to this verse and according to history, some of the People of the Book had allied with the Pagans and were fighting and/or planning to fight Muslims whenever they could.
Is there still a contradiction after the explanation of 929? ?Skynightblaze? could have made the exact same mistake with verse 551
?O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for allies; they are allies of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for an ally, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.?
Qur?an 551
Firstly it refers to the (i.e. those of the particular time) Jews and the Christians rather than ?Jews and Christians? for all time, and secondly we should once again follow the explanation
?But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.?
Qur?an 552
(Why would they hasten to join the Jews and Christians out of fear if the Jews and Christians referred to in 551 were not already hostile towards the Muslims?)
Thus the explanation is completed in 557
?O you who believe! do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.?
Qur?an 557
?Skynightblaze? suggests that there is a contradiction between verses 929 and 2557 in that one is ordering payment of Jizya if people do not convert to Islam whilst 2557 suggests that the Muslims should ask for nothing nor accept any derived material benefit from being in possession of the Message itself. However, after considering the explanation of 929 above, we can see that the two verses are in separate contexts ? one of which is where the non-Muslims are declaring and demonstrating hostility towards the Muslims. Thus ?Skynightblaze? has provided absolutely no proof that ?Jizya? was anything but a recompense (based on a ?practical and fair basis)? from the Qur?an-alone. His suggestion of abrogation (which we would discuss ?in due course of time?!) now dissolves. The fact of the matter for him is that because the Jizya (assuming ?tax?) applied to the People of the Book under the circumstances in the Qur?an, and because the Jizya applied (according to ahadith) to non-Muslims in societies that accepted Islamic rule, the Qur?an is demanding payment from people in return for not converting and therefore abrogating verse 2557
?Say I do not ask you aught in return except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.?
Qur?an 2557
It will be amusing to the reader familiar with part II of the article ?Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World?? to note that ?Muhammad bin Lyin? declared this verse had nothing to do with the Jizya (asking me what I was trying to pull!) such that the two concepts could not be related, and yet ?Skynightblaze? agrees it does and can in order to suit his own point? This is where I must re-emphasise a point that I made in the article about a standout (i.e. disproportionate) tax on non-Muslims being un-Qur?anic. I also implied there was no evidence that the Jizya was not simply the Islamic name for a tax which would already have existed as a part of societal function back in those times just as it exists functionally today. Although the Qur?an never mandates a special tax for non-Muslims, there is nothing to stop Muslims taking the name ?Jizya? from the Qur?an and applying it as a tax ?compensating? for non-Muslims? residence in society just as the Zakat would ?compensate? for Muslims? residence. For example, obeying a country?s laws is a ?recompense? for enjoying the country?s freedoms. Regarding my alleged self-contradiction in saying that in the case of Muslims seeing non-Muslims as ?separate? and a burden to Islamic society (?Skynightblaze? phrases it such that he seems confused and thinks that the Jizya was to be imposed on the People of the Book because they were a burden, but according to the Qur?an it was proof of their submission after losing the war that they were fighting), well the ?separation? justifies naming the tax ?Jizya? as opposed to ?Zakat? (it could be called anything besides ?Zakat? but it is more appealing to use a Qur?anic word!) and ?burden? means no more a burden than anyone in any society who extracts benefits from the state. Anyone could say that ?useful? people should not have to pay tax (or that the amount of tax to be paid depends on who/?what? you are), but in any case ?tax? is an umbrella term describing a functional system of the state. Obedience to this system means that one is submitting to the society?s laws, and this is the purpose of the Jizya as ?compulsory tax? in verse 929. The Jews/Christians of 929 who did not pay the Jizya would pay Zakat because they had fulfilled the criteria of being Muslim (or at least appreciating Islam). If ?Skynightblaze? wishes to argue that the Jizya is a tax on non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslim, that is fine but he should prove from scripture that this tax is unfair compared to the Zakat (according to the Qur?an since 2.5% of income was simply the rate at that time). It should afterwards be demonstrated that the Jizya tax as a standout payment is a necessity in modern times (since it is only divinely mandated upon the People of the Book who were fighting Muslims, and then the ahadith only suggest that it was implemented in those times on Muhammad?s (SAW) request and in his context (Islam had become an empire-state)). The problem of what cause the money or material goods of Jizya would be used for as opposed to what Zakat is used for is answered by the following Qur?anic verse (among many others)
?They ask you as to what they should spend. Say Whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.?
Qur?an 2215
(Therefore for the betterment of society.)
Adopting ?Skynightblaze??s meaning of ?Jizya?, the decision of how much to tax non-Muslims is not set in concrete and then the people in charge must be guided by a ?practical and fair basis?
?Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought?
Qur?an 2286
(True Muslims should emulate this in all matters.)
?O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.?
Qur?an 4135
?O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way, announce to them a painful chastisement,?
Qur?an 934
(It would be extremely stupid for true Muslims to emulate the doctors and monks in this verse!)
?And they who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor parsimonious, and between these the just mean.?
Qur?an 2567
?And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? the setting free of a slave, or the giving of food in a day of hunger to an orphan, having relationship, or to the poor man lying in the dust. Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.?
Qur?an 9012-17
So quite obviously true Islam and true Muslims are meant to be fair and not do anything that is unwarranted! The people in charge will be those deemed ?most in line? with the spirit of the Qur?an. We have already discussed the fact that there is ?no compulsion in the religion?, and this clearly must apply to financial matters.
?Skynightblaze? has a problem with imposing the Jizya on people after war-booty has been taken from them. Firstly the fact that war-booty has been taken means that they lost a war with Muslims, and if they fought a war with Muslims then according to the Qur?an it would be because they fought and provoked the Muslims first. Thus the taking of war-booty is as justified as anywhere else in the Qur?an. The Jizya is just a formality of their acceptance into society after the Muslims conquer their land. Its rate would obviously be adjusted according to conditions, and according to traditional law it need not be material but can be service of some form. Please remember that war-booty is only taken from definite aggressors
?O you who believe! when you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life! But with Allah there are abundant gains; you too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation; surely Allah is aware of what you do.?
Qur?an 494
Besides, the people who had spoils taken from them because they were open aggressors would be ?captives? for an indefinite term and thus would not have to pay Jizya. As per verses 9012-17, when captives are able to survive on their own (e.g. because they have relatives who can support them) then they would be freed from that status.
The final point made by ?Skynightblaze? is the last flicker before the yawning dawn. He says that because the Qur?an does not praise any religion or beliefs besides Islam, anyone who is not Muslim is evil and fights Muslims. He cites verse 476
?Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.?
Qur?an 476
Interpreting ?fight? as ?physical fight?, it is talking about when people fight and not when they are not fighting (we would have to fight therefore when they are fighting!). Secondly it makes no sense to say that two sides are always fighting for their own cause and then ordering one side to fight the other because of that (they are already fighting, are they not?). ?Fight? must therefore either mean a non-physical fight in which Muslims give as good as they receive, or a physical fight against the unbelievers who fight (i.e. they are fighting in the Shaitan?s cause because they are fighting Muslims). This is confirmed by verse 471 which demonstrates that 476 is talking about specific occasions when battles occur and not about Muslims and non-Muslims in general
?O you who believe! take your precaution, then go forth in detachments or go forth in a body.?
Qur?an 471
The context continues clearly through to 475
?And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, those who say Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper.?
Qur?an 475
before settling upon 476, as quoted.
Thus the unbelievers in this context are the oppressors who do not allow their citizens/subjects and the believers the freedom that they have caused them to desire.
Khuda Hafiz
P.S. A future concept I desire to explore (InshaAllah) is the fact that the Qur?an is adaptable to various circumstances according to the unchanging nature of its Message. The manner in which we obey and interpret the Message itself serves as a criterion for discerning the impure from the pure, the hypocrite from the true believer. Bringing the Qur?an and the whole Qur?an into consideration, Muslims cannot make a wrong move nor fall prey to the traps and interpretations which deliberately appeal to the weaknesses and fancies of those in whom there is carelessness or doubt. Such examples are the treatment of captives and women (mentioned due to some specific verses), as well as other issues of which only those who can understand the central purpose of the Message will have no doubt.