Non-Muslims under Islamic law would be held under the status of dhimmi (from Arabic ذميّ, dh as th pronounced like in this) were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule.[1] Taxation from the perspective of thimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[2] (but now lower under the Muslim rule[3][4]) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.[2]Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[5]
The Qur'an distinguishes between the monotheistic People of the Book (ahl al-kitab) (Jews, Christians, Sabians and others), and polytheists or idolaters on the other hand.[citation needed] There are certain kind of restrictions, when involved with People of the Book, do not apply to polytheists. One example is Muslim males being allowed to marry a Christian or Jew, but not a polytheist. Muslim women, however may not marry non-Muslim men.[7]
The idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it."[7] Accordingly, Muslims must not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions.[8] Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim.[7]
Abraham, Moses, Hebrew prophets, and Jesus were all prophets of Islam, but according to Muslim tradition their message and the texts of the Torah and the Gospels were corrupted by Jews and Christians. Similarly, children of non-Muslim families are born Muslims, but are converted to another faith by their parents.[9]
Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.[10] W. Heffening states that Shafi'is interpret verse [Qur'an 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an.[11] Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." He further states that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text." [12]
[edit]Practice of the early Muslims
During the ten years that Muhammad led his followers against the Meccans and then against the other Arab tribes, Christian and Jewish communities who had submitted to Muslim rule were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a fair degree of self-government.
The Jews generally rejected Muhammad's status as a prophet.[13] According to Watt, "Jews would normally be unwilling to admit that a non-Jew could be a prophet."[14] In the Constitution of Medina, Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.[13][15] However, after each major battle with the Medinans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery (See [Qur'an 2:100]). After Badr and Uhud, the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, respectively, took up arms against the ummah and were subsequently expelled "with their families and possessions" from Medina.[16]
There are claims that there were several instances in which entire communities wanted to convert, and were prevented because they were more useful as taxpayers.[17]
The Syriac Patriarch Ishôyahb III wrote in his correspondence to Simeon of Rewardashir, "As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultãnâ) over the world, you know well how they act toward us. Not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries."[18]
After Muhammad's death in 632, the Islamic empire grew rapidly, encompassing what is now the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, and Iran. Most of the new subjects were Christian or Jewish, and considered People of the Book. (After some argument, the Zoroastrians were considered People of the Book as well[19]). Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were called dhimmi, protected peoples. As noted above, they could worship, follow their own family law, and own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork, but were subject to other restrictions. Under the Islamic state, they were exempt from military service, but were required to pay a poll tax known as jizya. (They were, however, exempt from the zakat required of Muslims). They could be bureaucrats and advisors, but they could never be rulers.
[edit]Later Islamic practice
Under the Ummayads and Abbasids, the Islamic community was increasingly fragmented into various sects and kingdoms, each of which had its own evolving policy towards dhimmi and towards conquered polytheists.
[edit]The Islamic heartland
In general, the policies of the territories comprising the earliest Islamic conquests were never harsh towards the dhimmis. Although conversion to Islam was made easier (all one had to do was to recite the confession of faith, many dhimmis did not convert as a result of Muslims tolerance. Areas that were majority Christian or Zoroastrian before the Arab conquest at some point became overwhelmingly Muslim. Moreover, at some point (it is not clear when), non-Muslims were forbidden to visit the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina.
[edit]Later Islamic conquests
Further information: Muslim conquests and Spread of Islam
With the Ghaznavids and later the Mughals, Islam also expanded further into northern India. Will Durant, in The Story of Civilization, described this as "probably the bloodiest story in history". This approach was not uniform, and different rulers adopted different strategies. The Mughal emperor Akbar, for example, was relatively tolerant towards Hindus, while his great-grandson Aurangzeb was heavily intolerant. Hindus were ultimately given the tolerated religious minority status of dhimmi in their own homeland. However, the underlying complexity of Hindu philosophy was useful in this regard, as it had always posited an underlying unity of all things, including the fusion of various deities into a single reality (Brahman).
The Buddhists of India were not as fortunate; although Buddhism had been in decline prior to the Muslim invasions, the destruction of monastic universities in the invasions such as Nalanda andVikramashila were a calamity from which it never recovered. According to one Buddhist scholar, the monasteries were destroyed because they were large, fortified edifices considered threats by Muslim Turk invaders, not because they were non-Muslim institutions.[20]
The Almohad rulers of Muslim Spain were initially intolerant, and engaged in forced conversions[citation needed]; Maimonides, for example, was forced to masquerade as a Muslim and eventually flee Spain after the initial Almohad conquest.
However, it is worth mentioning that most Muslims rulers in Spain could be considered tolerant with some exceptions.[citation needed] Christians were free to practice their own beliefs, and had kept their own churches. The tolerant atmosphere in Muslim Spain made it a refuge for Jews persecuted in other European lands.[citation needed]
[edit]Comparative religion and anthropology of religion
See also: Sociology in medieval Islam
In the early 11th century, the Islamic scholar Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī wrote detailed comparative studies on the anthropology of religions across the Middle East, Mediterranean and especially the Indian subcontinent. Biruni's anthropology of religion was only possible for a scholar deeply immersed in the lore of other nations.[21] He carried out extensive, personal investigations of the peoples, customs, and religions of the Indian subcontinent, and was a pioneer in comparative religion and the anthropology of religion.
According to Arthur Jeffery, "It is rare until modern times to find so fair and unprejudiced a statement of the views of other religions, so earnest an attempt to study them in the best sources, and such care to find a method which for this branch of study would be both rigorous and just."[22] Biruni compared Islam with pre-Islamic religions, and was willing to accept certain elements of pre-Islamic wisdom which would conform with his understanding of the Islamic spirit.[23]
In the introduction to his Indica, Biruni himself writes that his intent behind the work was to engage dialogue between Islam and the Indian religions, particularly Hinduism as well as Buddhism.[22] Biruni was aware that statements about a religion would be open to criticism by its adherents, and insisted that a scholar should follow the requirements of a strictly scientific method. According to William Montgomery Watt, Biruni "is admirably objective and unprejudiced in his presentation of facts" but "selects facts in such a way that he makes a strong case for holding that there is a certain unity in the religious experience of the peoples he considers, even though he does not appear to formulate this view explicitly." Biruni argued that Hinduism was a monotheistic faith like Islam, and in order to justify this assertion, he quotes Hindu texts and argues that the worship of idols is "exclusively a characteristic of the common people, with which the educated have nothing to do."[22]
Biruni argued that the worship of idols "is due to a kind of confusion or corruption."[22] According to Watt, Biruni "goes on to maintain that in the course of generations the origin of the veneration of the images is forgotten, and further that the ancient legislators, seeing that the Veneration of images is advantageous, made it obligatory for the ordinary. He mentions the view of some people that, before God sent Prophets, all mankind were idol-worshippers, but he apparently does not presumably held that, apart from the messages transmitted by prophets, men could know the existence and unity of God by rational methods of philosophy." Biruni argued that "the Hindus, no less than the Greeks, have philosophers who are believers in monotheism."[22] Al-Biruni also compared Islam andChristianity, citing passages from the Qur'an and Bible which state that their followers should always speak the truth.[24]
No comments:
Post a Comment