Islam: How was it spread?

[leggie786]

Firstly i trace my roots to a place which was never directly ruled by any muslim ruler ever.

Secondly you cannot kill/convert each and every person using force.Cannot happen.will not happen.

please tell me why so many temples churches etc were destroyed by the muslims?why?


LoL you ask me to google about Qasim and you dont know about Chanchnama.

And yes my opinion here is about Muslims not Islam the religion taught by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

I said that because it is CHACH-NAMA, not CHANCH!!

Secondly, there were always political basis for demolishing churches/temples. And, if religious was the basis of demolishing them, none of them would've been there right now.

Good for you for not having ancestors being ruled by Muslims. If that is so, what is all the hate against Muslims for?

 

[cricketjoshila]

If islam is forced upon people than it is no longer islam as it contradicts the quran.

no compulsion in faith.

I have heard people say that that particular saying in Quran should be read with another one which asks Muslims to do Daawa with non muslims and ask them to.accept Islam.While dawa was supposed to be peaceful debate it may have became a use of sword.

 

[akheR]

Firstly i trace my roots to a place which was never directly ruled by any muslim ruler ever.

You forgot the Khan-gress party.

please tell me why so many temples churches etc were destroyed by the muslims?why?

There are still hundreds of Gurdwaras and Hindu temples in Pakistan (if they're not "functional", it's because there aren't Hindus or Sikhs to frequent them, but that's not Islam's fault.)
In fact in my very neighbourhood in Kashmir there's the famous Sharada Peeth:

 

[amateurdentist]

Firstly i trace my roots to a place which was never directly ruled by any muslim ruler ever.

Secondly you cannot kill/convert each and every person using force.Cannot happen.will not happen.

please tell me why so many temples churches etc were destroyed by the muslims?why?


LoL you ask me to google about Qasim and you dont know about Chanchnama.

And yes my opinion here is about Muslims not Islam the religion taught by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

why dont you compare the behaviour of the past muslims with their own conterparts of their times? why are you comparing muslims of the past with modern codes of ethics and morality?

If i apply your logic to hindus, i would say muslims liberated those hundreds of thousands of widows forced to burn themselves alive or those millions of newborn girls killed in hindu india....point is why do you set a seperate standard for muslims and one for the rest of the world? werent brahmins/aryans invaders as well? wasnt hinduism brought to india by alien invaders?

and interestingly arent you the guy who keeps on telling pakistanis ths on kashmir threads to buzz off because kashmir isnt our business....well what are you doing on this thread?

 

[cricketjoshila]

I said that because it is CHACH-NAMA, not CHANCH!!

Secondly, there were always political basis for demolishing churches/temples. And, if religious was the basis of demolishing them, none of them would've been there right now.

Good for you for not having ancestors being ruled by Muslims. If that is so, what is all the hate against Muslims for?

No hatred for Islam.Utmost respect to it.Fore god will not judge me by what name i pray to him for he has no name and all names are his.

Ok what political basis?again as i said you cannot destroy each and every temple thats impossible.They could and did destroy many of the major ones and at places they were most powerful.

 

[shan]

I don't know and don't care. I have not bothered to trace my family tree deep into history. If my ancestors were idol worshipers, then they were misguided imo.

From your post you seem to suggest the majority of people(who converted) were forced into conversion, do you have any basis for this? I would say the majority were given the message, it made sense and freely converted. We do know about the history of Sufi endeavors in this region,.

Every Pakistani ancestors were converted back then. I dont know if majority accepted Islam by choice or for other benefits.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Every Pakistani ancestors were converted back then. I dont know if majority accepted Islam by choice or for other benefits.

You mean like not partaking in the mass orgies that were the norm of the time or being desert bedouins who robbed each other with unfair usury or killing daughters alive as soon as they were born

 

[amateurdentist]

You mean like not partaking in the mass orgies that were the norm of the time or being desert bedouins who robbed each other with unfair usury or killing daughters alive as soon as they were born

in todays world morality and ethics are the last thing people think about. everything is about material benefits. especially those in the subcontinent so determined to ape the west

hence people must have converted to islam by force or for benefits and not because it offered a higher morality and justice for them

 

[shan]

You mean like not partaking in the mass orgies that were the norm of the time or being desert bedouins who robbed each other with unfair usury or killing daughters alive as soon as they were born

I am talking about us Pakistanis ancestors not what arabs used to do.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

in todays world morality and ethics are the last thing people think about. everything is about material benefits. especially those in the subcontinent so determined to ape the west

hence people must have converted to islam by force or for benefits and not because it offered a higher morality and justice for them

Exactly, people just need to read the story of how hadrat umar (ra) became muslim

 

[cricketjoshila]

why dont you compare the behaviour of the past muslims with their own conterparts of their times? why are you comparing muslims of the past with modern codes of ethics and morality?

If i apply your logic to hindus, i would say muslims liberated those hundreds of thousands of widows forced to burn themselves alive or those millions of newborn girls killed in hindu india....point is why do you set a seperate standard for muslims and one for the rest of the world? werent brahmins/aryans invaders as well? wasnt hinduism brought to india by alien invaders?

and interestingly arent you the guy who keeps on telling pakistanis ths on kashmir threads to buzz off because kashmir isnt our business....well what are you doing on this thread?

Sati was banned by the Britishers and not by any muslim rule.Who counter parts and where?Kindly specify please.And which muslim ruler stopped female foeticide?Name him please.

I talk about Gujurat,its India's matter what happens there,why is a Pakistani getting worried about it?Is it in Pakistan?

Regarding Kashmir,I asked Why did Pakistan attack Kashmir in 1948?It was a sovereign country then,if there was any issue between Maharaj and Kashmiris it was their issue,not Pakistan's yet they poked their nose their,send an army,forcing the Raja to merge with India and Indian army then getting involved as after merger it became Indian territory.So who started the KAshmir problem?

Secondly,Pakistan talks about the UN resolution.The resolution asks Pakistan to withdraw all forces from Kashmir,remember the resolution allows India to keep its forces.So why hasnt Pakistan done anything?

Thirdly,People talk about Kashmiri freedom.Assuming POK is Azaad KAshmir(it isnt actually as people there are Pakistanis.with Pakistani passports etc etc etc).What remains is J and K which is Indian governed.If there is an issue there its between Indians and Kashmiris,where is the role of Pakistan,except ofcourse spreading terrorism there(a fact accepted by Parvez Musharaff).


Here we are talking about ISLAM.And PAkistan doesnt own Islam,there are 1.4 billion non Pakistani Muslims who follow Islam abou 190mn living in India.So there is no similarity.

 

[amateurdentist]

i didnot bring pakistan or kashmir into it. you didnot have to give the official indian position on kashmir issue.
My main issue is with people judging islamic states is that they do not apply the same rules for other states during that time. muslim states and empires are judged to higher standard of code of ethics (modern day rules) rather than there being a comparison between how most people accepted islam and the conditions of the minorities is muslim, christian and hindu states.
when islam came it offered people a better social order (the best of its time) and also their lenient treatment of minorities led to many people accepting islam. force certainly played a role in some areas at some times but to say islam was spread by the sword is nonsense

 

[Black Zero]

Islam like any other religion spread by:
- Appeal to reason of the age 1-2%
- Motivation (bribery/relations/gifts/political alliance) 20-25%
- Conquering 60%

 

[Solid Snake]

Dhimmi means protected minority group. That is if they pay a poll-tax they are free to practice their religion and are guaranteed protection and security from the state.

As has been pointed out already, women, children and the old are exempted from paying the tax, whilst healthy able men who do are exempt from military service.

The Prophet (PBUH), made it very clear that non-muslims in muslim lands are to be treated justly and fairly, 'Whosever hurts them, hurts me'

Now on a point that amateurdentist has already made, can you please compare the treatment of minority religions in other parts of the world, say Christian Europe, in that time frame?

 

[Solid Snake]

You do realise that there is hardly a nation on earth that doesn't tax it's citizens right?

In return for tax the GOVERNMENT protects you and your liberties. Do you think this is slavery? If so, what alternative model of administration would you suggest?

 

[cric_craze]

What is Jizya?

Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an;

“… until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.” (9:29)

As to the words “they are subdued” al-Shafii’, the Imam, explains that it means, “Islamic rulings are enforced on them.” (Kitabul Umm 4/219)

Classical Muslim lexicographer Ragheb Isfahani writes about Jizya: “A tax that is levied on Dhimmis and it is so named because it is in return for the protection they are guaranteed.” (Mufradat al-Qur’an 1/204)

The purpose of Jizya:

For ensuring the protection of Dhimmis:

The purpose of this taxation is to make the non-Muslims support the government under which they are living and being protected from all sorts of aggression. In the prime time of Islamic civilization if the Muslims could not protect the dhimmis they did not levy Jizya tax on them. Following examples testifies to this;

“… in a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; ‘If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but we do not, then it is not.’” (Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1913 p.61)

After the Muslims had captured Hims (Emesa) and taken the Jizya as agreed in the agreement signed when the Muslims entered the city, it was learnt that Roman Emperor Heraclius was advancing with a large army. Abu ‘Ubaida, may Allah be pleased with him, who was the Muslim commander on the Syrian front, ordered all the dues taken as Jizya to be returned to the people of the city. According to Baladhuri the people of the city were told,

“We are not able to defend you anymore and now you have complete authority over your matters.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)

Al-Azdi narrates the same with the following wording;

“We have returned your wealth back to you because we detest taking your wealth and then failing to protect your land. We are moving to another area and have called upon our brethren, and then we will fight our enemy. If Allah helps us defeat them we shall fulfill our covenant with you except that you yourselves do not like it then.” (Futuh al-Sham ed. William N. Lees published by Baptist Mission Culcutta, 1854 pp. 137-138)

Al-Baladhuri quotes the response of the people of Hims;

“Verily your rule and justice is dearer to us than the tyranny and oppression in which we used to live.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)

And al-Azdi quotes their even more emphatic reaction to the Muslim way of dealing. They said;

“May God again make you ruler over us and may God’s curse be upon the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By the Lord, had it been they, they would have never returned us anything; instead they would have ceased all they could from our possessions.” (Futuh al-Sham p. 138)

Montesquiei also highlights how the Muslim treatment of masses was far better than what preceded them under the Byzantine Greeks. He writes;

“It was this excess of taxes that occasioned the prodigious facility with which the Mahometans carried on their conquests. Instead of a continual series of extortions devised by the subtle avarice of the Greek emperors, the people were subjected to a simple tribute which was paid and collected with ease. Thus they were far happier in obeying a barbarous nation than a corrupt government, in which they suffered every inconvenience of lost liberty, with all the horror of present slavery.” (The Spirit of Laws, Book 13. Emphasis mine)

However mark his inherent hatred in the words “barbarous nation” and “horror of present slavery” which does not fit into the historical account that he gives but perhaps goes fine with his prejudices

As a compensation for exemption from military services:

It is also a compensation for exemption from any kind of military service. As al-Alusi writes it is so because otherwise when required it is obligatory upon every citizen of the state to help the state in the war. (see Tafsir Ruh al-M’ani 7/204 under Qur’an 9:29)

(Infact this seems to be a more valid reason because it was not levied on women and the old as they were not expected to give any operational military assistance.)

Sir Thomas Arnold writes;

“… when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conquests were pushed to the north of Persia in A.H. 22, a similar agreement was made with a frontier tribe, which was exempted from the payment of jizyah in consideration of military service.

We find similar instances of remission of jizyah in the case of Christian who served in the army or navy under the Turkish rule. For example, the inhabitants of Megaris, a community of Albanian Christians were exempted from the payment of this tax on condition that they furnished a body of armed men to guard the passes over Mounts Cithaeron and Geranea …. The Christians who served as pioneers of the advance-guard of the Turkish army, repairing the roads and bridges, were likewise exempt from tribute and received grants of land quit of all taxation; and the Christian inhabitants of Hydra paid no direct taxes to the Sultan, but furnished instead a contingent of 250 able-bodied seamen to the Turkish fleet, who were supported out of the local treasury.” (The Preaching of Islam pp.61-62)

 

[cric_craze]

Who all are required to pay Jizya?

The Jizya is only upon capable males. Imam Ibn Qayyim writes;

“There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/14)

“And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/16)

One important incident quoted by Imam Abu Yusuf needs special mention;

‘Umar bin Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, passed by the door of a people’s dwelling. There was beggar there saying, “Extremely old person with blind eyesight [needs help!”] He [‘Umar] got hold of him from behind and asked, “Which community of the People of Book you belong to?” He said, “I am a Jew.” He asked, “What brought you to this condition that I see?” He said, “The demand of Jizya, the needs and the old age.” ‘Umar got hold of his hand and brought him to his place helped him a little and then called for the custodian of Baytul Mal and said, “Take a look at his suffering. By Allah this is not justice on our part that we extract from them in their youth and leave them helpless in their old age! … He exempted him from Jizya and similarly the likes of him. (Kitabul Kharaj 1/139)

Orientalist, Thomas Armold puts it as;

“The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the arms of the rich, but had to pay it if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.” (The Preaching of Islam p.60)



Is it an extra burden on the minorities?

Some accuse that it is an extra burden upon the minorities. This is a childish allegations. Let’s analyze who has more monetary obligation in an Islamic setup, a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

Muslims pay Zakah which is 2.5% of the yearly savings. Non-Muslims are to pay maximum 48 Dinars annually.

Just like poor Muslims non-Muslims are also not required to pay Jizya.

Muslim women are not exempted from Zakah, non-Muslim women are.

Zakah does not take away the military services that the state may ask for, Jizya frees one from all that.

Then how come Jizya is considered a great burden? Infact financially Islam puts more “burden” on Muslim citizen of the state than on the non-Muslims.

 

[vcool80]

what if minorities don't want to pay religious tax(jizyah) just because they are not muslims?
what if minority will prefer to die rather than under shria law? isn't it a job of noble sunni muslim society to allow minority to be excluded from sharia?
when a islamist says sharia is for all-the divine gift, he cannot see that kafir don't want sharia at all. even if it is the best thing for true believer.

what about a democratic system for minorities parallel to shria in islamic countries? afterall, minorities will agree to pay taxes, will praise muslims if they save minority from forcing sharia on them.

 

[Solid Snake]

what if minorities don't want to pay religious tax(jizyah) just because they are not muslims?
what if minority will prefer to die rather than under shria law? isn't it a job of noble sunni muslim society to allow minority to be excluded from sharia?
when a islamist says sharia is for all-the divine gift, he cannot see that kafir don't want sharia at all. even if it is the best thing for true believer.

what about a democratic system for minorities parallel to shria in islamic countries? afterall, minorities will agree to pay taxes, will praise muslims if they save minority from forcing sharia on them.

Firstly, as has been stated a dozen times already, the jizya is a tax payed to be exempted from military duties.

Conversely, if a minority is willing to serve under a muslim army to protect the state, he is exempt from the tax. As cric_craze pointed out in his post, there have been historical examples of this occurring from the earliest days of Islam.

Secondly, you are highlighting your own ignorance of Muslim rule. Non-muslims have the right to follow there on legal and religious rulings; "The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts" (Mark Cohen, 1995)

 

[amateurdentist]

what if minorities don't want to pay religious tax(jizyah) just because they are not muslims?
what if minority will prefer to die rather than under shria law? isn't it a job of noble sunni muslim society to allow minority to be excluded from sharia?
when a islamist says sharia is for all-the divine gift, he cannot see that kafir don't want sharia at all. even if it is the best thing for true believer.

what about a democratic system for minorities parallel to shria in islamic countries? afterall, minorities will agree to pay taxes, will praise muslims if they save minority from forcing sharia on them.

what if a muslim in india didnot want to pay any tax to the government and also not serve in the army, would he have any right to live in india as a citizen?

let me make jizya simple for you
according to shariah, muslims have to pay zakat(a religious "tax") and kharaj(land tax)
non-muslims have to pay jizya(only the wealthy, able bodied young males) and kharaj (land tax)
For paying jizya they are allowed to be exempt from military duty and sharia law if they wish. if they take part in military duty then they dont have to pay jizya. if muslims cannot protect them from an attack for a single day in a year, we have to return the jizya collected for the whole year

 

[Wasim1]

How was it spread? Depends where. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh primarily by force in medieval times.

 

[amateurdentist]

How was it spread? Depends where. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh primarily by force in medieval times.

were people forced to accept islam?
muslim political power was spread by the sword but islam as a religion, i dont think so

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How was it spread? Depends where. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh primarily by force in medieval times.

What about Afghanistan? Was it spread there by force as well?

 

[akheR]

How was it spread? Depends where. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh primarily by force in medieval times.

No.

 

[shakil]

actually it was in the interest of the muslim rulers that their subjects remain non-muslim. when non-muslims converted to islam the revenues of the state decreased massively.

Wasn't the jizya almost equal to Zakat?

 

[Black Zero]

Wasn't the jizya almost equal to Zakat?

yes kind of

2.5% vs 70+ %

 

[amateurdentist]

Wasn't the jizya almost equal to Zakat?

initially during the rashidun caliphate it was less than the zakat, set at 1 arabic gold dirham per year per person eligible to pay jizya

during the rule of the ummayyads, it was increased so it became higher than the zakat. therefore it was in the interest of the ummayyad rulers to keep their non-muslim subjects as non-muslims so that state revenues wouldnot decrease.Only one ummayyad caliph, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz decreased the jizya back to its original level resulting in large numbers of nonmuslims accepting islam. after he passed away, the next caliph Yazid II again increased the jizya.
The Ummayyad empire was the time of the largest expansion of the muslim lands since caliph Umar. they built an empire from central asia and kashgar(westernmost china) all the way upto barcelona and southern france. to finance this expansion they increased the jizya using ijtihad.

when the abbasids came to power, they decreased the jizya and made it equal to zakat. this was the time period when majority of the population of syria, north africa and iran became muslim.
egyptians as a majority were the first outside of arabia to convert to islam, during the rule of the early ummayyads

 

[chacha kashmiri]

having recently read more of umar ibn abd al aziz, (ra) his policies were pretty intresting

 

[Wasim1]

were people forced to accept islam?
muslim political power was spread by the sword but islam as a religion, i dont think so

Yes in these countries they were forced by Mughals. Basically convert or be killed.

Honestly surprised this is even a topic.....a bit too many people here burying their head in the sand and trying to distort generally accepted reality.

 

[amateurdentist]

Yes in these countries they were forced by Mughals. Basically convert or be killed.

Honestly surprised this is even a topic.....a bit too many people here burying their head in the sand and trying to distort generally accepted reality.

do you have any credible sources for this? i am not aware that the mughals spread islam by adopting a convert or kill policy.
what i am aware of is that there was no policy of forced conversion from central asia through afghanistan,persia,iraq,syria,egypt,north and sub-saharan africa and malaysia/indonesia yet these countries had there majority populations accept islam.

If there were forced conversions (convert or be killed) why is india still majority hindu despite 800 years of muslim rule? surely if it was convert or be killed then hindus would be a minority because either they were converted throughout 800 years or killed off?

how is it that all mughals including aurengzeb had hindu advisors, generals and ministers along with muslims?
During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. these are historical facts
Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government)

Alot of what we are taught in our textbooks in both india and pakistan is false. one of these falsehoods in indian books is that muslims enforced a convert or die policy.

It doesnot make sense that if the most extreme of the mughals appointed hindus as generals, ministers and advisors,(and there is iron-clad proof of this) why would he enforce a kill or convert policy?
sometimes generally accepted reality is not the truth but is revised history to suit a purpose.

 

[Wasim1]

do you have any credible sources for this? i am not aware that the mughals spread islam by adopting a convert or kill policy.
what i am aware of is that there was no policy of forced conversion from central asia through afghanistan,persia,iraq,syria,egypt,north and sub-saharan africa and malaysia/indonesia yet these countries had there majority populations accept islam.

If there were forced conversions (convert or be killed) why is india still majority hindu despite 800 years of muslim rule? surely if it was convert or be killed then hindus would be a minority because either they were converted throughout 800 years or killed off?

how is it that all mughals including aurengzeb had hindu advisors, generals and ministers along with muslims?
During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. these are historical facts
Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government)

Alot of what we are taught in our textbooks in both india and pakistan is false. one of these falsehoods in indian books is that muslims enforced a convert or die policy.

It doesnot make sense that if the most extreme of the mughals appointed hindus as generals, ministers and advisors,(and there is iron-clad proof of this) why would he enforce a kill or convert policy?
sometimes generally accepted reality is not the truth but is revised history to suit a purpose.

Sure heres a little light reading at the end. Also there are thousands of books upon the spread of Islam in the Asian subcontinent.

Its a well known fact that Aurangzeb was a fanatical extremist that wanted a full Islamic India by any means. For instance he ordered POUNDS of the hindu sacred thread obtained from Hindus everyday. I.E. either they convert or kill them and take it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

Not sure why youre obsessed with outlier rules such as 148 High high officials. Or trying to disprove that Islam was spread in the subcontinent by force. This is a well known fact and honestly if you dont accept this you're in the percentage that believe the moon landing was a hoax.

While it may better more self serving to believe a fantasy that millions upon millions of once upon a time Hindus magically converted to Islam or are descendants of Islamic Arab princes we shouldn't bury our head in the sand as to reality.

 

[amateurdentist]

Sure heres a little light reading at the end. Also there are thousands of books upon the spread of Islam in the Asian subcontinent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

from your own source which you gave

Another instance of Aurangzeb's notoriety, was his policy of temple destruction. Figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000,[27] However, Aurangzeb's Firmans on behalf of the Balaji or Vishnu Temple,[28] Varanasi indicate that this wanton destruction was not universal. Historian Richard Eaton believes the overall understanding of temples to be flawed. As early as the sixth century, temples became vital political landmarks as well as religious ones. He writes that not only was temple desecration widely practiced and accepted, it was a necessary part of political struggle

in any case lets say for arguements sake aurengzeb practiced forced conversions. *do you have any knowledge of ismail safavi, the 16th century shah who conquered iran. he issued a an ultimatum to the population of persia to convert to shia islam or die. within 2 generations, majority of iran had become shia. if forced conversion is a policy of state, it takes very little time for the population to be converted, most people convert rather than die. I gave you an example, another would be the spread of christianity in northern europe. it took very little time for those areas to become christian but india was ruled by muslims for centuries and yet hindus constitute a majority? that is not reasonable
if as you say, muslim rulers practised forced conversion, the 800 million+ hindus alive today are a living proof of why this statement is wrong

In any case aurengzeb was only one of many muslim rulers. if , for arguements sake, he practiced forced conversion, he only ruled for 50 years from the total islamic rule. were other muslim rulers like akbar, jahangir, shahjehan also practising forced conversions?

Its a well known fact that Aurangzeb was a fanatical extremist that wanted a full Islamic India by any means. For instance he ordered POUNDS of the hindu sacred thread obtained from Hindus everyday. I.E. either they convert or kill them and take it.

any proof of this apart from indian textbooks?
i think you donot know what jizya means. if a non-muslim is not able to pay jizya he cannot be killed

Not sure why youre obsessed with outlier rules such as 148 High high officials. Or trying to disprove that Islam was spread in the subcontinent by force. This is a well known fact and honestly if you dont accept this you're in the percentage that believe the moon landing was a hoax.

While it may better more self serving to believe a fantasy that millions upon millions of once upon a time Hindus magically converted to Islam or are descendants of Islamic Arab princes we shouldn't bury our head in the sand as to reality.

if hindus were employed as high officials and generals, how is it possible that a policy of forced conversion took place? they were involved in making state policy. that was the job of high officials!

 

[Buffet]

do you have any credible sources for this? i am not aware that the mughals spread islam by adopting a convert or kill policy.

what i am aware of is that there was no policy of forced conversion from central asia through afghanistan,persia,iraq,syria,egypt,north and sub-saharan africa and malaysia/indonesia yet these countries had there majority populations accept islam.

I have not done any research on this but I know one example of Tipu Sultan who claimed that he forcefully converted 400,000 Hindus. One of my friend was historian and he was talking about it. I just googled Tipu sultan and force conversion after remembering our conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan

See under the forcible conversion to Islam.

You will see some Islamic scholars disputing this figure by saying that English came up with this. They even argued that little reliance can be placed in Muslim accounts such as Kirmani's Nishan-e Haidari; in their anxiety to represent the Sultan as a champion of Islam, they had a tendency to exaggerate and distort the facts:

So people who were disputing this figure came up with revised figure of 70,000.

Now real number can be either 400,000 or 70,000 but it is clear that huge number of people were forced to convert to Islam by Tipu Sultan.

I don't have any fixed opinion on how many people in SC were forcefully converted and neither I care.

 

[amateurdentist]

I have not done any research on this but I know one example of Tipu Sultan who claimed that he forcefully converted 400,000 Hindus. One of my friend was historian and he was talking about it. I just googled Tipu sultan and force conversion after remembering our conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan

See under the forcible conversion to Islam.

You will see some Islamic scholars disputing this figure by saying that English came up with this. They even argued that little reliance can be placed in Muslim accounts such as Kirmani's Nishan-e Haidari; in their anxiety to represent the Sultan as a champion of Islam, they had a tendency to exaggerate and distort the facts:

So people who were disputing this figure came up with revised figure of 70,000.

Now real number can be either 400,000 or 70,000 but it is clear that huge number of people were forced to convert to Islam by Tipu Sultan.

I don't have any fixed opinion on how many people in SC were forcefully converted and neither I care.

again from your own source

Criticism of British accounts
Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib and Saletare, amongst others, argue that stories of Tipu Sultan's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors such as Kirkpatrick[32] and Wilks,[33] whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable.[34] A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks’ account in particular cannot be trusted,[35] Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hasan argues that these early British authors had a strong vested interest in presenting Tipu Sultan as a tyrant from whom the British had liberated Mysore.[36] This assessment is echoed by Brittlebank in her recent work where she writes that Wilks and Kirkpatrick must be used with particular care as both authors had taken part in the wars against Tipu Sultan and were closely connected to the administrations of Lord Cornwallis and Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley.[37]
also read employment of hindus and gifts to hindu institutions
if tipu sultan really did this then it was unislamic. it was an example of extremism, a deviation from a millenia of islamic state policy both in india and rest of islamic world. there are always bound to be a few exceptions.
and this is not proof that islam was spread by force in india. tipu sultan only ruled a small state in southern india for a small period of time.

 

[Buffet]

again from your own source

Criticism of British accounts
Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib and Saletare, amongst others, argue that stories of Tipu Sultan's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors such as Kirkpatrick[32] and Wilks,[33] whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable.[34] A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks’ account in particular cannot be trusted,[35] Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hasan argues that these early British authors had a strong vested interest in presenting Tipu Sultan as a tyrant from whom the British had liberated Mysore.[36] This assessment is echoed by Brittlebank in her recent work where she writes that Wilks and Kirkpatrick must be used with particular care as both authors had taken part in the wars against Tipu Sultan and were closely connected to the administrations of Lord Cornwallis and Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley.[37]
also read employment of hindus and gifts to hindu institutions
if tipu sultan really did this then it was unislamic. it was an example of extremism, a deviation from a millenia of islamic state policy both in india and rest of islamic world. there are always bound to be a few exceptions.
and this is not proof that islam was spread by force in india. tipu sultan only ruled a small state in southern india for a small period of time.

I never stated that Islam was spread in SC by only/majorly by sword because I have no strong opinion regarding this matter.

I simply presented one example and based on conversation with my Historian friend it seemed reliable. I simply googled to post the link here rather than typing everything. If you see I also cited that there were disputes about numbers by Islamic scholars but even their revised figure is a huge number.

 

[amateurdentist]

^
and there is also a hindu source which states that 500 were converted.

 

[Buffet]

^
and there is also a hindu source which states that 500 were converted.

Well, you can take any number. 400,000 or 70,000 by Islamic scholar disputing the earlier number or even 500 by Hindu source. Number is not insignificant in context because it was one time event after the war of Malabar not for the entire duration of his kingdom.

 

[Wasim1]

if hindus were employed as high officials and generals, how is it possible that a policy of forced conversion took place? they were involved in making state policy. that was the job of high officials!

Are you familiar with the concept of a collaborator? Yes there were people who were spared to rat out assist and aid in his policies.

Is this what they teach you at school in Pakistan? That India/Pakistan all had hundreds of millions peacefully convert to Islam?

Wow.

Who knows maybe in Japan they still say that Manchuria gladly welcomed the Japanese....I mean after all there were Manchurian collaborators.

 

[Wasim1]

any proof of this apart from indian textbooks?
i think you donot know what jizya means. if a non-muslim is not able to pay jizya he cannot be killed

Indian textbooks? Dude I'm born in Canada my entire education except 2 years living in Dubai has been here. For your information this is common knowledge.

Not sure what kind of whitewashing version youre getting but this is the reality. Quit trying to deny history.....everyone is providing you with facts of the atrocities commited by Aurangzeb Tipu Sultan etc yet you bury your head in the sand.

 

[amateurdentist]

Are you familiar with the concept of a collaborator? Yes there were people who were spared to rat out assist and aid in his policies.

Is this what they teach you at school in Pakistan? That India/Pakistan all had hundreds of millions peacefully convert to Islam?

Wow.

Who knows maybe in Japan they still say that Manchuria gladly welcomed the Japanese....I mean after all there were Manchurian collaborators.

no that is not what they teach me in pakistani textbooks. i would not know because i was not schooled in pakistan.


i am familiar with what a collaborator is but unless you bring sources from where you got this idea i would consider this angle on history to be the figments of imagination in your colorful mind.

there are 800 million + hindus alive today that are testimony that what you want to believe to be true is infact delusions

Indian textbooks? Dude I'm born in Canada my entire education except 2 years living in Dubai has been here. For your information this is common knowledge.

Not sure what kind of whitewashing version youre getting but this is the reality. Quit trying to deny history.....everyone is providing you with facts of the atrocities commited by Aurangzeb Tipu Sultan etc yet you bury your head in the sand.

aurengzeb and tipu sultan were two rulers whos rule spanned a little over half a century. even if these allegations against them are true, there was another 550 years of muslim rule as well which included rulers like akbar, jehangir, shah jehan , sher shah suri. funny how these men are ignored by you

 

[amateurdentist]

what i find to be unreasonable is that places where force was never used to convert (egypt, syria, iraq, iran etc) are majority muslim
and india(where you claim islam was forced onto people) is hindu majority.
simply doesnot make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

what i find to be unreasonable is that places where force was never used to convert (egypt, syria, iraq, iran etc) are majority muslim
and india(where you claim islam was forced onto people) is hindu majority.
simply doesnot make any sense whatsoever.

Indeed, also lets not forget the largest Muslim country in the world, no soldier set foot there

I do find the ignorance about jizya quite staggering, or perhaps it isn't ignorance and actually mischievousness

Also when someone brings forth Koenraad Elst as a source it tells you a lot about that person and his ideology

 

[youboy]

what i find to be unreasonable is that places where force was never used to convert (egypt, syria, iraq, iran etc) are majority muslim
and india(where you claim islam was forced onto people) is hindu majority.
simply doesnot make any sense whatsoever.

Indonesia, Malaysia and far east are also where Islam was spread through Arab Merchants and there are much bigger population of Muslims.

 

[amateurdentist]

Indeed, also lets not forget the largest Muslim country in the world, no soldier set foot there

I do find the ignorance about jizya quite staggering, or perhaps it isn't ignorance and actually mischievousness

Also when someone brings forth Koenraad Elst as a source it tells you a lot about that person and his ideology

in case of some indian/hindu posters (and a pakistani one) here it is their prejudice against islam and not based on historical facts

 

[anakin]

the very concept of tax on non muslims is forcing people to convert.

any religion has little chance of spreading unless preceded by military conqust.
either you burn people or behead them or simply tax them, they will have to follow the rulers of the land

 

[amateurdentist]

muslims were also taxed. read posts 122,123, 126 and 134.
in several cases jizya was used as tool to stop people from converting to islam.

 

[anakin]

what i find to be unreasonable is that places where force was never used to convert (egypt, syria, iraq, iran etc) are majority muslim
and india(where you claim islam was forced onto people) is hindu majority.
simply doesnot make any sense whatsoever.

my dear friend before partition add pakistan and bangla population to india now you have nearly 40-45% muslim population and about 50% Hindus, almost equal isn't it.

Islam entered India before mughals. But no one taxed muslims for being muslims. But Aurangzeb thought of the nice little concept of economic persecution + so many other attrocities ( read about Guru teg bahadur 9th Guru of Sikhs)

 

[amateurdentist]

my dear friend before partition add pakistan and bangla population to india now you have nearly 40-45% muslim population and about 50% Hindus, almost equal isn't it.

i think hindu population is around 60% but what ever they case, it still does not defeat the point i made in the post you quoted. if force was used, muslims would be the vast majority in the subcontinent, as it happened in every other place on earth where force was used to convert people to other religions

Islam entered India before mughals. But no one taxed muslims for being muslims. But Aurangzeb thought of the nice little concept of economic persecution + so many other attrocities ( read about Guru teg bahadur 9th Guru of Sikhs)

muslims have to pay zakat which is a purification tax. this in effect is taxing of muslims because we are muslims, although we have no problems with it. given the benefits enjoyed by the minorities in return for paying jizya(religious freedom, their own laws and justice systems, exemption from military duty) i think jizya was not a burden

and i do know about the guru who was forced into islam but you are using one example, which was an exception to justify the majority of islamic history.
even if aurangzeb forced people into islam(which i doubt), it still is only one ruler. for one ruler like him there are 10 others who had a different policy in the islamic world.
as i said it does not give a true picture of events if we use the exceptions to justify the actions of a people.

i would love to continue this, but i have to leave. will continue this discussion with you later.

 

[anakin]

i think hindu population is around 60% but what ever they case, it still does not defeat the point i made in the post you quoted. if force was used, muslims would be the vast majority in the subcontinent, as it happened in every other place on earth where force was used to convert people to other religions

My friend people are passionate about their faith in all religions not just islam. To convert half a population of an already prospering civilization is a grand achievement. Plz answer about teg bahadur... and other Sikhgurus. Sikhism emerged out as a separate faith to oppose the persecution of Aurangzeb based on religious lines.

The oppression gave birth to a new religion thats no small thing.

muslims have to pay zakat which is a purification tax. this in effect is taxing of muslims because we are muslims, although we have no problems with it. given the benefits enjoyed by the minorities in return for paying jizya(religious freedom, their own laws and justice systems, exemption from military duty) i think jizya was not a burden

I am not sure about zakat ... wiki tells me its charity from wealthy .... hmm.
As for jizya ... there were simple people of different faiths and just because a Muslim conquered their king. These people have to pay additional tax because they do not believe in his God.

and i do know about the guru who was forced into islam but you are using one example, which was an exception to justify the majority of islamic history.
even if aurangzeb forced people into islam(which i doubt), it still is only one ruler. for one ruler like him there are 10 others who had a different policy in the islamic world.

hey you gave me just one example against polyandry ...

anyhow was it just one man ..... entire Sikhism has been born out of that oppression

as i said it does not give a true picture of events if we use the exceptions to justify the actions of a people.


i would love to continue this, but i have to leave. will continue this discussion with you later.

 

[amateurdentist]

My friend people are passionate about their faith in all religions not just islam. To convert half a population of an already prospering civilization is a grand achievement.

the thing is that alot of the early converts to islam are always the poor, the weak, the young and widows and orphans. this happened in Makkah, in madinah, in every land that muslims conquered including india. a lot of the lower caste hindus accepted islam readily. this is because in islam these people gained equality so these newly converts had the same rights as muslim elites. another reason was the social order. rather than taxes being collected for the king, taxes in islamic states were used to set up houses for orphans and widows, hospitals, schools and generally used for social services, which were the best in the world( you can wiki it under Caliph Umer and even Aurengzeb did this).Rich muslims and rich non-muslims were taxed and the money was spent on the poor citizens be they muslims or non-muslims. it will be difficult for anyone to understand the effect of islam and the changes it brought unless you read the history of islam. islam was a revolution and the young, the weak and the socially marginalized were always attracted to it. so it is not hard to believe that there are 500 million muslims in india mostly whos ancestors were converted through peaceful means, given that muslims ruled india for about 700 years.

Plz answer about teg bahadur... and other Sikhgurus. Sikhism emerged out as a separate faith to oppose the persecution of Aurangzeb based on religious lines.

The oppression gave birth to a new religion thats no small thing.

I really dont know much about sikhism or any indian religions to be honest but under islam forceful conversions are banned. when aurengzeb converted the guru to islam by force, he committed a sin under islam.
that should not be hard to understand as you may know of other people following other religions and also secularists who do things which are not sanctioned by their religions/ideologies. Doesnt mean the religion or ideology is to blame rather the person is at fault.
and one thing i didnot understand in this thread is the fascination with aurengzeb. he was only one muslim ruler among many in india and most other muslim rulers had lenient policies e.g. akbar, jahangir, sher shah suri, shah jehan, bahmani empire, the Lodhis etc.

I am not sure about zakat ... wiki tells me its charity from wealthy .... hmm.
As for jizya ... there were simple people of different faiths and just because a Muslim conquered their king. These people have to pay additional tax because they do not believe in his God.

zakat is given by those who are able to pay (in todays world the upper and middle classes) but it is collected by the state so it is a tax. both muslim men and muslim women pay zakat.
interestingly women were exempt from jizya and so were the elderly, poor, insane, children, priests and monks. only rich non-muslim men paid jizya inlieu of military service. if these men joined the army they didnot have to pay jizya. under the jizya, they could practice their religion freely and also have their own laws and courts(non-muslims did not have to follow the shariah)
so the rules for zakat and jizya are almost the same. they are both taxes on the wealthy. zakat is given by the state to the poor while jizya is used to fund armies. again please read post 122 and post123 for details on jizya

hey you gave me just one example against polyandry ...

that was not an example but i gave you the reason why it is banned in islam. it is a fact that under this system(polyandry) men didnot take responsibility for their children and this was the main reason
medinahs society was polyandrous and this lead to many social ills in the city leading to discarded children, homeless women of the street and street adolescents. when the Prophet came he got rid of this practice as islam was and will always be a religion of social change

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

the very concept of tax on non muslims is forcing people to convert.

any religion has little chance of spreading unless preceded by military conqust.
either you burn people or behead them or simply tax them, they will have to follow the rulers of the land

I see the ignorance over jizya continues

I pay taxes in the UK, am I being forced to convert?

Muslims in India pay taxes are they being forced to convert?

 

[Garuda]

I see the ignorance over jizya continues

I pay taxes in the UK, am I being forced to convert?

Muslims in India pay taxes are they being forced to convert?

Question is is the tax given to state is same by all or muslims and non-muslims pay different tax ?

 

[Black Zero]

I see the ignorance over jizya continues

I pay taxes in the UK, am I being forced to convert?

Muslims in India pay taxes are they being forced to convert?

if you pay more than non-muslims, then I would say that you are being forced to convert.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Question is is the tax given to state is same by all or muslims and non-muslims pay different tax ?

It doesn't exist nowadays BUT a post earlier on by amateurdentist explains that it varied from more, the same and less

 

[Garuda]

It doesn't exist nowadays BUT a post earlier on by amateurdentist explains that it varied from more, the same and less

Ok. Thanks.

Like others said, if one citizen pays different tax than other citizen just because one belongs to other religion then personally I feel its wrong.

Cuz, the tax is used to provide facilities to the citizen by the state and which should be same for all. So why one will pay more based on religion ?

For ppl saying, its protection tax for non-muslims, the question arises, protection from whom ?

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Ok. Thanks.

Like others said, if one citizen pays different tax than other citizen just because one belongs to other religion then personally I feel its wrong.

Cuz, the tax is used to provide facilities to the citizen by the state and which should be same for all. So why one will pay more based on religion ?

For ppl saying, its protection tax for non-muslims, the question arises, protection from whom ?

in terms of protection they get protected from any invading forces, paying the jizya (for those that are eligible) means they don't have to fight for the Islamic state and they are granted protection, failure to protect them means they can get a refund. That is more than reasonable imo so I find it bizarre when people make it out to be an unfair tax system

 

[youboy]

Ok. Thanks.

Like others said, if one citizen pays different tax than other citizen just because one belongs to other religion then personally I feel its wrong.

Lets think the other way around if someone who is eligible and is giving the jizya tax he is exempted from military services which is a must for every eligible Muslim. Also he doesn't have to pay zakaat which is must for every eligible Muslim.

So here the duties and services to the sate of a Muslim citizen and a non Muslim citizen are also different. So the tax is also different. Does this justify the difference?

Cuz, the tax is used to provide facilities to the citizen by the state and which should be same for all. So why one will pay more based on religion ?

The Zakaat or jizya tax is not used to provide facilities to the citizen as in modern day state. Providing of all basic facilities is the responsibility of the government irrespective of any Zakaat or Jizya is collected or not collected.
Zakaat money will not be used to provide facilities to the Muslim who is giving it and as earlier said that jizya will be used to fund armies.

Lets take one example only for discussion sake if their is small town in which there is not a single Muslim who is eligible for paying zakaat and not a single non Muslim who is eligible to pay jizya. Then also it is the responsibility of the government to provide all basic facilities like education, healthcare etc. to each and every citizen of the town.

For ppl saying, its protection tax for non-muslims, the question arises, protection from whom ?

I am copying the definition of jizya as in wiki

The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power (but with specific exemptions). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the zakaat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens

 

[RexRex]

.. failure to protect them means they can get a refund. That is more than reasonable imo so I find it bizarre when people make it out to be an unfair tax system

Refunding a dead man , it can't get more fair than that

 

[youboy]

Refunding a dead man , it can't get more fair than that

No there can be no refund if the person is dead.

The reason that the the person who has to refund will die first fighting to protect that man who has given the jizya.

Is it fair now?

 

[RexRex]

No there can be no refund if the person is dead.

The reason that the the person who has to refund will die first fighting to protect that man who has given the jizya.

Is it fair now?

Just the way he framed that sentence , clearly no use refunding a guy who's got his head lopped off by invaders.

 

[Garuda]

in terms of protection they get protected from any invading forces, paying the jizya (for those that are eligible) means they don't have to fight for the Islamic state and they are granted protection, failure to protect them means they can get a refund. That is more than reasonable imo so I find it bizarre when people make it out to be an unfair tax system

Doesn't make sense at all. Invading forces do not differentiate between a religion with others in a state.

So the protection needed is for both.

Secondly, why are they not allowed to fight for themselves like muslims for their state? Why the muslims only need to fight in a situation when the state is under attack ?

So, if a non-muslim agrees to join the army, he shouldn't need to pay the protection tax?

What about those muslims who are not in the army? They are also being protected. Should they also pay extra tax?

 

[Garuda]

The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power (but with specific exemptions). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."

Is there an option if the non-muslim is ready to join the military then he is not going to pay any tax ? Cuz he is ready to give his service so no point of paying.

Also, what happens if a adult muslim is not in military ? Will the muslim adult pay this tax as he also need to pay for his protection ?

In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the zakaat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens

outside aggression is same for muslims and non muslims in a state. Why a non-muslims need to pay more for his protection in his own country ?

Isn't it a discrimination as one pays more for staying safe compared to other due to religion in his own state?

 

[Wicket Hit]

"I had been at Dehli fifteen days, which time I passed in pleasure and enjoyment, holding royal Courts and giving great feasts. I then reflected that I had come to Hindustān to war against infidels, and my enterprise had been so blessed that wherever I had gone I had been victorious. I had triumphed over my adversaries, I had put to death some lacs of infidels and idolaters, and I had stained my proselyting sword with the blood of the enemies of the faith. Now this crowning victory had been won, and I felt that I ought not to indulge in ease, but rather to exert myself in warring against .the infidels of Hindustan."

Above is from autobiography of Timur. The following is from Ghaznavi's secretary:

"At length (about A.D. 1019) he (i.e. Maḥmūd) arrived at the fort of Barba,1 in the country of Hardat, who was one of the rā'īs, that is "kings," in the Hindī language. When Hardat heard of this invasion by the protected warriors of God, who advanced like the waves of the sea, with the angels around them on all sides, he became greatly agitated, his steps trembled, and he feared for his life, which was forfeited under the law of God. So he reflected that his safety would best be secured by conforming to the religion of Islam, since God's sword was drawn from the scabbard, and the whip of punishment was uplifted. He came forth, therefore, with ten thousand men, who all proclaimed their anxiety for conversion and their rejection of idols."

Firoz Shah Tughlaq writes in his autobiography:

" I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet, and I proclaimed that every one who repeated the creed and became a Musalman should be exempt from the jizyah, or poll tax. Information of this came to the ears of the people at large and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves, and were admitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, and, adopting the faith, were exonerated from the jizyah, and were favoured with presents and honours."

The following is a proclamation to the Hindus by Tipu Sultan:

From the period of the conquest until this day, during twenty-four years, you have been a turbulent and refractory people, and in the wars waged during your rainy season, you have caused numbers of our warriors to taste the draught of martyrdom. Be it so. What is past is past. Hereafter you must proceed in an opposite manner, dwell quietly and pay your dues like good subjects; and since it is the practice with you for one woman to associate with ten men, and you leave your mothers and sisters unconstrained in their obscene practices, and are thence all born in adultery, and are more shameless in your connections than the beasts of the field, I hereby require you to forsake these sinful practices and to be like the rest of mankind; and if you are disobedient to these commands, I have made repeated vows to honour the whole of you with Islam and to march all the chief persons to the seat of Government."

" every being in the district without distinction should be honoured with Islam, that the houses of such as fled to avoid that honour should be burned, that they should be traced to their lurking places, and that all means of truth and falsehood, force or fraud should be employed to effect their universal conversion."

Aurangzeb, Hyder Ali, Ghori are of course well documented. Conversion in India did not happen in any one way. It was combination of force, inducements, and voluntary.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Superb thread.

Immensely educational.

 

[James]

^Agreed. Really pleased with the result.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Doesn't make sense at all. Invading forces do not differentiate between a religion with others in a state.

So the protection needed is for both.

Secondly, why are they not allowed to fight for themselves like muslims for their state? Why the muslims only need to fight in a situation when the state is under attack ?

So, if a non-muslim agrees to join the army, he shouldn't need to pay the protection tax?

What about those muslims who are not in the army? They are also being protected. Should they also pay extra tax?

Good question(s), if I may copy/paste the following extract it answers your questions

Sir Thomas Arnold, an early 20th century orientalist, gives an example of a Christian Arab tribe which avoided paying the jizya altogether by fighting alongside Muslim armies "such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty".

 

[youboy]

Is there an option if the non-muslim is ready to join the military then he is not going to pay any tax ? Cuz he is ready to give his service so no point of paying.

Also, what happens if a adult muslim is not in military ? Will the muslim adult pay this tax as he also need to pay for his protection ?

Jizya is not protection money. The protection of all the citizens are responsibility of the government and the army.

If an eligible non-muslim decide to serve in the military and ready to fight in the battlefield then he will be exempted from paying jizya.

For Muslim adult its required for him to have at least military training. But the Jizyah will also be imposed on Muslim men who want to be exempted from military service.

outside aggression is same for muslims and non muslims in a state. Why a non-muslims need to pay more for his protection in his own country ?

Again Jizya is not protection money and eligible non-muslim can also avoid paying it as explained above.


Jizya is a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.

Isn't it a discrimination as one pays more for staying safe compared to other due to religion in his own state?

Lets think this way that there are 2 citizens both are eligible for paying of jizya.

One citizen will be serving in the military ready to fight and also ready to give his life in the battlefield to protect the 2nd citizen.
And the 2nd citizen is providing financial contribution to the 1st citizen in this service.

1st citizen life at stake. (Exempted from jizya)
2nd citizen contributing financially. (paying jizya)

I don't think there is any discrimination here.

 

[Black Zero]

JIZYAH IN INDIA

Arab inroads upon the North-West frontiers of India, upon Sindh, or/and upon Baluchistan began as early as the time of 'Umar, the second Caliph, and continued in the caliphate of 'Uthmân, 'Alî, Mu'âwiyyah, and later on as well. Under Hajjâj bin Yûsuf's orders, MuHammad bin Qâism, a nineteen year old Arab, conquered Sindh in 712 A.D. and imposed Jizyah on the Hindus and Buddhists unwilling to embrace Islam, excepting, however, BrâhmaNa-s and ascetics. For the purpose the Jizyah assessees were divided into three classes, the highest class being liable to pay 48 dirhams of silver (24 silver rupees) per head, the middle class 24 dirhams, and the lowest class 12 dirhams. MuHammad bin Qâsim made it clear to the Hindus and Buddhists: 'Those among you who become Mussalmans and come within the fold of Islam shall have their tribute remitted, but those who are still inclined to be of their own faith, must put up with injuries (gazand) and tribute (jizia) to retain the religion of their fathers and grandfathers.'1

Upon this, some took to flight 'in order to maintain the faith of their ancestors' and 'their horses, domestics, and other property were taken away from them.'2

MuHammad bin Qâsim took a census of the merchants and artisans and levied a Jizyah of 12 dirhams of silver on each of them, 'as they had already lost their property by plunder.'3

When defeated by Subuktagîn, Jaipâl offered Jizyah and Kharâj to him.4

During the twelve centuries intervening between the invasion of MuHammad bin Qasim and the death of Aurangzeb, Jizyah remained in force in the India of those days with varying degrees of emphasis but with brief intervals, as we shall see in the sequal.

'Ulamâ' advised SulTân Iltutmish as well as certain other SulTâns not to levy Jizyah on idol-worshipping Hindus but give them an ultimatum of choosing between the alternatives of Islam and death. In view, however, of the overwhelming majority of the Hindus, the Sultans dared not do so and rested satisfied with Jizyah.

QâDî Mughîth ad-Dîn told SulTân 'Alâ'u 'd-Dîn Khaljî: 'If the Jizyah-collector ask a Hindu for silver, the latter should offer gold in all humility. If the collector wishes to spit into his mouth, the latter should open his mouth without demur, so as to enable the former to spit into it.'5 Alâ'u 'd-Din is notorious for having pauperized the Hindus to the utmost limit, but it is not known if he acted upon the QâDîs advice.

Like everywhere else, in India, too, a large number of non-Muslims chose Islam for fear of Jizyah. Fîroz Shâh Tughluq promulgated an ordinance imposing Jizyah on the Hindus including the BrâhamaNa-s and exempting them therefrom on conversion. He writes that as a result of the ordinance 'the Hindus thronged in clusters after clusters and groups after groups and were glorified by the glory of Islam. And likewise to this day of ours, they come from far and wide, embrace Islam, and Jizyah is off from them.' (fawj fawj wa jamâ'at jamâ'at Hunûd âmadand wa ba sharf-i Islâm musharraf shudand. Wa hamchunîn ilâ yawmi-nâ hâdhâ az aTrâf mî âyand, wa îmân mî ârand, wa jizyah az Ishân dûr mî shawad.)6

The BrâhamaNa-s went on hunger-strike and threatened immolation, on the ground that they were never assessed to Jizyah in the past. The SulTân was adamant and told them that he cared a whit even if they all immolated themselves. At long last, other castes took upon themselves to pay for them and the matter came to an end.7

Akbar was the first emperor to abolish Jizyah with one stroke of pen, along with all its associations and implications, including the distinction of Muslim and Dhimmî into the bargain. His son and grandson followed his example in regard to Jizyah, generally speaking, but reimposed upon the Hindus all the other restrictions and disabilities suffered by them before.

In 1679, Aurangzeb reintroduced Jizyah at the usual rates of 48 dirhams on the rich, 24 on the middle class, and 12 on the poor, the rich being those earning ten thousand dirhams or more a year, the middle those earning over two hundred, and the poor those earning less. Following the tradition, he also stipulated that the Dhimmî should carry the Jizyah with his own hand and should come on foot. He should pay it standing, while the Jizyah-collector is sitting. The Dhimmî-s hand should be below that of the collector, who should snatch away the Jizyah from the former's hands with the remark, 'Pay the Jizyah, O Dhimmî!'.8

The emperor turned a deaf ear to the Hindus who gathered together by the hundreds of thousands at Delhi and piteously cried for withdrawal of Jizyah. Next day, he ordered elephants to be driven through the mass of men and trample them down, and many did get trampled down. They continued to gather in large numbers for some days more, but to no effect.

Along letter of remonstrance was addressed to the emperor against the reimposition of Jizyah. Its authorship is ascribed to four different persons. 'The Royal Asiatic Society Ms 71, ascribes the authorship to Shivaji, A.S.B.Ms 56, to Shambhuji (sic), Orme's Fragments, 252, to Jaswant Singh, and Tod I, 323, to Rana Raj Singh of Udaipur.'9 This, too, failed to have any effect.

From the letter it appears that 'the Emperor of India, envying the bowls of beggars, takes Jizya from Brahmans, Jain monks, Yogis, Sannyâsî-s, Bairâgî-s, paupers, beggars, ruined wretches, and the famished.'10 In the 37th year of Aurangzeb's reign, however, a parwânâh was issued exempting some of the Christian priests of Agra from Jizyah.11 Again, once finding the people of Hyderabad incapable of paying Jizyah, the emperor granted them exemption for one year.12

In spite of ordinances from Delhi for or against the imposition of Jizyah, independent and quasi-independent rulers and governors of certain regions continued to have their own way. So, even after the lifting of Jizyah by Akbar, Jizyah continued to be in force in Bijapur. We shall see that the SulTâns of Kashmir were independent enough to strike their own lines in this regard. It is also found that the SulTâns had a hard nut to crack so far as goes the question of collection of Jizyah. Their Jizyah-collectors were often driven away by the local Hindu chiefs and landlords. Even Aurangzeb laments that he is finding it difficult to realize Jizyah.

Another invidious tax that the Hindus had to pay under Aurangzeb's dispensation was duty on commercial goods at double the rate charged from the Muslims.

Aurangzeb's granting his servents, civil and military, exemption from Jizyah meant little in practice. He was out to debar Hindus from government service, and had to relent at times only when compelled by political exigencies and paucity of suitable Muslim talent.13

Another factor, conscription in the hour of military urgency, is made much of as a liability upon the Muslims and not upon non-Muslims and as a consequent vindication of the latter's liability for Jizyah. In India, at least, this principle was followed more in its breach than in its observance. In such an empire as India, large standing armies had to be maintained and manned by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, often more by the latter than by the former, who were few and far between as compared with the Hindus.

In Kashmir, Sikandar Butshikan (1389-1413) imposed Jizyah on the Hindus for the first time. Prior to him, right from Shâh Mîr (1339) down to QuTub ad-Dîn (1389), Kashmir knew no Jizyah. Jizyah was finally lifted there in 1586, during the regime of Yûsuf Shâh, when Akbar annexed Kashmir to his empire; though its realization had been suspended by Yûsuf Shâh for seven years prior to it, i.e. from 1578 till the date of Kashmir's annexation to the Mughal empire. However, between Sikandar Butshikan and Yûsuf Shâh comes the golden age of Kashmir, inaugurated by SulTân Zayn al-'Âbidîn (1419-1470), who first reduced the rate of Jizyah and then abolished it outright. Jizyah was reimposed by Daulat Chak, the prime minister of SulTân Islâm Shâh (1538-39), upon the BrâhmâNa-s, who happened to be the only Hindus living in the then Kashmir.

The rate of Jizyah levied by Sikandar Butshikan was two pala-s (about 1 tolâ and 6 mâshâ-s) of silver a year. Zayn al-'Âbidîn first reduced it to one mâshâ (and that, too, was seldom realized) and then finally abolished it. But Daulat Chak realized 40 pala-s annually from each male BrâhmaNa when he was invested with the sacred thread (yajñopavîta).

For Jizyah, Jonarâja uses the terms 'durdaNDa' (the ignoble tax/penalty)14 and turuSka-daNDa (the Turk/Muslim-imposed tax/penalty).15 For imposition of Jizyah, he uses the expression daNDa-sthiti.16

Jizyah has played an enormous role in the spread of Islam in India as everywhere else. Amîr Khusrau appears to be right when he says that, had Hanafite law (which alone of the four schools of Muslim law allows to polytheists the concession of survival on payment of Jizyah) not prevailed in India, the Hindus would have vanished root and branch:

Ba-dhimmah gar na bûdi rukhSat-i shar'
Na mâNdi nâm-i Hindû zi 'Sl tâ far'17

Literally translated, 'Did the Dhimmî-s not enjoy the concession of the Sharî'ah, all trace of the Hindus would vanish root and branch.'

A unique feature of the situation in Kashmir was that Sikandar Butshikan levied even Zakât on the Hindus, along with Jizyah. Yûsuf Shah exempted only boatmen (mallâH-s) from Zakât.18

We cannot resist the temptation of concluding this chapter with an unusual assessment of the Indian situation today by maintaining that the so-called majority community is still paying something as good or as bad in effect as Jizyah, viz. that part of the taxes paid by the majority which is used exclusively in the interests of the so-called minorities.

source: http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/jtsi/ch03.htm

 

[youboy]

Just the way he framed that sentence , clearly no use refunding a guy who's got his head lopped off by invaders.

The below example gives the explanation for the refund as what he was saying.

A non-Muslim populated city was paying jizya under Caliph rule. The soldiers who were serving as the army of the city were summoned to the battle in another area. The Jizya money was refunded to the people of the city as the army had to leave and they could no more provide them with military service and protection.

 

[amateurdentist]

The article talks about selected incidences and is mostly opinion of the writer of the different sources, not general policies.
Except for aurengzebs rates for jizya 48 dirhams for one earning 10,000 a year 24 dirhams for 2000 dirhams a year and 12 dirhams for the poor
a muslim would have to pay 250 dirhams in zakat if he earned 10,000 a year. so if a brahmin accepted islam under aurengzeb, his tax would increase from 48 dirhams to 250 dirhams.

 

[Black Zero]

The article talks about selected incidences and is mostly opinion of the writer of the different sources, not general policies.
Except for aurengzebs rates for jizya 48 dirhams for one earning 10,000 a year 24 dirhams for 2000 dirhams a year and 12 dirhams for the poor
a muslim would have to pay 250 dirhams in zakat if he earned 10,000 a year. so if a brahmin accepted islam under aurengzeb, his tax would increase from 48 dirhams to 250 dirhams.

You need to read more abt Aurengzeb's era.
His Aamils would squeeze the last drop of blood of commoners (almost all non-muslims)

Jazia was an additional tax.

 

[amateurdentist]

You need to read more abt Aurengzeb's era.
His Aamils(both muslims and non-muslims) would squeeze the last drop of blood of commoners (almost all non-muslims and muslims) to fund his wars

Jazia was an additional tax.

fixed . (as i have read about aurengzeb). still zakat for a muslim was 5 times more than jizya. thank you for the source!

 

[Solid Snake]

This has undoubtedly been an interesting and educational thread, so a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion . From a personal point of view, amateurdentist for me has especially brought up some great points, and akher who mentioned Thomas Arnold's work right at the start, which I've found to be an excellent read so far.

Having said that, I can't help but feel the thread is going round in circles/ getting repetitive. I would therefore urge posters to try and read it in it's entirety (I know it's long ), because at the moment if I were to answer some of the questions brought up recently, I couldn't help but think we were covering the same ground!

 

[Lalafied]

were people forced to accept islam?
muslim political power was spread by the sword but islam as a religion, i dont think so

Islam did spread by the sword in terms of political entity/ideology. But I agree, as dogma it did not. Generally, the people of conquered lands ended up paying the Jizya or they reverted to Islam by choice.

See the government is not separate from Islam as Islam provides a blue print for governance and as the Sahaba (RAA) understood it, all land belonged to Allah (SWT) so His rule should be supreme on Earth. Non-Muslims are free to practice their religion as long as they don't use it as a propaganda tool to sway people away from Islam. We'll find that the Khalifahs that came after the time of Khulafah Rashideen went away from carrying Islamic Dawah via Jihad to the world. An obligation that has been neglected for a long time now which is a major cause for our sufferings today.

Islam is a Deen not a religion. It has systems for governance, individual & collective worship, family, relationships, morality, trade, and economics. When all of the said aspects of society are in line with Islam, we establish complete worship of Allah (SWT) as that is the purpose of our creation, to worship Allah (SWT). Salah is just one part of worship.

 

[Black Zero]

fixed . (as i have read about aurengzeb). still zakat for a muslim was 5 times more than jizya. thank you for the source!

Reminder: Topic of this thread is "Islam: How was it spread"

Fact: Many Hindus converted to Islam due to Jazya under Aurengzeb.

Do you refute this fact? Yes or No?

P.S. I would not allow you to distract the discussion, so do not try.

 

[amateurdentist]

lol reread the thread, infact read the last two posts.
you mentioned the punishment of kinanah and bani nadir but you failed to mention that they played a major part in forming alliances between the desert tribes, quraish and banu qurayza in order to destroy the muslim community there.
it is clear who is the liar

 

[amateurdentist]

Reminder: Topic of this thread is "Islam: How was it spread"

Fact: Many Hindus converted to Islam due to Jazya under Aurengzeb.

Do you refute this fact? Yes or No?

P.S. I would not allow you to distract the discussion, so do not try.

fact:Yes, most lower caste hindus and untouchables accepted islam because it offered them equality
fact: jizya is not the sword
fact: if a person cannot afford the jizya, they dont have to pay it
fact: jizya was 5 times less than zakat during aurengzebs reign
fact: aurengzeb was not the only ruler of the muslim world in 1450 years of its existence, and is not the example of a perfect, pious islamic ruler.

 

[Buffet]

fact:Yes, most lower caste hindus and untouchables accepted islam because it offered them equality
fact: jizya is not the sword
fact: if a person cannot afford the jizya, they dont have to pay it
fact: jizya was 5 times less than zakat during aurengzebs reign
fact: aurengzeb was not the only ruler of the muslim world in 1450 years of its existence, and is not the example of a perfect, pious islamic ruler.

As per my understanding, Jizya was a tax on non-muslims and Zakat was charity donations by Muslims. Why are we comparing these two? I don't think they are comparable to begin with.

Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

 

[amateurdentist]

As per my understanding, Jizya was a tax on non-muslims and Zakat was charity donations by Muslims. Why are we comparing these two? I don't think they are comparable to begin with.

Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

two things.
1) zakat is collected by the state, it is not charity, but purifying dues and an obligatory duty of muslims as important as praying or fasting.
therefore a comparison is valid because if a person accepts islam, they have to pay zakat rather than jizya

2)Now, even under the most strict of muslim rulers in india, Aurengzeb, jizya for a brahmin was 48 dirhams, and if that brahmin accepted islam they would have to pay 250+ dirhams as zakat per year.
therefore it is a myth that financial pressure of jizya caused alot of non-muslims to enter islam given the fact that a person who converted to islam had to pay a higher amount of zakat whatever their status

 

[Black Zero]

fact:Yes, most lower caste hindus and untouchables accepted islam because it offered them equality
fact: jizya is not the sword
fact: if a person cannot afford the jizya, they dont have to pay it
fact: jizya was 5 times less than zakat during aurengzebs reign
fact: aurengzeb was not the only ruler of the muslim world in 1450 years of its existence, and is not the example of a perfect, pious islamic ruler.

Good that you did not try to refute it [Hindus converted to Islam due to Jazya]


During Aurengzeb's era, no one cared if you cud afford it or not.
and if you cannot, your only option was to embrace Islam.

(only instance he didn't enforce this was for deccan as he was told that hindus would just leave the region)

Your comparing zakat vs jazya is silly... as during that era, only 1 hindu out of 1000 would be in Zakat bracket.