Fundamental difference between Islam and West Friday, 22 October 2010 05:41

Much has been made of the jizya, a tax payable by the able-bodied men between the ages of 20 and 50 as a token of their submission to the Muslim rule and as a compensation for the military services that the Muslims provided for their protection and from which they were exempt. (That women were exempt from jizya was certainly another act of “discrimination against women” that the modern world probably would not tolerate).

The word itself is an Arabicised form of the Persian gizya which was a similar tax imposed by the pre-Islamic Persian king Nosherwan for the purpose of supporting the army. It was not a Muslim invention; both Persian and Byzantine empires were used to collecting it. But like anything else Muslims brought their extreme concern for justice in its administration and use.

Its purpose and nature is clear from the words of the treaty between Khalid Ibn Waleed and the Christian Salooba Ibn Nastoora. “I reached a treaty with you and your people on the basis of payment of jizya and provision of security. It is your responsibility to pay the jizya as long as we are protecting you and not if we do not.”

The last part of the above sentence was not meant for decoration. What it really meant was brought to life when in 15/635 Muslims faced the second battle at Ajnadeen in a last ditch effort by Heraclius (d. 641 CE) to remove the Muslims from Syria. He had gathered a very large army and in order to face it Muslims had to mobilise all their forces from Hims and Damascus. This meant that they would no longer be able to provide the protection they had promised to these areas. While facing the new threat was on their minds, the Muslim commander Sayyidna Abu Ubaydah did not forget the treaty with the Christians of the area. He ordered all of the jizya that had been taken from these areas to be returned to the people, which was done before the army left. Understandably the grateful Christians noted that had it been the Romans, then instead of returning any money, they would have taken whatever they could before leaving.

That jizya was a payment for military services is further shown by the fact that when the people provided military services, jizya was waived. There are reports of such waivers during the time of Umar ibn Khattab (Armenia and Bab in Iran) and Uthman ibn Affan (Jarjimah).

The exorbitant amount of jizya is another myth that the Orientalists have created. As detailed in Kitab Al Kharaj, there were three rates of jizya based on a person’s financial condition. These were 12, 24, or 48 dirhams or silver coins per year. To put these numbers in perspective, it should be noted that anyone having less than 200 dirhams was considered to be below the poverty line and was exempted from payment. Kharaj or tax on agricultural produce was also levied on them. It was a substitute for the ushr (a 10% levy) that the Muslims had to pay and from which the non-Muslims were exempt.

What has been presented above are just some of the glimpses from the Muslim record in treating the other during their period of power. It is a record of justice, fairness, and religious freedom that is unmatched by anything before or since. That is why Dr Muhammad Hamidullah who lived a life of exile in Paris (after his native Hyderabad had been taken over militarily by India) and knew first hand Europe’s treatment of Muslims, said: “If Muslim residents in non-Muslim countries receive the same treatment as dhimmis did in the Islamic system, they would be more than satisfied; they would be grateful.”

And contrary to the common perceptions created by a dedicated propaganda campaign that has gone on for a very long period, the real reason for this unprecedented treatment was the Shariah.

The Shariah assured the rule of law. It could not be changed or ignored. And whenever some one showed any lapses - and indeed there were- it was there to provide the needed correction. When the Companion Saeed Ibn Zaid saw some non-Muslims made to stand in the sun for failure to pay jizya, he immediately went to the governor of the area to admonish him against this action. He said, “I heard the Prophet of Allah say, Allah will punish those who torture the people in this world.’”

Their torture was nothing compared to the tortures being meted out today in torture chambers around the world. But there is no one today who can remind the torturers of this warning. This warning comes, not from the universal declarations of the UN that have no sacred value for the signatories, but from the Shariah that controlled a Muslim’s thoughts and actions. It was the reason that “Unlike Europe, the Islamic Middle East never resorted to systematic persecution of its minority population.”

The position taken by many Orientalists today is that Shariah was good for the past. We can appreciate its achievements in the dark ages. Not any more. This medicine came with an expiration date and it is no longer safe or effective. The gold standard for all human endeavours has been set by modernity and everyone must follow it. The proof: the very concept of a dhimmi is anathema to the modern mind which does not accept any division of us versus them, while it was the hallmark of the Islamic system.

It sounds great - until you start to think about it. Have we truly achieved a common homogenised mass where there is no division on any basis between people? Religions do certainly divide people between believers and non-believers. But so does secularism. It does not look kindly at those who question it. The differences being there, the real question is how you handle them. There is a fundamental difference between Islamic and Western approaches to this issue. The Western solution is just to eliminate the other through a rigorous project of assimilation. When that is not possible then the Western solution has been to create apartheid states as in South Africa and Israel, or create reservations as done for the Indians in the US. Minorities in the West are constantly reminded, often by their own leaders, that unless they assimilate they will end up on reservations.

To eliminate the problem of multiple categories by removing the offending categories is one approach. That is how the West “solved” the problem of the inequities between men and women; it forced the women to enter the men’s world to be treated as equal. Islam, on the other hand, gave women rights without denying their femininity. It emphasised their essential humanity and considered them equally responsible in their spheres of action. But it never forced or enticed a woman to leave her home and compete with the men to get her rights. It did not give her one right while taking back another; the right to be a woman. For that it is constantly rebuked.

In dealing with the other in the society, the same pattern has been repeated. Islam certainly did not call for assimilation of the non-Muslims; rather it assured the unique identity of each and gave them rights while maintaining that identity. It recognized their essential humanity and the equality of their life in ways that cannot be imagined in the Western societies. Here again it did not give the non-Muslim one right while taking back another; the right to be a practicing Jew or Christian or whatever, with full religious freedom even for practices that were anathema to Islam. For that also it is being rebuked.

What it all boils down to is this simple question. Do Muslims have a right to live by Islam? The answer we are hearing from the pundits is no. Not in France, not in Algeria. Not in Europe, not in the Muslim world. Muslim women have no right to wear hijab in France and no right to be governed by the Shariah in Algeria. In the former they must respect the majority because it becomes uncomfortable with the sight of hijab. In the latter they must respect the minority, because it becomes uncomfortable with the talk of Shariah.

Despite the great achievements the West has undeniably made in recognising universal human rights, it still has a long way to go. While Muslims always gave the right to non-Muslims to be governed by their personal law (like marriage, divorce, family issues, inheritance, and so on), it is enthusiastically denied to Muslims in the West. While they let the church bells ring, the adhan or Muslim call to prayer does not enjoy that freedom here. While they decided that no action against minorities could be taken based on suspicions, the Western achievement has been in passing anti-terrorism laws and Patriot Acts.

And pundits are glad to inform us that it is the Islamic Shariah that needs to be reformed. Sure.

Concluded

www.albalagh.net