The Qur'an vs. the Hadiths

[TimCallahan]

One of the appeals of Islam would seem to be that it is (and particularly was during its initial spread) a fairly simple, straight forward faith, one free of a lot of conundrums, such as how God can be three people and one at the same time or how he can be at once a God ruling the universe and at the same time a man. It would also seem to be free of pernicious doctrines, such as that of Original Sin.

However, that can only be the case if one bases his or her Islamic faith on the Qur'an alone. Then being a good Muslim is a fairly straight-forward process. Besides being a generally decent person, one most recite the confession of faith ("There is no god but God, and Mohammad is his messenger."), keep up the daily prayer, fast from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan, give a portion of one's earnings to the poor and, if one can afford it, make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one's lifetime (the Hajj). In the last case, one is not to go into debt to make the Hajj. Also, the confession of faith may only have to be uttered once in one's life. As to the daily prayer and fasting from dawn to dusk in Ramadan, if one is prevented from doing either due to health concerns, being in battle, etc., one can atone by an act of generosity. So, all in all, this would be a simple faith.

Unfortunately, Islam, like Christianity, has gathered its own share of corrupting and complicating baggage, namely the hadith's, purportedly saying of the Prophet, recorded by his companions. Consider, for example the Hadith Qudsi 6 which states that doers of good deeds will be judged at the last day, not by their deeds but by their intentions:

“The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died a martyr.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is courageous.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Qur’an. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Qur’an for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is learned.’’ And you recited the Qur’an that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is a reciter.’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man whom Allah had made rich and to whom He had given all kinds of wealth. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I left no path [un-trodden] in which You like money to be spent without spending in it for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but do so that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is open-handed.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.”

So, now a MUslim can't just do good deeds. Rather, he, like the Christian, has to fret over whether or not he did them for the proper reasons. Thus, he will have to worry constantly about his salvation, regardless of how he has led his life. Religion certainly has great ways of tying people in knots.

 

[tsig]

One of the appeals of Islam would seem to be that it is (and particularly was during its initial spread) a fairly simple, straight forward faith, one free of a lot of conundrums, such as how God can be three people and one at the same time or how he can be at once a God ruling the universe and at the same time a man. It would also seem to be free of pernicious doctrines, such as that of Original Sin.

However, that can only be the case if one bases his or her Islamic faith on the Qur'an alone. Then being a good Muslim is a fairly straight-forward process. Besides being a generally decent person, one most recite the confession of faith ("There is no god but God, and Mohammad is his messenger."), keep up the daily prayer, fast from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan, give a portion of one's earnings to the poor and, if one can afford it, make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one's lifetime (the Hajj). In the last case, one is not to go into debt to make the Hajj. Also, the confession of faith may only have to be uttered once in one's life. As to the daily prayer and fasting from dawn to dusk in Ramadan, if one is prevented from doing either due to health concerns, being in battle, etc., one can atone by an act of generosity. So, all in all, this would be a simple faith.

Unfortunately, Islam, like Christianity, has gathered its own share of corrupting and complicating baggage, namely the hadith's, purportedly saying of the Prophet, recorded by his companions. Consider, for example the Hadith Qudsi 6 which states that doers of good deeds will be judged at the last day, not by their deeds but by their intentions:

“The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died a martyr.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is courageous.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Qur’an. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Qur’an for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is learned.’’ And you recited the Qur’an that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is a reciter.’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man whom Allah had made rich and to whom He had given all kinds of wealth. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I left no path [un-trodden] in which You like money to be spent without spending in it for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but do so that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is open-handed.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.”

So, now a MUslim can't just do good deeds. Rather, he, like the Christian, has to fret over whether or not he did them for the proper reasons. Thus, he will have to worry constantly about his salvation, regardless of how he has led his life. Religion certainly has great ways of tying people in knots.

Sounds a lot like the NT.

<< Matthew 7 >>
New American Standard Bible
22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

 

[Lowpro]

This thread needs more ANTpogo

 

[NightStar76]

I would assume that Islam, like every other religion, is based on scholarship and interpretation of the original source text. Not sure how this is unusual.

 

[TriangleMan]

In the Qur'an one of the overarching "themes", as it were, is that the intent of the action is more important than the action itself. I think this ties in to the concept of forgiveness for sins etc. if one is truly repentant then Allah will forgive you.

Well, except for last-minute "death bed" repentance. Allah covered that. No sinning all your life then repent at the end.

4:18: Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;"

 

[baron]

The Koran is relatively straightforward text but Islam is anything but a straightforward faith on account of how much weaseling is necessary to shy away from intolerance and extremism. Cherry picking the beneficial aspects is an essential process for the moderate but it has no basis in the faith itself. Even the aspects you quote aren't so laudable without application of contemporary morality. Take charity (zakat). The general consensus is that it should not to be given to non-Muslims apart from under very rare circumstance (so rare I can't even remember what it might be). That doesn't stop a Muslim giving to anybody he likes and Islam does not rule against this, but that would be as a result of personal choice rather than Islamic instruction.

Unfortunately, Islam, like Christianity, has gathered its own share of corrupting and complicating baggage, namely the hadith's, purportedly saying of the Prophet, recorded by his companions.

The hadith are not baggage, they're an integral part of Islam. The authentication process means that not all are considered equal but to the reasoning non-Muslim the concept of discarding bits of rubbish from a heap of rubbish only creates a smaller heap.

“The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died a martyr.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is courageous.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Qur’an. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Qur’an for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is learned.’’ And you recited the Qur’an that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is a reciter.’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire. [Another] will be a man whom Allah had made rich and to whom He had given all kinds of wealth. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: ‘And what did you do about them?’ He will say: ‘I left no path [un-trodden] in which You like money to be spent without spending in it for Your sake.’ He will say: ‘You have lied - you did but do so that it might be said [of you]: ‘He is open-handed.’’ And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.”

So, now a MUslim can't just do good deeds. Rather, he, like the Christian, has to fret over whether or not he did them for the proper reasons. Thus, he will have to worry constantly about his salvation, regardless of how he has led his life. Religion certainly has great ways of tying people in knots.

Indeed, and peculiar then that zakat is considered a duty. It's almost like the whole thing was made up by a confused bloke in a cave.

 

[Humes fork]

Don't forget all the bizarre rules that the Hadits impose. Wipe your ass an odd number of times. Don't pee in the direction of Mecca. If we ignore for a moment that much of the Hadith literature is probably made up, there were apparently few things about which Muhammad had not an opinion about.

 

[A'isha]

So, now a MUslim can't just do good deeds. Rather, he, like the Christian, has to fret over whether or not he did them for the proper reasons. Thus, he will have to worry constantly about his salvation, regardless of how he has led his life. Religion certainly has great ways of tying people in knots.

Sounds a lot like the NT.

<< Matthew 7 >>
New American Standard Bible
22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

The discussion of faith vs. works (and the degrees or levels of each required to be considered a Good Muslim) has exactly the same sort of contentious and confused history in Islam as it does in Christianity.

I can go into more detail about this specific area, if anyone likes.

Take charity (zakat). The general consensus is that it should not to be given to non-Muslims apart from under very rare circumstance (so rare I can't even remember what it might be).

The zakat has generally been used in the same way as tithing in Christianity - a collection taken up from the members of the religious community in order to benefit those in need among that community, broken down into eight asnaf: the fuqara (those in abject poverty, with no property or income of their own), the masakin (those who are simply having trouble making ends meet), the amilin (those responsible for collecting the zakat), the muallaf (non-Muslims sympathetic to Islam or those who have recently converted or are thinking about converting), the riqab (slaves who want to buy their freedom - also, these days where such things are generally no longer necessary, people who want to improve their situations, such as to pay for education or start a business), the gharimin (those who are in debt and need help paying those debts), the fisabilillah (those who "strive in God's way" - anything from jihadis to missionaries to paying for the upkeep and administration of mosques), and the ibnussabil (travelers in need, like people who are unable to support themselves on their journey or need money to return home).

Because non-Muslims are exempt from zakat (if they're made to pay in a Muslim state, they pay the jizya instead, which is supposed to be used solely to reimburse the Muslim state for protecting the economic, religious, and political security of non-Muslims, though as implemented historically this didn't always exactly work the way it was theoretically supposed to), they generally don't benefit from zakat - it was considered inequitable to spend jizya from non-Muslims on the welfare of Muslims, and vice-versa regarding spending zakat on non-Muslims.

Hassan and Lewis, in their Handbook of Islamic Banking, describe it as a form of Muslim Social Security [EDIT: Or a Muslim version of "the Dole", I suppose]...

According to the Holy Qur’an, God owns all wealth, and private property is seen as a trust from God. Property has a social function in Islam, and must be used for the benefit of society. Moreover, there is a divine duty to work. Social justice is the result of organizing society on Islamic social and legal precepts, including employment of productive labour and equal opportunities, such that everyone can use all of their abilities in work and gain just rewards from that work effort. Justice and equality in Islam means that people should have equal opportunity and does not imply that they should be equal either in poverty or in riches (Chapra, 1985). However, it is incumbent on the Islamic state to guarantee a subsistence level to its citizens, in the form of a minimum level of food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education (Holy Qur’an 58: 11). The major purpose here is to moderate social variances in Islamic society, and to enable the poor to lead a normal, spiritual and material life in dignity and contentment.

A mechanism for the redistribution of income and wealth is inherent in Islam, so that every Muslim is guaranteed a fair standard of living, nisab. Zakat is the most important instrument for the redistribution of wealth. This almsgiving is a compulsory levy, and constitutes one of the five basic tenets of Islam. The generally accepted amount of the zakat is a one-fortieth (2.5 per cent) assessment on assets held for a full year (after a small initial exclusion, nisab), the purpose of which is to transfer income from the wealthy to the needy.

...as opposed to what normally is connoted by the term "giving to charity".

That doesn't stop a Muslim giving to anybody he likes and Islam does not rule against this, but that would be as a result of personal choice rather than Islamic instruction.

This is called sadaqah. Basically, zakat is supposed to be collected and disbursed centrally for the good of the whole community (and in some Muslim states, even now, it's basically an involuntary tax collected by the government), while sadaqah is almsgiving done for personal reasons.

Regarding the religious role of sadaqah as opposed to zakat in Islam, the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an notes:

The application of the term in its various contexts in the Qur'an develops some of the key themes of the ideal of giving. Q 9:104-5 links God’s acceptance of repentance (see REPENTANCE AND PENANCE) with sadaqa, thus suggesting its value for the expiation of sins. This is further emphasized by the joining of fasting (q.v.) with sadaqa (Q 2:196), as ways of fulfilling the obligations of a pilgrimage (hajj, see PILGRIMAGE) not completed because of illness or other reasons. Giving also benefits the givers spiritually as part of their quest to seek the “face of God” (q.v.; Q 2:272). Such a quest is pursued out of love for God (Q 76:8) and may be public or private (q 2:274). According to the Qur'an, those who give because they seek the face of God will be truly fulfilled (Q 30:39). An interesting use of sadaqa occurs in what has come to be called in the exegetical literature (tafsir), the “verse of the audience” (ayat al-najwa, Q 58:12), which enjoins the offering of alms before an audience with the Prophet. This suggests that giving alms was viewed as both a way to expiate past sins and display respect, as well as a gesture of recognition of the values embodied by the Prophet, whose own acts of generosity were looked upon as a model for the rest of the followers of Islam.

According to the Qur'an, words of kindness and compassion are better than sadaqa coupled with insult (Q 2:263). The donation of alms need not be a gift of material value. It can also consist of voluntary effort (Q 9:79) or merely a kind word (Q 2:263). It is better to offer alms discreetly to those in need rather than for the purpose of public acknowledgement (Q 2:271). The Qur'an is critical of those who give in order to appear generous or who compromise the value of the act by ostentatious public behavior that serves only to render a normally charitable act purely self-serving (Q 2:264).

Sadaqah, then, is voluntary, individual charitable giving, as opposed to the obligatory payment of zakat.

The hadith are not baggage, they're an integral part of Islam. The authentication process means that not all are considered equal but to the reasoning non-Muslim the concept of discarding bits of rubbish from a heap of rubbish only creates a smaller heap.

The major sects don't even have the same hadith collections in common. For the origins, development, and role of what most people (including most Muslims) think of when they think of the ahadith, see Jonathan Brown's The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: the Formation and Function of Sunni Hadith Canon:

The authority of the canon as a measure of authenticity, however, was an illusion conjured up in the dialogic space of debate and exposition. It vanished outside such interactive arenas. Scholars directed the compelling authority of the Sahihayn only against others, and within the closed doors of one school of law or theology, they had no compunction about ignoring or criticizing reports from either collection. Although occasional criticism of the Sahihayn continued even after their canonization at the dawn of the fifth/eleventh century, advocates of institutional Sunnism found it essential to protect the two works and the important roles they played. Beginning at the turn of the fourth/tenth century and climaxing in the mid-seventh/thirteenth, a set of predominately Shafi'i scholars created a canonical culture around the Sahihayn that recast the two books’ pre-canonical pasts as well as those of their authors according to the exigent contours of the canon. The canonical culture of the Sahihayn also had to reconcile instances in which al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s methods had fallen short of what had emerged as the common requirements of Sunni hadith criticism in the centuries after their deaths.

While most influential participants in the Sunni tradition accepted the canonical culture of the Sahihayn, some hadith scholars refused to safeguard the canon at the expense of the critical standards of hadith study. The tension between the majority’s commitment to the institutional security of the Sahihayn and this iconoclastic strain came to a head with the emergence of the modern hadith-based Salafi movement in the eighteenth century. In a conflict that reflects the anxieties of redefining Islam in the modern world, the impermissibility of criticizing the Sahihayn has become a rallying cry for those devoted to defending the classical institutions of Islamic civilization against the iconoclastic Salafi call to revive the primordial greatness of Islam through the hadith tradition.

And, as you can see, not even this is as straightforward as it seems.

Indeed, and peculiar then that zakat is considered a duty. It's almost like the whole thing was made up by a confused bloke in a cave.

Pretty much all the "baggage" of Islam arose long after Muhammad's death. Including the ahadith.

 

[Humes fork]

Because non-Muslims are exempt from zakat (if they're made to pay in a Muslim state, they pay the jizya instead, which is supposed to be used solely to reimburse the Muslim state for protecting the economic, religious, and political security of non-Muslims, though as implemented historically this didn't always exactly work the way it was theoretically supposed to), they generally don't benefit from zakat - it was considered inequitable to spend jizya from non-Muslims on the welfare of Muslims, and vice-versa regarding spending zakat on non-Muslims.

This is propaganda. The jizya is supposed to be paid by non-Muslims in a humiliating way. There are records from India in which the non-Muslims paying jizya were spit in the face. Islamic law also decrees that non-Muslims may not bear arms, only ride donkeys and what else. Islamic law institutes a religiously based apartheid system.

 

[A'isha]

This is propaganda. The jizya is supposed to be paid by non-Muslims in a humiliating way. There are records from India in which the non-Muslims paying jizya were spit in the face. Islamic law also decrees that non-Muslims may not bear arms, only ride donkeys and what else. Islamic law institutes a religiously based apartheid system.

That would be the "as historically implemented" part. Actual scholars of Islamic law often disagreed on how and why the jizya was to be paid.

For instance, the exegete Al-Zamakhshari thought of the jizya exactly as you describe, writing, "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say 'Pay the jizya!' and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."

In contrast, the Hanafi jurist (and student of Abu Hanifah himself) Abu Yusuf wrote in his Kitab al-Kharaj, a manual on taxation and fiscal matters compiled for the fifth Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid, "no one of the ahl al-dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. [...] It is proper, O Commander of the Faithful - may Allah be your support - that you treat leniently those people who have a contract of protection from your Prophet and cousin, Muhammad - may Allah bless him and grant him peace. You should look after them, so that they are not oppressed, mistreated, or taxed beyond their means."

(Both as quoted in the Kuwait Taxation Laws and Regulations Handbook)

How this was actually implemented could and did vary by ruler. The Ottoman jizya system, before it was officially abolished in 1856, for instance, was a highly formalized and bureaucratized version of the Hanafi system (as originally described in Abu Yusuf's Kitab al-Kharaj), and basically involved each of the non-Muslim communities collecting the required jizya based on population headcount themselves and then sending that amount to the central state treasury en masse.

Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill's Islam: The Religion and the People says, along with the description of how the Ottoman system worked that I mention above, that the other discriminatory restrictions you talk about "were sometimes rigorously enforced, sometimes intermittently, sometimes not at all," and goes on to note, "y the standards of modern democracy, these forms of discrimination are, of course, unacceptable. But at the time, they represented a considerable improvement on what was available elsewhere and even included one element missing in the modern open society - that of communal autonomy."

And Bernard Lewis is hardly one to spread propagandistic apologia about Islam.

Interestingly, the Handbook notes that when the Normans conquered Sicily from the Muslims, the tax that the new Norman rulers imposed on the Muslim minority was also called the jizya.

 

[sackett]

So it's Judgment Day, and up steps a suicide bomber to get whatever's coming to him. An angel reads out all the good stuff the Big Guy did for him in life, and then:

Allah: So what did you do to deserve that?

Suicide Bomber: I blew myself into bloody shreds, to take out some unbelievers.

Allah: You have l-- Well, wait a sec. I guess that was pretty sincere. Shows determination, if ya know'd I mean. Move right into the line for Paradise! (Angel whispers something in Allah's ear.) Hold on, hold it! Anything else I should hear about?

Suicide Bomber: Well...Hizbollah promised my mom fifty dinars if I did it.

Allah: What?!? You did it for that?!? On yer face! Inta hell with this little worm! A boy is supposed to love his mom! Sheesh, the crap I havta listen to!

Allah takes a disgruntlemnet break for a few million years. Celestial music fades. Run commercial.

 

[A'isha]

Apparently Allah is Robert DeNiro.

Who knew?

 

[geni]

The hadith are not baggage, they're an integral part of Islam. The authentication process means that not all are considered equal but to the reasoning non-Muslim the concept of discarding bits of rubbish from a heap of rubbish only creates a smaller heap.

The quranists would beg to differ. However they appear to be a bit of an anomoly and I'm not sure how many there are.

 

[A'isha]

The quranists would beg to differ. However they appear to be a bit of an anomoly and I'm not sure how many there are.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty big writeup about them.

 

[angrysoba]

Suicide Bomber: Well...Hizbollah promised my mom fifty dinars if I did it.

Allah: What?!? You did it for that?!? On yer face! Inta hell with this little worm! A boy is supposed to love his mom! Sheesh, the crap I havta listen to!

Allah takes a disgruntlemnet break for a few million years. Celestial music fades. Run commercial.

Apparently Allah is Robert DeNiro.

Who knew?

And Jewish! How ironic!

 

[Humes fork]

That would be the "as historically implemented" part. Actual scholars of Islamic law often disagreed on how and why the jizya was to be paid.

For instance, the exegete Al-Zamakhshari thought of the jizya exactly as you describe, writing, "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say 'Pay the jizya!' and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."

In contrast, the Hanafi jurist (and student of Abu Hanifah himself) Abu Yusuf wrote in his Kitab al-Kharaj, a manual on taxation and fiscal matters compiled for the fifth Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid, "no one of the ahl al-dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. [...] It is proper, O Commander of the Faithful - may Allah be your support - that you treat leniently those people who have a contract of protection from your Prophet and cousin, Muhammad - may Allah bless him and grant him peace. You should look after them, so that they are not oppressed, mistreated, or taxed beyond their means."

(Both as quoted in the Kuwait Taxation Laws and Regulations Handbook)

How this was actually implemented could and did vary by ruler. The Ottoman jizya system, before it was officially abolished in 1856, for instance, was a highly formalized and bureaucratized version of the Hanafi system (as originally described in Abu Yusuf's Kitab al-Kharaj), and basically involved each of the non-Muslim communities collecting the required jizya based on population headcount themselves and then sending that amount to the central state treasury en masse.

Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill's Islam: The Religion and the People says, along with the description of how the Ottoman system worked that I mention above, that the other discriminatory restrictions you talk about "were sometimes rigorously enforced, sometimes intermittently, sometimes not at all," and goes on to note, "y the standards of modern democracy, these forms of discrimination are, of course, unacceptable. But at the time, they represented a considerable improvement on what was available elsewhere and even included one element missing in the modern open society - that of communal autonomy."

And Bernard Lewis is hardly one to spread propagandistic apologia about Islam.

Interestingly, the Handbook notes that when the Normans conquered Sicily from the Muslims, the tax that the new Norman rulers imposed on the Muslim minority was also called the jizya.

In other words, sometimes the Islamic overlords played nice.

It still doesn't change the fact that the whole Dhimmi system is religiously based apartheid. No sugar-coating will ever change that.

Here is a little about how Zoroastrians were treated by the not-so-nice Abbasids:

Under Abbasid rule, Muslim Iranians (who by then were in the majority) increasingly found ways to taunt Zoroastrians, and distressing them became a popular sport. For example, in the 9th century, a deeply venerated cypress tree in Khorasan (which Parthian-era legend supposed had been planted by Zoroaster himself) was felled for the construction of a palace in Baghdad, 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away. In the 10th century, on the day that a Tower of Silence had been completed at much trouble and expense, a Muslim official contrived to get up onto it, and to call the adhan (the Muslim call to prayer) from its walls. This was made a pretext to annex the building.[19] Another popular means to distress Zoroastrians was to maltreat dogs, as these animals are sacred in Zoroastrianism. Such baiting, which was to continue down the centuries, was indulged in by all; not only by high officials, but by the general uneducated population as well.

Despite these economic and social incentives to convert, Zoroastrianism remained strong in some regions, particularly in those furthest away from the Caliphate capital at Baghdad. In Bukhara (in present-day Uzbekistan), resistance to Islam required the 9th century Arab commander Qutaiba to convert his province four times. The first three times the citizens reverted to their old religion. Finally, the governor made their religion "difficult for them in every way", turned the local fire temple into a mosque, and encouraged the local population to attend Friday prayers by paying each attendee two dirhams.[16] The cities where Arab governors resided were particularly vulnerable to such pressures, and in these cases the Zoroastrians were left with no choice but to either conform or migrate to regions that had a more amicable administration.

 

[TimCallahan]

It's interesting that the practitioners of religions whose doctrines embody high virtues are so ready to act viciously toward outsiders. The Sassanid Persians at one point attempted or forcibly convert the Armenians to Zoroastrian worship. As to the Muslim treatment of other "people of the book," Muhammad was all over the map in the Qur'an regarding these kindred religions. Thus, any Muslim official could pick and choose regarding the treatment of non-Muslims.

 

[Humes fork]

As to the Muslim treatment of other "people of the book," Muhammad was all over the map in the Qur'an regarding these kindred religions. Thus, any Muslim official could pick and choose regarding the treatment of non-Muslims.

Muhammad became upset at the Jews of Medina as they did not accept him as a prophet, which he wanted them to.

Not to mention that those of us who are not "people of the Book" are pretty much worthless.

 

[A'isha]

In other words, sometimes the Islamic overlords played nice.

No, it means that the circumstances and reasoning behind the jizya varied quite a bit, depending on where in Muslim lands and when during Muslim history you're referring to.

In all the Muslim authorities we have the most explicit statements that the Arabs did one thing in Egypt, another in Syria, another in Iraq, and another in Khurasan. The general story of the two-dinar jizya in Egypt is told about no other province. In the Sawad, it is usually asserted that 'Umar measured the land, put on it the tax of kharaj, and on the people, the tax of jizya. In Khurasan and Transoxania, the testimony is general that different cities capitulated for a fixed tribute. There was no system of kharaj or jizya. It is impossible to name a single Muslim jurist or historian who unmistakeably asserts that there was uniform practice throughout the Arab Empire. In fact, all the evidence points the other way. Far from desiring to present a picture of uniformity, the Muslim authorities went to great pains to try to establish what had taken place in the separate provinces.

(Daniel C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam)

[EDIT: And it seems you took exception to my statement that the jizya "is supposed to be used solely to reimburse the Muslim state for protecting the economic, religious, and political security of non-Muslims, though as implemented historically this didn't always exactly work the way it was theoretically supposed to". Here's how the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an describes it, in their entry on "Poll Tax":

It has been demonstrated rather persuasively that the exegetical tradition on Q 9:29 bears no relation to the historical conditions of the verse (see Rubin, Qur'an and tafsir; see SIRA AND THE QUR'AN); the verse does seem to have been used by later exegetes as a point of departure for elaborating differences — theological and legal — between Muslims and non-Muslims (e.g. Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad, 420, for whom the verse is a confirmation of the abrogation of previous religions with the appearance of Muhammad’s religion [din Muhammad]; see also McAuliffe, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi; see RELIGIOUS PLURALISM AND THE QUR'AN). Nevertheless, the rationale generally given for the poll tax — a compensation ( jaza-) in exchange for enjoying the protection (dhimma) of Muslim rule — does demonstrate a certain conceptual continuity with the quranic term jaza- (cf. Tabari, Tarikh, i, 2470: … ma'a l-jaza 'an aydihim 'ala qadri taqatihim, i.e. “… with compensation from their wealth [lit. from their hands] according to their ability [to pay]”). Claims for continuity, however, between the quranic sense of the term and its later legal and exegetical use rest on the identity of those people specified as being obligated to pay the jizya, namely those who have been given the book (min alladhina utu l-kitab), widely assumed to be non-Muslim recipients of God’s revelation (i.e. People of the Book) in contrast to those who are without knowledge of God’s oneness (mushrikun, see Razi, Tafsir, ad Q 9:30; see POLYTHEISM AND ATHEISM).

Rubin (Bara'a) has concluded that jizya at Q 9:29 connotes financial compensation for the loss of income sustained by the rupture of commercial relations with non-Muslim traders who are prohibited, at Q 9:28, from approaching Mecca (q.v.). This does seem to be borne out in Q 9:29 itself, the opening words of which claim that the people obliged to pay the jizya do not believe in God or judgment day (la yuminuna bi-llah wa-la bi-l-yawmi l-akhir; see LAST JUDGMENT). Book (q.v.; kitab), while connoting divine knowledge (see KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING) and authority (q.v.), can also serve as a metonymy for treaty, the terms of which were fixed in writing (a kitab) and included some kind of payment of tribute (see CONTRACTS AND ALLIANCES). Jizya, in fact, occurs in such a context in Ibn Sa'd’s history (Tabaqat, i, 257 f.), where the term for the missives (kutub) sent by Muhammad to other groups and rulers connotes both letter and pact. Were, then, the people named in Q 9:29 the so-called People of the Book (ahl al-kitab) or merely tribal groups of varied character which had entered into alliance with the tribal overlordship of Muhammad and his Muslim partisans while not sharing their monotheistic beliefs? Simonsen (Studies, 47-61) argues — on the basis that there is no quranic connection between dhimma and jizya — that Q 9:29 applies to all non-Muslims dwelling within the reach of Medinan hegemony, whether monotheists or not (see MEDINA).

- Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, Vol. 4: P-SH]

It still doesn't change the fact that the whole Dhimmi system is religiously based apartheid. No sugar-coating will ever change that.

Did you even read the quote from Lewis and Churchill's book that I posted?

And why are you suddenly jumping from my offhanded reference to jizya in a longer discussion of zakat to the treatment of Zoroastrians in general (with your wiki block-quote having no mention whatsoever of jizya)?

 

[tsig]

That would be the "as historically implemented" part. Actual scholars of Islamic law often disagreed on how and why the jizya was to be paid.

For instance, the exegete Al-Zamakhshari thought of the jizya exactly as you describe, writing, "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say 'Pay the jizya!' and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."

In contrast, the Hanafi jurist (and student of Abu Hanifah himself) Abu Yusuf wrote in his Kitab al-Kharaj, a manual on taxation and fiscal matters compiled for the fifth Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid, "no one of the ahl al-dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. [...] It is proper, O Commander of the Faithful - may Allah be your support - that you treat leniently those people who have a contract of protection from your Prophet and cousin, Muhammad - may Allah bless him and grant him peace. You should look after them, so that they are not oppressed, mistreated, or taxed beyond their means."

(Both as quoted in the Kuwait Taxation Laws and Regulations Handbook)

How this was actually implemented could and did vary by ruler. The Ottoman jizya system, before it was officially abolished in 1856, for instance, was a highly formalized and bureaucratized version of the Hanafi system (as originally described in Abu Yusuf's Kitab al-Kharaj), and basically involved each of the non-Muslim communities collecting the required jizya based on population headcount themselves and then sending that amount to the central state treasury en masse.

Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill's Islam: The Religion and the People says, along with the description of how the Ottoman system worked that I mention above, that the other discriminatory restrictions you talk about "were sometimes rigorously enforced, sometimes intermittently, sometimes not at all," and goes on to note, "y the standards of modern democracy, these forms of discrimination are, of course, unacceptable. But at the time, they represented a considerable improvement on what was available elsewhere and even included one element missing in the modern open society - that of communal autonomy."

And Bernard Lewis is hardly one to spread propagandistic apologia about Islam.

Interestingly, the Handbook notes that when the Normans conquered Sicily from the Muslims, the tax that the new Norman rulers imposed on the Muslim minority was also called the jizya.

No, it means that the circumstances and reasoning behind the jizya varied quite a bit, depending on where in Muslim lands and when during Muslim history you're referring to.



(Daniel C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam)



Did you even read the quote from Lewis and Churchill's book that I posted?

And why are you suddenly jumping from my offhanded reference to jizya in a longer discussion of zakat to the treatment of Zoroastrians in general (with your wiki block-quote having no mention whatsoever of jizya)?

You want people to buy the books you cite before you think they're qualified to disagree with you?