And, while he's at it, incredulously asks: "Is There Religious Discrimination in Egypt? [2]," by Ismail Imadudeen for the California Chronicle, August 12:
The Hamayouni Decree and Tax Payment [Al-Jizyath]Just another aspect of the perpetually "misunderstood" and "misinterpreted" religion of Islam.'Copts want the antiquated 19th Century Hamayouni decree be abolished. It is inconceivable to require that the president of Egypt must approve permits to build a church or even to repair a toilet in a church. Mosques in Egypt are being built with no restrictions.' US Copts Association.
This quotation represents one of the most striking and controversial demands for the Copts in Egypt, which requires the ratification or even the abolition of the ´defamed´ Hamayouni decree. So what is the Hamayouni decree? Is it an Islamic, Quranic invention, or is it just a creation of man, who could be some times wise and some other times insane?
First of all I would like to explain that law to the ordinary, neutral reader; the Hamayouni decree regulates the building of the non-Muslims religious facilities, which was first passed in February, 1856 by the then Ottoman Emperor, and, surprisingly, it was passed to give more rights to the minorities within the Islamic Ottoman Empire. The law was used for the first time in Egypt, after ´Egyptianizing´ it, in February, 1934, and there were ten, controversial conditions for granting permission to build Christian worship facilities. In fact, the Egyptian version of the law has been a pale version that was highly misunderstood, and some times misinterpreted.
The law, in its essence, aimed at ensuring the societal integrity, as it has been perceived that building a Christian facility on the right location will assure peace between Muslims and Christian on one side, and on the other side, between the different Christian sects with one another.Huh? How does building a church "assure peace between Muslims and Christians"? And exactly what "different Christian sects" is the author talking about? The Christians of Egypt are predominantly Coptic; sure, there are some Protestants and Catholics, but they get along.
Well, the Egyptian Copts never saw it this way, nor the Muslims saw it the other way, and things continue like this until unfortunate accidents arise here or there that inflame ethnic disturbances, for instance, the late disturbing incidence of Abu-Fana monastery, where a group of armed tribesmen attached the monastery for a seemingly conflict over the land possession and ownership.[...]That's it: a land conflict -- even if Muslims forced Copts to spit on the cross and say the shahada.
So, I find the interpretation of Abu-Fana incidence by some expatriate Copts that it is an evidence of the systematic discrimination against the Copts in Egypt, to be really hilarious and inappropriate.Really now, Mr. Imadudeen. First of all, if Islam commands Muslims to pay a "tax" and they follow it, more power to them. But guess what? That's because, a) they believe in Islam, and b) they believe they will be rewarded for paying these "taxes" -- here and in the next world. Conversely, Christians don't believe in Islam, and therefore don't see any legitimacy in paying the jizya, which, from day one has been perceived as extortion money. Most importantly, however, is the fact that Imadudeen leaves out the social corollary of the jizya -- that is, the discriminative and abusive social conditions that come hand-in-hand with paying the jizya -- such as, in fact, not building new churches or even repairing old ones, which is clearly an "Islamic invention" not the "creation of man who could be some times wise and some other times insane" (though, depending on who you ask, these two may be one and the same). See the Pact of Omar for a rather comprehensive list of discriminatory practices Christians are to submit to, such as getting out of their seats and offering it to Muslims (sound familiar?) The second-class status non-Muslims must assume while paying the jizya is, in fact, directly found in Koran 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Lest there be any confusion, here is a typical tafsir for this verse, by Al-Zamakhshari: "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 Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."However, I do join hands with my brothers the Copts, and other Christian groups, inside Egypt, and ask our coherent leadership to think of a gradual, but decisive solution to the Hamayouni decree; a solution that will permanently eliminate any sensitivity and misunderstanding between the two elements of the society.
With regard to the ´Jizyath,´ or the special tax paid by the non-Muslims to the Islamic state, it´s really shocking to me how this issue has been used fraudulently by some expatriate Copts to allegedly highlight the kind of discrimination that the Copts suffered during the Islamic rule to Egypt since the Arab conquer 14 centuries ago.
The ´Jizyath´ is simply a type of tax; what is wrong with collecting a tax from the citizens of a country? Is it because it is based on religion? Well, there are many other taxes in Islam imposed solely on Muslims, I repeat, imposed solely on Muslims, so would one say that Muslims were discriminated inside their Islamic empire because they were required to pay a tax for them being Muslims? The ´Zakath´ is a pillar of Islam, and a Muslim wouldn´t be considered true Muslim if he/she doesn´t pay this type of tax. So, what those minor groups are trying to say is simply so witty and deceiving.[...]
Furthermore, in case that the Islamic state couldn´t provide the necessary security for the non-Muslims, like in case of foreign invasion, all the non-Muslims would be exempted from that tax.???It is worth mentioning that this type of tax is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments, so it is not an Islamic invention.
Well, is there any thing else to say? It is sad that our world is full of this type of hatred and retribution! It is sad that there would be some people who would be ready to falsely defame their country and savagely attack their brothers and sisters in humanity for just a cheap price! Is it the fame that they seek? Or is it just the desire to have a cause? But Hitler had a cause; same does Osama Bin Laden and many more.
So now defenders of the persecuted Copts of Egypt are little better than Hitler and bin Laden...
I have read the Old and New Testaments rather thoroughly and have never seen "this type of tax", it is amazing to me when Muslims claim something is in The Bible, or that it has been "corrupted", yet they can never give a specific example.
The vile, debased accusations of the victims and the blasphemous lies to defend the lies of Islam make it the mother of all perverted cults. And what does it make the believers?
You can see the same slime ooze off Yusuf Irfans blob. But Yusuf seems to be playing with himself these days. Even his co-religionists don't seem to think it necessary to comment on his increasingly demented state of mind.
http://planetirf.blogspot.com/
A previous article (by Robert) on Jizyah and Zakat:
"I have often encountered, in person and on radio shows, Muslims who claim that the jizya, the special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat, the Muslim obligation of charitable giving. This is patently absurd on the face of it, of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye'or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires; indeed, Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians. Rodinson even points out in his biography of Muhammad that at certain times conversions to Islam were forbidden, as they were destroying the tax base! If the jizya had really been less than zakat, human nature being what it is, we would have seen large-scale conversions of Muslims to Christianity in the great Islamic empires -- but of course we don't, because who would want to exchange the position of the dominator for that of the dominated?
Nevertheless, today people read propaganda like Edward Said instead of history like Bat Ye'or, Tritton, and Rodinson, so they may be misled by this that recently appeared at IslamOnline (thanks to Ali Dashti for the link):
Non-Muslims are called dhimmis and were required to pay a levy or jizya. The jizya was not paid as a bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the army, protection for Crusading armies and tribal warfare. While most so-called journalists scream that the jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.
This assumes that jizya and zakat are equivalent, and other Muslims assert, as I have said, that the jizya is actually less than zakat. So let's look at the record:
For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: "Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya" (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: "it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman" (Hedaya I.vi).
Also Andrew Bostom has sent me these illuminating extracts:
The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.
That's from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja’far’s Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.
And this:
There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.
Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.
And of course the bottom line is that radical Muslims who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states, will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted."
[Posted by Robert at September 20, 2004]
And a comment by me on the same subject, on the thread under Robert's article posted just above:
Two additional remarks. The payment of the jizyah was not only to collect revenue on which the Islamic state depended, but had to be made in conditions, as Lal says but that are not detailed in the quotation above, would demonstrate to one and all, Muslim and dhimmi alike, the inferior status of the dhimmi. The dhimmi was supposed to appear with the payment, and in many places he would be struck on the side of jaw, or otherwise. Not, that is, merely symbolically. In India where Hindus had to pay both zakat and jizya, one practice deserves mentioning (this may be in Lal, or on Sarkar, or elsewhere): the Hindu, treated as a kind of dhimmi even though, as a polytheist, he did not actually count as a member of the ahl al-Kitab or "people of the Book" (who, therefore, could be allowed to survive, and not convert, as long as they fully complied with their dhimmi status), would find that a Muslim would spit into his open mouth -- quite a sign of his status.
There is something else. The payment either of jizyah, or the land-tax, kharaj, is only the best-known of the many disabilities, economic, political, and social, which dhimmis had to endure. Examples include the requirement that clothing of Christians and Jews, and their dwelling-places, bear marks indicating that they were either Christians or Jews. The zunnar, or belt, often blue, of the Christians, or the yellow star of the Jews (Hitler borrowed his idea from the "tolerant" court of Abbasid Baghdad), helped to identify people. And why would not need to identify them? Well, suppose one of them did not obey the rules pertaining to dhimmis. For example, dhimmis could not ride on horses, but only on donkeys, and only side-saddle, and they had to dismount whenever they came upon a Muslim. Dhimmis could not repair or build new houses of worship. Dhimmis could not testify against Muslims in court, so if there were any quarrel, the Muslim would always win. And there were of course always the threat that if even a single dhimmi did not fulfill an obligation, or violated some prohibition, not only he, but his entire community could suffer.
Of course, even with this the massacre of whole communities -- such as that of all the Jews in Grenada in 1066 -- still went on, despite the payment of the "protection money" (Islamic defenders phrase it, rather cunningly, as "money spent for protection" -- as if the Christians and Jews were merely paying for the local police, or fire department, rather than paying Muslims off for "protection" against Muslims themselves, who otherwise would be even harsher, and possibly kill those not conforming to the requirements of dhimmitude.
Among the Christians in the Balkans, and Bulgaria, the Ottoman Turks practiced the devshirme, the forced levy (kidnapping, really, by the Ottoman state) of Christian males to be trained up for service to the Ottomans. Although some (e.g. Bernard Lewis) present this as a rather innocuous fate, and Lewis goes so far as to suggest that Muslim parents were envious of the Christian children who were "recruited" (Lewis' preposterous word) by the Ottomans (sounds more like agents from Istanbul fanned out, offering fat contracts in the manner of a Yankees agent in Santo Domingo than it what it really, and heart-rendingly, was -- but then Lewis has never fully confronted the Ottoman treatment of non-Muslims, instead offering couleur locale, and some nunc pro tunc backdating of Kemalism). While everyone finds reason to admire Kemal Pasha (and his friendshp with his dentist, Dr. Grunberg), and everyone is grateful that the Jews booted out of Spain so cruelly sought, and found refuge in, among other places (remember a little place called Amsterdam, and some of those portraits of rabbis by Rembrandt?), and of course in Salonika (where these Sephardic Jews replaced a previous group of Jews who had much earlier been forced to leave by the Ottomans) and elsewhere, gratitude has its limits, or should, in the historian who prides himself on his icy objectivity.
The most comprehensive statement of dhimmitude can be found in the works of Bat Ye'or, especially "Islam and Dhimmitude," and above all, for its calm sobriety about the legal regime,, Antoine Fattal's "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam." Unfortunately, the latter remains to be translated into English from the French -- apparently, those students of Islam in this country who know of the book either are hiding its existence, or are of the old school, and assuming that their graduate students can easily read French. But Fattal's work is useful, if intelligently englished, everyone -- not least for those people presuming, in American law schools, to teach something they call "Islamic Law" but which is really theology. They at least ought to give a full accounting of how, under the Shari'a, non-Muslims are to be treated -- it is of increasing relevance today. It may be Europe's future. Why not find out now what that future holds in store?
Posted by: Hugh at September 20, 2004 1:17 PM
Hugh, If you have a moment, can you say a little more about why the Fattal book might be preferable to "Islam and Dhimmitude"? Is it because it is more of a legal/theological analysis whereas the Bat Yeor book has a more historical orientation? The former can be found for a more or less reasonable price. Thanks. Philip
Hugh, If you have a moment, can you say a little more about why the Fattal book might be preferable to "Islam and Dhimmitude"? Is it because it is more of a legal/theological analysis whereas the Bat Yeor book has a more historical orientation? The former can be found on abe at a reasonable price. Thanks. Philip
Whats wrong with segregating an entire population based on religious identity, by mandating a special tax simply because they are religious minorities?
Its rather amazing that a "secularist" would be so bold as to defend that type of thinking in the 21st century
The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."
the original shakedown
From the article: "......location will assure peace between Muslims and Christian ......"
That is the language the Muslims use when pressuring the Christians to sign a document agreeing for their oppression.
They do it in Indonesia all the time. Such documents/agreements are always started with: "To ensure harmonious relationships between ....." or "for maintaining a good relationships between the ....".
They are very good in using language that, for those who are unaware of their deceit, would see nothing wrong in it. What could be wrong in maintaining a good/harmonious, etc. relationships?
Gosh, you mean that the saying, "Render unto Caesar" means "cough it up, najis kuffir dog!"--why didn't I see that in there before?