Building of temples/churches in the house of Islam.

[DivineNames]

Building of places of worship, for non-Islamic religions, under Islamic rule. Anyone know any Hadith or Quran verses about this. Or about other issues to do with free practice of religion.

 

[Gary]

Zimmis and Religious Practices

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1) Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2) Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3) Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4) Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5) Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

6) Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

7) Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:

"In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary."

Source:
Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State
By
Samuel Shahid
http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

:-? :-? :-?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exclusion of the Jews and Christians
from the Arabian Peninsular

by Walter Short

Undoubtedly, one barrier to improved Christian-Muslim relations is the prohibition on the existence of free and public Christian worship, especially with respect to religious buildings, in the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi Government claims it enforces this ban in loyalty to several ahadith which demand the exclusion of the ahl-ul-Kitab - 'People of the Book' (or any other religious confession) - from the Jazirat al-Arabi (Arabian Peninsula). Islamic historians claim that Muhammad uttered this prohibition near the end of his life, and that it was enforced during the reign of the second Caliph, 'Umar. Both from the standpoint of Christian-Muslim relations and from that of historical criticism, it is therefore an interesting and essential obligation to examine this policy and its historical origins......

Read more here. You will find the hadith you are looking for.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-7.html

:o :o :o

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For links to these and several other articles, please go here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/index.htm
and here:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history.php
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today.php


:-? :-?

 

[Muhsen]

First of all, we'd like to state that non-Muslims under Islamic Shari`ah do possess special rights irrespective of whether they constitute a minority or a majority. Islam makes it clear that Muslims are not allowed under any circumstances to burn holy places or books of non-Muslims or to abuse them.


When Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, established the first Islamic state in Madinah, he extended to religious minorities rights that are guaranteed to them in the Qur'an. The first Islamic State was established in light the Charter of Madinah, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others, stipulating that they all would be treated as equal citizens of Madinah, giving the non-Muslims right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. This confirms the principle “no compulsion in religionâ€Â, freedom of expression and religious practice was open to everyone.


Elaborating on the religious rights granted to non-Muslim minorities, we'd like to cite for you the following:


"It was in 622 AC, that Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, introduced the Charter of Madinah, which in fact was the first ever written constitution in the history of mankind. It gave the people the right of protection, security, peace and justice; not only to Muslims, but also to the Jews who lived in the City of Madinah, as well as the allies of Jews who were non-Muslims. It recognized Jews as a separate political and ethnic minority, and allowed them to practice their religion quite freely. In fact, Jews were considered on an equal bases as Muslims under the Islamic State.



Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was the main enforcer of human rights. Over a period of 10 years, from where the Islamic calendar begins, he, peace and blessings be upon him, entered into many alliances, many treaties with the Muslims and the non-Muslims, securing peace and tranquility for the Muslims and non-Muslims alike.



Freedom of Religion



One right in particular is the freedom of religion. There is sometimes a misunderstood view, that if any non-Muslim lives under the rule of Islam, he/she would be curtailed in their religious freedom. There is no compulsion in Islam to accept Islam as your faith. It is a misconception to say that Islam is spread by the sword, with forced conversions. That never took place.



Secondly, if you again look at the practice of Prophet Muhammad, he provided excellent facilities for non-Muslims. For instance in his time, the monks of Mount Sinai were given protection. The monasteries were protected, the monks themselves were protected from any attack or persecution. Churches could not be pulled down to be replaced by mosques or to build houses. They were seen as a place of sanctuary and protected by the Islamic state.



The Jews were given a free hand to practice their faith. The interesting right that the Jews and the Christians were given because they were the main minority living under the Islamic state, was their right to have a holiday, the Jews on a Saturday, and the Christians on a Sunday. Interestingly enough, in many Western countries, up till now, Muslims are still struggling to have Friday as their public holiday. Only what they are given now in some Western countries is just an extra hour for lunch so that they can partake in their obligatory Friday Prayer. But under an Islamic state, Shariah stipulates that if a Jewish person or a Christian person wishes to have a holiday, to have time off on their particular religious day, they should be given that.



There also exist the rights of non-Muslim minorities. They would be protected from any external threat from any other nation. But perhaps more importantly for them, they would be protected from more internal threat, persecution and prejudice.



Confirming this is the following statement of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, in which he sheds light on the philosophy of human rights in Islam. An Arabic word for non-Muslim is Dhimmi. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them in more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." Here we have the highest, the most revered and most esteemed Prophet of Islam, himself being the champion for non-Muslim minorities.



Right to follow one's own religious laws



In most Western countries, whatever the law of the land is must be followed without any recognition to one's personal beliefs. However, an Islamic state is much more flexible in this. Non-Muslim minorities, in certain matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance would be able to implement their own religious laws and would not be subject to Shari`ah-law.



Right to consumption of alcohol and pork



Another interesting fact in Islamic history is that although Muslims are prohibited from entering into manufacturing, selling and consuming alcohol, whereas the ruling is not the same with non-Muslim. If there was a non-Muslim minority in an Islamic state who wish to do so, and do not involve Muslims, they would actually be given this right.


This points out that the concept of human rights in Islam has often been given a much negative view. I would urge all readers, Muslims or non-Muslims, to study the concept of human rights in Islam. To research that Islam is in fact not the violator of human rights but rather the champion of it."


Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: http://www.westernviews.com/issue2/humanrights.htm


Shedding more light on the treatment of non-Muslim minorities through Islamic history, we'd like also to cite the following:


"While on his deathbed, the Second Caliph `Umar ibn al-Khattab dictated a long will consisting of instructions for the next caliph. Here, is the last sentence of that historic document:


"I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet [i.e. the non-Muslim minorities within the Islamic state known as dhimmis]. Our covenant to them must be fulfilled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities".


At that time Caliph `Umar was lying in pain because of the wounds inflicted on him by a non-Muslim who had stabbed him with a dagger soaked in poison while he was leading the Fajr (Morning) Prayer. It should also be remembered that he was the head of a vast empire ranging from Egypt to Persia. From normal rulers of his time or ours, we could have expected vengeance and swift reaction. From a very forgiving head of state we could have expected an attempt to forget and forgive - and that would be considered noble. But a command to protect the minorities and take care of them?


What is even more remarkable is that for Muslim historians the entire affair was just natural. After all it was the caliph himself who had established the standards by writing the guarantees for the protection of life, property and religion in decree after decree as Muslims opened land after land during his rule. The pattern established here was followed for centuries throughout the Muslim world.


Of course, Caliph `Umar was simply following what he learnt from the Prophet Muhammad himself. That the protection of life, property and religious freedom of minorities is the religious duty of the Islamic state. That he personally would be demanding justice in the Hereafter on behalf of a dhimmi who had been wronged by a Muslim. That there is no compulsion in religion and that Muslims must be just to friends and foe alike.


The result of these teachings was a Muslim rule that set the golden standard for religious tolerance in a world that was not used to the idea. Not only that the Muslim history is so remarkably free of the inquisitions, persecutions, witch hunts, and holocausts that tarnish history of other civilizations, it protected its minorities from persecution by others as well. It protected Jews from Christians and Eastern Christians from Roman Catholics. In Muslim Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else.


The path that the Western world took to provide harmony in society was to banish religion from the public square. For this achievement, it thinks that it has earned lecturing rights over the issue. So it may be good to remember that while it has indeed made huge progress in the area of tolerance during the last century (which should be appreciated), it has a long way to go before it can reach the standards established by Islam.


First, while Muslim Personal Law is not recognized in the West, the Personal Law of non-Muslim minorities has always been recognized in the Muslim world. Second, while throughout Europe and America, Muslims are not permitted to make the call to prayer (adhan) on loud speakers, church bells ring freely in the Muslim world. Third, the wide spread of anti-Islamic prejudice in the Western media is both a cause and a consequence of the underlying intolerance. Fourth, hate crimes are a fact of life in the West. As just one small indication, nearly two-dozen incidents of vandalism have taken place against Mosques in the peaceful USA during the last seven years, not to mention hundreds of attacks against individuals."


The above quotation is excerpted, with slight modifications, from: http://www.youngmuslims.ca/articles/display.asp?ID=43

 

[DivineNames]

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment...

Thanks for the info.

 

[DivineNames]

I came across this-


Myth #8 Islam is a Tolerant Religion
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html



Dhimmitude

"Many apologists will defend Islam against the charge of intolerance by pointing to the “tolerance†exhibited by the Muslims during the Middle Ages. When Islamic civilisation was at its height, so the myth is spun, Islam was wonderfully tolerant and open-minded towards other religions. While it is true that during this period Islam more often than not refrained from massacring dissenters and rivals (which is often more than can be said for the European Catholicism of the day), to say that Muslims were either tolerant or open-minded is an untidy falsehood. During this era, Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands were reduced to the position of dhimmis. Dhimmitude entailed allowing non-Muslims to remain non-Muslim, so long as certain stringent rules were adhered to, rules which were designed to humiliate the dhimmis and to "demonstrate" the superiority of Islam over the religions of the conquered peoples. Dhimmis were not allowed to engage in any outward show of their religion, such as ringing church bells, praying or reading their Scriptures in public, or disputing about religious matters with a Muslim. They were also not allowed to build any religious buildings such as churches or synagogues, nor were they allowed to repair those already existing which wore down with age. They were most often reduced to a position of economic privation and near-slavery. Dhimmis had to wear distinctive clothing that marked them as clearly non-Muslim. Further, the distinctive clothing was often meant to humiliate the wearers. At various times, Jews and Christians would be compelled to wear badges in the shapes of apes and pigs, drawn from the Quranic description of unbelievers as these animals (Surat 2:65, 5:60, 7:166).

Coupled with this position of dhimmitude was the requirement for non-Muslims to pay the jizyah, the religion tax. This was a tax levied specifically upon non-Muslims, usually Christians and Jews, which was the only life-preserving alternative to outright conversion to Islam. The jizyah was designed to “encourage†subject populations to convert to Islam, since conversion meant being relieved of a heavy financial burden. Further, the jizyah, as well as other financial burdens upon dhimmi populations (such as the kharaj, or land tax) were traditionally supported by Muslim theologians through appeal to various passages of the Qur'an, such as Surah 9:29, one of the most obvious passages in the Qur'an commanding Muslims to make war against non-Muslims and to force them into submission (and one which apologists for Islam today routinely say is "being taken out of context" by those who point to it as evidence of Muslim intolerance)5. Between the burdens of dhimmitude and jizyah, it is little wonder that Islam, which has remarkably little success making converts without coercion, came to hold the almost complete monopoly on Middle Eastern religion which we see it having today. To say that these actions, the religion tax and enforced second-class citizenry, are “tolerant†would be a gross misuse of that term for propagandistic purposes. Those who make the claim to Muslim tolerance would seem to either be ignorant of these, or else sweeping them under the rug.



from first-hand accounts of the treatment of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands throughout most of the history of Islam, a picture is painted far different from our understanding of toleration. The history of Muslim dealings with the dhimmis is one of oppression, random massacres, avaricious greed and plunder, extortion under the threat of persecution, rape, systematic degradation, and slavery.

Far from being aberrations from "true" Islam, this sort of treatment of subject populations has been theologically sustained since the very beginning of Islam. "