User:CounterTime/sandbox

• Jizya
• Dhimmi
• Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur‎ - Ṭāhir ibn ʿĀshūr: The Career and Thought of a Modern Reformist, Journal of Qur'anic Studies
• Hadith

Thus the Maliki scholar Al-Qurtubi states, "Their punishment in case of non-payment [of jizya] while they were able [to do so] is permitted, however if their inability to pay it was clear then it isn't lawful to punish them, since if one isn't able to pay the jizya then he is exempted, and ".

[...] only three of the four Sunni schools of law held that a father cannot be executed for killing his child (Hanbalis and Hanafis apply this to the mother as well). There was never some universal custom that could empower an otherwise feeble Hadith. Ibn Mundhir, a tenth-century scholar who collated the many and varied opinions of Muslim scholars to determine when consensus had actually occurred, rejected the claim of consensus on filicide (a parent killing their non-infant child). A number of leading scholars, he noted, held that the father was treated like any other person based on the evident meaning of the Qur'anic verses as well as the Hadith that 'The believers are equal to one another in their blood.'

^^ ^ ^^ ^ ===> qisas page

(p.182, misquoting, jacb)

10.3366

dhimmi article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizya&diff=702350803&oldid=702348840

A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam series). Oneworld Publications. pp. 251, 321. ISBN 978-1851686636.

‫ا‬ ‫العو‪‬‬ ‫سليم‬ ‫محمد‬

‫(‬ ‫معاصـرة‬ ‫إسـلامية‬ ‫رؤيـة‬ ‫‪،‬‬ ‫الذمـة‬ ‫أهل‬ ‫نظام‬

Muhammad Salid al-'Awa

و لم يجز فقهاء الإسلام في أمر المانعين للجزية أو الخارج إلا أن يحبسوا تأديباً، أي يسجنوا بدون الأشغال الشاقة، و يكتب الإمام أبو يوسف: ((و لكن يرفق بهم، و يحبسون حتى يؤدوا ما عليهم، و إن مات أحد من الذميين و عليه شيء من الجزية، فلا يؤخد من تركته و لا يكلف ورثته بأدائه.))

Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 121.

A more convincing view, however, is that each of the revolts against the new order had its own causes. Of the six major centers of uprising, four had a religious color, each led by a so- called prophet, prophetess or soothsayer: al-Aswad al-Ansī in Yemen, Musaylima (q.v.) in Yamāma, ulay a b. Khuwaylid of the tribes of Banū Asad and Banū Ghaafān and Sajā of the tribe of Tamīm. The resistance in the two other centers — east and southeast of the Arabian peninsula — seems to have been caused by a refusal to submit to the political authority of Medina including the payment of taxes imposed upon them by the Prophet in 9 ⁄ 630. Following classical Islamic sources, much of modern scholarship tends to see all these wars and battles that took place within the boundaries of Arabia — before the conquests in Syria and īra began — as falling into the category of the wars of apostasy. In point of fact, of all the centers of revolt only Najd qualifies, strictly speaking, for classification as a center of apostate rebellion. The Banū Hanīfa, led by Musaylima in Yamāma, had never been subject to Medinan domination nor did they sign any treaty either with Muhammad or with his successor Abū Bakr (11 ⁄ 632-13 ⁄ 634). It was only when the military commander Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21 ⁄ 642) defeated them in 12 ⁄ 633 that they came, for the first time, under Medinan domination. In other words, they never converted to Islam in the first place so that they cannot correctly be labeled as apostates. A similar situation existed in Umān, al-Barayn, al-Yaman, and a ramawt. There, Muhammad concluded treaties with military leaders — some of whom were Persian agents — who were quickly ousted by the local tribes. Thus, the tribes’ resistance to Medina did not presuppose a particular relationship in which they paid allegiance to the Muslim state. Again, their uprising does not constitute apostasy, properly speaking. The tribes of Najd, on the other hand, were their own masters and signed treaties with Muhammad, the terms of which required them to adopt Islam and to pay homage as well as taxes to Medina. Their revolt, thus, constituted a clear case of apostasy.

ALFRED J. BUTLER, The Arab Conquest of Egypt pp.337-8

It remains a problem why the people of Alexandria, who were ready to stone Cyrus for his treason, were so quickly prevailed upon to pardon him and to accept the treaty. Fickle and frivolous as the people were, it was no mere whim which decided them to abandon their allegiance to the Empire and to bow under the dominion of Islam. There can, I think, be but one explanation beyond those already suggested, and that is that the Alexandrians were wearied out both by the vicissitudes and by the misgovernment which they had suffered during the past forty years, and that they hoped to find under Muslim rule a period of settled peace, of religious tolerance, and of lighter taxation. It may have been this relief from taxation which turned the scale : for while it is difficult to estimate the fiscal burdens borne under the Romans, there can be no doubt that the taxes were manifold and heavy, as well as vexatious, whereas the poll-tax and land-tax demanded by 'Amr had at least the charm of simplicity, directness, and fixity, and amounted, or seemed to amount, to less than the sums exacted for the imperial exchequer. In proportion as patriotism in Egypt was weak, the appeal to the purse was strong : and this promise of reduced taxation may count for a great deal in all the Muslim conquests. In the case of Alexandria it may have been the determining factor \ although it is known that the hope of financial relief was bitterly disappointed. The treaty was ratified — possibly by the last act of Heraclonas, whose reign ended that November. It seems that the terms were rehearsed in a pro- clamation now issued by 'Amr to the people of Egypt. The proclamation offered protection to the person, property, religion, churches, and crosses of the Egyptians, and promised to defend the people against Nubians and all other enemies on condition of payment of tribute.

@Eperoton: Found the above quote, thought it may be useful to you in expanding the Early Muslim conquests article (in particular the section on the conquests of Egypt), through I'm not so familiar with the advances in that article. 18:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)