Response to Fishtroller

The following is a response I wrote to an atheist who calls himself "Fishtroller01" over at Daily Kos. This guy is one of your militant atheists. Personally, after reading many of his comments on a number of religious diaries at DKos, I have a rather low opinion of this guy. Still, I decided to respond to one of his comments tonight, and am reproducing it here as it touches on a number of topics that this blog addresses.

So you based your life's perspective on one book?

I've based my moral and religious guidelines upon the Qur'an, yes. Believe it or not, I was once an atheist like you, but I realized the errors of my ways and changed directions. I put in four years of due diligence on the Qur'an after countless years of exploring (raised Catholic, read numerous Buddhist texts), but I've never regretted my decision to become a Muslim. That was my best decision ever.

Do you follow EVERY teaching in that book, or do you just pick and choose the ones that fit your modern conception of the world?

I'm not a "cafeteria Muslim," no. I follow everything in the Qur'an that applies to me to the best of my abilities.

If you do follow all the "guidance" written in that book, you have a problem because many of the teachings are immoral and/or contradict one another.

Now you see, this is where your incredible ignorance of the Qur'an and Islam begins to show. It's very obvious you've read little, if any, of the Qur'an; not that I'm surprised.

I won't go into the numerous times that this book promises hellfire and torture for unbelievers like me...

Yeah? So? His universe, His rules, His rewards and punishments. What makes you worthy of heaven? Your good looks? The minimum requirements, according to the Qur'an, are a belief in Him, a belief in the Day of Judgment, and good works. All three, not just one or two of three. Ignoring the third, how do you qualify? How have you earned the right to go to heaven? This is either/or, not multiple choice. There's no special dispensation simply because you object.

...but it also says that those who believe in the trinity are cursed to hell.

Actually, the Qur'an says nothing of the sort; in fact, several verses (2:62, 5:69) say the exact opposite. Islam is not one of those religions that says only "we" are saved. There's no guarantee a Muslim will be saved either. You have to earn heaven, remember?

Do you agree that women are possessions of men and that men are "a step above" women?

Women as "possessions of men" is the Orientalist view, not the Islamic view. Men a step above women? No, not part of Islam either. The Qur'an does says in part: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means..." (4:34). But that doesn't mean men are a step above. Men and women in Islam have equal responsibilities. If anything many Muslim men think that Muslim women have it easier than they do.

Do you agree that homosexuality is unnatural and to be condemned?

The underlying theme in the Qur'an is that life is most important. This is not explicitly stated in the text, but can be deduced from the Qur'an's positions regarding various issues regarding life, death and health. Thus, to preserve life and promote healthy lifestyles, sex is forbidden in all cases except between married couples. Thus, premarital sex is haram, adultery is haram, fornication between any non-married person, regardless of gender, is haram. Likewise, all anal sex, even between husband and wife, is haram as well. In Islam, two men or two women may love each other, but the relationship must be platonic. To take the opposite position is unIslamic and promotes unhealthy lifestyles. A lot of people don't like to hear that, but that's their problem and, once again, they'll have to answer for it on the Day of Judgment.

Why didn't Jesus or Mohammed condemn slavery?

I won't speak for Jesus (pbuh), but I will say that while the Qur'an did not expressly prohibit slavery, it did encourage slave owners not only to free their slaves if the latter asked for it, but to pitch in money to the slave so as to make it easier for them. If you knew the history of Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions, you would know that they freed many of the slaves in that time. Try reading the story about Bilal for a good example.

Which in my view renders the texts increasingly useless and invalid.

Your loss. Good luck on the Day of Judgment.

Jizya: Amounts Paid in the Treaties of Orihuela and Misr (Egypt)

One of the complaints about Islam by Islamophobes is the issue of jizya, the tax levied on non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state. In return for the payment of the jizya, non-Muslims were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens. What has never been brought up in any argument I've read against the jizya is exactly how much was paid by the non-Muslims. In another of my posts about Hugh Kennedy's book, The Great Arab Conquests (yes, I am almost finished with the book ;) ), Kennedy addresses this issue in several passages. The first passage is with respect to the Treaty of Orihuela (pp. 315-16):

We are better informed about the conquest of the area around Murcia in south-east Spain. This was ruled by a Visigothic noble called Theodemir (Tudmīr). He negotiated a treaty with Abd al-Azīz, of which the text, dated April 713 [Rajab, 94 A.H.], is recorded in several Arabic sources.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This text was written by Abd al-Azīz b. Mūsā b. Nusayr for Tudmīr b. Ghabdush, establishing a treaty of peace and the promise and protection of God and His Prophet (may God bless him and grant him His peace). We [Abd al-Azīz] will not set any special conditions for him or for any among his men, nor harass him, nor remove him from power. His followers will not be killed or taken prisoner, nor will they be separated from their women and children. They will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will sacred objects be taken from the realm as long as Theodemir remains sincere and fulfils the following conditions we have set for him:

He has reached a settlement concerning seven towns: Orihuela, Valentilla, Alicante, Mula, Bigastro, Ello and Lorca.

He will not give shelter to fugitives, nor to our enemies, nor encourage any protected person to fear us, nor conceal news of our enemies.

He and each of his men shall also pay one dinar every year, together with four measures of wheat, four measures of barley, four liquid measures of concentrated fruit juice, four liquid measures of vinegar, four of honey and four of olive oil. Slaves much [sic; must] each pay half of this.

Kennedy continues:

This treaty is a classic example of the sort of local agreements that were the reality of Arab "conquest" in many areas of the caliphate. It is clear that rather than embark on a difficult and costly campaign, the Muslims preferred to make an agreement that would grant them security from hostile activities and some tribute. It is a pattern we can observe in many areas of Iran and Transoxania. It is interesting to note that much of this tribute was taken in kind (wheat, barley, vinegar, oil, but of course no wine). In exchange for this, the local people were allowed almost complete autonomy. Theodemir was clearly expected to continue to rule his seven towns and the rural areas attached to them. There is no indication that any Muslim garrison was established, nor that any mosques were built. Theodemir and many of his followers may have imagined that the Muslim conquest would be fairly short lived and that it was worth paying up to preserve their possessions until such time as the Visigothic kingdom was restored. In fact it was to be five centuries before Christian powers re-established control over this area. We do not know how long the agreement was in force: Theodemir himself died, full of years and distinction, in 744. It is likely that it was never formally abolished but rather that as Muslim immigration and the conversion of local people to Islam increased in the late eighth and ninth centuries, its provisions became increasingly irrelevant.

In another passage, with respect to the Treaty of Misr (Egypt), Kennedy writes (pp. 153-54):

It was probably at this time that the document known as the Treaty of Misr (Egypt) between the Muslims and the Byzantine authorities was drawn up, though the exact context of this document remains unclear. It is in many ways similar to the treaty Umar had made with Jerusalem and was presumably modeled on it. It begins with a general clause safeguarding the people their religion (millat), their property, their crucifixes, their lands and their waterways. They would be obliged to pay the jizya (tribute) every year when the rise of the Nile (ziyādat nahrihim) was over. If the river failed to rise properly, payment would be reduced in proportion. If anyone did not agree to it, he would not pay the tribute but he would not receive protection. Romans and Nubians who wanted to enjoy the same terms might do so and those who did not were free to leave.

...

In many of them [different written accounts about the treaty] the tax to be paid was assessed at 2 dinars per adult male except for the poor. Some also said that the Egyptians should provide the Muslims with supplies. Each landowner (dhī ard) was to provide 210 kilos of wheat, 4 liters of oil, 4 liters of honey and 4 liters of vinegar (but, of course, no wine). They were also to get clothing: each Muslim was to be given a woolen jubba, a burnūs or turban, a pair of trousers (sarāwīl) and a pair of shoes. It may be that many of these south Arabians had arrived very ill prepared for the coolness of an Egyptian winter.

In other words, the jizya paid per person in terms of currency was a very nominal amount. It would be like asking for a tax of one or two dollars per person; the poor, any slaves, presumably women and children would either pay a lower amount or be exempted altogether. The in-kind payments of food and clothing would cost more, but these were no doubt requested by the Arab armies because their soldiers needed the supplies. As Kennedy points out (p. 334), Arab soldiers were expected to provide their own equipment and pay for their own food. Once the payment was made, life went on as before. Muslim armies charged less in terms of the jizya if the town submitted peacefully instead of battling with the army (probably what the slave had told the people at Junday-Shapur, who quickly realized how much cheaper it would be for them to pay the tribute than to fight the Muslims; in fact, Kennedy tells of a number of cities that came to the same decision).

Jizya, then, was not the crushing tax burden one finds in ancient Greek and Roman histories. It was a relatively small amount paid by the non-Muslims; as more and more people became Muslim, the amount paid for jizya actually shrank over time. Of course, we Muslims have our own taxes (e.g., zakat).

Photo credit: A street in Lorca, Spain, by Howzey

The Conquest of Junday-Shapur

Another story from Hugh Kennedy's book, The Great Arab Conquests (p. 128), this time dealing with the "conquest" of Junday-Shapur (also known as Jondisapur (p. 206) or Gundishapur), an ancient city that lies in the modern Iranian province of Khūzestān, between the cities of Dezful and Shustar.

According to this story, the city resisted vigorously until one day, to the great surprise of the Muslims, the gates were flung open and the city was opened up. The Muslims asked the defenders what had come over them, to which they replied, "You have shot us an arrow with a message that safety would be granted to us. We have accepted this and set aside the tribute payments." The Muslims replied that they had done no such thing, but after extensive enquiries they found a slave, originally from Junday-shapur, who admitted that he had indeed written such a message. The Muslim commanders explained that this was the work of a slave with no authority to make such an offer, to which the inhabitants replied that they had no means of knowing that and finished by saying that they were going to keep their side of the bargain, even if the Muslims chose to act treacherously. The Muslims referred the matter to [the Caliph] Umar, who responded that the promise was in fact binding, for "God holds the keeping of promises in the highest esteem." The moral is clear: even the promise of a slave must be respected.

Photo credit: Wikipedia/Zereshk - The interior of Masjid Jameh (Congregational Mosque) in Dezful, Iran.