Download Islamic intellectuals and scholars advocate religious equality

Islamic intellectuals and scholars advocate religious equality
Compiled by Danios
Jasser Auda:
Jizyah or Non-Muslim Taxes:
[Question:] I recently had a discussion with a non-Muslim friend about the fidya [jizya] that
non-Muslims have to pay in Islamic states. Is it discriminatory? Why do non-Muslims have
to pay such a tax? Hwo has to pay it and how is it calculated?. Thank you.
[Answer:]Assalamu alikom..
Before addressing this question, we need to differentiate between actions of Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were carried out based on some worldly (in this case,
political) motivation, and other actions that are part of the divine message (Resalah) of
Islam. Scholars call this, differentiating the Prophet’s actions as a human (al-af`al albashariyah) and his actions as a messenger (al-af`al al-tashri`iyah).
There is a verse in the Quran that mentioned this tax, Jezyah or Fidyah are in (al-Tawbah
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 (tribute, tax) with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued.
The verse has a historical context, however, which is a certain battle at the time of the
Prophet (peace be upon him), and this tax was indeed taken from the defeated people after
the battle. However, it is important to ask two questions here:
1)
what is the wisdom behind that tax, which was the reason behind legislating it?
2) does this verse and its related story make that kind of tax part of the Islamic law? In
other words, is this tax an “Islamic obligation”?
The wisdom behind the tax/Jezyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness,
for 2 reasons:
First, Muslims were paying Zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used
for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only
for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in
fact, less) amount as a tax, since Zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims.
Jezyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of
money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the Zakah,
which every Muslim had to pay anyway.
In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim
communities (i.e., militarily protection) and exemption of their men from joining the
Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the
Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these nonMuslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.
Then, do all the above make Jezyah an eternal “Islamic obligation”? The answer is no! We
need not to confuse the Script and the interpretation of the script, between the tradition of
the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a political leader and his tradition as a prophet and
messenger from Allah, and between Islam as a civilization and Islam as a religion, to make
a general point.
The interpretation of such verses that dealt with certain historical contexts should take into
account that historical context, based on which scholars decide whether that context should
or should not be extended to our context now. Given that this ruling was in particular
political circumstances, it actually served a pure practical purpose. And if these
circumstances and purpose no longer exist, then the ruling seizes to exist too. I have to
stress that this applies to the area of politics and similar areas of “policies,” if you wish, and
not the areas of ‘Ibadat and Tashri`, which are eternally universal and abiding. In these
areas of “policies,” the tradition of the Prophet (peace be upon him) teaches us higher
values like fairness, justice, and compassion, rather than specific measures and procedures
such as taxes, organization of the government or the army, or the division of provinces and
states.
The historical context of the verse made it extendable to other similar situations throughout
the Islamic history. Thus, similar taxes were taken from non-Muslims during the caliphates
that followed the prophetic era. However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our
current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based
on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of Jezyah or exempt non-Muslims
from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling
differs and Jezyah no longer applies.
If one calls for applying this ruling of Jezyah nowadays, then one would miss the point and
purpose behind the ruling, for which it was originally made; which is fairness!
source
And a related fatwa on democracy (perhaps the best one I've read on the topic):
Islam and Democracy:
What does Islam say about Democratic and Autocratic leadership styles? Does Islam
approve or disapprove them? Also, What is the leadership style you recommend.
Assalamu alikom ..
To answer your question: (1) Islam did not ‘ask us to follow’ any specific governance style.
However, (2) Islam did ask of us to abide by certain values and purposes, regardless of the
governance system we adopt. So, the style (1) are means that are changeable, but the values
(2) are ends that are fixed. The following elaborates on the above two points.
Regarding (1), there are many issues that generally fall under the category of ‘worldly
affairs’ (shu’oon al-dunya) that Islam did not give a specific and clear guideline for, and
governance style is one of these issues. ‘Worldly affairs’ (Shu’oon al-dunya) are ‘technical’
issues that the Prophet (s) left for us, and even stated that we could make better decisions
than him in these areas. The following hadith narration gives one example of these
‘shu’oon’.
Muslim’s narration states: Talha narrates: I was walking with the Prophet peace be upon
him when he passed by some people at the tops of their palm trees. He asked: ‘What are
they doing?’ They answered: ‘Pollenating the male into the female.’ He replied: ‘I do not
think that this will be of benefit.’ When they were told about what the Prophet (pbuh) said,
they stopped what they were doing. Later, when the trees shed down their fruits
prematurely, the Prophet (pbuh) was told about that. He said: ‘If it is good for them they
should do it. I was just speculating. So, pardon me. But if I tell you something about God,
then take it because I would never lie about God.’ Another narrator added: ‘You know your
worldly affairs better than me.’ [Several narrations. Refer to Abdul-Jalil Issa, Ijtihad AlRasul, p. 132, Dar Al-Bayan, Kuwait, 1948.]
Another hadith that gives another example of a ‘worldly affair’ is the hadith of ‘al-ghīlah.’
Ghīlah is intercourse during the period of nursing a child. Arabs, before Islam, used to think
that it was harmful for the nursing baby if his mother were to be pregnant. Muslim and
Malik report that the Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘I had almost intended to forbid ghīlah. Then, I
noticed that the Byzantines and Persians do that without it causing any harm to their
children.’ [Malik, Al-Muwata˓ p 418, and Muslim, Sahih Muslim p 542.]
In terms of governance style, the Prophet (s) before he died did not make clear how
Muslims shall choose leaders after him (except for the opinion of some scholars regarding
the Prophet’s direct successor(s)), nor did the Prophet outline exactly how the leader will
govern the people. The wisdom behind that was to leave the kind of system that Muslims
choose for themselves up to the evolution of their societies and political culture. This better
guarantees the fulfillment of the higher objectives and purposes of Islam, which is the
second point I am trying to make.
Thus, any governance style is acceptable and ‘Islamic’, as long as it fulfils the Islamic
values and purposes (2), prime of which is justice.
And based on justice, the best governance style –regardless of the names- is the style that
encourages accountability, transparency, rule of the law, the power of the people to choose
their leaders and ‘fire’ them if they abuse their power. It is also the style of a leadership that
aims at realizing the best interests of its people, in terms of their faith, soul, mind, intellect,
family, and honour.
The above is the ideal theory, if you wish. But realistically speaking, what is the
governance style known *today* that best fulfils the above Islamic ideals? It is, clearly,
democracy! Some scholars say that in Islam, ‘there is no democracy’!! But if this is true,
what is the alternative? Dictatorship?! Some scholars say that the alternative is ‘shura’
(consultation), which is the concept mentioned in the Quran.
42:38 and [those] who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer;
and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation (shura) among
themselves; and who spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance …
3:159 And it was by God's grace that thou [O Prophet] didst deal gently with thy followers:
for if thou hadst been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from
thee. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel (shawirhum) with
them in all matters of public concern …
But ‘shura’ is a general word and there is NO Islamic ‘Shura theory’ today that is detailed
enough and deals with all the complications of questions according to today’s worldview.
It is important to note there are many styles, manifestations, and versions of democracy
itself, some of which are unacceptable in Islam, and some are bitterly criticized in
democratic societies themselves. This means that we –Muslims- could use the wisdom in
whatever style of democracy we wish, take the best of it, and discard what might contradict
with the Islamic principles of justice, accountability, transparency, rule of law, the power of
the people, and protecting people’s faith, soul, mind, intellect, family, and honor.
source
Tariq Ramadan:
In our time, there can be no question of using terminology without questioning its
substance in the light of past or present context...It is important to define clearly the status
of the members of structured communities, and to recognize and guarantee all their
aforementioned rights (dignity, welfare, freedom, equality, justice). What in the past
was...the contractual integration of "protected people" (ahl adh-dhimmah), no longer
corresponds to contemporary realities and sociopolitical structures. Hence, it is important to
define a clear status for members of the community, not only to protect their legitimate
rights but also to secure them the legal power to defend those rights adequately. The
concept of "citizenship" (al-muwatanah) is now the commonly accepted reference...The
promotion of citizenship, conceived here as a legal status, is fundamental.
source: Tariq Ramadan, Radical Reform, p.270
Rashid al-Ganoushi:
The concept of Dhimma is not something that one should be ashamed of. For in a particular
historical phase which did not even know the concept of religious freedom, but was rather
characterized by persecution of those who had a different faith, and by brutal religious
wars, Islam called for freedom of faith, and recognized, as a consequence, religious
pluralism and on that basis established its social and political system. The Prophet (peace
be upon him) established the first religiously pluralistic society, and the Sahifa, the first
written Constitution [of Medina], recognized the rights of citizenship for all...Jews in
Medina had the nationality of the Islamic state, and the Sahifa considered them part of the
Ummah ("The Muslims and the Jews of Median are one Ummah distinct from all others",
an Ummah which is here not that of creed, but the political Ummah- and this is nationality).
Islamic jurisprudence, unfortunately, did not elaborate all Islamic political concepts. It did
not develop the Sahifa towards equal rights for all citizens of the state, just as it did not
develop Shura towards establishing pluralism and recognizing the Ummah as the source of
legitimacy, as a result of the domination of despotic regimes. On the contrary, other
branches of Fiqh, which were unrelated to governance, were developed...
This state was called "Ahl al-Dhimmah". This concept is a concept of Fiqh, not of religion,
not a fundamental binding concept, for the Sahifa did not use that term, nor was it used in
the Qur'an. Where it was used in the Sunnah, it was in the context of warning against any
injustice to non-Muslims. Thus contemporary scholars, such as AbdulKarim Zaydan, Salim
al-'Awwa, Shaykh al-Qaradawi, were right to highlight the non-binding nature. of this term,
especially if our non-Muslim brothers perceive some negative meaning in it. In addition,
the contemporary Muslim states, as noted by Dr. Salim al-'Awwa was not established on the
basis of fat'h- conquest, like the early Muslim states which have ended with foreign
occupation, but rather on the basis of liberation, to which all citizens, Muslim and nonMuslim, contributed which makes them all equal partners in their countries. This makes
issues like, for instance, al-Jizya, irrelevant in this context, because al-Jizya was the tax
paid by non-Muslims to be exempt from Jihad, while in contemporary states, all citizens are
required to defend their countries, and there is no distinction between Muslims and nonMuslims in that respect.
What we have mentioned is not, as some may think, something brought by western
influence, but is rather well-rooted in the book of Allah and the Sunnah of our Prophet
(pbuh), and is expressed in the first experience of model implementation of Islam in
Medina which was undermined and veiled from us by despotism which reigned for
centuries.
source
Yusuf al-Qaradawi:
Dhimmi is an ahistorical expression that is no longer applicable to modern discourse.
source
He argues that in modern times non-Muslims must be viewed as
citizens of the Islamic state...[who] enjoy the same rights and carry the same
responsibilities as Muslims themselves, while being free to practice their own faiths.
source: Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam, p.338, ISBN: 0-89259-016-5
Muhammad Salim al-Awa:
According to [the Constitution of Madinah], the non-Muslims living in the state of
Madinah were considered to be citizens; they had the same rights and duties as
Muslims...Nowadays, as it has been for more than a century, non-Muslim citizens living in
Islamic countries perform military service and protect their nations. Therefore, they are not
liable for paying jizyah according to the correct juristic point of view...jizyah [has] been
annulled by the introduction of alternative duties like defending the homeland and having
the honor of serving in the army.
source
Muqtedar Khan:
The Constitution of Medina as a Social Contract
If we bypass the legalist tradition and return to the original sources of Islam we will find in
the Prophet's example an excellent model for an Islamic democracy...The legitimacy of his
rule over Medina was based on his status as the Prophet of Islam as well as on the basis of
the compact of Medina.
As Prophet of God he had authority over all Muslims by divine decree (64:12, 47:33). He
ruled over the non-Muslims of Medina by virtue of the tripartite compact that was signed
by the Muhajirun (Muslim immigrants from Mecca), the Ansar (indigenous Muslims of
Medina) and the Yahud (Jews). This compact was the basis of the polity of Medina. It
established a federation of communities that were equal in rights as well as duties. Thus the
Jews of Medina were constitutional partners in the making of the first Islamic state.
The compact of Medina provides an excellent historical example of two theoretical
constructs that have shaped contemporary democratic theory--constitutions and social
contracts--and should therefore be of great value to theoretical reflection on the Islamic
state. In the state of nature people are free and are not obliged to follow any rules or laws.
They are essentially sovereign individuals. Through social contracts they surrender their
individual sovereignty to the collective and create states. The state then acts as an agent of
the sovereign people, exercising the sovereignty that has been delegated to it through the
social contract. The state is accountable to the people who constitute it and derives both
legitimacy and power from the contract. Constitutions are the explicit articulations of the
social contract and act as the legal basis of the polity.
On the basis of the Compact of Medina, Muhammad ruled Medina by the consent of its
citizens and in consultation with them. The Compact of Medina, which served the dual
function of a social contract and a constitution, legitimized his authority over Medina.
Muhammad in his great wisdom demonstrated a democratic spirit quite unlike the
authoritarian tendencies of many of those who claim to imitate him today. He chose to draw
up a historically specific constitution based on the eternal and transcendent principles
revealed to him and sought the consent of all who would be affected by its implementation.
The Compact of Medina did not impose the Shari'ah on anyone, and no laws were
understood as given prior to the Compact. Prophet Muhammad's divine mission or the
divine message of the Qur'an did not in any way undermine the principles of the Compact,
though of course the values enshrined in it echo Islamic values of equality, consultation and
consent in governance. As long as Islamic jurists focus on the post-Muhammad
development in the discipline of Islamic legal thought and privilege it over Muhammad's
own practice, authoritarianism will always trump democracy in the Muslim milieu.
...Muslims must widely and unambiguously accept that Islam and democracy are
compatible and that meaningful faith requires freedom. Once we accept these principles we
can address the political issues more easily.
But before Muslims can accept democracy as an Islamic principle, Islamic political
philosophy must accomplish the following tasks:
1. Link political legitimacy not to the application of a legal code that is prior to politics, but
to the binding character of Shura (consultation).
2. Reject the idea of a fixed Shari'ah in favor of keeping Shari'ah open and dependent on
negotiated understanding.
3. Explain how talk of divine sovereignty works to free rulers from accountability to the
ruled.
4. Acknowledge the limits of the Islamic legal tradition and eschew it in favor of the
Compact of Medina as a basis for Islamic democracy.
5. Treat Islam as a fountain of values that guide conduct rather than a system of ready-made
solutions to problems.
6. Past legal opinions must not subvert contemporary political reflections. We will be free
only when we can freely determine for ourselves what is the Shari ah. There is no
mediation in Islam and the Islamic jurists must step aside. As long as the colonial
tendencies of Islamic jurisprudence persist there will be no Islamic democracy.
source
Khaled Abou El Fadl:
The puritans construct their exclusionary and intolerant theology by reading Qur'anic verses
in isolation...as if moral ideas and historical context were irrelevant to their interpretation.
In fact, however, it is impossible to analyze these and other verses except in light of the
overall moral thrust of the Qur'anic message. The Qur'an itself refers to general moral
imperatives such as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness. The Qur'an does not clearly
define any of these categories, but presumes a certain amount of moral probity on part of
the reader. For instance, the Qur'an persistently commands Muslims enjoin the good. The
word used for "the good" is ma'ruf, which means that which is commonly known to be
good. Goodness, in the Qur'anic discourse, is part of what may call a lived reality--it is the
product of human experience, and constructed normative understandings. Similarly, the
Qur'anic term for kindness is ihsan, which literally means to beautify and improve upon.
But beautification or improving upon can have meaning only in the context of a certain
sociological understanding and practice...Muslims are expected to achieve a level of moral
conscientiousness, which they bring to their relationship with God. In regards to every
ethical obligation, the Qur'anic text assumes the readers will bring a preexisting, innate
moral sense to the text. Hence, the text will morally enrich the reader, but only if the reader
will morally enrich the text. The meaning of the religious text is not fixed simply by the
literal meaning of its words, but depends, too, on the moral construction given to it by the
reader. So if the reader approaches the text without moral commitments, it will almost
inevitably yield nothing but discrete, legalistic, technical insights.
Similarly, it is imperative to analyze the historical circumstances in which specific Qur'anic
ethical norms were negotiated. Many of the institutions referenced in the Qur'an--such as
the poll tax or the formation of alliances with non-Muslims--can be understood only if the
reader is aware of the historical practices surrounding the revelation of the text. But by
emptying the Qur'an both of its historical and moral context, the puritan trend ends up
transforming the text into a long list of morally noncommittal legal commands.
The Qur'anic discourse, for instance, can readily support an ethic of diversity and
tolerance...[Having] a commitment to human diversity and mutual knowledge under
contemporary conditions requires moral reflection and attention to historical circumstance-precisely what is missing from puritan theology and doctrine...If we read the text with
moral and historical guidance, we can see the different passages as part of a complex and
layered discourse about reciprocity and its implications in the historical situation in
Muhammad's Medina...[and] accepts the distinctiveness of the Jewish and Christian
communities and their laws, while also insisting that Muslims are entitled to the same
treatment as those other communities...
The other major on the point of tolerance in Islam [other than jihad] is that of the poll tax
(jizyah) imposed on the People of the Book (Christian and Jews) who live in Muslim
territory. When the Qur'an was revealed, it was common inside and outside of Arabia to
levy poll taxes against alien groups. Building upon the historical practice, classical Muslim
jurists argued that the poll tax is money collected by the Islamic polity from non-Muslims
in return for the protection of the Muslim state. If the Muslim state was incapable of
extending such protection to non-Muslims, it was not supposed to levy a poll tax. In fact,
'Umar (r. 13-23/634-44), the second Rightly-Guided Caliph and close companion of the
Prophet, returned the poll tax to an Arab Christian tribe that he was incapable of protecting
from Byzantine aggression.
Aside from the juristic theory justifying the poll tax, the Qur'an does not, however,
pronounce an absolute and unwavering rule in favor of such an institution. Once more,
attention to historical circumstance is essential. The Qur'an endorsed a poll tax as a
response to particular groups in Arabia who were persistently hostile to the early Muslims.
Importantly, the Prophet did not collect a poll tax from every non-Muslim tribe that
submitted to Muslim sovereignty, and in fact, in the case of a large number of non-Muslim
but non-hostile tribes, he paid them a periodic sum of money or goods. These tribes were
known as "those who hearts have been reconciled." Furthermore, 'Umar entered into a
peace settlement with Arab Christian tribes pursuant to which these tribes were obligated to
pay the Islamic annual tax known as the zakah (almsigiving), and not the poll tax.
Reportedly, although they refused to convert to Islam, the Christian tribes contended that
paying the jizyah was degrading, and instead, asked to pay the zakah, and 'Umar
accommodated their request. In short, there are various indications that the poll tax is not a
theologically mandated practice [or else how could it be waived in so many cases], but a
functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical
circumstances. Only an entirely ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an
essential element in a divinely sanctioned program of subordinating the nonbeliever.
Ultimately, the Qur'an, or any text, speaks through its reader. This ability of human beings
to interpret texts is both a blessing and a burden. It is a blessing because it provides us with
the flexibility to adapt texts to changing circumstances. It is a burden because the reader
must take responsibility for the normative values he or she brings to the texts. Any text,
including those that are Islamic, provides possibilities for meaning, not inevitabilities. And
those possibilities are...ultimately determined by the reader's efforts--good faith efforts, we
hope--at making sense of the text's complexities. Consequently, the meaning of the text is
often only as moral as its reader. If the reader is intolerant, hateful, or oppressive, so will
be the interpretation of the text.
It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer
possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly those possibilities are exploited by the
contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant
readings...The burden and blessing of sustaining the moral trajectory--of accentuating the
Qur'anic message of tolerance and openness to the other--falls squarely on the shoulders of
contemporary Muslim interpreters of the tradition.
source: Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Place of Tolerance in Islam, pp.13-23. ISBN: 0-8070-0229-1
Joint statement of Indian Muslim leaders:
Joint Statement of Indian Muslim leaders
Pakistani Taliban’s treatment of Sikhs in tribal areas is illegal and barbaric
We, religious, political and community leaders of the Indian Muslims, are alarmed at the
reports coming out of Pakistan’s tribal areas about the Pakistani Taliban’s kidnapping,
extortion of huge amounts of money from their Sikh compatriots as “Jizya” and demolition
of the houses and shops of those who fail to pay the demanded sums.
We would like to say that Jizya is a tax paid in an Islamic state for exemption from military
service by healthy non-Muslim adults who are free to follow their vocations without
restriction or fear, and that there is no other tax payable by them after paying this tax,
unlike Muslims who have to pay various taxes including Zakat and have to perform
military service as well.
Jizya was payable by non-Muslims only in lands conquered by Muslims like Egypt,
Syria and Iraq but not in unconquered areas like Madina where during the time of the
Holy Prophet no Jizya was ever imposed on non-Muslim citizens who enjoyed equal
rights and duties under the Constitution of Madina. For many centuries Jizya has not
been levied by Muslim states and today even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Islamic
Republic of Iran do not levy Jizya on non-Muslims for the simple reason that non-Muslims
in these states pay all taxes payable by others...Jizya should not be imposed now as nonMuslims are equal citizens of Muslim states and pay all taxes paid by other citizens
and shoulder all the duties.
We wish to make it clear that the imposition of the so-called Jizya is nothing more than
extortion by an armed and lawless gang which does not constitute a sovereign government
or state or even an organ thereof. Moreover, Pakistan’s tribal areas are not “conquered
lands” as their non-Muslim population has been living there for centuries. These areas were
part of the British India and became part of the new State of Pakistan as a result of peaceful
transfer of power on Partition.
As regards the huge amounts in millions reported to be demanded, these are arbitrary and
exorbitant as the amount of annual Jizya paid by non-Muslims in early Islam was merely
one to one and a half dinar, which is 4.24 gram to 6.36 grams of gold. Moreover, this tax
was payable only at the end of the year and not in advance.
We regard this as an act of injustice incompatible with the letter and spirit of Islam and the
international covenants accepted by all Muslim states.
We demand that the Pakistani authorities must take earliest steps to retrieve the extorted
sums and pay them back to their affected non-Muslim citizens and facilitate their peaceful
return to their homes and properties in their traditional homelands and give them all due
protection.
Maulana Mufti Mukarram Ahmad
Shahi Imam, Jama Masjid Fatehpuri, Delhi
Hafiz Muhammad Yahya
President, All India Jamiat Ahl-e Hadees
Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani
Secretary, Jamiat Ulama-e Hind
Syed Shahabuddin
Former PM & ex-President, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat
Prof Tahir Mahmood
Member Law Commission of India
Mujtaba Farooq
Secretary, Jamaat-e Islami Hind
Maulana Ataur Rahman Qasmi
President, Shah Waliullah Institute, Delhi
Maulana Waris Mazhari
Editor, Monthly Tarjuman, Delhi
Dr Zafar Mahmood
President, Zakat Foundation of India
Dr SQR Ilyas
Member, Muslim Personal Law Board
Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan
President, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat
Mirza Yawar Baig
President of Yawar Baig & Associates
Shahnawaz Ali Raihan
Secretary, Students Islamic Organisation
Issued at New Delhi on 2 May 2009
Issued by the All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat, Delhi
source
Shehzad Saleem:
There are various misconceptions which prevail regarding Islam and non-Muslims in our
society. And amongst these misconceptions is the notion that all non-Muslims are secondrate citizens of an Islamic state...that these non-Muslims should be regarded as zimmis and
the jizya tax should be imposed on them...Today it is not allowed. Therefore it is incorrect
to state or say that non-Muslim citizens of today are zimmis or they are second-rate
citizens. The correct word for them is...a citizen--a citizenship based on a contract...On the
basis of this, we have to call these non-Muslims as...citizens on the basis of contract. They
cannot be classified as zimmis...
source
Moiz Amjad:
In my opinion, Jizyah is not a universal tax imposed on non-Muslims for all times to come.
source