* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Islamic intellectuals and scholars advocate religious equality
Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan wikipedia , lookup
Satanic Verses wikipedia , lookup
Soviet Orientalist studies in Islam wikipedia , lookup
History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (1928–38) wikipedia , lookup
Islamic terrorism wikipedia , lookup
LGBT in Islam wikipedia , lookup
International reactions to Fitna wikipedia , lookup
Islam and Mormonism wikipedia , lookup
Islam and war wikipedia , lookup
Muslim world wikipedia , lookup
The Jewel of Medina wikipedia , lookup
Islamic Golden Age wikipedia , lookup
War against Islam wikipedia , lookup
Islam and Sikhism wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Afghanistan wikipedia , lookup
Morality in Islam wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Somalia wikipedia , lookup
Criticism of Islamism wikipedia , lookup
Islamofascism wikipedia , lookup
Islam and violence wikipedia , lookup
Historicity of Muhammad wikipedia , lookup
Islam and secularism wikipedia , lookup
Liberalism and progressivism within Islam wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Egypt wikipedia , lookup
Islamic democracy wikipedia , lookup
Censorship in Islamic societies wikipedia , lookup
Islamic ethics wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Bangladesh wikipedia , lookup
Sources of sharia wikipedia , lookup
Schools of Islamic theology wikipedia , lookup
Hindu–Islamic relations wikipedia , lookup
Political aspects of Islam wikipedia , lookup
Islam and modernity wikipedia , lookup
Islamic schools and branches wikipedia , lookup
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