Australia must fight calls for sharia law

About Islam Religion feature

ATTENTION has again been focused on sharia law in Australia since the flogging of a convert in Sydney for drinking alcohol.

Sharia law is fundamentally the demand of Islamic states to limit citizens’ rights.

My organisation, One Law for All, has been campaigning against sharia and religious laws in Britain and its resulting ever-shrinking secular spaces and brutal and discriminatory laws, particularly against women, for nearly three years now. The same must be done in Australia and everywhere.

While the far-Right blames, and scapegoats, Muslim immigration for the rise in sharia law in order to further its racist and inhuman agenda, it is the people living under Islamic laws, or the many, who have fled sharia and sought refuge in Australia and elsewhere who are the principal victims of Islamism, and at the forefront of the struggle against it.

Nowhere is opposition to sharia and Islamism greater than in countries ruled by Islamic laws.

Islamic groups and Islamists will often feign representation of Muslims, while in fact Muslims, or those labelled as such, are not a homogeneous group like any other. There are rights activists, freethinkers, socialists, secularists, humanists and atheists among them. Sharia law is not the culture of Muslims but Islamist culture. The claim of representation by Islamists is in fact shared by far-Right groups (which by the way have more in common with the Islamists than not); they too wrongly assert that sharia is the consequence of an increase in the Muslim population. The call by proponents for the accommodation of sharia law in Australia does a great disservice to the many that have resisted, fled, and sought refuge in Australia even if it is primarily regarding sharia’s civil code.

As one supporter of the One Law for All campaign in Britain has said: “It is supported precisely because it is limited to denying women’s rights in the family. No hands are being cut off, so there’s no problem.”

In fact, sharia family law is a pillar of women’s oppression in countries under Islamic laws. And it often exists even when the penal code no longer applies.

Under sharia law’s civil code, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive. Women who remarry lose custody of their children even if the child has not reached the preset age and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

Also a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s. A woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband, and a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications for requesting a divorce, some of which are extremely difficult to prove.

The Islamic Sharia Council in Britain explains why this is so: With regards to women’s testimony, if one forgets, the other can remind her. It’s the difference between a man and a woman’s brain. A woman’s character is not so good for a case where testimony requires attention and concentration.

And this also applies to divorce. Women are governed by emotion; men by their minds, so he will think twice before uttering talaq (divorce). It goes on to say it is not derogatory, but the secret of women’s nature.

While there is an obvious difference between stoning a woman to death and denying her the right to divorce and child custody, the fundamentals and misogyny behind sharia’s civil and penal codes are the same, it is just a matter of degree. It is deceptive, or at best a mistake, not to see the civil aspects of sharia law as part of, and an extension of, its penal code.

Despite the discrimination, proponents of sharia law argue that adult women have a right to choose sharia courts. But the use of the terms “choice” and “rights” are highly deceptive.

Firstly, many are pressured into going to these courts. In one study in Britain, a staggering four out of 10 women attending the sharia court were party to civil injunctions issued against their husbands on the grounds of violence and threatening behaviour. They were not even meant to be in the same vicinity with them — let alone be, as they were, in a Sharia Council mediating civil matters.

In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process, but providing little protection and safety for the women in question. Further, the interviews and observation data revealed that husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and in many cases access to children.

Also, there is very little choice when living under an Islamic inquisition. Islamists don’t let you pick and choose, but will threaten or intimidate anyone who transgresses their medieval norms. They say so openly.

An Islamic sharia judge in Britain has said, “in the sharia, there is no exception; you have to accept it”. They’ve also said very clearly, “belittling (sharia law) or calling (it) out-of-date constitutes disbelief as Allah says and we know what the penalty for disbelief is”.

Using terms such as “rights” and “choice” are merely public relations ploys by Islamists and their supporters. It’s absurd when Islamists talk of choice. There is no choice when they are in power. And it’s deceptive. One can justify anything by saying it’s a choice. The hadith on stoning comes to mind. It is said that a woman begged Mohammad thrice before he reluctantly agreed to stone her to death.

These are not choices. To say it is so is to say that Muslim women are sub-human. They don’t want custody of their children; they want to remain in violent situations and face marital rape or unhappy marriages, they want their testimony to be half that of a man’s. By using the terminology of choice, proponents hope to dupe the public into ignoring the institutionalised violence and misogyny in sharia law.

Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and certainly not for inhumane parallel legal systems. Sharia law contravenes human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Australia, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts.

Maryam Namazie is the Spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign: www. onelawforall.org.uk. For more information, read Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights.

August 12, 2011 |  Maryam Namazie | The Australian | Source: theaustralian.com.au "Australia must fight calls for sharia law"

Austria: Civil Law vs. Sharia Law

About Islam Religion feature

• Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam and as a central hub for European jihadists to fight in Syria.

• The proposed revisions would, among other changes, regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran to prevent its “misinterpretation” by Islamic extremists.

• Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic sharia law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws.

• Leaders of Austria’s Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to “institutionalized Islamophobia.”

• Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna are immigrants or foreigners. The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible.

The Austrian government has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the country’s century-old “Islam Law” that governs the legal status of Austria’s Muslim community.

The proposed revisions—which are aimed at cracking down on Islamic extremism in Austria—would regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran, among other changes.

The government says the modifications would give Muslims legal parity with other religious groups in Austria. But the leaders of Austria’s Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to “institutionalized Islamophobia.”

The updated Islam Law (Islamgesetz) was presented as a draft bill to parliament on October 2 and overhauls the current law, which dates back to 1912.

The original law was brought into being to help integrate Muslim soldiers into the Habsburg Army after the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. The law recognized Islam as a religious community in Austria, and allowed Muslims to practice their religion in accordance with the laws of the state.

After the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in the aftermath of World War I, the number of Muslims in Austria was reduced to just a few hundred people. After World War II, however, Austria’s Muslim population increased rapidly with the arrival of “guest workers” from Turkey and the Balkans in the 1960s, and refugees from Bosnia in the 1990s.

The Muslim population in Austria now exceeds 500,000 (or roughly 6% of the total population), up from an estimated 150,000 (or 2%) in 1990. The Muslim population is expected to reach 800,000 (or 9.5%) by 2030, according to recent estimates.

Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna, the capital and largest city of Austria, are immigrants or foreigners.

The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible. In Vienna, for example, Muslim students now outnumber Catholic students at middle and secondary schools. Muslim students are also on the verge of overtaking Catholics in Viennese elementary schools.

At the same time, Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam. A June 2014 report by the Austrian intelligence agency [BVT] warned of the “exploding radicalization of the Salafist scene in Austria.” Salafism is an anti-Western ideology that seeks to impose Islamic sharia law.

Austria has also emerged as a central hub for European jihadists seeking to fight in Syria, because Austria’s geographic location provides easy access to land routes through the Balkans.

The Austrian Islamist known as “Abu Hamza al-Austria,” fighting in Syria, pictured from his jihadist recruitment video.

In an interview with Austrian Public Radio Ö1-Morgenjournal, the Austrian Minister for Integration and Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Kurz, said the rapid rise of Islam in Austria has rendered the old Islam Law obsolete. A new law is needed, he said, to stipulate more clearly the rights and responsibilities of Muslims living in the country.

From now on, according to Kurz, Muslims residing in Austria will be expected to adhere to Austrian values and to acknowledge the primacy of Austrian law over Islamic Sharia law. In practice, he said, this means that Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws. Sharia law has “no place” in Austria, he stressed.

The new law would regulate at least a dozen separate issues, including relatively non-controversial matters such as Muslim holidays, Muslim cemeteries, Muslim dietary practices and the activities of Muslim clergy in hospitals, prisons and the army.

More significantly, however, the bill seeks to limit the religious and political influence of foreign governments within the Austrian Muslim community by prohibiting foreign countries—presumably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states—from financing Islamic centers and mosques in Austria.

The legislation also seeks to prevent the growth of a parallel Islamic society in Austria by regulating mosques and requiring clerics to be trained exclusively at Austrian universities. The new law would require Muslim groups to terminate the employment of clerics who have criminal records or who are deemed to pose a threat to public safety.

The new restrictions—including an employment ban for foreign clerics in Austria—would apply especially to Turkey: 65 of the 300 Muslim clerics working in Austria are Turkish civil servants whose salaries are being paid for by the Turkish government’s Religious Affairs Directorate, theDiyanet.

Muslims leaders in Austria say that in the absence of foreign funding, many mosques in Austria would have to be “closed immediately” because they are not financially viable apart from outside support. Moreover, they argue, the prohibition of foreign funding violates the constitution because the same restrictions are not being applied to Christians or Jews.

The foreign funding restrictions, however, do not appear to apply to the Vienna-based King Abdullah International Center for Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue. Critics say the multi-million-dollar institution, which was inaugurated in November 2012, is an effort by Saudi Arabia to establish a permanent “propaganda center” in central Europe from which to spread the anti-Western Wahhabi sect of Islam throughout the rest of Europe.

The new Islam Law also requires the Austrian Muslim community to agree on a standardized German-language translation of the Koran, the Hadiths and other Islamic religious texts. The government has argued that an official version of the texts would prevent their “misinterpretation” by Islamic extremists.

“There are countless translations, countless interpretations,” Kurz told public radio Ö1. “We will be pushing for this vigorously. It is also in the interest of the Muslim community that words are correctly interpreted and reproduced.”

However, Muslim leaders say it would be next to impossible for Sunnis, Shiites and Alawites to agree on a “correct” translation of the Koran. In any event, they say, the state cannot outlaw alternative translations.

A group called Muslim Youth of Austria [MJÖ] has described the new Islam Law as an “intolerable legal scandal” that seeks to “place the broad mainstream of Muslims either under state supervision, or to split them into weak and therefore meaningless groups.”

The president of the Austrian Islamic Community [IGGiÖ], Fuat Sanac, says the new law is “naïve” and treats Muslims as “second-class” citizens: “We do not agree with the draft Islam Law. It was presented to the public without our approval.”

Sanac has vowed to file an appeal with Austria’s constitutional court to stop the new law, which he says “risks humiliating” the country’s Muslim population.

Kurz maintains that the primary purpose of the new Islam Law is to establish the “primacy of national law over religious law.”

The government hopes the new law will be approved by Parliament in November and enter into force sometime in 2015. However, Muslim opposition to the initiative may mean that the 1912 version of the law will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

October 21, 2014 by Soeren Kern Source: gatestoneinstitute.org "Austria: Civil Law vs. Sharia Law"

Should Christians be concerned about the idea of Sharia Law?”

About Islam Religion feature

First, we should define Sharia Law.

Sharia is, as expressed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, divine law. The Sunnah is a record of the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah is primarily contained in the Hadith or reports of Muhammad’s sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions, and his demeanor. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges who may be influenced by the religious leaders, or imams.

In secular Muslim states (such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey), sharia is limited to personal and family matters. Countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco are strongly influenced by sharia, but ultimate authority lies with their constitutions and the rule of law. Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States enforce classical sharia. Iran has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with sharia.

“Traditionally, the Islamic umma [community or nation] is divided into three regions:

  1. the territory of Islam (dar al-Islam)
  2. the territory of peace (dar al-sulh), and
  3. the territory of war (dar al-harb).…

In regions such as Pakistan, Iran, and Libya, Islamic law is assumed to form the basis of government. The second territory represents regions such as India and Africa where Muslims are in the minority but are permitted for the most part to live in peace and to practise their religion freely. The rest of the world comprises the third territory, which is viewed more as an ideological battleground contested by groups with conflicting values than as a literal theatre of war. Within this territory holy war (jihad) is waged against all non-Muslims or infidels (kafir) in perpetuity until they too are absorbed into the world of Islam. … No systematic exposition of Muslim beliefs appears in either the Qur’an or the Hadith [traditions]. Instead, such exposition is found in the compilation of Islamic canon law (shar’ia), which is considered to be divinely established and enjoins on all adherents strict obedience in all aspects of life. The principal sources for Islamic law are: the Qur’an, Tradition, Consensus (ijma’), and Reason (qiyas). The Shi’ites reject the ‘consensus’ and substitute what is for them the divinely appointed, infallible spiritual guide (Imam)” (from Islam: The Way of Submission by Solomon Nigossian, Crucible, 1987).

Aspects of Sharia Law that concern Christians:

Jihad: Jihad is holy war against the infidels of the world. All Muslims are obliged to kill the infidel. An infidel (orkafir) is a non-Muslim. Many Muslims think that killing an infidel guarantees going straight to paradise.

Apostasy: All apostates are to be killed. An apostate is any person who renounces Islam and changes his religion. Christians are not allowed to convert Muslims to Christianity. Conversion is perceived as blasphemy and carries the death penalty. Distributing Christian literature can result in a five-year prison sentence under Sharia Law.

Criticism of Islam: The death penalty applies to Muslims who criticize Muhammad, the Qur’an or Sharia Law. Severe penalties also apply to Christians who speak out against Islam.

Freedom of Worship: Although Islam pays lip service to “people of the book” (other Abrahamic religions), and the Qur’an says to respect and honor all people irrespective of their religion, the reality is that some Islamic countries are persecuting Christians, targeting their places of worship, and killing and imprisoning believers. Persecution is intense in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Maldives, and other countries with a strong Islamic influence.

Female victims of rape: Sharia Law protects rapists. A woman making an accusation of rape has to provide four male witnesses. If she is unable to do so, she will be charged with zina, for which the prescribed punishment is flogging or stoning. Thousands of women are imprisoned as a result of unsuccessful charges of rape. Some are even stoned to death. On October 27, 2008, Aisha, a 13-year-old girl in Kisayu, Somalia, was stoned to death for adultery; later, her aunt told the British Broadcasting Corporation that Aisha had been raped by three armed men. Rapists are seldom brought to trial, let alone punished.

Miscellaneous crimes: Fornication and adultery: Unmarried fornicators are to be whipped, and adulterers are to be stoned to death. Homosexuality: Homosexuals must be executed. Theft: Any person found stealing is to have a hand cut off. Battery and assault: An injured plaintiff can extract legal revenge; lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) is in effect.

Should Christians be concerned?

Many people in Europe, North America and Australia are unaware of the influence of Sharia Law in Islamic countries and have never considered the possibility of Sharia Law being introduced in their country. In November 2011 the MacDonald-Laurier Institute poll of Canadian Muslims found that 75 percent of respondents want Sharia Law. In December 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the imam at Australia’s largest mosque had issued a fatwa (legal ruling) against Christmas. In July 2011 Islamic extremists called upon British Muslims to establish three independent states within the U.K. There are also Muslim groups in the United States calling for the implementation of Sharia Law in America.

Christianity and Islam have opposing beliefs.

Jesus (Isa) is mentioned 25 times in the Qur’an, but the Jesus of the Qur’an bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible. The Qur’an says Jesus was only a human prophet and was not killed; rather, Allah took him up to heaven (Surah 4:157-158). When Jesus returns, he will be a follower of Muhammad and will kill the Antichrist, break the cross and slay the pigs. Everyone who does not accept Islam will be slain (Hadith 656). After ruling on earth for about 40 years, Jesus will die.

The Bible says Jesus is the eternal Word who was with God and who is God.

The Word dwelt with man (John 1). The Bible says Jesus was crucified then resurrected and ascended into heaven – in front of eyewitnesses. When He returns, it will be to judge the world in true righteousness.

Allah tells Muslims to kill anyone who rejects Islam, converts to Christianity, or becomes an atheist. Jesus tells Christians to love Muslims because He wants Muslims to join Christians in heaven. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). Christians bless those who curse them and do good to those who hate them. This is not the way of Islam.

Christians should be very concerned about the spread of Islam in general and the impact of Sharia Law in particular. And we should always be alert to opportunities to witness to Muslims about the love of God through Christ Jesus.
Source: gotquestions.org

Recommended Resources: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler and Logos Bible Software.

Sharia Law to the Non Believer

About Islam Religion feature

Under Sharia law:1)page 7/52 Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim | Center for the Study of Political Islam | Bill Warner | 2010

There is no freedom of religion

There is no freedom of speech

There is no freedom of thought

There is no freedom of artistic expression

There is no freedom of the press

There is no equality of peoples—a non-Muslim, a Kafi r, is never equal to a Muslim

There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

There are no equal rights for women Women can be beaten A non-Muslim cannot bear arms

There is no democracy, since democracy means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia

Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens

All governments must be ruled by Sharia law

Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed

There is no Golden Rule

Download (PDF, 727KB)

References   [ + ]

1. page 7/52 Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim | Center for the Study of Political Islam | Bill Warner | 2010

Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

About Islam Religion feature

By
Samuel Shahid

 

FOREWORD

Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.

This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers.

Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.

S.S.


Concept of “Islamic State”

“An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.” This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

1)
An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
2)
Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
3)
An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

a)
Qur’an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.
b)
Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.
c)
Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.
d)
Ijma’ (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.

Textual laws prescribed in the Qur’an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:

In his article, “The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State,” Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

1)
Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
2)
People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam likeZimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
3)
Musta’min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta’min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta’min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.

Islamic Law and Zimmis

Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.

The Jizya (tribute)

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

“…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”

 

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.”

Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,

“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).

Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”

In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.

Marriage and Children

A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.

Capital Punishment

The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.

The Witness of Zimmis

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against theZimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, “By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamicconfession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.

Personal Law

On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.

Political Rights and Duties

The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and theSunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,

“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”

Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,

“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”

These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.

Business World

The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”

In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.

`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:

Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.

Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.

Freedom of Expression

Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:

“all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”

Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.

Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.

Muslims and Zimmis

Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

I. The Forbidden:

A Muslim is not allowed to:

  1. emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
  2. attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
  3. lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.
  4. work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
  5. make any endowment to churches or temples.
  6. carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
  7. address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”

II. The Allowable

A Muslim is allowed to:

  1. financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
  2. give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
  3. eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
  4. console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
  5. congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”

Conclusion

This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.
  2. Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.
  3. Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.
  4. Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala’, The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982
  5. Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated
by Samuel Shahid | Source: answering-islam.org

Types of Islams based on philosophical thoughts and practices

About Islam Religion feature

This article summarizes the different branches and various types of schools in Islam.

THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF SCHOOLS IN ISLAM:

1.0 Schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

2.0 Islamic schools of Sufism better known as Tasawwufī-tārīqat.

3.0 Aqidah schools of Islamic divinity.

While all branches recognize the Qur’an, they differ in which other authorities they acknowledge.

This article also summarizes Islamism – the view that Islam is also a political system – and Liberal movements within Islam based on Ijtihad or interpretation of the scriptures.

Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

» Sunni Islam

» Shia Islam

» Kharijite Islam

» Ahmadiyya Islam

» New American denominations

» Aqidah schools of Islamic divinity

» Related concepts

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

Related concepts

About Islam Religion feature

Ansaris (Ansars)

Ansaris is a group of Shia born in the 21st century, they believe in Ahmad Hasan is the messenger of the 12th imam, the Yemeni a character expected by the prophecies of the Shia twelever and the first Mahdi of twelve Mahdis, he is in charge of preparing the arrival of Imam Mahdi, the mame Ansars mean supporters of Imam Mahdi or supporters of God, this new religious movement has many followers in Najaf, Iraq and a small percentage around the world.[citation needed]

Islamism

Islamism is a term that refers to a set of political ideologies, derived from various fundamentalist views, which hold that Islam is not only a religion but a political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Many Islamists do not refer to themselves as such and it is not a single particular movement. Religious views and ideologies of its adherents vary, and they may be Sunni Islamists or Shia Islamists depending upon their beliefs. Islamist groups include groups such as Al-Qaeda, the organizer of the September 11, 2001 attacks and perhaps the most prominent; and the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and perhaps the oldest. Although violence is often employed by some organizations, most Islamist movements are nonviolent.

Movements

Salafi movement

The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi, that is, “following the forefathers of Islam.” This branch of Islam is often referred to as “Wahhabi,” a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Members of this form of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (“Unitarians”, or “unifiers of Islamic practice.[76] Salafism is a puritanical and legalistic Islamic movement and is the dominant creed in Saudi Arabia. Salafi sect[77] Salafism is a group who believe themselves the only correct interpreters of the Koran and consider moderate Muslims to be infidels; seek to convert all Muslims and to insure that its own fundamentalist version of Islam will dominate the world.[78] Traditional Sunni Sufis who are in opposition of the movement classified it as movement of only thirty years old, is the modern outgrowth of an two-century old heresy spawned by a scholar of the Najd area in the Eastern part of the Arabian peninsula by the name of Muhammad ibn `Abd al- Wahhab.[79] Most of the violent terrorist groups come from Salafi movement and their sub groups. In recent years, the Salafi doctrine has often been correlated with the jihad of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and those groups in favor of killing innocent civilians.[80][81][82]

Other Salafi groups

Wahhabism

Wahhabi movement is recently revived by the 18th century teacher Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the Arabian peninsula, and was instrumental in the rise of the House of Saud to power. The terms “Wahhabi movement” and “Salafism” are often used interchangeably, although the word “Wahhabi” is specific for followers of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. The works of scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al Qayyim and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab are used for religious guidance. [83] Critics claim that Muslim Terrorism is the direct offshoot of the fanatical Islamic cult known as Wahabism, which runs Mecca and believes in the destruction of non Islamic cultures and is financed by Saudi Arabia.[84]

Ahl al-Hadith

The Ahl al-Hadith is a movement started in the mid-nineteenth century in Northern India. It refers to the adherent’s belief that they are not bound by taqlid (as are Ahl al-Rai, literally “the people of rhetorical theology”), but consider themselves free to seek guidance in matters of religious faith and practices from the authentic hadith which, together with the Qur’an, are in their view the principal worthy guide for Muslim.[85][86] Followers call themselves as Ahl al-Hadith or Salafi. The term Ahl al-Hadith is often used interchangeably with the term Wahhabi,[87] or as a branch of the latter movement,[88][89] though the movement itself claims to be distinct from Wahhabism.[90]

Political movements

Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun

The Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood, is an organisation that was founded by Egyptian scholar Hassan al-Banna, a graduate of Dar al-Ulum. With its various branches, it is the largest Sunni movement in the Arab world, and an affiliate is often the largest opposition party in many Arab nations. The Muslim Brotherhood is not concerned with theological differences, accepting Muslims of any of the four Sunni schools of thought. It is the world’s oldest and largest Islamist group. Its aims are to re-establish the Caliphate and in the mean time push for more Islamisation of society. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and sunnah as the “sole reference point for… ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community… and state”.[citation needed]

Jamaat-e-Islami

The Jamaat-e-Islami is an Islamist political party in the Indian Subcontinent. It was founded in Lahore, British India, by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in 1941 and is the oldest religious party in Pakistan and India. Today, sister organizations with similar objectives and ideological approaches exist in India (Jamaat-e-Islami Hind), Bangladesh (Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh), Kashmir (Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir),and Sri Lanka, and there are “close brotherly relations” with the Islamist movements and missions “working in different continents and countries”, particularly those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or Akhwan-al-Muslimeen. The JI envisions an Islamic government in Pakistan and Bangladesh governing by Islamic law. It opposes Westernization—including capitalism, socialism, or such practices as bank interest, and favours an Islamic economic order and Caliphate.[citation needed]

Jamaat-al-Muslimeen

The Jamaat ul-Muslimeen is a movement in Sunni Islam revived by the Imam Syed Masood Ahmad in the 1960s.[91] The present leader of this group is Muhammad Ishtiaq.[92]

Liberal Islam

Liberal and progressive movements have in common a religious outlook which depends mainly on Ijtihad or re-interpretations of scriptures. Liberal Muslims believe in greater autonomy of the individual in interpretation of scripture, a critical examination of religious texts, gender equality, human rights, LGBT rights and a modern view of culture, tradition, and other ritualistic practices in Islam.[citation needed]

Gülen movement

The Hizmet movement, established in the 1970s as an offshoot of the Nur Movement[93] and led by the Turkish Islamic scholar and preacher Fethullah Gülen in Turkey, Central Asia, and in other parts of the world, is active in education, with private schools and universities in over 180 countries as well as with many American charter schools operated by followers. It has initiated forums for interfaith dialogue.[94][95] The Cemaat’s structure has been described as a flexible organizational network.[96] Movement schools and businesses organize locally and link themselves into informal networks.[97] Estimates of the number of schools and educational institutions vary widely; it appears there are about 300 Gülen movement schools in Turkey and over 1,000 schools worldwide.[98][99]

Fethullah Gülen advocates cooperation between followers of different religions as well as between those practicing different forms of Islam such as Alevi and Sunni in Turkey. Gülen-movement participants have founded a number of institutions across the world that claim to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue activities. Among them the major ones are the Istanbul-based Journalists and Writers Foundation, the Washington, D.C.-based Rumi Forum, and the New Delhi-based Indialogue Foundation. In addition, in 2004 a diverse group of Gülen-movement academics founded the London Centre for Social Studies (LCSS) to generate thinking and debate amongst academics, activists, policy makers, practitioners, media and civil-society organisations both at the national and international level. As a non-profit independent research organisation, LCSS uses social-science research tools to address major social, political and economic issues such as migration, social cohesion, subjectivity, education, gender, human rights in a critical way.

Quranism

Quranism (Arabic: قرآنيون‎ Quraniyoon) is an Islamic branch that holds the Qur’an to be the only canonical text in Islam. Quranists reject the religious authority of Hadith and often Sunnah, libraries compiled by later scholars who catalogued narratives of what the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said and done. This is in contrast to orthodox Muslims, Shias and Sunnis, who consider hadith essential for the Islamic faith.[100]

Ahle Qur’an

“Ahle Qur’an” is an organisation formed by Abdullah Chakralawi,[101][102] rely entirely on the chapters and verses of the Qur’an.

Submitters

The United Submitters International (USI) is a branch of Quranism, founded by Rashad Khalifa. Submitters considers themselves to be adhering to “true Islam”, but prefer not to use the terms “Muslim” or “Islam”, instead using the English equivalents: “Submitter” or “Submission”. Submitters consider Khalifa to be a Messenger of God. Specific beliefs of the USI include: the dedication of all worship practices to God alone, upholding the Qur’an alone with the exception of two rejected Qur’an verses,[103] and rejecting the Islamic traditions of hadith and sunnah attributed to Muhammad. The main group attends “Masjid Tucson”[104] in Arizona, USA.

Non-denominational Islam

Non-denominational Muslims are Muslims who do not adhere to any specific sect of Islam. Such Muslims may visit any mosque regardless of its sectarian affiliation. Their beliefs may overlap with those of multiple Muslims.

Tolu-e-Islam

Tolu-e-Islam (“Resurgence of Islam”) is a non-denominational Muslim organization based in Pakistan, with members throughout the world.[105] The movement was initiated by Ghulam Ahmed Pervez.

Muwahhid Muslims

A Muwahhid Muslim is a Muslim who gives emphasis to the concept of tawhid. Their beliefs insinuate that the oneness of God is the most important Muslim creed. They view deviation from tawhid whether in the form of the trinity, materialism or idolatry as very sinful. Nowadays, this term is being frequently used by Druses and Wahhabis in order to define their tawhid aqidah.[106][107][108]

Aqidah schools of Islamic divinity

About Islam Religion feature

Aqidah is an Islamic term meaning “creed” or “belief”. Any religious belief system, or creed, can be considered an example of aqidah. However, this term has taken a significant technical usage in Muslim history and theology, denoting those matters over which Muslims hold conviction. The term is usually translated as “theology”. Such traditions are divisions orthogonal to sectarian divisions of Islam, and a Mu’tazili may for example, belong to Jafari, Zaidi or even Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

Textualist approach: Athari

The Athari school derives its name from the Arabic word Athar, meaning “narrations”. The Athari creed is to avoid delving into extensive theological speculation. They use the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and sayings of the Sahaba – seeing this as the middle path where the attributes of Allah are accepted without questioning ‘how’ they are. Ahmad bin Hanbal is regarded as the leader of the Athari school of creed. Athari is generally synonymous with Salafi. The central aspect of Athari theology is its definition of Tawhid, meaning literally unification or asserting the oneness of Allah.1)[66] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah [1991]. Tariq al-hijratayn wa-bab al-sa’adatayn. Dar al-Hadith [1991]. p. 30.2)[67] al-Hanafi, Imam Ibn Abil-‘Izz. Sharh At Tahawiyya. p. 76.3)[68]al-Safarayni, Muhamad bin Ahmad. Lawami’ al-anwar al-Bahiyah. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah. p. 1/128.4)[69] Abd al-Wahhab, ibn Abd Allah, Ibn, Sulayman [1999]. Taysir al-‘Aziz al-Hamid fi sharh kitab al-Tawhid. ‘Alam al-Kutub. pp. 17–19.

Kalām

Kalām is the Islamic philosophy of seeking theological principles through dialectic. In Arabic, the word literally means “speech/words”. A scholar of kalām is referred to as a mutakallim (Muslim theologian; plural mutakallimūn). There are many schools of Kalam, the main ones being the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools in Sunni Islam.

Ash’ari

Ash’ari is a school of early Islamic philosophy founded in the 10th century by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. The Asharite view was that comprehension of the unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability.

Maturidi

A Maturidi is one who follows Abu Mansur Al Maturidi’s theology, which is a close variant of the Ash’ari school. Points which differ are the nature of belief and the place of human reason. The Maturidis state that belief (iman) does not increase nor decrease but remains static; it is piety (taqwa) which increases and decreases. The Ash’aris say that belief does in fact increase and decrease. The Maturidis say that the unaided human mind is able to find out that some of the more major sins such as alcohol or murder are evil without the help of revelation. The Ash’aris say that the unaided human mind is unable to know if something is good or evil, lawful or unlawful, without divine revelation.

Murji’ah

Murji’ah (Arabic: المرجئة‎) is an early Islamic school whose followers are known in English as “Murjites” or “Murji’ites” (المرجئون). During the early centuries of Islam, Muslim thought encountered a multitude of influences from various ethnic and philosophical groups that it absorbed. Murji’ah emerged as a theological school that was opposed to the Kharijites on questions related to early controversies regarding sin and definitions of what is a true Muslim.

They advocated the idea of “delayed judgement”. Only God can judge who is a true Muslim and who is not, and no one else can judge another as an infidel (kafir). Therefore, all Muslims should consider all other Muslims as true and faithful believers, and look to Allah to judge everyone during the last judgment. This theology promoted tolerance of Umayyads and converts to Islam who appeared half-hearted in their obedience. The Murjite opinion would eventually dominate that of the Kharijites.

The Murjites exited the way of the Sunnis when they declared that no Muslim would enter the hellfire, no matter what his sins. This contradicts the traditional Sunni belief that some Muslims will enter the hellfire temporarily. Therefore, the Murjites are classified as Ahlul Bid’ah or “People of Innovation” by Sunnis, particularly Salafis.

Qadar’iyyah

The idea of Qadariyah, i.e. the Doctrine of Free-Will, came from a Persian named Sinbuya Asvari and his follower Ma’bad al-Juhani, both was put to death by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.

Mu’tazili

Mu’tazili theology originated in the 8th century in al-Basrah when Wasil ibn Ata left the teaching lessons of Hasan al-Basri after a theological dispute. He and his followers expanded on the logic and rationalism of Greek philosophy, seeking to combine them with Islamic doctrines and show that the two were inherently compatible. The Mu’tazili debated philosophical questions such as whether the Qur’an was created or eternal, whether evil was created by God, the issue of predestination versus free will, whether God’s attributes in the Qur’an were to be interpreted allegorically or literally, and whether sinning believers would have eternal punishment in hell.

Jabr’iyyah

Jahmis were the followers of the Islamic theologian Jahm bin Safwan who associate himself with Al-Harith ibn Surayj. He was an exponent of extreme determinism according to which a man acts only metaphorically in the same way in which the sun acts or does something when it sets.5)[70] P. W. Pestman, Acta Orientalia Neerlandica: Proceedings of the Congress of the Dutch Oriental Society Held in Leiden on the Occasion of Its 50th Anniversary, 8th-9th May 1970, p 85.

Bāṭen’iyyah

The Bāṭen’iyyah theology, was originally introduced by Abu’l-Khāttāb Muhammad ibn Abu Zaynab al-Asadī,6)[71] “ABU’L-ḴAṬṬĀB ASADĪ”. Retrieved 22 April 2015.7)[72] “ḴAṬṬĀBIYA”. Retrieved 22 April 2015. and later developed by Maymūn al-Qaddāh8)Öz, Mustafa, Mezhepler Tarihi ve Terimleri Sözlüğü (The History of madh’habs and its terminology dictionary), Ensar Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011. (This is the name of the trainer of Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl as-ṣaghīribn Jā’far. He had established the principles of theBāṭen’iyyah Madh’hab, later.9)[73] Öz, Mustafa, Mezhepler Tarihi ve Terimleri Sözlüğü [The History of madh’habs and its terminology dictionary], Ensar Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011. This is the name of the trainer of Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl as-ṣaghīribn Jā’far. He had established the principles of theBāṭen’iyyah Madh’hab, later. and his son ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maymūn10)[74] “ʿABDALLĀH B. MAYMŪN AL-QADDĀḤ”. Retrieved 22 April 2015. for the esoteric interpretation(([75] Halm, H. “BĀṬENĪYA”. Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 4 August 2014. of the Qur’an. In the history of Islam, Seveners, Qarmatians, Fatimids and Hashashins were amongst the followers of this school of divinity.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

References   [ + ]

1. [66] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah [1991]. Tariq al-hijratayn wa-bab al-sa’adatayn. Dar al-Hadith [1991]. p. 30.
2. [67] al-Hanafi, Imam Ibn Abil-‘Izz. Sharh At Tahawiyya. p. 76.
3. [68]al-Safarayni, Muhamad bin Ahmad. Lawami’ al-anwar al-Bahiyah. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah. p. 1/128.
4. [69] Abd al-Wahhab, ibn Abd Allah, Ibn, Sulayman [1999]. Taysir al-‘Aziz al-Hamid fi sharh kitab al-Tawhid. ‘Alam al-Kutub. pp. 17–19.
5. [70] P. W. Pestman, Acta Orientalia Neerlandica: Proceedings of the Congress of the Dutch Oriental Society Held in Leiden on the Occasion of Its 50th Anniversary, 8th-9th May 1970, p 85.
6. [71] “ABU’L-ḴAṬṬĀB ASADĪ”. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
7. [72] “ḴAṬṬĀBIYA”. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
8. Öz, Mustafa, Mezhepler Tarihi ve Terimleri Sözlüğü (The History of madh’habs and its terminology dictionary), Ensar Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011. (This is the name of the trainer of Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl as-ṣaghīribn Jā’far. He had established the principles of theBāṭen’iyyah Madh’hab, later.(([73] Öz, Mustafa, Mezhepler Tarihi ve Terimleri Sözlüğü [The History of madh’habs and its terminology dictionary], Ensar Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011. This is the name of the trainer of Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl as-ṣaghīribn Jā’far. He had established the principles of theBāṭen’iyyah Madh’hab, later.
9. [73] Öz, Mustafa, Mezhepler Tarihi ve Terimleri Sözlüğü [The History of madh’habs and its terminology dictionary], Ensar Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011. This is the name of the trainer of Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl as-ṣaghīribn Jā’far. He had established the principles of theBāṭen’iyyah Madh’hab, later. and his son ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maymūn(([74] “ʿABDALLĀH B. MAYMŪN AL-QADDĀḤ”. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
10. [74] “ʿABDALLĀH B. MAYMŪN AL-QADDĀḤ”. Retrieved 22 April 2015. for the esoteric interpretation(([75] Halm, H. “BĀṬENĪYA”. Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 4 August 2014.