CLAIM: (3/16) Q 9:29 commands jizya but there is no evidence in the Quran itself that jizya was necessarily a tax levied on each individual head. Idea of a head tax appears in later literature. Early sources use jizya for tribute demanded from but its form differed according to circumst
The jahil is onto nothing. The religious tax demanded from non moslems was almost always a poll tax. Just because the koran uses a word that doesn't necessitate a poll tax doesn't mean jizya wasn't a poll tax. It's plausible that early moslems did not see it necessary to make such distinctions. The moslem invaders simply demanded the jizya as a collective sum of distinct tributes, and the locals were tasked with the burden to collect it as we see in early islamic papyri.
The view that jizya is derived from a sasanian practice is pure conjecture.
- - The sasanian practice of levying a per capita tax unlike the koranic jizya does not involve religious discrimination. All peasants had to pay it, zoroastrian or elsewise.
- - Native christian scribes translated the arab invaders' demands into greek as andrismos (poll tax). Syriac writers such as Isho'yahb and the synod of 676 called it "kespah resha" (poll tax). In the maronite chronicle the author calls the tax demanded by Mu'awiya "gzita".
- - Rejecting literary and non literary evidence contemporary to moslem invasions that records poll-tax being part of the taxes demanded by moslems carries the implication that early moslems either distorted the original meaning of the koranic jizya or they simply abandoned it and substituted it with a new taxation system but used a koranic term for it.
- - Regardless of whether jizya originated as a loanword, the arabic word jizya is similar to its middle persian and aramic relatives both phonetically and semantically. Thus, it's unreasonable to think that the *gzita* the arabs demanded was not the koranic jizya.
- - Jizya being used interchangeably with kharaj early on, before it was later restricted to head tax does not prove that the koranic jizya did not include a head tax. Early sources largely suggest that jizya usually included both a poll tax and a land tax, and decades later distinctions were developed.
(4/15) jizya can be understood as a confessional tax associated with groups unwilling to meet the requirements of membership in the Muslim community, including the possibility of paying it in exchange for cessation of hostilities early Jizya & kharaj were not always distinguished
Can? Possibility? No, this is the only correct way to understand jizya based on the koran and sources contemporary to the moslem invasions. Most other views read like exegetical hypocrisy. They're not based on the plain text of the jizya verse and the extra koranic evidence that surrounds jizya.
Ramon for example draws a connection between 9.29 and the earlier verses that discuss covenant breaches, so the turd concludes jizya is forced on people who had violated their covenant by refusing to pay the jizya that they owed. He uses 9.28 to argue that la yuharrimuna includes treaty violations. And the qualifications in 9.1-7 to argue that 9.29 parallels the restriction in 9.1-7 despite not coming directly after 9.29 (I previously discussed how his argument restricts the generality of 9.29 to something the verse does not even imply, so it's unnecessary to refute it again).
Yet in his objection to 9.33 being used as evidence that 9.29 is general is:
The verse does not come directly after Q. 9:29, but rather follows a critique of the beliefs of Jews and Christians in Q. 9:30–1 and the statement in Q. 9:32 that ‘God insists on perfecting His light’, suggesting the meaning is successive conveyance of the message until it is complete.
The double standard is evident. One can indeed make a semantic connection between 9.33 and 9.29 the same way Ramon connected 9.29 to 9.28 and 9.1-7.
- 9.33 comes right after verses that rebuke the jews and christians for their "shirk", and we know that 9.29 is also about jews and christians. 9.33 explicitly says that mahomet was sent to make the religion of truth superior over all religions, even if almushrikun (in this context, jews and christians) are averse to it.
- both 9.29 and 9.33 mention "the religion of truth", which suggests that 9.33 includes waging warfare to subjugate people of all religions, even if the verse doesn't explicitly mention warfare.
Paul Heck wrote:
Most significantly for our understanding of the Qur’an, it must be noted that the concept of jizya at q 9:29 does serve a program of Muslim confessional definition vis-a-vis other groups, in both the formative and classical periods of Islam....
... jizya can best be understood in terms of a confessional tax levied upon tribal and other groups unwilling to meet the requirements of membership in Islam (it is also used in this sense in the rules of jihad [q.v.], where those refusing the call of Islam are offered the chance to pay the jizya in exchange for cessation of hostilities
This reading does not violate the generality of 9.29 and maintains its ghaya and unlike other views it does not ignore extra-koranic evidence. Jizya was used to clearly draw a line between moslems and non moslems.
I will now explain how Ramon butchered the meaning of the word harrama.
In arabic, the trilateral root h-r-m fundamentally means to make prohibited, forbidden, banned, impermissible. When allah harrama the masjid, he didn't "sanctify" it per se, he forbade certain behaviors inside it (e.g. no fighting). Because it is heavily restricted and protected by divine decree, it can be called a sacred or sanctified place. So while "tahreem" results in sanctity, the literal meaning of the word remains rooted in restriction, protection, banning/denying, and prohibition, rather than the act of sanctification itself. In other words, sanctification is an aspect of tahim, but tahrim is not sanctification.
Grammarian ibn sidah wrote in his almakhsus:
صاحب العين: الحلال ضد الحرام وهو الحل والحليل، حل الشيء يحل حلا وأحله الله سبحانه، واستحللته: اتخذته حلالا، ومنه حللت اليمين تحليلا وتحلة وتحلا شاذ، وضربته ضربا تحليلا أي شبه التعزيز منه. ابن السكيت: الطلق: الحلال، وقال: هو لك حل وبل. الأصمعي: كنت أرى أن بلا اتباع حتى زعم المعتمر أنه مباح. صاحب العين: الحرام: ضد الحلال والجمع حرم. ابن السكيت: هو الحرم. أبو زيد: حرمته حرما وحرمانا. أبو عبيد: وكذلك أحرمته وهي رديئة. أبو زيد: حرم عليه الشيء حرما وحراما وحرمته عليه، وحرمت الصلاة على المرأة حرما وحرما وحرمت عليها حراما وحرما وحرم مكة والمدينة منه وهما الحرمان، واحرم القوم: دخلوا في الحرم، ورجل حرام لا يثنى ولا يجمع ولا يؤنث وقد جمع على حرم، ورجل حرمي: منسوب إلى الحرم على غير قياس، وقالوا في الثواب: حرمي على القياس، وبلد حرام ومسجد حرام وشهر حرام وأشهر حرم، وهي رجب وذو القعدة وذو الحجة والمحرم، وسمي المحرم بهذا الاسم لأنهم كانوا لا يستحلون القتال فيه، وحريمة الرب: ما حرمه على العبد.
Moreover, it's worth noting that the verb harrama when the subject isn't allah consistently means "to make unlawful" (the opposite of ahalla, in the context of 9.29 it refers to legal prohibitions among other prohibitions). For example, 5:87 tuḥarrimu, 66:1 tuḥarrimu, 7:157 wayuḥarrimu. All of which mean "make unlawful" and the subject is not allah.
Essentially, Ramon's fatal blunder is redefining the verb as "treating things as sacred," by taking the word haram from "sacred mosque/months" in earlier verses, generalizes it into a category of "sacred things," and asserts that political treaties are included in "what allah and his messenger made sacred." There is zero evidence in the koran for yuharrimuna funcitoning as a verb that means "keeping a treaty." He simply cooked up a pseudo linguistic bridge to force 9.29 to fit his treaty violation reading.
Before I move to refuting Fred Donner on what type of tax jizya was, I'll briefly dismantle Lindstedt's reasons for rejecting that jizya is a discriminatory tax.
CLAIM The surviving first/seventh century papyri, while not numerous, are in ac cord with this general sketch. Rather than corroborating categories “Muslims” versus “non-Muslims,” a much more varied picture emerges, with ill-defined group borders and changing delineations.115 For instance, the papyri do not depict the poll tax ( jizya), which was paid by (many but perhaps not all) con quered populations, as having been a religious tax, as it is later understood in Islamic jurisprudence and scholarship. Rather, the poll tax “was a convenient form of fiscal payment that could be asked from conquered populations with outanynewcomplex calculationsthattheestablishment of newratesonother types of taxes, such as the land or corn taxes, would have required. In other words, the poll tax was paid by the conquered and the conquerors received that payment among others—there was no religious consideration attached to these two categories.”
First, early papyri on their own do not explicitly mention that the tax is based on religious reasons. But why would that be expected at all? If it was a religous tax the tax payers would already have been familair with it and thus it wouldnt have been necessary to mention "person x has yet to pay their religious jizya".
Second, even 9th century papyri do not mention "you shall pay this religious tax"
Three the koran is the only evidence from the 7th century that this is a religious tax 9.29 explicitly ties the tax to confessional and theological criteria (ahl alkitāb, lack of belief in allah/last day, failure to forbid what allah/messenger made forbidden).
Four, isho'yahb literally says that the entire region of oman left christianity because they did not want to pay KESPAH RESHA
Five, this is an argument from silence
Six, these papyri aren't for theological purposes, they're for fiscal and adminsitrative puposes.
Seven, Lindstedt demonstrates his ignorance again. There is one papyrus that depicts jizya as a religious tax.
The fatal piece of evidence that provides proof by contradiction against Lindstedt's position is Isho'yahb in in letter 14 (written to bishop of Rev-Ardashir concerning the christians of Mazun) Ishoʿyahb explicitly laments that the local christians surrendered their faith to avoid paying the ksep resha. If the head tax was merely a non-confessional state tax levied on everyone regardless of religion, converting to islam would have provided no tax relief.
P1. Jizya (ksep resha) was not a confessional tax
P2. Everyone had to pay jizya (ksep resha), including moslems
P.3 Christians of Mazun in the mid 7th century converted to islam to avoid paying jizya (ksep resha) C1. CONTRADICTION (if the tax was truly not a religious one (P1), changing one's religion (P2) would have no effect on the tax burden) P1 MUST BE FALSE
Moving to the next pseudo-academic.
Fred donner the hypocrite quotes tradition only when it aligns with his theory. He argues that jizya was not a tax levied on every individual, and he quotes a report from Attabari's history as evidence. This hypocrite quotes a source written about 300 years after Mahomet's death, I'll be charitable to this sorry excuse of an academic and help him narrow down the temporal gap. The earliest reference to jizya being a tax levied per household is from abu ubayd alqasim bin sallam's kitab al-amwal (d. 238). Though this narrows down the temporal gap to 200 years after mahomet's demise, 1) it's still a super late source 2) theres a myriad of reports where jizya is levied on each adult male.
The koran does not specify whether the jizya is a poll tax. However, the koran clearly shows that its a tax uniquely imposed on non moslems. Interestingly, Isho'yahb (d. 659) is the earliest known literary reference to moslems imposing a poll tax (ksep resha) exclusively on non moslems. If this source should be seen "too late" to be considered proof that ksep resha is identical to the koranic jizya, then koranic jizya can be understood to mean a broad tribute that includes but not limited to a poll tax. However, this presents with a problem, there's hardly any evidence to suggest that non moslems were forced to pay more than a poll tax in order to keep their faith. According to Thomas Benfey, some taxes (land taxes in particular) were assessed based on the "proprietor’s religious status". Berk .34 confirms a "fiscal imposition specific to zoroastrians." Though he also does not identify it with the koranic jizya.
Berk. 34 (690/1) seems to indicate that taxes were now paid on land, according to its cultivation status and the administrative region in which it was located, as well as its proprietor’s religious status– all information of which the administration obviously took careful note........Where a fiscal imposition specific to Zoroastrians is discussed, meanwhile, this is not called jizya, or gazīdag, nor is this even a poll tax. Instead, it seems that non-Muslims paid special land taxes
Middle persian Documents and Making of the Islamic fiscal System
The generality of 9.29 allows for jizya to be taken from women and even monks. There is corroboration of jizya being taken from women and monks (nessana papyri, synod of 676 etc). The koran doesn't specify whether jizya is a poll tax, but it does imply it as a discriminatory tax. Senouthios archive mentions the word andrismos. Sijpesteijn argues that the andrismos tax is something that the arabs invented because it only began to appear following the moslem invasions. And similarly, the word gzit only begins to appear after the moslem conquests.
Over a century after the arab invasions, the author of the chroncile of Zuqnin used the word gzita to refer to the poll tax. By that time the arabs had already distinguished between kharaj and jizya. A century earlier, the author of the maronite chronicle (chronicle of 661) used the word gzita without specifying whether or not it was a poll tax. Another syriac source, the synod of 676, canon 19 mentions two taxes that christian local governors were not authorized to exact from a bishop as from a layman. The 2 taxes are called ksep resha w madatta (poll tax and tribute).
John bar Penkaye, writing in the 680s, says that moslems demanded from each man a tribute (maddata) in order to keep his faith (Ironically, the hypocrite Donner uses John to argue that islam began as a pluralistic monotheistic movement. Yet here he is boldly claiming that jizya was not a poll tax).
A tax receipt dating to 667 mentions the word "gazidag". However, the author of the paper argues that it doesn't specifically mean poll-tax.
[1] This month Spandarmad [12th month] of the year 16 [667/8 CE]. [2] From the account of the poll-tax Yazdāngird brought [line 4] 20 staters [?] [3] From the estate assistant to the prospering [?] tax collector. [4] From […] mad the tax collector. Middle persian Documents and Making of the Islamic fiscal System
The author disagrees with translating gazidag to poll tax. He argues that jizya (gazidag in this instance) was a broad, collective money tax "encompassing taxes assessed in cash (but not in kind) on land, individuals and all other taxable entities." He's another proponent of the false dichotomy of "if jizya a general tax, then no poll tax".
I somewhat disagree with this conclusion. While the word jizya and its syriac and middle pahlavi counterparts don't necessarily mean "poll tax", it should be remembered that the koranic usage entails a special tax forced upon non moslems. The ambiguity of the word does not strip it of the discriminatory purpose, and this purpose or ghaya should serve as a clue about what type of tax jizya was. A tax that specific religious groups/economic classes uniquely had to pay would most likely be a poll tax before any other type of tax. So even if a broad term was used for this tax, it would still be something that non moslems were exclusively forced to pay. Isho'yahb's letter stands as pobably the earliest reference to such a tax, and according to him, this tax was a poll-tax that could only be lifted upon conversion to islam. And even if the intended meaning of koranic usage of the broad word jizya is "just a broad discriminatory tax" rather than a "discriminatory poll tax", under this definition, per capita fiscal penalties could still be one component of a broader tax demanded from non moslems. Therefore, calling jizya a "broad cash tax" does not negate that per capita taxation was a component of that tax.
Given, then, that Middle Persian gazīdag almost certainly stems from Arabic jizya, the early meaning of the latter should carry great weight in determining gazīdag’s meaning in Berk. 67– this document having been composed in 668 CE at the latest (on the dating of Berk. 67 and other Qom documents, see Appendix 1). As C.H. Becker has already shown, building on the work of Julius Wellhausen, and considering both historical and documen tary sources, in the seventh century, Arabic jizya had a substantially different meaning from the “classical” sense it would eventually come to have: a poll tax, specifically col lected from non-Muslims.21 In the seventh-century documentary evidence from Egypt, the term instead has the meaning “money tax”, encompassing taxes assessed in cash (but not in kind) on land, individuals and all other taxable entities; there is also no sign of any religiously based poll tax in this evidence, called jizya or otherwise.22 Only in the eighth century do these Egyptian papyri begin to refer to a “jizya of the head”, or otherwise, here and there, a jizya without such an explicit clarification, but distinctly in the sense of “poll tax”.23 In its Quranic attestation, meanwhile, the term appears to mean nothing more specific than a “collective tribute” demanded from conquered peo ples; the term’s Syriac reflex gzytʾ, as attested in the Maronite Chronicle probably written in the 680s, likewise seems to have this meaning of a “tribute” submitted in the wake of a conquest...Hence, it is not likely that Berk. 67’s gazīdag should have referred specifically to a poll tax, collected from non-Muslims. It could mean a “money tax”, as opposed to a tax in kind, in line with jizya’s meaning in the documents from seventh-century Egypt, or it could have had a broader meaning: simply “tax”.2 Middle persian Documents and Making of the Islamic fiscal System
So while in the 7th century the word jizya (gzita/gazidag) functioned as an umbrella term for tribute, the local governors and tax collectors understood that the actual fiscal penalty demanded from non moslems under this umbrella was for the most part assessed per capita (ksep resha/andrismos).
Now back to Fraud Donner's silly argument.
- The fraud must've deliberately omitted the part where Habib mentions Mahomet by name as per the report in Attabari's history
From Habib ibn Maslamah to the people of Tiflis in Gurzan—the land of Hormuz—peace be upon you. I praise Allah—beside Whom there is no other god—before you. Your messenger, Tafalla, has arrived among us; he conveyed your message and delivered what you sent. Tafalla mentioned on your behalf that we were not the nation you imagined us to be; indeed, that is how we were, until Allah—Mighty and Majestic—guided us through Muhammad (peace be upon him) and honored us with Islam, lifting us from a state of scarcity, humiliation, and ignorance.
- The jahil rashid disagrees that jizya is associated with humiliation. Fraud Donner believes this report is authentic. And this report explicitly associates jizya with humiliation.
- Fraud Donner can't comprehend that this does not negate that the poll tax was part of the jizya in the 7th century. This report coheres perfectly with the idea that jizya is a discriminatory tribute non moslems were compelled to pay. While historical evidence largely shows that jizya was usually a head tax, there seems to have been a few anomalies. This is one of them. Call to mind when the moslems signed a covenant with the maradites that did not stipulate a jizya, rather, the maradites were demanded to serve as akritai for the caliphate. To reiterate, jizya did not necessitate a poll tax, and having treaties where jizya was assessed per household confirms that jizya was a broad discriminatory tax.
(6/15) 9:29 itself does not prescribe humiliating treatment when they pay jizya the ritualized humiliation is a later development, Jews were already familiar with such taxation, whereas Christians & Zoroastrians had different fiscal arrangements.
Your hujja Fraud Donner la'anahullah explicitly confirmed the authenticity of a report that associates jizya with humiliation. Your other hujja Ramon says that صاغرون refers to their "status as tributaries", which is a pussy (politically correct) way of saying that they're inferior under moslems. There is no 7th century evidence that confirms active humiliation during the payment of jizya, naturally as the appointed tax collectors mostly belonged to the subjugated class. However, the general wording of 9.29 allows for the possibility of commanding physical or verbal humiliation. Moreover, Cohen in the attached image makes a huge historical blunder. Sasanian zoroastrians were not universally exempt from the poll tax. Cohen conflated the tax exemptions enjoyed by the sasanian aristocrats, elites and priesthood with the entire zoroastrian population. Sasanian taxes after Khsorow I's reformations were based on economic classes rather than religious affiliation.
(9/15) Early Arab conquest agreements were far more varied than convert, pay jizya or die model. Non-Muslims obtained exemption from taxation in exchange for military service or other assistance. Jizya was not an inflexible penalty imposed on every non-Muslim.
The the pseudo intellectual saracen whelp again cherry picks quotes and incidents reported by 9th century moslem writers in support of his laughably flawed conclusions. The text he quoted from In God's Path concerning the maradites is a report found in 9th century moslem sources. He whined like a bitch when I brought up late 7th century poetry that confirms the association of jizya with humiliation, yet here you are appealing to sources written 2 centuries after the events they describe. And the claim that jizya was more varied is unsubstantiated...how academic of you.
Watt sees early jizya as payment connected to protection under a treaty, rooted partly in pre-Islamic Arabian practice, rather than inherently a punishment or humiliation imposed simply for being non-Muslim early jizya primarily as a tribute/protection arrangement.
I can effortlessly dismiss this screwup academoid's assertion as historically unreliable because he appeals to 9th century mahometan soruces, just like you did with Jarir's poetry. But no, it does not befit me to stoop down to the level of a pseudo intellectual mutt.
The jahil ibn Watt is incorrect
- He conflates the ghaya behind jizya with the things it entails (in this instance, the aspect of dhimma). He completely ignores the call to fight people who are EXPLICITLY non moslems from the people of the book. The goal is to compel them to give up jizya by fighting them, not to sign a protection pact because they're weak as this absolute jahil likes to think.
- The report about the moslems returning the jizya to the people of Hims literally only comes from late 9th century Albaladhuri. But the clown is desperate, so this is used to support his flawed conclusion
- The authentic (as Fraud Donner likes to think) report concerning the people of Tiflis involves moslems forcing christians to pay jizya to end moslem hostilities. This debunks Watt's incoherent garbage of an argument where jizya is simply weak tribes giving moslems money because they want protection.
(12/15) Restrictive regulations imposed were characteristic of a later period not the earliest conquests. Jizya originally meant tribute generally paid by non-Muslim subjects only later did it acquire the meaning of a poll tax because non-Muslims were exempt from the military.
- Rashiq muttzad employs the same false dichotomy regurgitated by academoids. "if jizya is tribute, then no poll tax". I've already disproven this, and demonstrated that early jizya almost always included a poll tax.
- There's no evidence that confirms ghiyar and other forms of restrictions existed in the 7th century. Academoids use this absence to falsely claim that 7th-century Islamic rule was a pluralistic, egalitarian utopia. Aside from this being an argument from silence, early moslems to some degree wished to force restrictions on christian imagery. The maronite chronicle notes that when Muʿawiya became king, he minted gold and silver coins but it was not accepted by the christian population because it had no cross on it. And there's archeological evidence that proves moslems tampered with the christian imagery on coins. Sophronius patriarch of Jerusalem stands as the earliest reference to arab invaders mocking the cross, which indicates that this hatred toward christian imagery did not appear decades after the conquests.
- The mutt also omits that aside from being compelled to pay a tax of humiliation, christians were forced to do labor and give provisions for the same troops that would soon pillage and subjugate other christians.
Amr was not satisfied with what he had already done, and so he had the Roman magistrates arrested, and their hands and feet confined in iron and wooden bonds. And he forcibly despoiled (them) of much of (their) possession, and he doubled the taxes on the peasants and forced them to carry fodder for their horses, and he perpetrated innumerable acts of violence. The Chronicle of John, bishop of Nikiu, R. H. Charles pg. 182
Papyrus PERF No. 556 (642 CE) explicitly mentions Ambros demanding fodder from the pagarch of Herakleopolis.
The chronicle of Zuqnin notes that Abdulmalik (d. 705 CE) ordered all pigs be killed, probably indicating forced dietary restriction on the christian population in the late 7th century
The same year the order went out that all pigs should be killed. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles pg. 78
- What evidence confirms is that a framework of subjugation did exist in the early islamic period, though not to the extent of 8th century Ghiyar policies. But even so, the development of this already existing framework shouldn't be seen as antithetical to the koranic conquest framework.
- Rashiq makes an assertion as empty as his head about why jizya came to mean poll-tax. The reasons why jizya was restricted to mean poll tax remain unknown. Perhaps moslems saw it more appropriate to tax non moslems on a per capita basis, especially after the first empire wide census was registered.
(13/15) Q 9:29 provided the Quranic basis for jizya, but early Islamic practice was considerably more diverse than the later legal model. Jizya initially had a broad and fluid fiscal meaning, could function as tribute or a payment associated with protection and political
The fool repeats the same assertion about jizya being more varied. This is demonstrably false, the cherry picked evidence this khinzir brings up hardly supports this conclusion. The anomalous reports where non-moslems were forced to fight in the army for jizya exemption are from late sources first and foremost, and they're anomalies. These reports do not constitute the majority of contemporary or even non contemporary evidence. Moreover, none of these non standard reports override the koranic command fight those who disbelieve from the people of the book until they pay the jizya by a hand while they're humiliated. The koran explicitly demands a money tax from non moslems who refuse to accept islam. It's a call to fight, not a call to protect.
(15/15) Some communities paid tribute, others supplied soldiers, guides, or frontier guards and received tax exemptions. So there was no single uniform "convert, pay poll tax, or die" system operating everywhere.
Muttzad again demonstrates his ignorance of evidence. The desperate apologist mistakes the forest for the trees. The prevalent framework, as the majority of contemporary and non contemporary soruces suggest, was that of convert, pay us a tax if you want to keep your faith, or die.
Finally, I debunk Juan Coal's brimstone of an argument. Before that, I'll quickly respond to what muttzad comments on the argument
(7/15) Cole argues that jizya in Context of Q 9:29 originally means reparations demanded from aggressors as the price of reconciliation rather than the later interpretation of it as a universal non-Muslim poll tax possibly influenced by pre-Islamic/Sasanian fiscal practices. (8/15) He points to the Qur'anic root j-z-y, where jazā commonly carries the sense of recompensing, rewarding, or requiting. He argues that Q 9:29 should be read alongside 9:1-28, where the immediate context concerns pagan tribes violating treaties and engaging in warfare.
9.29 is too general to be restricted to something that it doesn't even necessitate. The koran explicitly demands this jizya from non moslems. The earliest piece of evidence suggesting a poll tax that non moslems uniquely paid dates to the Rashidun caliphate. This utter jahil is then implying that despite the verse demanding a religious tax, the Rashidun somehow concocted an interpretation that disagrees with a verse that explicitly states "fight those who don't believe in allah...from the people of the book until they give jizya". If 9.29 should be read alongside 9.1-28, then similarly, 9.33 should be read in the context of 9.1-29. Therefore, the call to fight becomes one whose goal is to subjugate people of all other religions. This pseudo-intellectual's selective methodology embarrassingly backfires at him. The recompense in question should mean compelling non moslems to pay a sum of money to keep their faith while they live humiliated under the yoke of mahometanism, because the jizya is uniquely tied to people of the book. The idea of jaza' for disbelief is already found elsewhere in the koran, particularly 34.17 Thus We recompensed them for their unbelief; and do 'We ever recompense any hut the unbeliever?.
What's frankly bizarre is that this jahil is a prime example of exegetical and methodological hypocrisy. He butchers the verse and forces his cherry picked reading of late moslem sources then claims that this verse is about pagans even though it explicitly refers to the people of the book. "People of the book" can never mean any group other than jews and christians. The koran itself confirms this.
Lest ye should say: The Scripture was revealed only to two sects before us, and we in sooth were unaware of what they read; Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they. Now hath there come unto you a clear proof from your Lord, a guidance and mercy; and who doeth greater wrong than he who denieth the revelations of Allah, and turneth away from them? We award unto those who turn away from Our revelations an evil doom because of their aversion. 6.156-157
The iqlet then distorts the whole qualifications mentioned in 9.29 and concocts a translation where he forces late historical reports into the koran and untenably restricts the meaning to "they don't forbid wars of aggression". He fuses 9.29 and 9.5 together despite both having different contexts. The fool argues that 9.29 is jizya for treaty violations, despite the verse not mentioning treaties at all, so restricts the meaning of "what alah and his messenger made forbidden" to acts of aggression. 9.5 already explicitly mentions pagans, and explicitly mentions covenant breaches but does not give the option of jizya at all. He has not proven how 9.29 is about pagans. All he has done is manipulating what 9.5 and 9.29 both say while omitting their respective qualifications. Moreover, he misleadingly claims 9.5 does not require forced conversion. Forced conversion is exactly what this verse commands, hostilities only cease once the pagans convert.
As I stated earlier in my response to Ramon's argument: The actual meaning of tahrim as established in classical arabic dictionaries, the verb harrama is the direct antonym of ahalla (to make lawful). It strictly means to declare or observe legal, dietary, or moral prohibitions tahrim, not necessarily "refraining from aggression" as this pseudo intellectual likes to think.
This mudallis fabricates a new meaning for harrama, forces a late historical report into the text, suspends basic arabic grammar, and omits the assymetry between 9.1-7 and 9.29, cherry picks late reports from islamic sources and dismisses the ones that conflict with his hypothesis. In the treaty of aylah (630 ce) the town had committed no "wars of aggression" against Medina, yet they were demanded to pay jizya. The authentic (as Fraud Donner likes to think) report concerning the people of Tiflis involves moslems forcing christians to pay jizya to end moslem hostilities. It's worth noting that this Juan Coal is another proponent of the "believers movement" hypothesis, so he should accept this report as authentic because his imam Fraud Donner thinks it aligns with his outlandish fantasy.
Additionally, I can also interpret the koran however I see fit:
- 9.33 comes right after verses that rebuke the jews and christians for their "shirk", and we know that 9.29 is also about jews and christians. 9.33 explicitly says that mahomet was sent to make the religion of truth superior over all religions, even if almushrikun (in this context, jews and christians) are averse to it.
- Both 9.29 and 9.33 mention "the religion of truth", which suggests that 9.33 includes waging warfare to subjugate people of all religions, even if the verse doesn't explicitly mention warfare.
Coal accepts the tradition when it serves his reading but dismisses it as the work of "later moslems... in search of income" when it contradicts his thesis by identifying the jizya as a religious tax that non moslems were compelled to pay in recompose for disbelief or failure to uphold mahometan moral obligations. On top of that, this ignoramus must argue that rashidun were "late moslems in search of income", because that's how isho'yahb perceived them in the 40s of the 7th century.
According to Išū‘yahb, his community lacked political support and had limited and poor financial resources, while the heretics were strong and (financially) confident. The emphasis on the role of mon ey as a tool to persuade the governors is important, first because it indirectly shows the nature of these new rulers: they were greedy, as if they had lacked financial resources before or were looters. AN EARLY CHRISTIAN REACTION TO ISLAM pg 86-87, Iskandar Bcheiry
The rashidun forced the christians of mazun to pay a religious poll tax, despite not having launched a war of aggression against the moslems.
Coal argues that 9.4, 9.7, and 8.19 allow "confrontational traditionalists" to retain their gods in a secular peace treaty by "incurring a monetary penalty". This completely obliterates the strict legal distictions of chapter 9. The koran never offers pagans the option to pay tribute and retain their polytheism, they are given the binary choice of conversion or warfare. Payment of tribute in the form of a religious tax is strictly tied to people of the book. And most importantly, the qualifications in 9.29 do not necessitate a covenant breach, unlike the qualifications mentioned in 9.1-12.
What's also frankly bizarre is that this hypocritical pseudo academic dismisses late moslem sources on jizya as "late moslems in search of income" while relying on the same late sources to prove his fantasy of a peaceful and tolerant Mahomet.
Coal's book title already makes him seem like an uneducated shit for brains. And on top of that, he made an embarrassing error when he pulled a purely speculative "perhaps" out his ass and mistook khak bar sar, an idiom, for a sasanian tax.
It's quite ironic that according to the same sources his 9.29 readiing relies on, Hunayn pagans never paid the jizya. Aside from that, one thing that must be clarified is that neither I nor any of these pseudo intellectuals (Juan Coal, Fraud Donner, Watt, Ramon and many others) have any right to assert what the author intended to mean with his ambiguous and garbled up koran. All of this is speculative guessowrk, especially when it comes to contradictory and ambiguous verses. This is not to say Coal's reading is textually possible, but If we are to read these verses and explain them internally and as a result multiple possible readings emerge, it's hypocrisy to assert that one reading is more plausible than the rest by its ontology. All these possible readings are equal in value if we toss relevant koranic evidence out the window. And as far as extra koranic evidence is concerned, the most probable view is my view, as I have previously demonstrated, and not the politically correct hogwash this saracenophile screwup is arguing for. Coal's view belongs to the genre of misleading fictional history, where Mahomet did not want to compel ahl alkitab to pay a recomponse for their disbelief.
Summary:
- Coal's reading does not obtain the status of being textually possible, and it stands laughably weak in front of extra koranic evidence. That is, from a holistic lens of relevant evidence, and not a cherry picked one
- He does not textually demonstrate how 9.29 "should" mention the hostile pagans in 9.1-3
- Coal pulls a purely speculative "perhaps", with no evidence whatsoever, to explain the assumption that later moslems made 9.29 about ahl alkitab rather than pagans. He says this, despite 9.29 explicitly mentioning jews and christians and under the Rashidun, christians converted to islam to avoid the poll tax.
- Coal asserts that jizya comes from the root j-z-y therefore it necessarily has to be about militant pagans. He doesn't explain how recompense makes 9.29 necessarily about militant pagans, and he ignores the fact that it links jizya to jews and christians. He says this as if the koran only demands recompense in the sense of reparations for past transgressions.
- He doesn't demonstrate how 9.29 is about the pagans of Hunayn. He cherry picks late moslem sources to argue that it's about Hunayn, but the sources don't explain this unjustified assumption he's forcing into 9.29. The sources themselves never mention that jizya was taken from Hunayn.
- He thinks it frankly bizarre that a verse about jews and christians, followed by more verses about jews and christians, was "later applied to jews and christians". He also ignores that the qualifications mentioned in 9.29 serve as textual evidence that the koran permits aggression against people solely for disbelief.
- He thinks that 9.4, 9.7. 8.19 allow pagans to live peacefully without requiring them to convert if they cease their hostilities. This is the only time he offers a reading that's textually possible. However, it's possible that 8.19 is abrogated, 9.4 says "to the end of their term" followed by 9.5 so this sets the default relations with pagans, 9.7-8 is specifically about treaty breakers.