6 ms·

Right, a Muslim scholar in Persia could be seen as a Persian scholar or a Muslim scholar. However, Arabs often end up looking at their contributions as Islamic

by nayefc 12y ago

Right, a Muslim scholar in Persia could be seen as a Persian scholar or a Muslim scholar. However, Arabs often end up looking at their contributions as Islamic Contributions, or rather Arab-Islamic dismissing non-Muslim Arabs. To your point, there were many non-Muslim Arab scholars.

nraf 12y ago
My point isn't that there are many non-Muslim Arab scholars, it's that a lot of the greatest Muslim scholars at the time weren't actually of Arab origin. e.g. Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali were both of Persian origin (although the lingua franca was Arabic). Islam was the catalyst of change in the 7th century, I don't see how that could be denied. Yes, it was predominately Arabs that brought it outside the Peninsula but the scholarly achievements weren't Arab achievements, because, again, many of the scholars weren't Arabs. Heck, the most important book in Sunni Islam after the Qur'an was compiled by al-Bukhari, a non-Arab from Bukhara in modern-day Afghanistan. If you look into it, Islamic scholarship didn't really kick off until the Abbasid Dynasty was established. Non-Arabs played a large role in allowing the Abbasids to come into power in the first place. The jizya (tax on non-Muslims) was a higher fee than the zakat (religious tax on Muslims). As more and more non-Arabs started to embrace Islam, the Umayyads were getting less and less tax revenue because the new Muslims were playing zakat instead of jizya. As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads. The Abbasids would go on to employ many non-Arabs, especially Persians, into high positions in government.
- Jayd2014 12y ago
  "As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads." First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. It was payed for everyone who didn't participate in Islamic military. Think of it like a Latino living in the US and paying a fee (passport fees, green card fees..etc) for not participating in US military. Non-Muslim benefited from the same as Muslims in terms of public social help. Secondly, Zakat can be sometimes higher than the Tax paid by non-Muslims. Depending on how much you own.
  - usr98787807 12y ago
    > First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. Not true. See here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304125/jizya http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304125/jizya The additional clause or exemptions a "dhimmi" contract brings are explained here, including the exemption from military service. Please note the clear difference between the above and the below versions. Even then, it should be noted that "jizya" is enforced irrespective of if you own any assets or not. And failure to pay the same can lead to "refusal to pay Jizya by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was a capital crime, punished by his family's arrest and enslavement. The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as house workers and female sex slaves. In some cases, the family could escape this punishment by converting to Islam" It is incorrect to equate with your above analogy of passport fees etc., It's not as innocuous as you try to portray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comparison_between_Zakat_and_Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comparison_between_Zakat_...
  - nraf 12y ago
    The jizya was payable by non-Muslims dhimmis living in an Islamic state. I don't know of any requirements that had to do with participating in the military, as there were non-Muslims citizens who fought alongside the Muslims (e.g. Christians battling in the Ottoman armies). The only thing I've heard is that the jizya is to refunded if the Muslims fail to defend the non-Muslims paying jizya if they're attacked. Not sure how accurate that is though.
- aidanxyz 12y ago
  *Bukhara is in modern-day Uzbekistan

by nayefc 12y ago

nraf 12y ago

My point isn't that there are many non-Muslim Arab scholars, it's that a lot of the greatest Muslim scholars at the time weren't actually of Arab origin. e.g. Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali were both of Persian origin (although the lingua franca was Arabic). Islam was the catalyst of change in the 7th century, I don't see how that could be denied. Yes, it was predominately Arabs that brought it outside the Peninsula but the scholarly achievements weren't Arab achievements, because, again, many of the scholars weren't Arabs. Heck, the most important book in Sunni Islam after the Qur'an was compiled by al-Bukhari, a non-Arab from Bukhara in modern-day Afghanistan. If you look into it, Islamic scholarship didn't really kick off until the Abbasid Dynasty was established. Non-Arabs played a large role in allowing the Abbasids to come into power in the first place. The jizya (tax on non-Muslims) was a higher fee than the zakat (religious tax on Muslims). As more and more non-Arabs started to embrace Islam, the Umayyads were getting less and less tax revenue because the new Muslims were playing zakat instead of jizya. As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads. The Abbasids would go on to employ many non-Arabs, especially Persians, into high positions in government.

Jayd2014 12y ago
"As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads." First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. It was payed for everyone who didn't participate in Islamic military. Think of it like a Latino living in the US and paying a fee (passport fees, green card fees..etc) for not participating in US military. Non-Muslim benefited from the same as Muslims in terms of public social help. Secondly, Zakat can be sometimes higher than the Tax paid by non-Muslims. Depending on how much you own.
- usr98787807 12y ago
  > First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. Not true. See here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304125/jizya http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304125/jizya The additional clause or exemptions a "dhimmi" contract brings are explained here, including the exemption from military service. Please note the clear difference between the above and the below versions. Even then, it should be noted that "jizya" is enforced irrespective of if you own any assets or not. And failure to pay the same can lead to "refusal to pay Jizya by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was a capital crime, punished by his family's arrest and enslavement. The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as house workers and female sex slaves. In some cases, the family could escape this punishment by converting to Islam" It is incorrect to equate with your above analogy of passport fees etc., It's not as innocuous as you try to portray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comparison_between_Zakat_and_Jizya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comparison_between_Zakat_...
- nraf 12y ago
  The jizya was payable by non-Muslims dhimmis living in an Islamic state. I don't know of any requirements that had to do with participating in the military, as there were non-Muslims citizens who fought alongside the Muslims (e.g. Christians battling in the Ottoman armies). The only thing I've heard is that the jizya is to refunded if the Muslims fail to defend the non-Muslims paying jizya if they're attacked. Not sure how accurate that is though.
aidanxyz 12y ago
*Bukhara is in modern-day Uzbekistan