islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

Islamic JihadThe one-fifth of the plunder obtained from the infidels in wars, allotted to Allah and his messenger,initially went to Prophet Muhammad, the head and treasury of the nascent Islamic state. After his death, thisshare was acquired by the caliphal treasury. A minimum one-fifth of all produce from Dhimmi subjects wascollected as kharaj under a taxation policy promulgated by Caliph Omar, although this share was often raisedhigher under special circumstances or by whimsical Muslim rulers. Since, newly born children of the infidelswere also a kind of produce of the state, the institution of Dewshirme became justified in Islamic holy laws.The Prophet himself had set an example of acquiring Christian children when he forbade the tribe of Taghlibnot to baptize their children. Later on, Caliph Omar ordered another Taghlib tribe ‘not to mark their children(with cross on their arm or wrist) and not to force their religion on them (i.e., not to baptize them).’ 763 As aresult, those children entered the house of Islam. The only difference is that the Prophet and Caliph Omar hadacquired all the children of the Taghlib tribes, while the Ottomans acquired only a part of them throughDewshirme.With such Quranic sanction and prophetic example, the Rightly Guided Caliph Othman had enacteda Dewshirme-like scheme by forcing the Nubian Christians to send a yearly tribute of slaves to Cairo (652–1276). Similar agreements were enacted by the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs as already cited. TheDewshirme policy was, therefore, not an Ottoman invention. Moreover, this policy was obviously much morehumane than Prophet Muhammad’s protocol of capturing slaves as applied to the Jews of Banu Qurayza andKhaybar etc., whereby he slew all the grown-up men and enslaved the women and children: a divine protocolapproved by Allah [Quran 33:26–27]. During the centuries of Islamic conquest and rule, ProphetMuhammad’s protocol of enslavement, much more cruel and barbaric than the Dewshirme, was commonlyapplied.STATUS OF SLAVESAccording to Ibn Warraq:Under Islam, slaves have no legal rights whatsoever, they are considered mere "things"—theproperty of their master, who may dispose them in any way he chooses—sale, gifts etc. Slavescannot be guardians or testamentary executors, and what they earned belongs to their owner. Aslave cannot give evidence in a court of law. Even conversion to Islam by a non-Muslim slavedoes not mean that he is automatically liberated. There is no obligation on the part of the ownerto free him (and her). 764It will be seen below that Sharia law lists slaves amongst common properties and commodities, and stipulatesrules and guidelines for their sale as applies to an article of trade. After buying a slave, if the master finds anydefect in him, he may beat and torture him without leaving visible wounds or scars. According to Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, the master may return the slave to the seller with full compensation as long as the beating andtorture cause no permanent injuries. The Hedayah, a twelfth-century compendium of Hanafi laws, informs usthat ‘amputation of a slave for theft was a common practice recognized by the law.’ Although Islamrecommends good treatment of slaves, it is considered a natural death if a master kills his slave. 765In their victorious assaults on the infidels, the Muslim holy warriors often used to slaughter all malecaptives of weapon-bearing age (who could pose security threats by regrouping later) and enslaved the763. Al-Biladhuri AY (1865) Kitab Futuh al-Buldan, Ed. MJ De Geoje, Leiden, p. 181764. Warraq, p. 203765. Lal (1994), p. 148221