Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 34

This descent of angels need not occur in some perceptible form, such that the believers see them with their eyes or hear their voices with their ears. Although God, glorified is He, does sometimes send angels openly to whomever He wills, generally their descent upon believers—especially in hard times when they are being severely pressed by the enemies of truth—occurs in an imperceptible manner, and their words descend not by striking against the eardrums but into the depths of the heart in the form of tranquility and inner peace. Some commentators have understood this descent of angels to be specific to the moment of death, or the grave, or the plain of resurrection. But if one considers the circumstances in which these verses were revealed, there remains no doubt that the actual purpose of mentioning this matter here is to speak of the descent of angels upon those who strive and risk their lives for the supremacy of the true faith in this present life—so that they may find comfort, so that their courage may be strengthened, and so that their hearts may be reassured with the realization that they are not without help or support, but that God’s angels are with them. Although angels do come to welcome the believers at the moment of death, and they also receive them in the grave (the interim realm of barzakh), and on the Day of Judgment they will likewise remain with them continuously from the very beginning of the resurrection until they reach Paradise—yet this companionship of theirs is not confined to that other realm alone; it continues in this world as well. The flow of the discourse makes clear that just as devils and evil beings are the companions of the followers of falsehood in the struggle between truth and falsehood, so too angels are the companions of the believers. On one side, the companions of the followers of falsehood make their misdeeds appear attractive to them and assure them that the oppression, cruelty, and dishonesty they commit in order to suppress the truth are themselves the means of their success, and that through these very things their dominance in the world will remain secure. On the other side, God’s angels come to the followers of truth and deliver the message that is stated in the verses that follow.

Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 30

This was one of the schemes of the disbelievers of Mecca by which they sought to defeat the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) mission of calling people to the truth. They knew very well what tremendous impact the Qur’an carried within it, what caliber of man it was who recited it, and how effective his manner of delivery was combined with his personal standing. They understood that whoever heard this matchless discourse recited by the tongue of such an exalted person would, in the end, inevitably be moved to the core. So they devised this plan: neither listen to this discourse yourselves nor let anyone else listen to it. Whenever Muhammad (peace be upon him) began to recite it, raise a commotion, clap your hands, jeer, hurl a barrage of objections, and raise your voices loud enough that his voice would be drowned out against them. Through this strategy, they hoped they would succeed in defeating God’s Prophet.

Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 29

It is God’s permanent and unchanging way that He never grants good companions to people who harbor evil intentions and evil desires; rather, He grants them companions who match their own inclinations. Then, the deeper they sink into the depths of wickedness, the worse and worse are the men and devils who become their close associates, advisers, and partners in action. When some people say, “So-and-so is himself a very good person, but he simply fell in with bad company,” this is completely contrary to reality. The law of nature is that everyone finds friends like himself. Even if bad people happen to attach themselves to a good man, they cannot remain attached to him for long. Likewise, if righteous and decent people happen by chance to associate with a person of evil intent and bad character, that association cannot last long either. A bad person naturally draws bad people toward himself, and bad people are naturally drawn toward him—just as filth attracts flies and flies are drawn to filth.

As for the statement that these companions made everything, before them and behind them, appear attractive to them—this means that they would assure them that their past had been quite splendid and their future would be equally brilliant. They would fit such spectacles over their eyes that everywhere they looked appeared green and pleasant. They would tell them that those who criticized them were fools, that they were doing nothing unusual, that everyone who achieves success in the world does exactly what they were doing; and that, in the first place, there is no Hereafter at all in which they would have to answer for their deeds—but even if it should come to pass, as a few foolish people claim, then the God who is showering them with blessings here will shower gifts and favors upon them there as well; Hell was not made for them, but for those whom God has deprived of His blessings in this world.

Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 25

The hadiths explain this as follows: when some hardened criminal keeps denying his crimes and insists on rejecting even all the testimony against him, then by God’s command the parts of his own body will testify, one by one, as to what deeds he committed with them. This account has been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) by Anas, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and Ibn Abbas, and has been recorded by Muslim, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Bazzar, and other traditionists (for further explanation, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, vol. 4, Surah Ya-Sin, footnote 55).

This verse is among the many verses that establish that the Hereafter will not be a purely spiritual realm; rather, human beings will be brought back to life there with body and soul together, just as they exist now in this world. Not only that, they will be given the very same body they now inhabit. All the same particles and atoms of which their bodies were composed in this world will be gathered together on the Day of Judgment, and they will be raised with those very former bodies within which they carried out their deeds in the world. It is obvious that a person’s body parts can only testify there if they are the very same parts with which he committed some crime in his first life. The following verses of the Qur’an also serve as decisive proof of this theme: Bani Isra’il, verses 49–51, 98; al-Mu’minun, 35–38, 82–83; al-Nur, 24; al-Sajdah, 10; Ya-Sin, 65, 78–79; al-Saffat, 16–18; al-Waqi’ah, 47–50; al-Nazi’at, 10–14.

11. By the blessings of the earth is meant the boundless and countless provisions that have continuously come forth from its bosom for hundreds of millions of years, and which keep fulfilling the ever-increasing needs of everything from microscopic organisms to mankind’s most advanced civilization. Among these blessings, the greatest blessings are air and water, by whose bounty plant life, animal life, and then human life became possible on earth.

Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 12

The original words are: qaddara fīhā aqwātahā fī arbaʿati ayyāmin sawāʾan lil-sāʾilīn. Commentators have offered several interpretations of this phrase:

Some exegetes explain it to mean: “He apportioned in it its sustenance, for those who ask, in exactly four days”—that is, not more or less, but exactly four full days.

Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, and al-Suddi explain it to mean: “He placed its sustenance in the earth within four days—a complete answer for those who ask.” That is, for anyone who asks how many days this task took, the full answer is: four days.

Ibn Zayd explains it to mean: “He placed its sustenance in the earth, for those who seek it, within four days, in precise measure according to each one’s need and requirement.”

As far as the rules of language go, the wording of the verse allows for all three of these meanings. But in the author’s view, the first two meanings have no real merit. Considered in light of the context, what significance could it possibly have whether this task took an hour less or an hour more than four days, rather than exactly four full days? What element of God’s perfect power, perfect sustaining care, and perfect wisdom would be left incomplete without such a specification? Likewise, the interpretation that this was “a complete answer for those who ask” is quite weak, since nothing in the passages before or after the verse indicates that anyone had asked how many days these tasks took, such that this verse came down as a reply. For these reasons, the author has adopted the third meaning in the translation. In the author’s view, the correct sense of the verse is that from the beginning of creation until the Last Day, whatever kinds and numbers of creatures God was going to bring into being on earth, He calculated and placed within the earth, in advance, the complete provision of food exactly suited to each one’s need and requirement. Countless kinds of vegetation exist on land and in water, each with different nutritional requirements from the others. God has created countless species of living creatures in the air, on land, and in water, and each species requires its own particular kind of food. Then, distinct from all of these, is another creature—man—who needs varied kinds of food not merely to sustain his body but also to satisfy his taste. No one but God could have known, from the beginning of life on this globe to its end, how many individuals of which kinds of creatures would come into being, where and when, and what kind and quantity of food would be needed to sustain them. Just as He planned, in His scheme of creation, to bring these food-requiring creatures into being, so too He made complete arrangements for the food needed to satisfy their needs.

In the present age, those who have produced an Islamic edition of the Marxist concept of socialism under the name “the Qur’anic system of rubūbiyyah (sustenance)” translate sawāʾan lil-sāʾilīn as “equally for all who ask,” and on this basis build the argument that since God has placed equal food in the earth for all people, fulfilling the intent of the verse requires a state system that distributes food equally to everyone, since such equality cannot be established under a system of private property. But in their eagerness to press the Qur’an into the service of their own ideology, these people forget that the “askers” mentioned in this verse are not human beings alone, but every kind of creature that needs food to survive. Has God really established equality in provision among all of them, or among all individuals of any single species? Do you see anywhere in this entire system of nature an arrangement for the equal rationing of food? If this is not the case, it would mean that in the world of plants and animals—where it is not a human state but God’s own governance that directly manages the distribution of sustenance—God Himself is violating His own “Qur’anic law,” indeed, God forbid, acting unjustly! They also forget that the “askers” include animals that human beings themselves raise and are responsible for feeding—sheep, goats, cattle, buffaloes, horses, donkeys, mules, camels, and so on. If the Qur’anic law really is that all askers should receive equal food, and a state running a system of rubūbiyyah is needed to enforce this very law, will that state also establish economic equality between human beings and these animals?

13. In interpreting this passage, commentators have generally faced this difficulty: if the two days of the creation of the earth, and the four days for setting mountains firmly in it, placing blessings in it, and producing food supplies in it, are accepted (as separate), then, in light of the subsequent mention of the creation of the heavens taking place in two days, adding these two more days makes a total of eight days — whereas Allah has explicitly stated at several places in the Qur’an that the creation of the heavens and the earth took place in six days altogether (see, for example, Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 2, pp. 36, 261, 324; Vol. 2, p. 420). For this reason, nearly all commentators say that these four days include the two days of the earth’s creation — that is, two days for the creation of the earth and two days for the coming into being within it of the remaining things mentioned above — so that in a total of four days the earth, along with its provisions, was completed. But this is contrary to the plain wording of the Qur’an, and in reality, the difficulty for whose avoidance this interpretation was felt necessary is itself merely an imaginary difficulty. The two days of the earth’s creation are, in fact, not separate from the two days in which the entire universe as a whole was created. Consider the verses that follow. In them, the creation of both the earth and the heavens is mentioned together, and then it is stated that Allah made seven heavens in two days. By these seven heavens is meant the entire universe, of which this earth of ours is also one part. Then, when — like countless other stars and planets in the universe — this earth too had, within those two days, taken the form of a mere sphere, Allah began preparing it for living creatures, and within four days produced in it all the provisions mentioned in the verse above. What developmental work was carried out on other stars and planets within these four days, Allah has not stated, because not to speak of the people of the era in which the Qur’an was revealed, even the people of this present age do not have the capacity to digest such information.

Surah Ha-Mim as-Sajdah, Footnote 1

This is a brief introduction to the surah. On reflecting on the discourse that follows, it becomes clear how what is stated in this introduction relates to the subject matter that comes after it.

First, it is stated that this speech is being revealed from God. That is, no matter how much you keep repeating that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is composing it himself, the fact remains that this discourse is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. Furthermore, by stating this, the addressees are also being alerted to the fact that if you become enraged on hearing this speech, your anger is not against Muhammad (peace be upon him) but against God; if you reject it, you are not rejecting the word of a human being but the word of God; and if you turn away from it, you are turning your face away not from a human being but from God.

Second, it is stated that the One who has revealed it is a God who is infinitely merciful toward His creation (Rahman and Rahim). Mentioning the attribute of mercy—rather than God’s other attributes as the one who reveals—points to the reality that He has sent down this discourse out of the demand of His own mercifulness. Through this, the addressees are being warned that anyone who turns away from this discourse, or rejects it, or becomes enraged at it, is in fact acting as an enemy to himself. This is indeed a supreme blessing which God has sent down purely on the basis of His mercy, for the guidance and well-being of mankind. Had God turned away from human beings, He would have left them to wander in darkness, with no concern for what pit they might fall into. But it is His grace and generosity that, along with creating them and providing their sustenance, He also considers it His responsibility to show them the light of knowledge so that their lives may be set right—and it is on this basis that He is sending down this discourse upon one of His servants. Now who could be more ungrateful, and more of an enemy to himself, than one who, instead of benefiting from this mercy, instead runs to fight against it?

Third, it is stated that the verses of this Book have been expounded in full detail. There is nothing obscure or complicated in it such that anyone could excuse himself from accepting it on the grounds that he cannot understand its contents. Rather, it clearly explains what truth is and what falsehood is, which beliefs are correct and which are wrong, what constitutes good character and what constitutes bad character, what is virtue and what is vice, which path leads to a person’s good and which path leads to his own loss. If anyone rejects such clear and open guidance, or pays no attention to it, he can offer no excuse. His attitude plainly means that he himself wishes to remain upon falsehood.

Fourth, it is stated that this is a Qur’an in the Arabic language. The meaning is that if this Qur’an had come in some other language, the Arabs could have offered the excuse that they were simply unfamiliar with the language in which God had sent His Book. But this is their own language—they cannot make not understanding it into an excuse. (In this connection, verse 44 should also be kept in view, where the same theme is expressed in another way; and the doubt that non-Arabs would then have a reasonable excuse for not accepting the call of the Qur’an has already been addressed elsewhere.)

Fifth, it is stated that this Book is for those who possess knowledge—that is, it benefits one who can tell the difference between a diamond and a stone.

Sixth, it is stated that this Book gives glad tidings and warning. That is, it is not merely presenting some abstract idea, a philosophy, or a literary composition whose acceptance or rejection carries no consequence. Rather, it is proclaiming aloud to the whole world that the results of accepting it are magnificent, and the results of rejecting it are utterly dreadful. Only a fool could dismiss such a Book lightly.

Introduction to Surah Ha-Meem As-Sajdah (Fussilat)

Link for complete chapter, Arabic verses translated in English , complete foot notes at the end: http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/41/index.html

Name

The name of this surah is made up of two words: Ha-Meem and As-Sajdah. This means “the surah that begins with Ha-Meem and in which, at one point, there occurs a verse of prostration (sajdah).”

Period of Revelation

According to reliable reports, this surah was revealed after Hazrat Hamzah (RA) accepted Islam and before Hazrat Umar (RA) accepted Islam. Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of the Prophet (peace be upon him), relates — on the authority of the well-known Tabi’i Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi — the following account:

Once some chiefs of the Quraysh were sitting in an assembly in the Masjid al-Haram, while in another corner of the mosque the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sat alone. This was the period when Hazrat Hamzah had already embraced Islam, and the Quraysh were growing increasingly anxious at the steadily rising numbers of Muslims. At this point, Utbah ibn Rabi’ah (father-in-law of Abu Sufyan) said to the assembled Quraysh chiefs: “Gentlemen, if you agree, let me go and speak with Muhammad (peace be upon him) and put a few proposals before him. Perhaps he will accept one of them, and we in turn will accept it, so that he might give up his opposition to us.” All those present agreed, and Utbah got up and went to sit beside the Prophet (peace be upon him).

When the Prophet turned his attention to him, Utbah said: “Nephew, you know the standing you hold among your people by lineage and family. But you have brought a great calamity upon your people. You have caused division within the community, declared the whole nation foolish, disparaged the religion of your people and their gods, and made statements implying that all our forefathers were disbelievers. Now hear me out — I put some proposals before you; consider them, and perhaps you will accept one of them.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Abu’l-Walid, speak, I am listening.”

Utbah then said: “Nephew, if what you have set out to do is meant to gain wealth, we will together give you so much that you will become the richest among us. If you seek greatness through this, we will make you our chief. And if some jinn is troubling you that you are unable to drive off yourself, we will summon the finest physicians and have you treated at our own expense.” Utbah went on speaking in this manner while the Prophet listened in silence. He then said, “Abu’l-Walid, have you said all you wished to say?” Utbah said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Very well, now listen to me.”

He then recited Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim and began reciting this very surah, while Utbah sat with both hands braced behind him on the ground, listening intently. On reaching the verse of prostration (verse 38), the Prophet prostrated, then raised his head and said, “O Abu’l-Walid, you have heard my answer; now it is for you to decide what to do.”

Utbah got up and walked back toward the assembly of Quraysh chiefs. As people saw him approaching from a distance, they said, “By God, Utbah’s face has changed — this is not the face he left with.” When he sat down, they asked him, “What did you hear?” He said: “By God, I heard speech the like of which I had never heard before. By God, it is neither poetry, nor sorcery, nor soothsaying. O chiefs of Quraysh, take my advice and leave this man to himself. I believe this speech will have consequences. Consider — if the Arabs prevail over him, you will be spared from having raised your hand against your own kinsman, and others will deal with him. But if he prevails over the Arabs, then his sovereignty will be your sovereignty, and his honor will be your honor.”

On hearing this, the Quraysh chiefs exclaimed, “O father of Walid, his magic seems to have worked on you too!” Utbah replied, “I have told you my opinion; now do as you see fit.” (Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, pp. 313–314)

Several other traditionists have narrated this account, with minor verbal differences, on the authority of Hazrat Jabir ibn Abdullah as well. Some versions add that when the Prophet, in the course of his recitation, reached the verse: “But if they turn away, then say: I warn you of a thunderbolt like the thunderbolt that struck ‘Ad and Thamud,” Utbah involuntarily placed his hand over the Prophet’s mouth and said, “For God’s sake, have mercy on your people.” Later, he explained to the Quraysh chiefs the reason for this act, saying, “You know that whatever Muhammad says comes true — I feared that a punishment might descend upon us.” (For details, see Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 90–91; Al-Bidayah wa’n-Nihayah, vol. 3, p. 62.)

Subject Matter and Themes

The discourse revealed by Allah in response to this conversation with Utbah does not engage at all with the foolish things he had said to the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is because what he had said was, in essence, an attack on the Prophet’s intentions and his intellect. Underlying all his talk was the assumption that there was, in any case, no possibility that the Prophet was truly a prophet or that the Qur’an was truly revelation — so his motive for this mission must be either a desire for wealth and power, or else — God forbid — some derangement of mind. In the first case, Utbah wished to bargain with him; in the second, he was insulting him by offering to pay for his “treatment.” When opponents descend to this level of absurdity, it is not the business of a person of dignity to answer them point by point — rather, his task is to disregard such talk entirely and simply state what he has to say.

Setting aside Utbah’s remarks altogether, this surah takes up the opposition that the disbelievers of Makkah were mounting, with extreme stubbornness and bad conduct, in order to defeat the message of the Qur’an. They would tell the Prophet: whatever you do, we will not listen to a word you say. We have placed coverings over our hearts, we have sealed our ears, and a barrier has arisen between us and you that will never let us meet.

They had given him clear notice that he could continue his mission, but that they would do everything in their power to oppose him. Their strategy to defeat him was that whenever he or any of his followers tried to recite the Qur’an to people, an uproar would immediately be raised, with enough noise made that not a word could be heard.

They were also actively engaged in twisting the meaning of Qur’anic verses to spread all kinds of misunderstanding among the public — taking what was said one way and presenting it as something else, finding crookedness in straightforward statements, lifting a word from one place and a phrase from another out of context, and mixing in fabrications of their own to manufacture new accusations, all in order to turn people’s opinion against the Qur’an and the Messenger who presented it.

They raised strange objections, one example of which is presented in this surah: they argued that if an Arab delivers a discourse in the Arabic language, what miracle is there in that? Arabic is his mother tongue; anyone can compose something in his own language and then claim it was revealed to him by God. It would have been a miracle if this man had suddenly stood up and delivered eloquent speech in some other language he did not know — only then could one conclude that this was not his own composition but was being revealed to him from above.

The essence of the response given to this blind and deaf opposition is as follows:

1. This is speech sent down by God Himself, and it is in the Arabic language. The truths set out plainly within it hold no light of knowledge for the ignorant, but those with understanding perceive this light and benefit from it. It is a mercy from God that He sent down this discourse to guide mankind; if someone regards it as a burden instead, that is his own misfortune. Good news is for those who benefit from it, and warning is due to those who turn away from it.
2. If you have placed coverings over your hearts and made your ears deaf, the Prophet has not been charged with making someone listen who does not wish to listen, or forcing his message into the heart of someone who does not wish to understand. He is a human being just like you — he can only convey his message to those who wish to hear, and make it understood to those who wish to understand.
3. Close your eyes and ears and cover your hearts if you wish, but the reality remains that your God is only One, and you are not the servants of anyone else. Your stubbornness cannot change this reality. If you accept it and correct your conduct accordingly, you will benefit yourselves; if you refuse, you will bring ruin upon yourselves.
4. Do you even realize against whom you are committing this shirk and kufr? Against the God who created this vast universe, who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, from whose bestowed blessings you benefit on this earth, and on whose provided sustenance you live. You make His partners out of His own insignificant creatures, and when someone tries to make you understand this, you turn away out of sheer obstinacy.
5. Well then — if you will not accept it, be warned that a punishment like the one that fell suddenly upon ‘Ad and Thamud stands ready for you. And even that punishment will not be the final penalty for your crime; beyond it lie the reckoning of the Day of Gathering and the fire of Hell.
6. Truly unfortunate is the person who becomes attached to such devils among jinn and men, who make everything appear attractive to him from every side, who dress up his follies before him in pleasing colors, and who never let him think rightly for himself nor let him hear the truth from anyone else. Such foolish people today keep egging one another on, each spurring the other to go further, but when the Day of Resurrection comes and disaster strikes, each of them will say that if only those who misled him fell into his hands, he would trample them underfoot.
7. This Qur’an is an unshakeable book. You cannot defeat it with your petty schemes and weapons of falsehood. Whether falsehood attacks openly or covertly and indirectly, it will never succeed in overcoming it.
8. Today this Qur’an is being presented to you in your own language so that you may understand it — yet you complain that it should instead have come in some foreign tongue. But had We sent guidance for the Arab nation in a foreign language that no one here understood, this would have meant, in effect, that you did not truly want guidance at all — that you are only inventing fresh excuses not to accept it.
9. Have you ever considered what fate awaits you if it should indeed turn out that this Qur’an truly is from God, given how far you have gone in denying it and opposing it?
10. You are not accepting it today, but soon you will see with your own eyes that the message of this Qur’an has spread across every horizon, and that you yourselves have been overcome by it. At that time you will realize that what you were being told was the truth.

Alongside these answers to the opponents, the surah also addresses the concerns facing the believers — and the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself — in that atmosphere of intense resistance. For those who had accepted faith, even remaining steadfast on the path of belief, let alone preaching it, had become extremely difficult; anyone identified as having become a Muslim found his life made unbearable. Facing the enemy’s fearsome show of unity and their power that seemed to dominate on every side, the believers felt utterly helpless and without any support.

In this situation, they were first given courage by being told that they were not, in reality, without support — rather, whoever firmly holds to the belief that God is his Lord, and stands firm upon that conviction, has angels sent down upon him who accompany him from this world into the Hereafter. They were then further encouraged by being told that the best of people is the one who himself does good, calls others toward God, and firmly declares, “I am a Muslim.”

The question that weighed most heavily on the Prophet (peace be upon him) at this time was how a path for the message could be found through such obstacles blocking its way. The answer given to him was that these seemingly formidable barriers only appear so on the surface — but the weapon of good character is the very weapon that will break and melt them away. He was told to persevere patiently with this, and whenever Satan tried to provoke him into resorting to some other weapon, to seek refuge in God.

---

This is a translation of the introductory commentary (typically attributed to Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi’s Tafheem-ul-Qur’an) preceding Surah Ha-Meem As-Sajdah (Fussilat).

Q: Likes to know the truth about dimmi status imposed by Muslim invaders/ rulers, was jizya really collected and which places were practicing it in history and in present days?

A:

Yes — jizya was real, well-documented, and central to how dhimmi status functioned for over a millennium. Here’s the honest picture:

Historically: Jizya is a per-capita tax mentioned in Quran 9:29, imposed on adult, able-bodied, non-Muslim men (dhimmis — mainly Jews, Christians, and later Zoroastrians and others) living under Muslim rule. Women, children, the elderly, monks, the poor, and the disabled were exempt. In classical jurisprudence, it was framed as payment in exchange for state protection, exemption from military conscription, and the right to practice their religion with legal autonomy. Scholars largely agree early Muslim rulers adapted existing tribute systems from the Byzantine and Sasanian empires they conquered. It was applied across the Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluk, Ottoman, Mughal, and other caliphates/sultanates — so across the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, Central Asia, and South Asia (including Mughal India, though Akbar famously abolished it and Aurangzeb reinstated it).

How harshly it was enforced varied enormously by ruler, era, and region — sometimes closer to the “protection fee” framing, sometimes accompanied by humiliating collection rituals or social restrictions (distinctive dress, building restrictions) that jurists debated. Some Western historians described it as oppressive and humiliating, portraying it as a mechanism to pressure non-Muslims into conversion, while other accounts push back on that framing as colonial-era polemic used to inflame Hindu-Muslim tensions in India specifically. Both readings have real evidentiary support depending on the time and place you’re looking at — this wasn’t a monolithic practice.

Present day: No internationally recognized state currently collects jizya as formal law — Egypt abolished it in 1855 under Sa’id Pasha, Persia under Reza Shah, and it disappeared from remaining Muslim polities with the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, largely replaced by universal citizenship-based taxation. However, it has been forcibly revived by non-state jihadist actors:

• ISIS imposed it on Christians in Raqqa and Mosul (2014), typically as “convert, pay, or die”
• The Taliban in Afghanistan reportedly compelled remaining Sikhs and Hindus to pay it after 2021
• TTP in Pakistan’s tribal areas demanded it from Sikh and Hindu communities, with seizures of property for non-payers

So the honest summary: jizya and dhimmi status are historically real and well-attested institutions, not myths — but they’re also not currently practiced by any recognized government, and where they resurface today (ISIS, Taliban, TTP), it’s explicitly as an extremist/coercive revival rather than continuation of classical state practice.

Q:

Any idea about jizya collection by percentage of income of those who were paying jizya. How different it is from current taxation system?similiarities, differences. Was the amount more or less than what Muslims were paying those days to their governments?

A;

Good question — the mechanics matter a lot here, and it’s genuinely different from how people usually assume.

It wasn’t a percentage — it was a flat poll tax, tiered by wealth class. Classical jurists (the rate structure most cited comes from Abu Hanifa’s school, later detailed in Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj) set three tiers per adult male dhimmi per year:

• Poor/laborers: 1 dinar (~12 dirhams)
• Middle class: 2 dinars (~24 dirhams)
• Wealthy: 4 dinars (~48 dirhams)

This meant jizya tracked ability to pay in principle — women, children, the elderly, the destitute, and monks were categorically exempt, and it was meant to target productive economic capacity rather than simply religious identity. But actual rates varied a lot in practice and often didn’t match the jurists’ fixed schedule — in Egypt under the caliphs everyone paid a flat 2 dinars regardless of class, while under the Ayyubids rates shifted to 4.16/2.08/1.59 dinars, and by 18th-century Ottoman Egypt the rich paid roughly four times what the poor did in local currency. So there was no single “jizya rate” across Islamic history — it was set by local administration, treaty terms, and economic conditions, not scripture (the Quran mentions the obligation but not the amount).

How it compares to modern taxation: Jizya Modern income tax Structure Flat/tiered lump sum per person Percentage of income Base Fixed amount by wealth class Proportional, scales exactly with earnings Who paid Only adult non-Muslim men, able-bodied Everyone regardless of religion What it bought Exemption from military conscription, protection, religious autonomy General government services, no exemption tied to it

The structural difference is the biggest one: jizya was a capitation (head) tax like a licensing fee, not a proportional income tax. Modern systems (20–40% income tax + VAT in most countries today) are proportional and universal — nobody is exempted from tax because of belonging to the majority faith, and nobody pays extra because of a minority one.

Was it more or less than what Muslims paid? Muslims paid separately: zakat (2.5% annually on savings/wealth above the nisab threshold) and ushr (a tithe, roughly 10% on rain-fed agricultural produce, 5% if irrigated), plus they were liable for military service, which dhimmis were exempt from. In absolute terms, jizya on a poor dhimmi (1 dinar) was often lower than what a Muslim landowner with a decent harvest would owe in ushr. For the wealthy, it’s harder to say definitively — a rich Muslim merchant’s zakat (2.5% of total wealth, not just income) could exceed or fall short of the 4-dinar jizya tier depending on how much wealth he actually held, since zakat scaled with assets and jizya didn’t. So there wasn’t a clean “Muslims paid more/less” answer — the tax bases were different (jizya: flat by class; zakat: proportional to wealth; ushr: proportional to produce), and outcomes varied by individual wealth level rather than by a fixed ratio between the two systems.

Rep. Nancy mace quote on x” We cannot coexist with people who want to kill us.”

Q; Do we have examples in history where invaders invaded their colonies, killed the natives, lived amongst the natives till overpowered them and rest is history? Is it too early to fear for that scenario? Or that kind of situation is present right now?

A:

• The post by @Zs496S1 quotes Rep. Nancy Mace’s statement “We cannot coexist with people who want to kill us” and poses a rhetorical question about historical patterns of invaders settling among natives, killing or subduing them, and eventually dominating through demographic or cultural shifts.
• Relevant historical examples include 7th-8th century Arab Muslim conquests of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe, where initial military invasions led to settlement, dhimmi systems for non-Muslims, and gradual population changes via conversion and intermarriage over generations.
• The query taps into contemporary debates on migration, integration failures, and security threats in Western countries, drawing parallels to fears of long-term societal transformation amid ongoing global conflicts.

Q: Are current problems of migrants reaching to level of those examples you mentioned at this stage and at verge of takeover the host countries?

No. Current migrant-related problems in Western host countries (primarily Europe) involve real integration failures, elevated crime rates among certain groups, parallel societies in some areas, and ongoing demographic shifts, but they do not match the scale, nature, or immediacy of the historical examples of armed conquests followed by settlement and gradual overpowering.8

The 7th–8th century Arab/Muslim expansions involved military invasions that overthrew existing governments and armies across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe/Spain. Conquerors imposed rule, extracted taxes (jizya) from non-Muslims, settled, and over centuries achieved religious/cultural majorities through a mix of conversion, differential fertility, and further expansion. That was state-backed conquest leading to sovereignty change.

Today’s patterns are predominantly civilian migration (asylum, family reunification, economic, irregular crossings), not organized armies seizing territory. Migrants enter under host-country laws (or in violation of them) and remain subject to those laws. No Western country has lost territorial control or sovereign institutions to migrant groups.

Current demographics (as of ~2025–2026)

Europe overall has roughly 46 million Muslims, about 6% of the continent’s population. In the EU the share is around 5–6% (25–30 million). Country estimates include France ~8–10%, Germany ~6–8.5%, Sweden ~8%, with higher concentrations in certain cities and among younger age groups/schoolchildren.8

Native fertility is well below replacement (EU average ~1.34 children per woman). Population growth or stability in many places depends on net migration. Younger cohorts are more diverse as a result.44

Pew Research Center projections (still the main referenced baseline) for Europe (EU + Norway/Switzerland) by 2050:

• Zero further migration: ~7.4% Muslim
• Medium (regular migration continuing): ~11.2%
• High (sustained high refugee-level inflows): up to ~14%

No scenario produces a Muslim majority across Europe by mid-century. Individual countries or cities under high-migration assumptions see larger shares, but national majorities remain non-Muslim. Longer-term (to 2100) continued high inflows plus fertility gaps would produce more substantial native-share declines in some Western European countries, changing the composition of the population and potentially politics/culture, but that is not “at this stage” or an imminent national takeover.23

Documented problems

Certain migrant-origin groups (especially from parts of North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and similar high-conflict or culturally distant regions) are overrepresented in crime statistics relative to their population share:

• Germany: Temporary migrants ~8.8% of suspects; some nationalities (Syrians, Afghans) show multiples higher rates for violent crime even after age/sex adjustments. Foreigners overall account for a disproportionate share of violent offenses.35
• France: Foreign nationals (~8% of population) linked to higher shares of sexual violence, homicide, violent theft, and burglaries.37
• Similar patterns appear in Sweden, the Netherlands, and other countries for violence, sexual offenses, and certain property crimes. Second-generation issues persist in some datasets.

Additional documented issues include concentrated “vulnerable areas” with higher crime and weaker state control, higher welfare dependency in some cohorts, honor-based violence, Islamist extremism/terrorism risks from a minority, and cultural frictions over free speech, gender norms, and secularism. These create genuine social cohesion and security costs that were far lower decades ago.

Not all migrants or all origin groups show these patterns; East Asian, some Latin American, and skilled economic migrants often have lower or comparable rates. Absolute numbers of serious crimes remain a small fraction of the total migrant population.

Bottom line on “verge of takeover”

Host countries retain full control of governments, militaries, police, and legal systems. Native/non-Muslim majorities still dominate nationally. Local demographic tipping points exist in specific neighborhoods or cities and influence local politics, policing, and social norms, but this is not equivalent to historical overpowering of entire societies.

Trends are not static. Several European countries have tightened asylum rules, increased deportations, and shifted politically toward restriction in recent years. Fertility gaps can narrow over generations, and policy choices (border enforcement, integration requirements, selection criteria) determine future trajectories far more than inevitability. Serious problems exist and warrant evidence-based responses on crime, integration, and volume; equating them to medieval-style conquests and declaring imminent national takeover overstates both the current data and the historical parallel.

Q:Do we have more examples from history before 5 th century? Invasions in India, China, Soviet Union later times?

A:

Yes, there are earlier examples before the 5th century CE, though the archaeological, genetic, and textual evidence is often thinner or more debated than for later periods, and pure demographic replacement of natives was rarer than elite military conquest combined with settlement, cultural/linguistic shifts, and gradual mixing. Most cases involved steppe or pastoralist groups entering settled societies. Full erasure of the prior population was uncommon; continuity of local people and elements of culture usually persisted.

Before the 5th century

• Indo-Aryan (steppe-related) migrations into the Indian subcontinent (roughly 2000–1500 BCE, peaking in the Late Harappan period): Genetic studies show an influx of people with Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry (male-biased in many analyses), mixing with local Indus Valley-related and Ancient Ancestral South Indian populations. This contributed to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages and Vedic culture in northern India. Traditional “Aryan invasion” narratives emphasizing mass violent conquest and destruction lack strong archaeological support (no widespread destruction layers at major sites). Modern consensus favors migration and cultural transformation over a single catastrophic invasion, though conflict is mentioned in later texts.69
• Germanic and other “barbarian” movements pressuring the Roman Empire: Pressures and smaller-scale entries began centuries earlier (2nd–3rd centuries CE and before), with larger entries intensifying in the 4th century (e.g., Goths crossing the Danube as refugees/foederati after Hunnic pressure around 375 CE). Groups settled within imperial borders, served in the army, and later established kingdoms as Roman authority weakened. Total migrant numbers were relatively small compared to the empire’s population; outcomes mixed elite takeover, partial settlement, and substantial Roman population/cultural continuity rather than wholesale replacement.58
• Other earlier cases include the Hyksos (Asiatic rulers of Lower Egypt, c. 1650–1550 BCE, later expelled) and disruptions linked to the Sea Peoples around the late Bronze Age collapse (~1200 BCE), some of whom settled in places like the Levant (Philistines). Steppe groups (Scythians, Cimmerians, early Xiongnu-related pressures) conducted raids and limited settlements on the edges of settled civilizations in Eurasia, but rarely achieved lasting demographic dominance before the 5th century.

India (beyond the early Indo-Aryan phase)

Later waves (post-5th century but relevant to the pattern) included Hephthalite/Huna invasions in the 5th–6th centuries and successive Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal conquests from the medieval period onward. These involved military campaigns, elite settlement, significant violence in some phases, and lasting cultural/religious impacts (especially Islamic rule in parts of the north). Hindu-majority populations and many cultural continuities persisted; full demographic overpowering of the subcontinent did not occur.

China

Pre-5th century interactions featured ongoing conflicts and raids by northern steppe groups (e.g., Xiongnu against the Han dynasty from the 2nd century BCE). The major phase of non-Han groups establishing rule in northern China—the “Five Barbarians” (Wu Hu: Xiongnu, Xianbei, and others)—occurred in the 4th–5th centuries after the Western Jin collapse, leading to the Sixteen Kingdoms period. Many of these groups later underwent significant Sinicization.77

Later, the Mongol conquest (13th century) produced massive destruction, population declines (estimates vary widely; significant mortality and displacement in northern China and elsewhere), and the Yuan dynasty under Mongol elite rule. Chinese demographic and cultural majorities ultimately reasserted themselves after the Yuan fell.

Territories associated with later Russian/Soviet spaces

The Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus’ (1237–1240) fits the destructive pattern closely: widespread sacking of cities (Kiev and others devastated), high casualties, and establishment of the Golden Horde’s overlordship with tribute extraction for roughly two centuries. Population impacts were severe in affected regions, with long recovery times for some urban centers. Mongol/Turkic elements influenced institutions and the steppe zones, but the Slavic population core recovered, and Muscovite power eventually ended the yoke. This was subjugation and elite/steppe dominance more than permanent demographic replacement of the Russian lands.82

Earlier steppe invasions (Huns, various Turkic groups) affected the Pontic and forest-steppe zones. In the Soviet period itself, the pattern was largely internal empire management (Russian settlement in non-Russian areas, forced deportations of various ethnic groups) rather than foreign invasion of the core Soviet territory. Soviet military actions were mostly outward.

Overall pattern note: Across these cases, successful long-term “overpowering” more often meant political dominance by a conquering elite, language or religious shifts, and genetic admixture than the complete disappearance of the prior population. Native demographic and cultural resilience was common. Exact parallels to any single model (including the 7th–8th century Islamic expansions) are imperfect because scale, technology, ideology, settlement density, and post-conquest policies differed. Evidence quality also declines the further back one goes.

Here’s the English translation:

---

﴾ سَنُرِیۡہِمۡ اٰیٰتِنَا فِی الۡاٰفَاقِ وَ فِیۡۤ اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ حَتّٰی یَتَبَیَّنَ لَہُمۡ اَنَّہُ الۡحَقُّ ؕ اَوَ لَمۡ یَکۡفِ بِرَبِّکَ اَنَّہٗ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ شَہِیۡدٌ ﴿۵۳﴾

Footnote 70:

This verse carries two meanings, and both have been given by major commentators.

First meaning: They will soon see with their own eyes that the message of this Qur’an has spread over all the surrounding lands, and they themselves have submitted before it. At that point they will realize that what they are being told today, and refusing to accept, was entirely true.

Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that the mere triumph of a message and conquest of vast territories is not proof of its truth — false ideologies also spread, and their followers also conquer land after land. But this is a superficial objection made without considering the full picture. The astonishing conquests granted to Islam in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs were not signs of God merely in the sense that believers kept conquering territory — rather, they were signs in the sense that this conquest, unlike other conquests in world history, did not simply make one person, one family, or one nation the owner of others’ lives and property, filling God’s earth with tyranny. On the contrary, this conquest carried with it a magnificent religious, moral, intellectual, cultural, political, and economic revolution — wherever its effects reached, the best qualities in human beings came to flourish while the worst were suppressed.

Virtues that the world had only expected to find in world-renouncing ascetics and hermits secluded in worship — never imagining they could be found among those managing worldly affairs — this revolution displayed in the politics of rulers, the justice of judges, the warfare and conquests of army commanders, the tax collection of revenue officers, and the trade of great merchants. Within the society it produced, it elevated ordinary people so highly in character, conduct, and cleanliness that even the elite of other societies appeared beneath their level. It pulled humanity out of the cycle of superstition and myth and set it upon the clear highway of rational inquiry and sound thought and action.

It cured social ills that other systems never even attempted to address, or attempted but failed to cure — such as: division of humanity by race, ethnicity, homeland, or language; class division within a single society along with hierarchical distinctions and untouchability; absence of equality in legal rights and social practice; the degradation of women and their deprivation of even basic rights; widespread crime; the normalization of alcohol and intoxicants; government being beyond criticism and accountability; ordinary people being deprived of basic human rights; disregard for treaties in international relations; savagery in war; and other such ills.

Above all, within the Arabian peninsula itself, this revolution visibly replaced anarchy with order, bloodshed and lawlessness with peace, immorality with piety and purity, oppression and injustice with justice, filth and coarseness with cleanliness and refinement, ignorance with knowledge, and generations-old blood feuds with brotherhood and love — and it made a people who could not even dream beyond tribal chieftaincy into the leaders of the world.

These were the signs that very generation witnessed with their own eyes — the generation the Prophet ﷺ first addressed when he recited this verse. And from that time to this day, Allah continues to display these signs. Even in their periods of decline, Muslims have shown a height of moral character that those who parade themselves as standard-bearers of civilization have never come close to matching. The oppressive treatment that European nations inflicted upon the conquered peoples of Africa, America, Asia, and even within Europe itself has no parallel in any period of Muslim history. It is the blessing of this very Qur’an that instilled such humanity in Muslims that even in victory they never became the kind of oppressors that non-Muslims have been found to be throughout every era of history, down to today.

Anyone with open eyes need only look: how Muslims treated Christians during the centuries they ruled Spain, and how Christians then treated Muslims once they gained the upper hand there. How Muslims treated Hindus during their roughly eight-hundred-year rule in India, and how Hindus are treating Muslims now that they hold power. How Muslims have treated Jews over the past thirteen hundred years, and how Jews are treating Muslims now in Palestine.

Second meaning: Allah will show people signs both in the horizons of the earth and sky and within their own selves, through which it will become clear to them that what this Qur’an teaches is indeed the truth. Some have objected to this meaning by saying that people were already looking at the horizons of earth and sky, and at their own selves, even at that time — so what would it mean to show signs in these things in the future?

But this objection is just as superficial as the objection to the first meaning. The horizons of earth and sky are, of course, the very same ones humanity has always observed, and man’s own being is likewise the same as it has always been observed to be in every age. But the signs of God contained within these things are so limitless that humanity has never been able to encompass them, nor ever will be. In every age, new signs have kept appearing before mankind, and they will continue to appear until the Day of Judgment.

Fact findings/ disagreements on above by AI

Good critical question. The footnote mixes several different kinds of claims, and they don’t all have the same evidentiary status. Breaking it down:

The theological framing — that these historical events count as “signs of God” — isn’t a claim historians can verify or falsify one way or the other. That’s an interpretive/theological judgment, not a historical one.

The “civilizational revolution” claims (ending tribalism, elevating rights, replacing chaos with order in Arabia) — these have real historical support. Early Islamic reforms did restructure pre-Islamic Arabian tribal society, introduce legal frameworks, and produce rapid social change. But “unprecedented in world history” and framing it as uniquely free of the ills that plagued “other systems” is a much stronger claim than most historians would sign off on — it overstates the uniqueness and understates that early Islamic society still had social hierarchies, slavery persisted (though regulated), and women’s status, while improved relative to some pre-Islamic norms, still involved real legal inequalities by modern standards. Historians of the early caliphates (e.g., Hugh Kennedy, Fred Donner) describe a genuinely significant transformation — but a complex, uneven one, not a clean, ill-free revolution.

Spain (Al-Andalus) claim — that Muslim rule treated Christians well, contrasted with harsher Christian treatment of Muslims post-Reconquista: this has meaningful historical backing. Andalusian society under the Umayyads is well documented for relative tolerance and cultural flourishing (the convivencia period), and the 1492 expulsions, forced conversions, and Inquisition under Ferdinand and Isabella are well-documented and harsher by comparison. But it’s not the full picture — dhimmi status still meant legal inferiority and a special tax (jizya), and there were real episodes of persecution under Muslim rule too (the 1066 Granada massacre of Jews, and later Almohad persecution of both Jews and Christians in the 12th century). So “no ill-treatment under Muslim rule” is an overstatement even where the broader comparison has some validity.

India (800 years) claim — this is much more historically contested. Muslim rule in India included periods of genuine syncretism and tolerance (Akbar is the standard example) alongside episodes of temple destruction, forced conversions, and jizya under other rulers (e.g., aspects of Aurangzeb’s reign, or earlier Ghaznavid raids). Historians disagree sharply on how to weigh these periods against each other — this isn’t a settled, verifiable claim, it’s an active historiographical debate, partly because contemporary Indian politics has made the history itself contested terrain.

The claims about “now” — how Hindus treat Muslims in India today, and how Jews treat Muslims in Palestine today — these aren’t historical claims at all; they’re one-sided characterizations of live, deeply contested political conflicts. Both the India–Pakistan/Hindu–Muslim relationship and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have substantial documented grievances on multiple sides, and serious scholars, journalists, and human rights organizations across the political spectrum disagree sharply on how to characterize them. Presenting either as a simple morality tale isn’t something I can verify as “true” — it’s advocacy framing, not verifiable historical fact.

Bottom line: parts of this footnote track real, well-documented history (Andalusian tolerance relative to the Reconquista, early Islamic legal reform), but the passage systematically omits counter-examples and states comparative moral judgments about entire civilizations — and especially about live political conflicts — in far more absolute terms than the actual historical and political record supports.

Further rebuttal/ pushback on claims in the foot notes.

Here are documented counter-examples for each region/period the footnote addresses, organized by claim.

Spain (Al-Andalus)

What the footnote omits about Muslim rule:

• The 1066 Granada massacre, in which a mob killed the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and reportedly thousands of the city’s Jews — one of the worst pre-modern pogroms against Jews in Europe.
• Under the Almohad dynasty (12th century), both Jews and Christians faced forced conversion, expulsion, or death — Maimonides’ family fled Córdoba during this period for exactly this reason.
• Dhimmi status for Christians and Jews under Muslim rule included the jizya tax, restrictions on building/repairing churches and synagogues, and legal subordination — “tolerance” meant protected but unequal status, not full citizenship.

What it omits about Christian Spain: This part is accurate as far as it goes — the 1492 Alhambra Decree expelled Jews, forced conversions of Muslims followed, and the Inquisition targeted both groups. The footnote isn’t wrong here, just silent on the Muslim-rule counter-examples above.

India

• Mahmud of Ghazni’s early 11th-century raids repeatedly destroyed Hindu temples (Somnath, most famously) and looted extensively.
• Aurangzeb’s reign (17th century) reimposed the jizya tax on non-Muslims after Akbar had abolished it, and ordered destruction of temples including at Varanasi and Mathura — well documented in Mughal court chronicles themselves, not just later polemics.
• The Delhi Sultanate’s early conquests (12th–13th century) involved large-scale violence against Hindu and Buddhist populations, including the destruction of Nalanda and other Buddhist centers.
• Countering the footnote’s implied contrast: Akbar’s reign is the standard example of genuine Mughal pluralism (abolishing jizya, marrying into Rajput families, patronizing Hindu scholarship) — showing the record within Muslim rule itself was highly variable, not a uniform 800-year tolerance.

Jews and Muslims (13 centuries)

• The Granada massacre (above) and Almohad persecution directly contradict a clean narrative.
• The 1912–1948 mellah (Jewish quarter) system in Morocco and periodic violence against Jewish communities in Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere in the 19th–20th centuries (e.g., the 1941 Farhud massacre in Baghdad, which killed an estimated 180+ Jews) are well documented.
• Countering this: the Ottoman Empire’s acceptance of Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 is a genuine, well-documented positive counter-example — again showing wide variation rather than a single pattern.

On the “civilizational revolution” framing generally

• Slavery persisted under Islamic law throughout the classical period (regulated, with paths to manumission, but not abolished) — including the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades, which continued for over a millennium.
• Women’s legal status improved relative to some pre-Islamic Arabian norms (inheritance rights, marriage contracts) but retained substantial legal inequality (testimony weight, inheritance shares, guardianship) that persisted across the classical period.

On “now” — India and Palestine

These are live, contested conflicts where credible human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Indian and Israeli domestic groups) have documented serious concerns from multiple directions — this isn’t a case where evidence points cleanly one way, and I’d be doing the same one-sided thing the footnote does if I tried to summarize it as a simple verdict.

Overall pattern: the footnote’s core historical claims aren’t fabricated — each region did have real periods of documented tolerance — but it presents the best moments of Muslim rule against the worst moments of the comparison group, while leaving out the worst moments on its own side.