Jizya
(Tribute) 

Regarding Jiziya, we feel we must say a word about it, because of the many commentaries it has drawn - some of which are usually marred with ignorance, albeit in good faith, and others which are often impaired with falsehood and are written out in bad faith.

In accordance with the tenets of their religion which prohibits compulsion, Muslims used to permit the inhabitants of the country they had conquered to remain on their religion provided that they paid Jizya in return for Muslim protection against any aggression.

But some might say : Isn't Jizya a compulsory means to convert the Christian into Islam to avoid paying it ?

The answer to this question is both simple and easy : it would be illogical on the part of Omar and Khalid, for example, to harbor the intention of using Jizya as a means to force the Christians of al-Qods and those of Damascus to embrace Islam and, at the same time, to conclude with them a security pact which protected their possessions, crosses and churches, and to bind the covenant of protection to the Covenant of Allah, to the protection of His Messenger, and to that of the Orthodox Caliphs and the believers.

Suffice it to quote the words of Dr. Philip Hatta from his book entitled The History of Syria, The Lebanon and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 3, dar al-thaqafa, 1959 (some paragraphs of which have already been quoted in Chapter 9, p. 45), as he says :

"After six years of a war that was permeated by many setbacks, Hercules managed in 628 to recover Syria and the city of Raha, the homeland of his ancestors, which fell into the hands of the Persians after Khosrau II had overrun it (600-614), laying waste to it. He had invaded Damascus, terrorized its inhabitants, killing and imprisoning them, and destroyed the Church of Resurrection after looting its treasures and masterpieces among which was the real cross."

It is evident that where religious tolerance is concerned, there is a great difference between Muslim conquerors and other conquerors during the same period of time; that is, in the first half of the seventh century.

Omar abstained from praying in the Church of Resurrection so that Muslims would not turn it into a mosque after him. He established with the Christians of al-Qods the Covenant of Protection which guaranteed them the safety of their churches and crosses, whereas Khosrau II reduced the same church to rubble after he had plundered everything in it.

Therefore, the Christians acquire the protection of the Islamic state in return for Jizya which takes the place of Zakat (alms tax) for Muslims. Christians are dhimis (the free non Muslims enjoying Muslim protection), because the protection and safety they enjoy is, as has been said earlier, supported by the protection of the Prophet and that of the Orthodox Caliphs.

Like Zakat, Jizia is a tax. It is worth pointing out that it is not levied on the poor or on those who have no income; nor is it imposed on women and children, or on the blind who have no trade or job, or on an infirm who is in financial straits, or on monastery monks, except if wealthy.

With regard to the value of Jizya, it has been established that it had never exceeded the tax amount Christians used to pay to their own government before the advent of Islam.

Jizya was lawfully permitted only in return for the actual protection provided by the Muslims for the Christians who were under their rule. No Protection, no Jizya.

In his book, Al-Kharaj (The Tax), Abu Yousef says : "In the wake of his reconciliation with the people of Sham (present day Syria) and after he had collected Jizya and taxes from them, it came to Abu cUbayda's ear that the Romans had assembled to fight him, which put him and the Muslims in a difficult situation. Abu cUbayda then wrote to every one of his governors on the cities whose inhabitants he had made peace with commanding them (his governors) to return the Jizya and taxes levied from the people. He wrote to his governors asking them to tell the inhabitants of those cities : 'We are giving you your money back because of the Roman troop concentrations, and because you have stated as a condition that we provide protection for you, which we are unable to do. We are, therefore, returning to you what we have taken from you; we will, however, honor every security commitment we have made to you and every written word between us if Allah grant us victory over them.' When the governors said this to the inhabitants of those cities. They said : 'May Allah appoint you our rulers, and may He grant you victory over them(*)".

There is ample evidence in the history of the Muslims that their Islamic laws permit a non-Muslim to take legal action against the noblest of Muslims and demand justice from him.

We have, in this very context, cited two incidents in the chapter on "Equality", one between Ali - may God be pleased with him - and a Jew, and the other between a Copt and the son of cAmr Ibn al-cAas. It was Omar Ibn al-Khattab - may God be pleased with him - who ruled in both cases (Chapter 7, pp. 39-40).

Throughout history, Islam has been the most tolerant of all religions, a fact which most Western historians have acknowledged.

There is ample evidence of this, suffice it to mention the following :

- "Throughout history, never has al-Andalus (Arab Spain) enjoyed so merciful and just a rule as in the days of the Arab conquerors … . Their laws were based on justice and mercy. The Maghribi inhabitants were judged in accordance with their laws and by employees from amongst them … . The rulers of al-Andalus granted non-Muslims, whatever their religion, freedom of worship.(**)"

- "Salah ad-Dine al-Ayyoubi expelled every Muslim who did not observe the Sunna, but his tolerance and leniency towards the Christians and the Jews were such that they drew forth the admiration of the Byzantine historians", (Ibid., p.322).

- "… with regard to Bibris himself (1263-1277), he was described by a contemporary Christian historian as being 'a moderate peace-maker, incorruptible, fair among his people, and merciful towards his Christian subjects themselves'" (Ibid., p. 323).

It is to this firmly established, noble Islam, which springs from the line of conduct of the Prophet and that of the Orthodox Caliphs and from the Book of Allah - Most Gracious, Most merciful - that we hope all of us, Muslims and Christians, will return and from which we are pleased to quench our thirst.

Those early Muslims and those Orthodox Caliphs - especially Omar and Ali - may God be pleased with them - drank straight from the source, and bestowed lavishly upon humanity kind acts which will remain forever the epitome of tolerance, nobleness and high moral standards.

Likewise, early Muslim scholars did not neglect the rights of the Dhimmis. They stipulated that the Dhimmis be treated with utmost kindness and care, and that they be protected from harmful acts. In his famous book, The Parties, Shihab al-Qarafi, a prominent Imam of Sharia, said : "The Covenant of Protection stipulates that we have rights to fulfill towards them [the Dhimmis], because they are in our neighborhood and in our guard, and in the Covenant of Allah - to Whom be ascribed all perfection and majesty - in the protection of his Messenger - God's blessing and peace be upon him - and in that of Islam".

In Maratib al-Ijmac (The Degrees of Consensus), Imam Ibn Hazm says : "If the warriors come to our land seeking to harm a Dhimmi, it is our duty to fight them, and to die in his defense, for handing him over to them is negligence of the Covenant of Protection", (Tabara, p. 287).

If Muslim rulers, especially the Orthodox Caliphs and the early Ommiad rulers, treated Christians well, showing cordiality and kindness towards them, the Christians, for their part, were no less cordial towards their Muslim rulers, whom they served loyally.

In this context, suffice it to mention the following two incidents :

1. A large number of Christians from the Bani Taghlib tribe volunteered to fight in the army which Yazid Ibn Moucaouyia (680-683) had sent against Ibn-Zubayr. Carrying the cross and the flag of Serjius, these volunteers fought most bravely(*).

2. In 696, Abdulmalik (685-705) sent a military fleet against the port of Carthage, the captains and mariners of which were Syrian Christians(*).

From the Prophet's position, that of the Orthodox Caliphs and the Prophet's companions, and from the perspective of the texts - especially their spirit - we can say that, generally speaking, Islam did not hold a hostile view of the Christians, nor did it deny them the rights which were acknowledged for Muslims themselves. However, some caliphs and kings did impose some restrictions on the Christians, which restrained  their freedoms and rights. In reality, the conditions of the Christians differed according to Muslim rulers.

In addition to everything that has been said, we would like to point out that Jizya was not an Islamic invention; it is as old as the Torah, if not older (in the following verse, the words are addressed to Moses - peace be upon him) :

"When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you", [Deuteronomy 20].

Nevertheless, the difference between the two Jiziyas is immense: here it is tribute (Jizya) and compulsion in religion. In fact, it is more than just compulsion; it is subjugation and enslavement ("it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you"). This means that the defeated nation upon which Jizya was imposed also had to give up its religion and worship Moses.

Omar - may God be pleased with him - imposed Jiziya on the Christians of al-Qods in return for his protection of their freedom and guaranty of their beliefs. In his speech to them he said :

"O People of Aelia(**)! You and we have the same rights and obligations."

Throughout history, never have such words been said by a vanquisher to a vanquished.

Those Christians found great satisfaction in the Covenant of Omar, and were reassured about their future and destiny in terms of their entity and faith, because there was between them and the Caliph the Covenant of Allah and that of His Messenger.

The Hebrews, on the other hand, took the opposite stand altogether :

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you … and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them but demolish their altars and break their statues", [Deuteronomy 7].

"Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Havite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images", [Exodus 34:11].

While Omar Ibn al-Khattab said to the Christian inhabitants of al-Qods that they had the same rights and obligations, the God of the Jews told his nation : "And you shall destroy all the peoples whom the Lord your God delivers over to you, your eye shall have no pity on them", [Deuteronomy 7] and also : "You shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you", [Deuteronomy 15].