Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (12 Aug 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)

The Benevolent Impact Of Jizyah On The Vanquished In Early Islam: A Review Of Observations By Some Of The Greatest Scholars Of Enlightenment And This Era

By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

[Co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009.]

12 August 2015

[This is a follow up on my just posted article on Jizyah, which apart from expounding its roots, claims it to be a boon rather than a bane for the vanquished communities in early Islam.}

Thomas Arnold (1864-1930) a distinguished scholar and historian of Islam, knighted for academic excellence, carried out an extensive research to investigate the spread of Islam at the expense of Christianity into different countries across Asia, Europe, and Africa. He went through thousands of Church chronicles and official reports sent by the then active Christian Church of those countries to their headquarters in Rome to have totally unbiased materials for his work. Commenting on the conquest of Roman cities by Caliph Umar (633-644), he records that after the initial terror and chaos of battle was over, the people of the conquered provinces “found themselves in the enjoyment of a toleration such as, on account of their Monophysite and Nestorian opinions, had been unknown to them for many centuries.” In the same breath, he quotes the terms of surrender of Jerusalem in these words:

 “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! This is the security which Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Elia. He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, their churches and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion. Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed, neither shall they nor their appurtenances be in any way diminished nor the crosses of the inhabitants nor aught of their possessions, nor shall any constraint be put upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one ofthem be harmed.” [Preaching of Islam, 2nd revised edition, 1913, reprinted Delhi 1990, p. 56.]

 To illustrate the protective notion of Jizyah and its just and welcome application, he cites the proclamation, issued by Caliph Umar’s general Abu Ubaidah to the Christian subjects of the conquered cities of Syria, in the face of an imminent aggression from Emperor Heraclius:

“We give you back the money that we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement.” [Ibid. p. 61]

 The order was put into effect and enormous sums were paid back to the people out of the state treasury, so much so that the Christians called down blessings upon the Muslims, saying: ‘May God give you rule over us again, and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.’ [Ibid. p.61]

 Caliph Umar’s concern for the dhimmi’s, is also well reflected in his last testament, addressed to his successor:

 I commend to his care the dhimmis, who enjoy the protection of God, and of the Prophet; let him see to it that the covenant with them is kept, and that no greater burden than they can bear are laid upon them.” [Ibid. p.57]

After covering practically all the countries of the region that came under Islam in its early sweep, as well as those that saw massive conversions in later centuries, he makes the following observation (abridged) in the concluding chapter of his book that speaks for itself:

"In the preceding pages it has been shown that the theory of the Muslim faith enjoins toleration and freedom of religious life for all those followers of other faiths who pay tribute in return for protection …, The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Mohammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions, they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances, rather than inspired by a settled principal of intolerance." [Ibid. p. 419/420]

It is notable that this great icon of Enlightenment does not even mention the Qur’anic term jizyah which he simply conflates with ‘tribute’ or defence levy that was normative for the era – and, come this day, tacitly incorporated in all bilateral defence treaties between the strong and the weak nations. There is no mention of any coercion or humiliation of the vanquished people and express mention of “toleration and “freedom of religious life.”

Philip K. Hitti (1886-1978), world renowned scholar, and internationally recognized authority on Middle Eastern history, Islam, and Semitic languages, records the following self-explanatory terms of surrender of Damascus (AH 13/ 635) to Khalid ibn al Walid, which corroborates Thomas Arnold’s observations:

“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful! This is what Khalid ibn al Walid will offer to the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters therein: he promises to give them the security for their lives, property and churches. Their city wall will not be demolished, neither shall any Moslem be quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give to them the pact of God and the protection of the Prophet, the caliphs and the believers. So long as they pay the poll tax, nothing shall befall them." [Philip K.Hitti, History of the Arabs, 1937, 10th edition;  London 1993, p. 150]

Commenting on the advance of Khalid's army, the historian further states [Ibid. 152]: "The people of Shayzar (Larissa) went out to meet him accompanied by players on the tambourines and singers and bowed down before him." [Ibid. 152]

It is evident from the original historical records dating from early years of Islam that the conquered people were treated with all fairness, and that, Jizyah was charged primarily as a levy for exemption from military services, which was compulsory for Muslims on demand. Jizyah also served as a contribution towards social welfare, for which Muslims were required to pay the Zakat. Thus, Jizyah was not meant to be a punitive tax, but a just and fair levy.

Let us now quote two the most distinguished scholars of modern times whose works are based on intensive research of original sources and not influenced by later era revisionist scholarship.  

Malise Ruthven (born 1942), a consultant on Middle Eastern affairs, PhD in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University, credited with the authorship of ten books, many translated in several languages states while commenting on the verse 5:48 of the Qur’an:

"This is the clearest of many statements implicitly commanding tolerance towards the Jews and Christians and other people of the book, and by extension, towards Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhist and adherents of other scriptural religion... This clear recognition of a plurality of religious faiths, accounts, no doubt in part for the relative tolerance accorded to other religious communities (or ‘millets'), with some exception, under Islamic governments.” [Islam in the World, London 1984, p. 119]

Karen Armstrong (born 1944), an illustrious scholar, an internationally acclaimed voice of peace, compassion and religious commonality, and a prolific writer with some 25 publications to her credit, including a biography of Prophet Muhammad says:

 "After Muhammad's death, Jews and Christians were never required to convert to Islam but were allowed to practice their religion freely in the Islamic empire. Later Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs were also counted among the ‘People of the Book'. It has never been a problem for the Muslims to coexist with people of other religions.” [Muhammad, London 1991, p. 87.]

We would like to keep out of any discussion on how the concept of jizyah was used in the later centuries in Islam – with the forging of a document in the fifth century committing the vanquished Christians to a whole range of restrictions [Thomas W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, 2nd revised edition, 1913, reprinted Delhi 1990, p. 56-58]. This work is neither an apology nor a defence. It is no more than a passing glance at hard historical facts concerning the fundamentals of Qur’anic principles as they were applied in the early years of Islam, and clarification of the notion of Jizyah that is either misunderstood or projected out of historical context or relativism.

Finally, the readers must be warned of ‘revisionist’ scholarship touched in the passing in this essay. Throughout history, beginning with Ibn Ishaq in Islam, there have been people who pen their views on crucial themes, at times with an air of authority, without any intensive research into their subjects or with the deliberate intention of demonizing their perceived enemies or civilizational rivals. The trait can be found among the conceited and popularity seeking writers of this era – especially when they write about Islam or the theme of Jizyah, supposedly its Achilles heel - who wear the cloak of a scholar but are intellectually stinted like a quack, or a charlatan, who talks big but knows little, and like a tangled reed that can only produce a cacophony – but no music. God alone is their judge and mine as well if I have gone overboard in phrasing this concluding remark. 

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-benevolent-impact-of-jizyah-on-the-vanquished-in-early-islam--a-review-of-observations-by-some-of-the-greatest-scholars-of-enlightenment-and-this-era/d/104248


  • Verse 9:29 is the only verse that mentions Jiziyah and is a punitive tax or levy  on those "who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth". It is not war reparations etc. 

    The verse however covers only the direct addressees of  the Prophet and not people to whom the Prophet did not preach. It is not a command to go out and make the people of the whole World either accept Islam or pay Jiziyah! The verse covers only the "People of the Book" in Hejaz in the Prophet's times when this verse was revealed.
    The purpose of fighting is to subdue those who resist. There was no fighting and need to subdue the people into paying Jiziyah. The "People of the Book" agreed to pay Jiziyah but not as a punitive tax on all people  but as a tax only on males of military age for exemption from military service and for granting their community the status of "Those who are guaranteed protection by the State" or the status of Zimmi.
    Jiziyah in its final implementation was "value for money" or reward and not punitive tax. It changed its character as a result of negotiation and was saved from becoming a unilateral imposition after subduing a rebellious people. The Verse is therefore only of  historical  interest.
    This is covered in detail in my article

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/24/2015 3:15:21 AM

  • Dear Mubashir, I am on a vacation and just saw your comments.

    The best way to interpret the word Jizya is to explore how the Qur'an uses the different derivatives of this word as the Qur'an is the final authority of its own vocabulary.

    Here is how the word is used in the Qur'an [Ref, 3 Notes under Chap. 12, Essential Message of Islam that can be accessed under Books and Documents Section of New Age Islam: 

    Jaza’ (32:17, 34:37, 39:34), Yajzi (24:38, 30:45), Yujzo (25:75), Najzi (29:7): a reward for good deeds.

    Yujza (6:160): a recompense or a just award

    Tujza (92:19): a reward in return for a favour

    Jaza’ (4:93, 42:40), Yujza (40:40), Yujzo (6:120): a recompense for an evil deed

    By muhammad yunus - 8/23/2015 10:26:02 PM

  • Jizya [if defined as exemption or protection tax]  collected from those who attack Muslims and in a counter attack lose territory/land, can also result in Non Muslims preferring not to accept Islam.  Accepting Islam could result in their able bodied males being sent to fight ! It is therefore a good idea to explore whether the term means may mean war reparations against those who rebel against the government, break treaties and or attack Muslims. The word jizya must be analyzed beginning with it's root words.

    By Mubashir - 8/22/2015 2:53:33 PM

  • Mr Nasser very good explanation of Muslim rule can we compare to 21st century UAE who are going to host biggest science expo allowing to express and use knowledge from people of all religions, but will not allow to build one temple, gurdwaras or pagoda, for people from South Asia, this Arabs had not become rich because they get oil but also from exploitation of this South Asian labours. I think it may be similar like UAE. The people or religion in power if do not take care of weakest in social ladder is, nothing but tyrant power. And if you talk of extra talent it always used and people with extra talent not forced to the things which poor has to face if they are from different groups or religion.
    By Aayina - 8/17/2015 6:33:10 AM

  • War reparations are payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war. Generally, the term war reparations refers to money or goods changing hands, but not to the annexation of land.

    does it fit in the verse of jiziah?

    By rational - 8/17/2015 2:50:19 AM

  • The following is copied from islamophobic source.

    "There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die."

    http://counterjihadreport.com/category/jizya-tax-2/Islamic Jizya:
    Fact and Fiction
    Raymond Ibrahim, May 29, 2015
    By rational - 8/17/2015 2:47:57 AM

  • Dear Yunus Saheb,

    A few scholars defind Jizya as "War reparations"

    What are your thoughts on this? Thanks.

    By Mubashir - 8/16/2015 11:35:54 AM

  • Mohammad Ishaque Foujdar saheb
    if i am quoting on jiziah you must be sure that i know it was/is a name of tax.
    please read the verse which qualify the word jizia with the word 'saagiroon'.
    it could be just jiziah if God was not going to humiliate non-muslims with jiziah.
    BTW why Allah copied it from Romans and other jihilya kingdoms? Could not Allah think of a better way to treat the non-Muslims? is not he capable to do anything?

    By rational - 8/16/2015 4:49:26 AM

  • Mohammad Ishaque Foujdar saheb read the verse of the Quran and Hadith if you are beliver in Ahadith then come to me.
    are you a scholar of Arabic and the Quran?
    what is your source?

    read the translations of the vers of the Quran by eminent scholars of Islam.
    why you can't verify it?

    By rational - 8/16/2015 4:40:25 AM

  • Janab Rational Sahib- 'jiziyah' was /is name of a tax. It was not stigma, you are using a apocryphal word and connotation for the Jiziyah. The Jiziyah was taken from non-Muslims and zakaat was taken from the Muslims only, then, according to you both must be stigma. 
    By Mohammad Ishaque Foujdar - 8/15/2015 9:29:34 PM

  • Dear Barani,

    You have not quoted any any recognized international authority to support your lopsided and highly misleading figure that belies the records left by some of the most distinguished historians and scholars of modern and Enlightenment era as tabled in the article. Anybody can quote any figure he wishes. 

    May I request you to read the article closely before raising your question. But if you have indeed read the article, you will appreciate, it is true to its caption.

    By muhammad yunus - 8/13/2015 7:47:38 AM

  • Uri Avnery, a Jewish atheist says:
    Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.”  The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?
    Well, they just did not.
    For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece.  Did the Greeks become Muslims?  Did anyone even try to Islamize them?  On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration.  The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith.  Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
    True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks.  But nobody argues that they did this under duress.  They adopted Islam in order to become favourites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
    In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus.  At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country.  Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them.  Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.
    There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews.  As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time.  Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides.  In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists.  In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts.  That was, indeed, the Golden Age.  How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?
    What happened afterwards is even more telling.  When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror.  The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave.  And where did the hundreds of thousands of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape?  Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries.  The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south.  Nowhere were they persecuted.  They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
    Why?  Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”.  In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians.  They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost.  They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews.  It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
    Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.
    The story about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. '

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/13/2015 7:40:22 AM

  • The Jaziya rate was 30% , the Zakat rate was 3% ; under impact of Jaziya, many groups like Bohra converted to islam
    By Barani - 8/13/2015 6:53:17 AM

  • Dear
    Rational Muhammad Yunus,

    The article is based on hard historical facts pertaining to Islam's early history. May I request you to get a copy of Thomas Arnold's or Philip Hitti's referenced book from any library and read it yourself. Let me also remind you of the concluding para of the essay because you quote all sorts of name who have left merely their own opinions, while I have quoted the scholars whose names will shine like beacon in night sky and are well known among the highest echelon of knowledge for their scholarship:.

    "Finally, the readers must be warned of ‘revisionist’ scholarship touched in the passing in this essay. Throughout history, beginning with Ibn Ishaq in Islam, there have been people who pen their views on crucial themes, at times with an air of authority, without any intensive research into their subjects or with the deliberate intention of demonizing their perceived enemies or civilizational rivals. The trait can be found among the conceited and popularity seeking writers of this era – especially when they write about Islam or the theme of Jizyah, supposedly its Achilles heel - who wear the cloak of a scholar but are intellectually stinted like a quack, or a charlatan, who talks big but knows little, and like a tangled reed that can only produce a cacophony – but no music. God alone is their judge and mine as well if I have gone overboard in phrasing this concluding remark."

    By muhammad yunus - 8/13/2015 5:58:15 AM

  • Some say that jiziah'a amount was very small, subjects could give easily.
    the issue is not amount, it is stigma attached to jiziah. issue is not the protection of non-muslims but stigma Allah attached to it.

    By rational - 8/13/2015 3:19:10 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.