|Part of a series on|
Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law. Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the ill, the insane, slaves, and non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands (musta’mins). Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment, as were those who could not afford to pay.
Jizya is mandated by the Quran and hadiths (but not the rate or amount). However, scholars largely agree that early Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established under previous rulers of the conquered lands, such as those of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.
The application of jizya varied in the course of Islamic history. Together with kharaj, a term that was sometimes used interchangeably with jizya, taxes levied on non-Muslim subjects were among the main sources of revenues collected by some Islamic polities. Jizya rate was usually a fixed annual amount depending on the financial capability of the payer. Sources comparing taxes levied on Muslims and jizya differ as to their relative burden depending on time, place, specific taxes under consideration, and other factors.[not in citation given]
Historically, the Jizya tax has been rationalized in Islam as a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the permission to practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims’ submission to the Muslim state and its laws. Jizya has also been rationalized by some as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam.
The jizya tax was historically imposed on Jews and Christians in the Arabian peninsula, the Levant, Iraq, North Africa, Caucasus and Spain, and on Hindus in South Asia into the 19th century, but almost vanished during the 20th century. The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world, although there are reported cases of organizations such as the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS attempting to revive the practice.
Some modern Islamic scholars, such as Abul A’la Maududi of Pakistan, have argued that Jizya should be re-imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim nation. Moderate Muslims generally reject the dhimma system, which encompasses jizya, as inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democracies.
- 1 Etymology and Meaning
- 2 In the Qur’an
- 3 Rationale
- 4 Jizya in the classical era
- 5 History
- 6 Assessment and historical context
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 Sources
- 10 External links
Etymology and Meaning
Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:
- Shakir and Khalifa‘s English translations of the Qur’an render jizya as “tax“, while Pickthal and Arberry translates it as “tribute“. Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.
- The early 20th century Islamic scholar Yusuf Ali explained Jizyah as follows, “the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning was a poll tax levied on those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim state. There was no amount permanently fixed for it, and in any case it was an acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. I accept the interpretation An Yadin (for Jizya in Quranic verse 9:29) to be ‘in token of willing submission’.”
- Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, a classical Muslim lexicographer, writes about jizya: “A tax that is levied on Dhimmis and it is so named because it is in return for the protection they are guaranteed.”
- Muhammad Abdel-Haleem states that the term poll tax does not translate the Arabic word jizya, being also inaccurate in light of the exemptions granted to children, women, etc, unlike a poll tax, which by definition is levied on every individual (poll = head) regardless of gender, age, or ability to pay. He further adds that the root verb of jizya is j-z-y, which means ‘to reward somebody for something’, ‘to pay what is due in return for something’ and adds that it’s in exchange for military service.
- The historian al-Tabari relates that some members of the Christian community asked ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab if they could refer to the jizya as sadaqah, literally “charity”, which he agreed to.
- Edward William Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as “The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government; whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection.”
- Michael G. Morony states that the emergence of “protected status and the definition of jizya as the poll tax on non-Muslim subjects appears to have been achieved only by the early eighth century. This came as a result of growing suspicions about the loyalty of the non-Muslim population during the second civil war and of the literalist interpretation of the Quran by pious Muslims.”
- Jane Dammen McAuliffe states that Jizya, in early Islamic texts, was an annual tribute expected from non-Muslims, and not a poll tax.
- Tritton states that both Jizya in west, and Kharaj in the east Arabia meant tribute. It was also called Jawali in Jerusalem. Shemesh says that Abu Yusuf, Abu Ubayd, Qudama, Khatib and Yahya used the terms Jizya, Kharaj, Ushr and Tasq as synonyms. Long states Jizya in Islamic history sometimes referred to a land tax.
- Ann Lambton states that the “origins of Jizya are extremely complex, regarded by some jurists as compensation paid by non-Muslims for being spared from death and by others as compensation for living in Muslim lands”.
In the Qur’an
Jizya is sanctioned by the Qur’an based on the following verse:
Fight 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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
1. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day (qātalū-lladhīna lā yuʾminūna bi-llāhi wa-lā bi-l-yawmi-l-ākhir)
Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’, while Mustafa Al-Maraghi comments on it: “fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk.” In any case, there is nothing in the Qur’an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.
2. Do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden (wa-lā yuḥarrimūna mā ḥarrama-llāhu wa-rasūluh)
The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’, since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others. His Messenger in this verse has been interpreted by exegetes as referring to the Prophet Muḥammad or the People of the Book’ s own earlier messengers, Moses or Jesus, but the latter must be the correct interpretation as it is already assumed that the People of the Book did not believe in Muḥammad or forbid what he forbade. They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements.
3. Until they pay jizya with their own hands while they are subdued (ḥattā yu‘ṭū-l-jizyata ‘an yadin wa-hum ṣāġirūn).
Here ʿan yad (from/for/at hand), is interpreted by some to mean that they should pay directly, without intermediary and without delay. Others say that it refers to its reception by Muslims and means “generously” as in “with an open hand,” since the taking of the jizya is a form of munificence that averted a state of conflict. M.J. Kister understands ‘an yad to be a reference to the “ability and sufficient means” of the dhimmi. Mark Cohen writes that ‘while they are subdued’ was interpreted by many to mean “humiliated state of the non-Muslims”. In contrast, Al-Shafi‘i, the founder of the Shafi’i school of law, wrote that a number of scholars explained this last expression to mean that “Islamic rulings are enforced on them.” This understanding is reiterated by the Hanbali jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, who interprets wa hum saghīrūn (while they are subdued) as making all subjects of the state obey the law and, in the case of the People of the Book, pay the jizya.
Most Muslim jurists regard the jizya as a special payment collected from certain non-Muslims in return for the responsibility of protection fulfilled by Muslims against any type of aggression, as well as for non-Muslims being exempt from military service, and in exchange for the suppliance of poor dhimmis. Early Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf writes:
‘After Abu ‘Ubaydah concluded a peace treaty with the people of Syria and had collected from them the jizyah and the tax for agrarian land (kharāj), he was informed that the Romans were readying for battle against him and that the situation had become critical for him and the Muslims. Abu ‘Ubaydah then wrote to the governors of the cities with whom pacts had been concluded that they must return the sums collected from jizyah and kharāj and say to their subjects: “We return to you your money because we have been informed that troops are being raised against us. In our agreement you stipulated that we protect you, but we are unable to do so. Therefore, we now return to you what we have taken from you, and we will abide by the stipulation and what has been written down, if God grants us victory over them.”’
The Orientalist Thomas Walker Arnold gives the example of the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who “made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty.” In the case of war, jizya is seen as an option to end hostilities. According to Abu Kalam Azad, one of the main objectives of jizya was to facilitate a peaceful solution to hostily, since non-Muslims who engaged in fighting against Muslims were thereby given the option of making peace by agreeing to pay jizya. In this sense, jizya is seen as a means by which to legalize the cessation of war and military conflict with non-Muslims. In a similar vein, Mahmud Shaltut states that “jizya was never intended as payment in return for one’s life or retaining one’s religion, it was intended as a symbol to signify yielding, an end of hostility and a participation in shouldering the burdens of the state.”
Thirdly, jizya created a place for the inclusion of a non-Muslim dhimmi in a land owned and ruled by a Muslim, where routine payment of jizya was a tool of social stratification and treasury’s revenue.
Finally, jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam.[full citation needed] The Muslim jurist and theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi suggested in his interpretation of Q.9:29 that jizya is an incentive to convert. Taking it isn’t intended to preserve the existence of disbelief (kufr) in the world. Rather jizya allows the non-Muslim to live amongst Muslims and experience the goodness of Islam in the hope that the non-Muslim will convert to Islam.
Many Muslim rulers saw jizya as a material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of the authority of the Islamic state.[page needed] The Islamic jurists have generally believed that jizya tax is a badge of humiliation and punishment of non-Muslims for their unbelief, its exemption for Muslims a reward for their belief,[need quotation to verify] but some modern era scholars consider this as a literal interpretation and question its historical implementation.
Jizya in the classical era
Liability and exemptions
Islamic jurists required adult, free, sane, able-bodied males of military age with no religious functions among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves, as well as musta’mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands) and converts to Islam. If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything.
The Hanafi scholar Abu Yusuf wrote, “slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax” and states that jizya should not be collected from those who have neither income nor any property, but survive by begging and from alms. The Hanbali jurist al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā states, “there is no jizya upon the poor, the old, and the chronically ill”. Historical reports tell of exemptions granted by the second caliph ‘Umar to an old blind Jew and others like him. The Maliki scholar Al-Qurtubi writes that, “there is a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that jizya is to be taken only from heads of free men past puberty, who are the ones fighting, but not from women, the children, the slaves, the insane, and the dying old.” The 13th century Shafi’i scholar Al-Nawawi wrote, “A woman, a hermaphrodite, a slave even when partially enfranchised, a minor and a lunatic are exempt from poll-tax.” The 14th century Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim wrote, “And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough.” Ibn Qayyim adds, referring to the four Sunni maddhabs: “There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams and their followers. Ibn Mundhir said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” In contrast, the Shāfi‘ī jurist Al-Nawawi wrote: “Our religion compels the poll tax to be paid by dying people, the old, even in a state of incapacity, the blind, the monks, the poor and those incapable of practicing a trade. As for people who seem to be insolvent at the end of the year, the sum of the poll tax remained as debt to their account until they should become solvent.” Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf held that monks were subject to jizya if they worked.
Though jizya was mandated initially for People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Sabianism), it was extended by Islamic jurists to all non-Muslims. Thus Muslim rulers in India, with the exception of Akbar, collected jizya from Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under their rule.[not specific enough to verify]
The sources of jizya tax and the practices varied significantly over Islamic history.[not specific enough to verify][not specific enough to verify] Shelomo Dov Goitein states that the exemptions for the indigent, the invalids and the old were no longer observed in the milieu reflected by the Cairo Geniza and were discarded even in theory by the Shāfi‘ī jurists who were influential in Egypt at the time. According to Kristen A. Stilt, historical sources indicate that in Mamluk Egypt, poverty did “not necessarily excuse” the dhimmi from paying the tax, and boys as young as nine years old could be considered adults for tax purposes, making the tax particularly burdensome for large, poor families. Ashtor and Bornstein-Makovetsky infer from Geniza documents that jizya was also collected in Egypt from the age of nine in the 11th century.
Rate of jizya tax
By the time of Mohammed, the jiyza rate was one dinar per year imposed on male dhimmis in Medina, Mecca, Khaibar, Yemen, and Nejran and maximum of twelve dirhams under Achtiname of Muhammad for Saint Catherine’s Monastery. Abu Yusuf, the chief qadhi of the caliph Harun al-Rashid, states that there was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.
The jizya varied in accordance with the affluence of the people of the region and their ability to pay. In this regard, Abu Ubayd ibn Sallam comments that the Prophet imposed 1 dinar (then worth 10 or 12 dirhams) upon each adult in Yemen. This was less than what Umar imposed upon the people of Syria and Iraq, the higher rate being due to the Yemenis greater affluence and ability to pay. Krijnie Nelly Ciggaar writes that in the 9th century, the pagan law, in Egypt and West Asia required Christians to pay jizya in guineas, or thirteen dinars if really poor.
The rate of jizya that were fixed and implemented by the second caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate, namely ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, during the period of his Khilafah, were small amounts: four dirhams from the rich, two dirhams from the middle class and only one dirham from the active poor who earned by working on wages, or by making or vending things. The 13th-century scholar Al-Nawawi writes, “The minimum amount of the jizya is one dinar per person per annum; but it is commendable to raise the amount, if it be possible to two dinars, for those possessed of moderate means, and to four for rich persons.” Abu ‘Ubayd insists that the dhimmis must not be burdened beyond their capacity, nor must they be caused to suffer.
Ibn Qudamah narrates three views in what concerns the rates of jizya. First, that it is a fixed amount that can’t be changed, a view that is reportedly shared by Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi’i. Secondly, that it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihād (independent reasoning) so as to decide whether to add or decrease. He gives the example of ‘Umar making particular amounts for each class (the rich, the middle class and the active poor). Finally, the third opinion considered the strict minimum to be one dinar, but gave no upper bound concerning the maximum amount. Ibn Khaldun states that jizya has fixed limits that cannot be exceeded. In the classical manual of Shafi’i fiqh Reliance of the Traveller it is stated that, “[t]he minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.”
Along with jizya as head tax (sometimes called neck tax), non-Muslims were also required to pay Kharaj as land tax. This was levied on anyone who worked on land or owned property on land.[not specific enough to verify]
Other taxes payable, by or from the property of non-Muslim subjects, along with jizya were fai, ghanima and ushur. Fai (sometimes spelled fay) was non-Muslim property seized by a Muslim official; the non-Muslim was sometimes allowed to reclaim the seized property by paying 100% of assessed value of the seized property.[need quotation to verify] Ghanima was the 20% tax paid by the Muslim army commander on the booty and plunder collected from non-Muslims by force (anwatan) after a war or after the commander launched a raid against non-Muslim trade posts, temples, or caravans. The commander and his Muslim soldiers were entitled to keep 80% of the booty.[not specific enough to verify][not specific enough to verify] Ushur (sometimes spelled ushr) was customs tax payable when people entered or exited the borders of an Islamic state. Non-Muslims paid twice the rate than Muslims on assessed value of property in possession of the transiting person. This was in addition to the jizya.
Jizya and other associated taxes were payable by sedentary non-Muslim populations. Sadaqa was a tax levied on nomadic people, instead of jizya.[page needed][page needed] There is some controversy about whether sadaqa was mandatory or voluntary.[need quotation to verify]
Ann Lambton states that the jizya was to be paid in humiliating conditions by every free male dhimmi of age. Ennaji and other scholars state that some jurists required the jizya to be paid by each in person, by presenting himself, arriving on foot not horseback, by hand, in order to confirm that he lowers himself to being a subjected one, accepts humiliation of having been conquered, and willingly pays. According to Cohen, the Quran itself does not prescribe humiliating treatment for the dhimmi when paying Jizya, but some later Muslims interpreted it to contain “an equivocal warrant for debasing the dhimmi (non-Muslim) through a degrading method of remission”. In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi’ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the jizya, stating, “As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya.” Ibn Qudamah also rejected this practice and noted that the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs encouraged that jizya be collected with gentleness and kindness. This position is reiterated in the classical manual of Shafi’i fiqh Reliance of the Traveller in which it is stated that jizya “is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts.”
According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of the fifth Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, those who didn’t pay jizya should be imprisoned and not be let out of custody until payment, however, the collectors of the jizya were instructed to show leniency, and avoid corporal punishment in case of non-payment. If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for enemy land was, in theory, punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.
Mark Cohen writes that the hadiths on jizya suggest stringent humiliation as well as lenient patience with the defaulters, and remarks that the lenient treatment was “doubtless, rarely headed”.
Failure to pay the jizya was commonly punished by house arrest and some legal authorities allowed enslavement of dhimmis for non-payment of taxes. In South Asia, for example, seizure of dhimmi families upon their failure to pay annual jizya was one of the two significant sources of slaves sold in the slave markets of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal era.
Use of jizya tax
In theory, jizya funds were distributed as salaries for officials, pensions to the army and charity. In later times, jizya revenues were commonly allocated to Islamic scholars so that they would not have to accept money from sultans whose wealth came to be regarded as tainted. Jizya and associated taxes also ended up in “private” treasuries.[page needed]
Sources disagree about expenditure of jizya funds on non-Muslims. Islamic tradition records a number of episodes in which the second caliph Umar stipulated that needy and infirm dhimmis be supported from the Bayt al-Mal, which some authors hold to be representative of Islam. Abu Yusuf stated that, “[a]ny aged non-Muslim who is unable to earn his livelihood, or is struck by disaster, or who becomes destitute and is helped by the charity of his fellow men will be exempted from the jizya and will be supplied with sustenance by the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury).” In contrast, Ann Lambton states that non-Muslims had no share in the benefits from the public treasury derived from jizya.
The history of the origins of the jizya is very complex for the following reasons:
- Abbasid-era authors who systematized earlier historical writings, where the term “jizya” was used with different meanings, interpreted it according to the usage common in their own time;
- the system established by the Arab conquest was not uniform, but rather resulted from a variety of agreements or decisions;
- the earlier systems of taxation on which it was based are still imperfectly understood.
William Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.
Jews and Christians in some southern and eastern areas of the Arabian peninsula began to pay tribute, called jizya, to the Islamic state during Muhammad’s lifetime. It was not originally the poll tax it was to become later, but rather an annual percentage of produce and a fixed quantity of goods.
During the Tabuk campaign of 630 Muhammad sent letters to four towns in the northern Hejaz and Palestine urging them to relinquish maintenance of a military force and rely on Muslims to ensure their security in return for payment of taxes. Moshe Gil argues that these texts represent the paradigm of letters of security that would be issued by Muslim leaders during the subsequent early conquests, including the use of the word jizya, which would later take on the meaning of poll tax.
Jizya received divine sanction in 630 when the term was mentioned in a Quranic verse (9:29). Max Bravmann argues that the Quranic usage of the word jizya develops a pre-Islamic common-law principle which states that reward must necessarily follow a discretional good deed into a principle mandating that the life of all prisoners of war belonging to a certain category must be spared provided they grant the “reward” (jizya) to be expected for an act of pardon.
In 632 jizya in the form of a poll tax was first mentioned in a document reportedly sent by Muhammad to Yemen. W. Montgomery Watt has argued that this document was tampered with by early Muslim historians to reflect a later practice, while Norman Stillman holds it to be authentic.
Emergence of classical taxation system
Taxes levied on local populations in the wake of early Islamic conquests could be of three types, based on whether they were levied on individuals, on the land, or as collective tribute. During the first century of Islamic expansion, the words jizya and kharaj were used in all three senses, with context distinguishing between individual and land taxes (“kharaj on the head”, “jizya on land”, and vice versa). Regional variations in taxation at first reflected the diversity of previous systems. The Sasanian Empire had a general tax on land and a poll tax having several rates based on wealth, with an exemption for aristocracy. In Iraq, which was conquered mainly by force, Arabs controlled taxation through local administrators, keeping the graded poll tax, and likely increasing its rates to 1, 2 and 4 dinars. The aristocracy exemption was assumed by the new Arab-Muslim elite and shared by local aristocracy by means of conversion. The nature of Byzantine taxation remains partly unclear, but it appears to have involved taxes computed in proportion to agricultural production or number of working inhabitants in population centers. In Syria and upper Mesopotamia, which largely surrendered under treaties, taxes were calculated in proportion to the number of inhabitants at a fixed rate (generally 1 dinar per head). They were levied as collective tribute in population centers which preserved their autonomy and as a personal tax on large abandoned estates, often paid by peasants in produce. In post-conquest Egypt, most communities were taxed using a system which combined a land tax with a poll tax of 2 dinars per head. Collection of both was delegated to the community on the condition that the burden be divided among its members in the most equitable manner. In most of Iran and Central Asia local rulers paid a fixed tribute and maintained their autonomy in tax collection, using the Sasanian dual tax system in regions like Khorasan.
Difficulties in tax collection soon appeared. Egyptian Copts, who had been skilled in tax evasion since Roman times, were able to avoid paying the taxes by entering monasteries, which were initially exempt from taxation, or simply by leaving the district where they were registered. This prompted imposition of taxes on monks and introduction of movement controls. In Iraq, many peasants who had fallen behind with their tax payments, converted to Islam and abandoned their land for Arab garrison cities in hope of escaping taxation. Faced with a decline in agriculture and a treasury shortfall, the governor of Iraq al-Hajjaj forced peasant converts to return to their lands and subjected them to the taxes again, effectively forbidding peasants to convert to Islam. In Khorasan, a similar phenomenon forced the native aristocracy to compensate for the shortfall in tax collection out of their own pockets, and they responded by persecuting peasant converts and imposing heavier taxes on poor Muslims.
The situation where conversion to Islam was penalized in an Islamic state could not last, and the devout Umayyad caliph Umar II has been credited with changing the taxation system. Modern historians doubt this account, although details of the transition to the system of taxation elaborated by Abbasid-era jurists are still unclear. Umar II ordered governors to cease collection of taxes from Muslim converts, but his successors obstructed this policy and some governors sought to stem the tide of conversions by introducing additional requirements such as circumcision and the ability to recite passages from the Quran. Taxation-related grievances of non-Arab Muslims contributed to the opposition movements which resulted in the Abbasid revolution. Under the new system that was eventually established, kharaj came to be regarded as a tax levied on the land, regardless of the taxpayer’s religion. The poll-tax was no longer levied on Muslims, but treasury did not necessarily suffer and converts did not gain as a result, since they had to pay zakat, which was probably instituted as a compulsory tax on Muslims around 730. The terminology became specialized during the Abbasid era, so that kharaj no longer meant anything more than land tax, while the term “jizya” was restricted to the poll-tax on dhimmis.
In India, Islamic rulers imposed jizya on non-Muslims starting with the 11th century. The taxation practice included jizya and kharaj taxes. These terms were sometimes used interchangeably to mean poll tax and collective tribute, or just called kharaj-o-jizya.
Jizya expanded with Delhi Sultanate and continued during most of the Mughal Empire rule. Alā’ al-Dīn Khaljī, a Sultan of the Khilji dynasty who ruled over most of North, West and parts of Eastern India, from 1296 to 1316 AD, legalized the enslavement of the jizya and kharaj defaulters. His officials seized and sold these slaves in growing Sultanate cities where there was a great demand of slave labour. The Muslim court historian Ziauddin Barani recorded that Kazi Mughisuddin of Bayanah advised Alā’ al-Dīn that Islam requires imposition of jizya on Hindus, to show contempt and to humiliate the Hindus, and imposing jizya is a religious duty of the Sultan.
In late 14th century, mentions the memoir of Tughlaq dynasty‘s Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, his predecessor taxed all Hindus but had exempted all Hindu Brahmins from jizya; Firoz Shah extended it over all Hindus. He also announced that any Hindus who converted to Islam would become exempt from taxes and jizya as well as receive gifts from him. On those who chose to remain Hindus, he raised jizya tax rate.
Hindus who paid Jizya in Muslim-ruled parts of India were not free to practice their religion openly, and those who did were persecuted and killed. Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, for example, wrote
The Hindus and idol-worshipers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya) and had consented to the poll tax (jizya), in return for which they and their families enjoyed security. These people now erected new idol temples in the city and environs in opposition to the Law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices, and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished. – Autobiography of Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi
During the early 14th century reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, expensive invasions across India and his order to attack China by sending a portion of his army over the Himalayas, emptied the precious metal in Sultanate’s treasury. He ordered minting of coins from base metals with face value of precious metals. This economic experiment failed because Hindus in his Sultanate minted counterfeit coins from base metal in their homes, which they then used for paying jizya.[page needed]
Jizya was temporarily abolished by the third Mughal emperor Akbar, in late 16th century. However, Aurangzeb, the sixth emperor, re-introduced and levied jizya on non-Muslims in 17th century. Aurangzeb ordered that the collected jizya be used for charitable causes to support the increasing number of impoverished and unemployed Muslim clerics in his empire.
The jizya rate of at least twice the zakat tax rate paid by Muslims led to mass civil protests of 1679 in India. Attempts to punish non-payment of jizya has sometime prompted violent resistance. In some cases, this led to its periodic abolishment such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.
After the Norman conquest of Sicily, taxes imposed on the Muslim minority were also called the jizya (locally spelled gisia). This poll tax was a continuation of the jizya imposed on non-Muslims in Sicily, by Muslim rulers in 11th century, before the Norman conquest.
Jizya collected from Christian and Jewish communities was among the main sources of tax income of the Ottoman treasury. In some regions, such as Lebanon and Egypt, jizya was payable collectively by the Christian or the Jewish community, and was referred to as maktu – in these cases the individual rate of jizya tax would vary, as the community would pitch in for those who could not afford to pay.[page needed]
The jizya was eliminated in Algeria and Tunisia in the 19th century, but continued to be collected in Morocco until the first decade of the 20th century (these three dates coincide with the French colonization of these countries).
The Ottoman Empire abolished the “jizya” in 1856. It was replaced with a new tax, which non-Muslims paid in lieu of military service. It was called baddal-askari (lit. “military substitution”), a tax exempting Jews and Christians from military service. The Jews of Kurdistan, according to the scholar Mordechai Zaken, preferred to pay the “baddal” tax in order to redeem themselves from military service. Only those incapable of paying the tax were drafted into the army. Zaken says that paying the tax was possible to an extent also during the war and some Jews paid 50 gold liras every year during World War I. According to Zaken, “in spite of the forceful conscription campaigns, some of the Jews were able to buy their exemption from conscription duty.” Zaken states that the payment of the baddal askari during the war was a form of bribe that bought them at most a one-year deferment.”
The jizya is no longer imposed by Muslim states. According to Matthew Long, in the 21st century, jizya is at odds with contemporary secular conceptions of citizen’s civil rights and equality before the law. Nevertheless, there have been reports of non-Muslims in areas controlled by the Pakistani Taliban, ISIS being forced to pay jizya
In 2009 it was claimed that a group of militants that referred to themselves as the Taliban imposed the jizya on Pakistan’s minority Sikh community after occupying some of their homes and kidnapping a Sikh leader.
In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) announced that it intended to extract jizya from Christians in the city of Raqqa, Syria, which it controls. Christians who refused to pay the tax would have to either convert to Islam or die. Wealthy Christians would have to pay the equivalent of USD $664 twice a year; poorer ones would be charged one-fourth that amount. In June, the Institute for the Study of War reported that ISIL claims to have collected jizya and fay.
Some modern Islamic scholars, such as Abul A’la Maududi of Pakistan and Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Egypt (who later changed his mind on this point), have argued that Jizya should be re-imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim nation. Moderate Muslims generally reject the dhimma system, which encompasses jizya, as inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democracies.
Assessment and historical context
Some authors have characterized the complex of land and poll taxes in the pre-Abbasid era and implementation of the jizya poll tax in early modern South Asia as discriminatory and/or oppressive, and many Islamic scholars, both classical and modern, have criticized humiliating aspects of its collection as contrary to Islamic principles. However, W. Cleveland and M. Bunton assert that dhimma status represented “an unusually tolerant attitude for the era and stood in marked contrast to the practices of the Byzantine Empire”. They add that the change from the Byzantine and Persian rule to Arab rule lowered taxes and allowed dhimmis to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy. According to Bernard Lewis, available evidence suggests that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was “welcomed by many among the subject peoples, who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters”.
Ira Lapidus writes that the Arab-Muslim conquests followed a general pattern of nomadic conquests of settled regions, whereby conquering peoples became the new military elite and reached a compromise with the old elites by allowing them to retain local political, religious, and financial authority. Peasants, workers, and merchants paid taxes, while members of the old and new elites collected them. Payment of taxes, which for peasants often reached half of the value of their produce, was not only an economic burden, but also a mark of social inferiority.
Norman Stillman writes that although the tax burden of the Jews under early Islamic rule was comparable to that under previous rulers, Christians of the Byzantine Empire (though not Christians of the Persian empire, whose status was similar to that of the Jews) and Zoroastrians of Iran shouldered a considerably heavier burden in the immediate aftermath of the Arab conquests. He writes that escape from oppressive taxation and social inferiority was a “great inducement” to conversion and flight from villages to Arab garrison towns, and many converts “were sorely disappointed when they discovered that they were not to be permitted to go from being tribute bearers to pension receivers by the ruling Arab military elite,” before their numbers forced an overhaul of the economic system in the 8th century.
The influence of jizya on conversion has been a subject of scholarly debate. Early 20th century scholars suggested that non-Muslims converted to Islam en masse in order to escape the poll tax, but this theory has been challenged by more recent research. Daniel Dennett has shown that other factors, such as desire to retain social status, had greater influence on this choice in the early Islamic period. According to Halil İnalcık, the wish to avoid paying the jizya was an important incentive for conversion to Islam in the Balkans, though Anton Minkov has argued that it was only one among several motivating factors.
Mark R. Cohen writes that despite the humiliating connotations and the financial burden, the jizya paid by Jews under Islamic rule provided a “surer guarantee of protection from non-Jewish hostility” than that possessed by Jews in the Latin West, where Jews “paid numerous and often unreasonably high and arbitrary taxes” in return for official protection, and where treatment of Jews was governed by charters which new rulers could alter at will upon accession or refuse to renew altogether. The Pact of Umar, which stipulated that Muslims must “do battle to guard” the dhimmis and “put no burden on them greater than they can bear”, was not always upheld, but it remained “a steadfast cornerstone of Islamic policy” into early modern times.
Yaser Ellethy states that the “insignificant amount” of the jizya, as well as its progressive structure and exemptions leave no doubt that it was not imposed to persecute people or force them to convert. The French polymath Gustave Le Bon wrote “that despite the fact that the incidence of taxation fell more heavily on a Muslim than a non-Muslim, the non-Muslim was free to enjoy equally well with every Muslim all the privileges afforded to the citizens of the state.” Muhammad Abdel-Haleem states, “[t]he jizya is a very clear example of the acceptance of a multiplicity of cultures within the Islamic system, which allowed people of different faiths to live according to their own faiths, all contributing to the well-being of the state, Muslims through zakāt, and the ahl al-dhimma through jizya.”
- Abdel-Haleem, Muhammad (8 Sep 2010). Understanding the Qur’ān: Themes and Style. I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd. pp. 70, 79. ISBN 978-1845117894.
- Jizyah The Oxford Dictionary of Islam (2010), Oxford University Press, Quote = Jizyah: Compensation. Poll tax levied on non-Muslims as a form of tribute and in exchange for an exemption from military service, based on Quran 9:29.
- Abou El Fadl, Khaled (2002). The Place of Tolerance in Islam. Beacon Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0807002292.
The other major issue on the point of tolerance in Islam is that of the poll tax (jizyah) imposed on the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who live in Muslim territory. When the Qur’an was revealed, it was common inside and outside of Arabia to levy poll taxes against alien groups. Building upon the historical practice, classical Muslim jurists argued that the poll tax is money collected by the Islamic polity from non-Muslims in return for the protection of the Muslim state. If the Muslim state was incapable of extending such protection to non-Muslims, it was not supposed to levy a poll tax.
- Yaser Ellethy (2014), Islam, Context, Pluralism and Democracy: Classical and Modern Interpretations (Islamic Studies Series), p. 181. Routledge. ISBN 1138800309. Quote: “[…] the insignificant amount of this yearly tax, the fact that it was progressive, that elders, poor people, handicapped, women, children, monks and hermits were exempted, leave no doubt about exploitation or persecution of those who did not accept Islam. Comparing its amount to the obligatory zaka which an ex-dhimmi should give to the Muslim state in case he converts to Islam dismisses the claim that its aim was forced conversions to Islam.”
- Alshech, Eli. “Islamic Law, Practice, and Legal Doctrine: Exempting the Poor from the Jizya under the Ayyubids (1171-1250)”. Islamic Law and Society 10 (3).
…jurists divided the dhimma community into two major groups. The first group consists of all adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community, while the second includes all other dhimmas (i.e., women, slaves, minors, and the insane). Jurists generally agree that members of the second group are to be granted a “blanket” exemption from jizya payment.
- Rispler-Chaim, Vardit (2007). Disability in Islamic law. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. p. 44. ISBN 1402050526.
The Hanbali position is that boys, women, the mentally insane, the zamin, and the blind are exempt from paying jizya. This view is supposedly shared by the Hanafis, Shafi’is, and Malikis
- Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, pp. 192-3.
- Parolin, Gianluca P. (2009). Citizenship in the Arab world : kin, religion and nation-state. [Amsterdam]: Amsterdam University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9089640452.
- Wael, B. Hallaq (2009). Sharī’a: Theory, Practice and Transformations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 332–3. ISBN 978-0-521-86147-2.
- Mirza, editor, Gerhard Bowering ; associate editors, Patricia Crone … [et al.] ; assistant editor, Mahan (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 283. ISBN 0691134847.
Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya. Women, children, handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, and slaves were exempt, as were all travelers and foreigners who did not settle in Muslim lands. […] As Islam spread, previous structures of taxation were replaced by the Islamic system, but Muslim leaders often adopted practices of the previous regimes in the application and collection of taxes.
- Mapel, D.R. and Nardin, T., eds. (1999), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, p. 231. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691049724. Quote: “Jizya was levied upon dhimmis in compensation for their exemption from military service in the Muslim forces. If dhimmis joined Muslims in their mutual defense against an outside aggressor, the jizya was not levied.”
- Thomas Walker Arnold (1913), The Preaching of Islam, pp. 61–2. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Quote: “…when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty.”
- Ghazi, Kalin & Kamali 2013, pp. 240–1.
- Muhammad Abdel-Haleem (2012-10-01). “The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14 (2): 75–6. doi:10.3366/jqs.2012.0056. ISSN 1465-3591.
- Sabet, Amr (2006), The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4, Oxford; pp. 99–100.
- Bravmann 2009, pp. 199–201, 204–5, 207–12.
- Mohammad, Gharipour (2014). Sacred Precincts: The Religious Architecture of Non-Muslim Communities Across the Islamic World. BRILL. p. XV. ISBN 9004280227.
Sources indicate that the taxation system of early Islam was not necessarily an innovation of Muslims; it appears that ‘Umar adopted the same tax system as was common at the time of the conquest of that territory. The land tax or kharaj was an adapted version of the tax system used in Sassanid Persia. In Syria, ‘Umar followed the Byzantine system of collecting two taxes based on the account of lands and heads.
- Morony, Michael (2005). Iraq after the Muslim conquest. NJ, USA: Gorgias Press. pp. 109, 99–134. ISBN 978-1-59333-315-7.
- Levy, Reuben (2002). The social structure of Islam. London New York: Routledge. pp. 310–1. ISBN 978-0-415-20910-6.
“There is little doubt that in origin kharaj and jizya were interchangeable terms. In the Arabic papyri of the first century AH only jizya is mentioned, with the general meaning of tribute, while later the poll tax could be called kharaj ala ru’us ahl al-dhimma, i.e. a tax on the heads of protected peoples. The narrower meaning of the word is brought out by Abu Hanifa, “No individual can be liable at the same time to the zakat and to kharaj.” [emphasis added]?
- Satish Chandra (1969), Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 322–40, quote=”Although kharaj and jizyah were sometimes treated as synonyms, a number of fourteenth century theological tracts treat them as separate”
- Oded Peri; Gilbar (Ed), Gad (1990). Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914 : Studies in economic and social history. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 287. ISBN 978-90-04-07785-0.
the jizya was one of the main sources of revenue accruing to the Ottoman state treasury as a whole.
- Chawkiy Abu Khalil (2006), al-Islam fi Qafass al-‘Itiham, p. 149. Dar al-Fikr. ISBN 1575470047. Quote: “و يعين مقدار الجزية إعتبارا لحالتهم الإقتصادية، فيؤخد من الموسرين أكثر و من الوسط أقل منه و من الفقراء شيء قليل جدا. و على الدين لا معاش لهم أو هم عالة على غيرهم يعفون من أداء الجزية.”
- Charles Hamilton (1957), Hedaya, Lahore
- Ghazi, Kalin & Kamali 2013, pp. 82–3.
- The French scholar Gustave Le Bon writes “that despite the fact that the incidence of taxation fell more heavily on a Muslim than a non-Muslim, the non-Muslim was free to enjoy equally well with every Muslim all the privileges afforded to the citizens of the state.” Mun’im Sirry (2014), Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’an and Other Religions, p. 179. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199359363.
- Muhammad Abu Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafasir, pp. 3277-8. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī. Quote: ” و ما يعطيه الذمي من المال يسمى جزية؛ […] و لأنها جزاء لأن يدفع الإسلام عنهم، و يكفيهم مئونة القتال، و لأنها جزاء لما ينفق على فقراء أهل الذمة كما كان يفعل الإمام عمر، […] و الإسلام قام بحق التساوي بين جميع من يكونون في طاعته، فإن الجزية التي تكون على الذمي تقابل ما يكون على المسلم من تكليفات مالية، فعليه زكاة المال، و عليه صدقات و نذور، و عليه كفارات، و غير ذلك، و لو أحصى كل ما يؤخد من المسلم لتبين أنه لا يقل عما يؤخد من جزية إن لم يزد. و إن الدولة كما ذكرنا تنفق على فقراء أهل الذمة، و لقد روى أن عمر – رضي الله تعالى – عنه وجد شيخا يهوديا يتكفف، فسأله: من أنت يا شيخ؟ قال رجل من أهل الذمة، فقال له: ما أنصفناك أكلنا شبيبتك و ضيعناك في شيخوختك، و أجرى عليه رزقا مستمرا من بيت المال، و قال لخادمه: ابحت عن هذا و ضربائه، و أَجْرِ عليهم رزقا من بيت المال.”
- John Louis Esposito (1998), Islam the Straight Path, p. 34. Oxford University Press.
- Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 99–109.
- Ennaji, Mohammed (2013). Slavery, the state, and Islam. Cambridge University Press. pp. 60–4. ISBN 978-0521119627.
- R. Marston Speight (1978), ‘The place of Christians in ninth-century North Africa, according to Muslim sources’, Islamochristiana, Vol. 4, pp. 54–5.
- Ziauddin Ahmed (1975). “The concept of Jizya in early Islam”. Islamic Studies 14 (4): 293.
Quote: The tax of jizya is imposed on the non-Muslims subjects of a Muslim state. In view of the general body of the Fuquha, it is imposed upon the non-Muslims as a badge of humiliation for their unbelief, or by way of mercy for protection given to them by the Muslims. Some Fuqaha consider this tax as punishment for their unbelief, there being no economic motive behind its imposition, because their continued stay in a Muslim land is a crome, hence they have no escape from being humiliated.
- Matthew Long (jizya entry author) (2012). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton University Press. pp. 283–284. ISBN 978-0691134840.
- Werner Ende; Udo Steinbach (2010). Islam in the World Today. Cornell University Press. p. 738. ISBN 978-0801445712.
- Abou El Fadl, Khaled (2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. p. 214. ISBN 978-0061189036.
- Coming home to Orakzai ABDUL SAMI PARACHA, Dawn.com (JAN 05, 2010). “In December 2008, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan enforced a strict version of Islamic law in divergence of enviously guarded distinctive tribal culture in Orakzai Agency. Less than a month a later, a decree for jizya was imposed and had to be paid by all minorities if they want protection against local criminal gangs or that they had to convert to Islam.”
- Aryn Baker (Feb 28, 2014). “Al-Qaeda Rebels in Syria Tell Christians to Pay Up or Die”. Time.com.
In a statement posted to Jihadi websites and signed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-designated emir of the future Islamic caliphate of Raqqa, as well as the founder of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] rebel brigade, Christians are urged to pay a tax in order to continue living under ISIS’s protection.
- John Esposito and Emad El-Din Shahin (2013). The Oxford handbook of Islam and politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 149–50. ISBN 978-0-19-539589-1.
“Quote: One of Mawdudi’s most significant legacies was the reintroduction into the modern world – and into modern language – of an idealized vision of the Islamic community. (…) Non-Muslims in the Muslim state would be categorized, in classical terms, as dhimmis, a protected class; would be restricted from holding high political office; would have to pay the jizyah poll tax; would face restrictions on public religious practice in purely Muslim habitations; could serve in parliament only so long as they accepted the Quran and Sunnah as the chief source of public law.” [emphasis added]
- Yusuf Ali (1991 Reprint), Notes 1281 and 1282 to verse 9:29, p. 507
- Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, Mufradat al-Qur’an, 1/204. Quote: “.والجزية ما يؤخَذ من أهل الذمّة، وتسميتها بذلك للاجتزاء بها عن حقن دمهم”
- An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane Book 1, p. 422. (Citing al-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Hadith by Majd al-Din ibn Athir (d. 1210), and others.)
- Morony, Michael (2005). Iraq after the Muslim conquest. NJ, USA: Gorgias Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-59333-315-7.
- Jane Dammen McAuliffe (2011), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, Brill Academic, Vol. 4, pp. 152-153; Vol. 5, pp. 192–3, ISBN 978-9-00412-35-64.
- Tritton 2008, pp. 197–198.
- Tritton 2008, p. 223.
- A Ben Shemesh (1967), Taxation in Islam, Vol. 1, Netherlands: Brill Academic, p. 6
- Matthew Long (Gerhard Böwering et al, Editors) (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. 283–4. ISBN 978-1-4008-3855-4.
- Lambton 2013, pp. 204–205.
- Muhammad Abdel-Haleem (2012-10-01). “The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14 (2): 72–4. doi:10.3366/jqs.2012.0056. ISSN 1465-3591.
- Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30.
- Mustafa, al-Maraghi. Tafsir al-Maraghi 10. p. 95.
أي قاتلوا من ذكروا حين وجود ما يقتضى القتال كالاعتداء عليكم أو على بلادكم أو اضطهادكم وفتنتكم عن دينكم أو تهديد منكم وسلامتكم كما فعل بكم الروم وكان ذلك سببا لغزوة تبوك Translation: “fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk.”
- Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2015), The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ISBN 0061125865. Quote: “Here with a willing hand renders ʿan yad (lit. “from/for/at hand”), which some interpret to mean that they should pay directly, without intermediary and without delay (R). Others say that it refers to its reception by Muslims and means “generously” as in “with an open hand,” since the taking of the jizyah is a form of munificence that averted a state of conflict (Q,R,Z).”
- M.J. Kister “‘An yadin (Qur’an IX/29): An Attempt at Interpretation,” Arabica 11 (1964):272-278.
- Cohen 2008, p. 56.
- Al-Shafi’i, Kitabul Umm, 4/219. Quote: “.وَسَمِعْت عَدَدًا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ الصَّغَارُ أَنْ يَجْرِيَ عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ الْإِسْلَامِ”
- Davutoglu, Ahmet (1993). Alternative paradigms : the impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on political theory. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. p. 160. ISBN 0819190470.
- Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. p. 204. ISBN 978-0061189036.
- Ghazi, Kalin & Kamali 2013, pp. 428–9.
- Mun’im Sirry (2014), Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’an and Other Religions, p. 178. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199359363.
- Ghazi, Kalin & Kamali 2013, pp. 14–5.
- Emon, Anver (2012). Religious pluralism and Islamic law :. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pp. 36–7. ISBN 978-0-19-966163-3.
- Al-Hattab (1995), Mawahib al-Jalil, Editor: Zakariyya ‘Amirat, 4:593
- Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “Fakhr al-Din al-Razi on Ayat al-Jizya and Ayat al-Sayf,” in Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eight to Eighteenth Centuries, eds. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 103–19.
- Ziauddin Ahmad (1975), The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam, Islamic Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4 (WINTER 1975), pp. 293-305
- C.F. Robinson (2005), ‘Neck-sealing in early Islam’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 48, pp. 401–3, 436–40
- Cahen, p. 561: “A certain number of rules formulated during the ‘Abbasid period appear to be generally valid from that time onwards. Jizya is only levied on those who are male, adult, free, capable and able-bodied, so that children, old men, women, invalids, slaves, beggars, the sick and the mentally deranged are excluded. Foreigners are exempt from it on condition that they do not settle permanently in the country. Inhabitants of frontier districts who at certain times could be enrolled in military expeditions even if not Muslim (Mardaites, Amenians, etc.), were released from jizya for the year in question.”
- Lambton 2013, p. 205: “These rules, formulated by the jurists in the early ‘Abbasid period, appear to have remained generally valid thereafter.”
- Stillman 1979, pp. 159–161.
- al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā, Al-ahkam al-sultaniyyah, p. 160. Quote: “وتسقط الجزية عن الفقير وعن الشيخ وعن الزَمِن [أي صاحب العاهة]”
- ‘Umar bin Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, passed by the door of a people’s dwelling. There was beggar there saying, “Extremely old person with blind eyesight [needs help!”] He [‘Umar] got hold of him from behind and asked, “Which community of the People of Book you belong to?” He said, “I am a Jew.” He asked, “What brought you to this condition that I see?” He said, “The demand of Jizya, the needs and the old age.” ‘Umar got hold of his hand and brought him to his place helped him a little and then called for the custodian of Baytul Mal and said, “Take a look at his suffering. By Allah this is not justice on our part that we extract from them in their youth and leave them helpless in their old age! … He exempted him from Jizya and similarly the likes of him. – Imam Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, 1/139.
- Muhammad Abdel-Haleem (2012-10-01). “The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14 (2): 80. doi:10.3366/jqs.2012.0056. ISSN 1465-3591.
- Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (2011), Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings, pp. 150–2. London: Minhaj-ul-Quran. ISBN 978-0-9551888-9-3.
- Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol.8, p. 72. Quote: “قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين… وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني”; Translation: “Our scholars have said: that which the Quran has indicated is that the tribute is taken from fighters … and there is a consensus amongst scholars that the tribute be only placed on the heads of free men who have reached puberty, who are the ones fighting with the exclusion of women and children and slaves and the crazy insane and the dying old man.”
- Al Nawawi, Minhaj al-Talibin, 3:277.
- Al Nawawī (Translated by E.C. Howard) (2005). Minhaj et talibin: a manual of Muhammadan law. Adam Publishers. pp. 337–8. ISBN 978-81-7435-249-1.
- Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimma, 1/16. Quote: “ولا جزية على شيخ فان ولا زمن ولا أعمى ولا مريض لا يرجى برؤه، بل قد أيس من صحته، وإن كانوا موسرين: وهذا مذهب أحمد وأصحابه، وأبي حنيفة، ومالك، والشافعي في أحد أمواله، لأن هؤلاء لا يقتلون ولا يقاتلون، فلا تجب عليهم الجزية كالنساء والذرية.” Translation:(incomplete) “And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough…”
- Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimma, 1/14. Quote: “ولا جزية على صبي ولا امرأة ولا مجنون: هذا مذهب الأئمة الأربعة وأتباعهم. قال ابن المنذر: ولا أعلم عن غيرهم خلافهم. وقال أبو محمد ابن قدامة في ” المغنى ” : (لا نعلم بين أهل العلم خلافا في هذا ” .”
- Lambton 2013, p. 205: “Monks were exempted according to some jurists, but Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf hold that they paid jizya if they worked.”
- Seed, Patricia. Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640, Cambridge University Press, Oct 27, 1995, pp. 79–80.
- Al-Yaqoubi, Muhammad (2015). Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations. Sacred Knowledge. pp. 54–5. ISBN 978-1908224125.
- Markovits, C. (Ed.). (2002). A History of Modern India: 1480–1950. Anthem Press; pages 28-39, 89–127
- Jackson, Peter (2003). The Delhi Sultanate : a political and military history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 282–9. ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3.
- Eraly, Abraham (2000). Emperors of the peacock throne : the saga of the great Mughals. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 401–6. ISBN 978-0-14-100143-2.
- Gerber, Jane (1995). Sephardic studies in the university. London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. pp. 54–74. ISBN 978-0-8386-3542-1.
- Daniel Dennett (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. pp. 107–10, 116–28. ISBN 978-0-674-33158-7.
- Goiten, S.D., “Evidence on the Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1963, Vol. 6, pp. 278–9, quote – “The provisions of ancient Islamic law which exempted the indigent, the invalids and the old, were no longer observed in the Geniza period and had been discarded by the Shāfi’ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory.”
- Stilt, Kristen. “Case5.4”. Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion, and Everyday Experiences in Mamluk Egypt. OUP Oxford. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
- Eliyahu Ashtor and Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2008), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, Volume 12, Thomson Gale, Article: Kharaj and Jizya, Quote= “…Many extant *Genizah letters state that the collectors imposed the tax on children and demanded it for the dead. As the family was held responsible for the payment of the jizya by all its members, it sometimes became a burden and many went into hiding in order to escape imprisonment. For example there is a Responsum by *Maimonides from another document, written in 1095, about a father paying the jizya for his two sons, 13 and 17 years old. From another document, written around 1095, it seems that the tax was due from the age of nine.”
- Tritton 2008, p. 204.
- Hunter, Malik and Senturk, p. 77
- Stillman 1979, pp. 159–160.
- The Spread of Islam Throughout the World, edited by Idris El Hareir, Ravane Mbaye, p. 200.
- Ciggaar, Krijna; et al. (1996). East and west in the crusader states. Leuven, Netherlands: Uitgeverij Peeters. pp. 91–2. ISBN 978-90-6831-792-3.[need quotation to verify]
- Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Ma‘ārifu’l-Qur’ān 4, p. 364.
- Al Nawawī (Translated by E.C. Howard) (2005). Minhaj et talibin: a manual of Muhammadan law. Adam Publishers. pp. 339-340. ISBN 978-81-7435-249-1.
- Ahmet Davutoğlu (1994), Alternative paradigms: the impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on political theory, p. 160. University Press of America.
- Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10. Quote: «وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 – أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ لأن النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فرضها مقدرة بقوله لمعاذ – تقدم -: خذ من كل حالم دينارا أو عدله معافر. . . . وفرضها عمر بمحضر من الصحابة فلم ينكر عليه، فكان إجماعا. 2 – أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، وذكر أنه زيد عليهم فيما مضى درهمان، فجعله خمسين، قال الخلال: العمل في قول أبي عبد الله على ما رواه الجماعة، فإنه قال: لا بأس للإمام أن يزيد في ذلك وينقص على ما رواه عنه أصحابه في عشرة مواضع، فاستقر قوله على ذلك، وهذا قول الثوري، وأبي عبيد؛ لأن النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أمر معاذا أن يأخذ من كل حالم دينارا، وصالح أهل نجران على ألفي حلة النصف في صفر والنصف في رجب. وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: – على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. – وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. – وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. وصالح بني تغلب على مثلي ما على المسلمين من الزكاة، وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 – أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛ لأن عمر زاد على ما فرض رسول الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، ولم ينقص منه، وروي أنه على ثمانية وأربعين، فجعلها خمسين.»
- Ibn Khaldun, translation: Franz Rosenthal, N. J. Dawood (1969), The Muqaddimah : an introduction to history ; in three volumes 1, p. 230. Princeton University Press.
- Cite error: The named reference
NuhHaMimwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Reuben Levy (1957), The Social Structure of Islam, 2nd Edition (The Sociology of Islam); Cambridge University Press; ISBN 978-0521091824, pp. 58-66, 391-394, 23-25
- Shemesh, Ben (Ed.). (1958). Taxation in Islam (Vol. 1). Brill (Netherlands); pages 27–49
- Coşgel, M., Miceli, T., & Ahmed, R. (2009). Law, state power, and taxation in Islamic history. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71(3), pages 704–717
- T.W. Juynboll, Encyclopedia of Islam, 1st Edition, Brill, see article on ‘Fai’, pages 38–40; also see article on ‘Fay’ by F. Loekkegaard in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd Edition, Brill
- Ghazanfar, S. M. (2003). Contributions of selected Arab-Islamic scholars, Medieval Islamic Economic Thought, Routledge (New York), pages 228–243; for basis: see Quran 59:7
- Khadduri, M. (Ed.). (2001). The Islamic law of nations: Shaybani’s Siyar. Johns Hopkins University Press; pages 47–129, 290–310
- AHMAD, Z., & Ahmed, Z. (1975). FINANCIAL POLICIES OF THE HOLY PROPHET—A Case Study of the Distribution of Ghanima in Early Islam.Islamic Studies, 14(1), pages 9–25; for basis in Islamic law, see: Quran 8:42
- Nienhaus, V. (2006), Zakat, Taxes, and Public Finance in Islam, in Islam and the Everyday World: Public Policy Dilemmas (Sohrab Behdad et al Editors), pages 165–182
- Ahamat, H., & Kamal, M. H. M. (2011). “Modern Application of Siyar (Islamic Law of Nations): Some Preliminary Observations”. Arab Law Quarterly, 25(4), 423–439
- Donner & Donner (1981). The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1597404587
- Shemesh, Ben (Ed.). (1958). Taxation in Islam (Vol. 1). Brill Archive.
- Jalili, A. R. (2006). “A Descriptive Overview of Islamic Taxation”. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), 16–28.
- Aghnides, Nicolas (2005). Islamic theories of finance : with an introduction to Islamic law and a bibliography. Gorgias Press. pp. 398–408. ISBN 978-1-59333-311-9.
- Tsadik, Daniel (2007). Between foreigners and Shi’is : nineteenth-century Iran and its Jewish minority. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press. pp. 25–30. ISBN 978-0-8047-5458-3.
- Cohen 2008, pp. 56, 64, 69.
- Al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Tālibīn wa ‛Umdat al-Muftīn, 10:315–6. Quote: « قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةُ الْمَذْكُورَةُ أَوَّلًا: لَا نَعْلَمُ لَهَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ أَصْلًا مُعْتَمَدًا، وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا الخراسَانِيِّينَ، وَقَالَ جُمْهُورٌ الْأَصْحَابِ: تُؤْخَذُ الْجِزْيَةُ بِرِفْقٍ ، كَأَخْذِ الدُّيُونِ . فَالصَّوَابُ الْجَزْمُ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةَ بَاطِلَةٌ مَرْدُودَةٌ عَلَى مَنِ اخْتَرَعَهَا، وَلَمْ يُنْقَلْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ وَلَا أَحَدًا مِنَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ فَعَلَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا ، مَعَ أَخْذِهِمِ الْجِزْيَةَ.» Translation: “As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya.” (Translation by Dr. Caner Dagli, taken from: H.R.H. Prince Ghazi Muhammad, Ibrahim Kalin and Mohammad Hashim Kamali (2013), War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad, pp. 82–3. The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8.)
- Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 4:250.
- Keller (ed., trans.), Nuh Ha Mim (1994). Reliance of the Traveller: Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Amana Publications. p. 608. ISBN 978-0-915957-72-9.
- Humphrey Fisher (2001), Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. NYU Press. p. 47.
- Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0195053265.
[…] those who remained faithful to their old religions and lived as protected persons (dhimmis) under Muslim rule could not, if free, be legally enclaved unless they had violated the terms of the dhimma, the contract governing their status, as for example by rebelling against Muslim rule or helping the enemies of the Muslim state or, according to some authorities, by withholding payment of the Kharaj or the Jizya, the taxes due from dhimmis to the Muslim state.
- Mark R. Cohen (2005), Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691092720, pp. 120–3; 130–8, Quotes: “Family members were held responsible for individual’s poll tax (mahbus min al-jizya)”; “Imprisonment for failure to pay (poll tax) debt was very common”; “This imprisonment often meant house arrest… which was known as tarsim“
- I. P. Petrushevsky (1995), Islam in Iran, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0-88706-070-0, pp 155, Quote – “The law does not contemplate slavery for debt in the case of Muslims, but it allows the enslavement of Dhimmis for non-payment of jizya and kharaj.(…) “
- Scott C. Levi (2002), “Hindu Beyond Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade.” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 12, Part 3 (November 2002): p. 282
- Fouzia Ahmed (2009), The Delhi Sultanate: A Slave Society or A Society with Slaves?, Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, 30(1), pp. 8-9; Quote: “‘Alā’ al-Dīn Khaljī legalized the enslavement of the revenue (jizya) defaulters. (…) Sultans took the enslaved populations to growing Sultanate cities where there was a great demand of slave labour.”
- Çizakça, Murat (2011). Islamic Capitalism and Finance: Origins, Evolution and the Future. p. 20.
- Weiss, Holger. Social Welfare in Muslim Societies in Africa. p. 18.
- Kamaruddin Sharif; Wang Yong Bao. Iqbal, Zamir; Mirakhor, Abbas, eds. Economic Development and Islamic Finance. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-8213-9953-8.
As these examples show, the responsibility for social safety and security that the Islamic state has undertaken has not been restricted to its citizens, but has also included all residents.
- ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Qurchi, Samahat al-Islam. pp. 278-9. Maktabat al-‘Adib.
- Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 144.
- Cahen, p. 559.
- William Montgomery Watt (1980), pp. 49–50.
- Stillman 1979, pp. 17–18.
- Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine: 634–1099, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 28–30. The letter sent to the bishop Yuhanna at Eilat:
“To Yuhanna bin Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praise be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou hast to accept Islam, or pay the tax, and obey God and his Messenger and the messengers of His Messenger, and do them honour and dress them in fine clothing, not in the raiment of raiders; therefore clothe Zayd in fine robes, for if you satisfy my envoys, you will satisfy me. Surely the tax is known to you. Therefore if you wish to be secure on land and on sea, obey God and his Messenger and you will be free of all payments that you owed the Arab [tribes] or non-Arabs, apart from the payment to God [which is] the payment of his Messenger. But be careful lest thou do not satisfy them, for then I shall not accept anything from you, but I shall fight you and take the young as captives and slay the elderly. For I am the true Messenger of God; put ye your trust in God and his books and his messengers and in the Messiah son of Maryam, for this is God’s word and I too, put my trust in Him, for he is the Messenger of God. Come then, before a calamity befalls you. As for me, I have already given my envoys instructions with regard to you: give Harmal three wasqs of barley, for Harmala is your well-wisher, for if it were not for God and if it were not for this, I would not be sending you messengers, but rather you would be seeing the army. Therefore if you my messengers, you will have the protection of God and of Muhammad and all that stand at his side. My messengers are Shurahbil and Ubayy and Harmala and Hurayth b. Zayd who is one of the sons of the Banu Tayy’. All that they decide with regard to you shall be according to my wishes, and you will have the protection of God and of Muhammad the Messenger of God. And peace will be with you if you obey me. And the people of Maqnā thou shall lead back to their land.”
The letter sent to the people of Adhruh:
“In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. From Muhammad the Prophet to the people of Adhruh; They [will live] securely by virtue of the letter of security from God and from Muhammad. They are due to pay 100 dinars, good and weighed, on every Rajab. And if one [of them] flees from the Muslims, out of fear and awe—for they feared the Muslims—they shall live securely until Muhammad will visit them before he leaves.”
- Bravmann 2009, p. 204: “Whereas in the (non-Islamic) examples mentioned by us above the good deed consists in the pardon granted by an individual according to his discretion to an individual who has been vanquished and taken captive by him, in the Qur’an verse discussed by us the good deed, and hence also the “reward” (jizya = jaza’ = tawab) necessarily following it according to ancient Arab common law have become a practice normally occurring and that must be performed: the life of all prisoners of war belonging to a certain privileged category of non-believers must, as a rule, be spared. All must be subject to pardon – provided they grant the “reward” (jizya) to be expected for an act of pardon (sparing of life).”
- Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, p. 98, note 3. Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633. Quote: “Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to “a kharaj on their heads,” the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase “jizya on their land,” this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history.” Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3–10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, “The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication,” Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27–38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab’i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).
- Cahen, p. 560.
- Hoyland 2014, p. 99.
- Hoyland 2014, p. 199.
- Cahen, p. 561.
- Hoyland 2014, pp. 201–202.
- Hoyland 2014, p. 200.
- Jackson, Peter (2003). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 284–286. ISBN 978-0521543293.
- Irfan Habib, Economic History of Medieval India, 1200-1500, Vol VIII, part 1, pp. 78–80. ISBN 978-81-317-2791-1.
- Fouzia Ahmed (2009), The Delhi Sultanate: A Slave Society or A Society with Slaves?, Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, 30(1): 8-9
- Elliot, H. M. (Henry Miers), Sir; John Dowson. “15. Táríkh-i Fíroz Sháhí, of Ziauddin Barani”. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period (Vol 3.). London, Trübner & Co. p. 184.
Quote – The Sultan then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tributes or givers of tribute? The Kazi replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths to receive it. The due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. God holds them in contempt, for he says, “keep them under in subjection”. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor (Hanafi), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but Death or Islam.
- Vincent A Smith, The Oxford History of India: From the Earliest Times to the End of 1911 at Google Books, Chapter 2, pp. 249–51, Oxford University Press.
- Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi Autobiography of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Translated y Elliot and Dawson, Volume 3 – The History of India, Cornell University, pp 374–83
- Annemarie Schimmel (1997). Islam in the Indian Subcontinent. Brill Academic. pp. 20–23. ISBN 978-9004061170.
- Vincent A Smith, The Oxford History of India: From the Earliest Times to the End of 1911 at Google Books, Chapter 2, pp 236–42, Oxford University Press
- William Hunter (1903), A Brief History of the Indian Peoples, p. 124, at Google Books, 23rd Edition, pp. 124–8
- Muḥammad ibn Tughluq Encyclopedia Britannica (2009)
- Manas: History and Politics, Aurangzeb
- Copland, Ian; et al. (2012). A History of State and Religion in India. Routledge. pp. 114–116. ISBN 978-0415580663.
- Elphinstone, M. (1905), The history of India: the Hindú and Mahometan periods; John Murray (London); see pages 616–658
- Chandra, S. (1969). “jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient / Journal de l’histoire economique et sociale de l’Orient, pages 322–340.
- Markovits, C. (Ed.). (2002). A History of Modern India: 1480–1950, Anthem Press. pp. 109-12.
- Shlomo Simonsohn, Between Scylla and Charybdis: The Jews in Sicily, Brill, ISBN 978-9004192454, pp 24, 163
- Stefan Winter (2012), The Shiites of Lebanon under Ottoman Rule, 1516–1788, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107411432, p. 64.
- Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman et al (1960), ISBN 9789004161214, Jizya
- “The Zoroastrians who remained in Persia (modern Iran) after the Arab–Muslim conquest (7th century AD) had a long history as outcasts. Although they purchased some toleration by paying the jizya (poll tax), not abolished until 1882, they were treated as an inferior race, had to wear distinctive garb, and were not allowed to ride horses or bear arms.” Gabars, Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 29 May 2007.
- “Though in Tunisia and Algeria the jizya/kharaj practice was eliminated during the 19th century, Moroccan Jewry still paid these taxes as late as the first decade of the twentieth century.” Michael M. Laskier, North African Jewry in the Twentieth Century: Jews of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, NYU Press, 1994, p. 12.
- Mordechai Zaken, Jewish Subjects and their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan: A Study in Survival, Brill, 2007, pp. 280–284–71.
- Cahen, p. 562: “The jizya has naturally disppeared from modern Muslim States as a result of the growing equality of religions, the introduction of military service, and the organization of new fiscal systems.”
- “Sikhs pay Rs 20 million as ‘tax’ to Taliban”. Tribuneindia.com. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
- Caris, Charlie. “The Islamic State Announces Caliphate”. Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
- Yusuf al-Qaradawi (2007), Al-Din wa al-Siyasah: Ta’sil Warad Shubuhat, p. 184. (Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq). Quote: “Nowadays, after military conscription has become compulsory for all citizens — Muslims and non-Muslims — there is no longer room for any payment, whether by name of jizya or any other.” (Original: “و اليوم بعد أن أصبح التجنيد الإجباري مفروضا على كل المواطنين – مسلمين و غير مسلمين – لم يعد هناك مجال لدفع أي مال، لا باسم جزية، و لا غيرها.)”
- Scott, Rachel (2010). The challenge of political Islam non-Muslims and the Egyptian state. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-8047-6906-8.
In the mid-1980’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi argued that non-Muslims should not serve in the army and should pay the jizya on the basis that the Islamic state is best protected by those who believe in it.
- Hoyland 2014, p. 198: “The most contentious aspect of this discriminatory policy was taxation. Initially, as one would expect, the Arabs, as conquerors and soldiers/ rulers, did not pay any taxes. The (adult male) conquered people, on the other hand, all paid tax, irrespective of their religion or ethnicity, unless they were granted an exemption in return for providing military service or spying or the like.”
- Stillman 1979, p. 28.
- Malik, Jamal (2008). Islam in South Asia a short history. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. p. 69. ISBN 978-90-04-16859-6.
It is to be noted that this tax was collected in lieu of military service, but the problem gets compounded when we learn that so many Hindus fought in Muslim armies. It was only with expanding Muslim rule by the later half of the fourteenth century, that jizya was levied on non-Muslims as a discriminatory tax, but was relaxed here and there.
- Chandra, S. (1969), Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century, Journal de l’histoire economique et sociale de l’Orient, p. 339. Quote: “Politically, the greatest objection to jizyah was that it harassed and alienated some of the most influential sections of the Hindus, namely the urban masses […] These people were subjected to great harassment and oppression by the collectors of jizyah, and in retaliation resorted on a number of occasions to hartal and public demonstrations.”
- Markovits, Claude (2004). A history of modern India, 1480-1950. London: Anthem. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2.
the jizya [was] the symbol par exellence of the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims: it is highly doubtful that it was in reality levied as a tax distinct from the land tax; the terms jizya and kharaj are interchangeable in the texts dating from this time. The extremely theoretical nature of this discrimination must be kept in mind when there is reference to its abolition or its restoration under the Moguls.
- Takim, L. (2007), Holy Peace or Holy War: Tolerance and Co-existence in the Islamic Juridical Tradition, Islam and Muslim Societies, 4(2). pp. 14-6
- Victoria, William L. Cleveland, late of Simon Fraser University, Martin Bunton, University of (2013). A history of the modern Middle East (Fifth edition. ed.). New York: Westview Press. p. 13. ISBN 081334834X.
- Lewis, Bernard (2002). Arabs in History. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-19280-31-08.
- Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic societes. Cambridge University Press. p. 53.
- Tramontana, Felicita (2013). “The Poll Tax and the Decline of the Christian Presence in the Palestinian Countryside in the 17th Century”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (Brill Academic Publishers) 56 (4-5): 631–652. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341337. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
The (cor)relation between the payment of the poll-tax and conversion to Islam, has long been the subject of scholarly debate. At the beginning of the twentieth century scholars suggested that after the Muslim conquest the local populations converted en masse to evade the payment of the poll tax. This assumption has been challenged by subsequent research. Indeed Dennett’s study clearly showed that the payment of the poll tax was not a sufficient reason to convert after the Muslim conquest and that other factors—such as the wish to retain social status—had greater influence. According to Inalcik the wish to evade payment of the jizya was an important incentive for conversion to Islam in the Balkans, but Anton Minkov has recently argued that taxation was only one of a number of motivations.
- Cohen 2008, pp. 72-73.
- Mun’im Sirry (2014), Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’an and Other Religions, p. 179. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199359363.
- Muhammad Abdel-Haleem (2012-10-01). “The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14 (2): 86. doi:10.3366/jqs.2012.0056. ISSN 1465-3591.
- Abou Al-Fadl, Khaled, (2002). The Place of Tolerance in Islam, Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-0229-1.
- Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1991). The Holy Quran. Medina: King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex.
- Aisha Y. Musa “jizya: Towards a Qur’ānically-based understanding of a Historically Problematic Term,” in Transcendental Thought, November 2011.
- Lambton, Ann (2013). State and Government in Medieval Islam. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 1-136-60521-5.
- Cahen, Claude. “Ḏj̲izzya”. Encyclopaedia of Islam 2 (2nd ed.). Brill.
- Bravmann, M. M. (2009). The spiritual background of early Islam studies in ancient Arab concepts. Leiden Boston: Brill. ISBN 90-04-17200-9.
- Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Nov 1, 1999. ISBN 0-8133-3489-6
- Choudhury, Masudul Alam; Abdul Malik, Uzir (1992). The Foundations of Islamic Political Economy. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press. ISBN 0312068549.
- Daniel Clement Dennett, Jr. (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674331594.
- Donner, Fred McGraw (1981). The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press.
- Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 29 May 2007.
- Hoyland, Robert G. (2014). In Gods Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford University Press.
- Hunter, Shireen; Malik, Huma; Senturk, Recep (2005). Islam and Human Rights: Advancing a U.S.-Muslim Dialogue. Center for Strategic and International Studies.
- H.R.H. Prince, Ghazi Muhammad; Ibrahim, Kalin; Mohammad Hashim, Kamali (2013). War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad (PDF). The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8.
- John Louis Esposito, (1998). Islam the Straight Path, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511233-4
- Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab lands : a history and source book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0-8276-0198-0.
- Goiten, S.D. “Evidence on the Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1963, Vol. 6.
- Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala. The Meaning of the Qur’an, A. A. Kamal (Editor). ISBN 1-56744-134-3
- Cohen, Mark (2008). Under crescent and cross : the Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13931-9.
- Seed, Patricia. Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640, Cambridge University Press, Oct 27, 1995, ISBN 0-521-49757-4.
- Tritton, A. S. (2008). Caliphs and their non-Muslim subjects : a critical study of the covenant of ʻUmar. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-61181-7.
- Watt, William Montgomery (1980), Islamic Political Thought: The Basic Concepts (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
- “Jizyah and the spread of Islam” by Harsh Narain, Publisher:Voice of India, New Delhi.