From the Rulings Related to Those Under the Protection of the Muslim State in Islam

1- A warning regarding the oppression of those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah): Allah in His Book as well as the Prophet (pbuh) in his prophetic narrations both command Muslims to observe kind treatment of the people who pay the tribute that non-Muslims must pay to remain upon their religion while in the Muslim lands under the protection of the Muslim state (jizyah). Islamic law firmly prohibits oppressing them and transgression against them. And surely, the Qurʾān encourages that kindness and justice be shown to the peaceful people of the Book who have not transgressed against the Muslims:

“Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you because of your faith or driven you out of your homes: Certainly, Allah loves the people who are just.”(1)

And being kind is from the greatest types of behavior, and for this reason Allah commanded that it should be applied to the parents. Kindness is also what the Messenger of Allah was referring to in his statement found in the prophetic narration: “Kindness is to observe good character.”(2) And the Prophet said regarding oppression of those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah) and neglecting any of their rights:

“Whoever oppresses the non-Muslim living under the protection of the Muslim state (muʿāhad) or neglects his rights or burdens him with more than he can bear or takes something from him without asking, then I will be the argument against him on the Day of Resurrection.”(3)

And the Prophet said:

“Whoever kills a non-Muslim living under the protection of the Muslim state, will not smell the scent of Paradise despite the fact that its scent can be detected from a distance of forty years.”(4)

And when some of the Muslims mistreated those who paid the non-Muslim tribute, the position of the scholars who were familiar with this issue was very stern and severe.

Indeed, Hishām ibn Ḥakīm ibn Ḥizām passed by some people from the Nabataeans of Shām who were made to stand in the sun. So he asked: What is happening to them? They replied: They have been detained for the non-Muslim tribute. Then Hishām responded: I bear witness that I have certainly heard the Messenger of Allah say: “Surely, Allah will punish those who torment the people in the life of this world.” He said: And their governor at that time was ʿUmayr ibn Saʿd who was responsible for Palestine. So he entered upon him and spoke to him. Then he commanded that they be released.(5)

As for the issue of the term “lowliness” as it appears in the prophetic narration: “And they are in a state of lowliness” [Sūrah at-Tawbah 29:9], then this is a meaning that does not contradict what we have already mentioned concerning the statements of the Prophet regarding the obligation of kindness and justice and the prohibition of oppression and torment. And this is what has been understood by the scholars of Islam. So for this reason ash-Shāfiʿī explained it to mean that they should be treated with the rulings and judgments of Islam; meaning the general rulings and judgments.

So the non-Muslim tribute is a sign of the submission of the conquered nation to the general characteristics of the conquering nation. And the follower of the companions (tābiʿī) ʿIkrimah the servant of Ibn ʿAbbās, interpreted this dynamic with the image of paying the obligatory tribute to the Muslims saying: “To be standing while the one who receives it is sitting…” since the hand that gives is usually higher than the hand that receives. He requested from the Muslims that they empathize with the one who offers the non-Muslim tribute by being gracious and sympathetic with him; not out of superiority over them. Al-Qurṭubī says in his explanation of the Qurʾān:

“So He made the hand of the giver of charity higher, and likewise made the hand of the one who gives the non-Muslim tribute lower while the hand of whoever receives it is higher.”(6)

2- Some of the ways that an agreement securing the protection of the Muslim State for non-Muslims (Aqd adh-dhimmah) can be reached: Islam introduced unique guarantees for those under the authority of the Muslim State for which mankind has never known and will never know anything like it. So in return for a payment consisting of a number of dirhams, the men who are able to fight from those under the authority of the Muslim State are blessed with safe and secure residence and unrestricted protection for them from the Muslims in addition to the safeguard of their churches and religion.

This has certainly been demonstrated in the advice of the Caliphs to their Governors and has also been emphasized in the phrases used in agreements signed between the Muslims and those under the authority of the Muslim State. We would also like to direct the attention of the reader towards the guarantees that the Muslims provide and what those under the authority of the Muslim State pay for it.

And we will begin with what the historians have conveyed regarding the agreements of the Prophet with those under the authority of the Muslim State beginning with what Ibn Saʿd mentioned in his Ṭabaqāt regarding the message of the Prophet to Rabīʿah al-Ḥaḍramī wherein he said:

“And the Messenger of Allah wrote to Rabīʿah ibn Dhū Marḥab al-Ḥaḍramī, his brothers, and uncles that for them is their wealth, their date palms, their slaves, their wells, their trees, their water, their canals, their vegetation, and their streams (which power watermills) in Ḥaḍramawt. And every type of wealth for the people of Dhū Marḥab and certainly every type of collateral upon their land should be evaluated from its fruits, lotus trees, and whatever can be grasped in one’s hand, all of this should be collected from the collateral itself and every piece of good that can be found in their crops should not be inquired about by anyone; and surely Allah and His Messenger are free of this action. And supporting the people of Dhū Marḥab is an obligation upon the Muslim community, and their land must be free of tyranny, as well as their wealth and themselves; and the additional land that extends beyond the King’s wall which used to continue towards the people of Qays. Allah’s decree includes all of this. Written by al-Muʿāwiyah.” (7)

And the statement: “And supporting the people of Dhū Marḥab is an obligation upon the Muslim community” contains an important point. The Muslims sacrifice their lives, their souls, their blood as a ransom for those who enter into their protection and become their responsibility which is the responsibility of Allah and the Messenger of Allah . Al-Qarāfī said:

“So the agreement that leads to the sacrificing of lives and wealth in order to safeguard whatever is necessary from being lost is truly significant.” (8)

Likewise, the Prophet wrote a message announcing his assuming responsibility and reaching an agreement with the Christians of Najrān. This message has been conveyed to us by Ibn Saʿd in his Ṭabaqāt wherein he said:

“And the Messenger of Allah wrote to a bishop from the tribe of al-Ḥārith ibn Kaʿb and the bishops of Najrān and their priests and followers as well as their monks that they were all entitled to whatever was in their possession whether it was a lot or a little; from their churches, places of prayer, and worshippers. And the protection of Allah and His Messenger will not involve removing a single bishop from his station, or removing a monk from his asceticism, or a priest from his priesthood. It will not involve changing any of their rights, authority, or anything which they used to be upon so long as they advise and rectify themselves concerning their obligations and do not become overburdened by oppression and oppressors. Written by al-Mughīrah (ibn Shuʿbah).”(9)

And the companions of the Prophet continued to spread applying whatever they learned from their great Prophet. And they would interact with those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah) in the manner exemplified by Islam with its civilized characteristics.

Indeed, the historians have transmitted several things which guaranteed this for those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah). From these things was the famous “Covenant of ʿUmar” which he wrote for the people of Jerusalem (Īlīyāʾ). This pact contained the following statement: “In the name of Allah the Most-Merciful Bestower of Mercy; this is what the servant of Allah ʿUmar the Commander of the faithful has presented to the people of Jerusalem in the matter of safety. He has granted them a sense of safety and security for themselves, their wealth, their churches, their crosses, their sick as well as their healthy, and everything and everyone else that is directly related to their religion that he will not occupy, destroy, or dismantle their churches or encroach upon the land surrounding them. Their crosses and wealth would also be protected and not subjected to seizure. They would not be compelled regarding anything related to their own religion and none of them would be harmed. None of the Jews will be allowed to reside with them in Jerusalem. However, it is upon the people of Jerusalem to pay the non-Muslim tribute just as all city residents do. It is likewise upon them to evict all Romans and thieves. So whoever leaves from these people will be guaranteed safety and safe passage for himself and his possessions to his destination. But whoever from among them takes up residence, then this individual is assured safety. But he is obligated to pay the same non-Muslim tribute as the people of Jerusalem. And whoever wishes may align himself with Rome, and whoever wishes may return to his people and nothing will be taken from them until their crops have been harvested.

The content of this document represents the covenant of Allah that remains the direct responsibility of the Messenger of Allah , his successors (the Caliphs), the Muslims whenever they are payed the obligatory non-Muslim tribute. This pact was witnessed by Khālid ibn al-Walīd, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, ʿAbdur-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, Muʿāwiyyah ibn Abū Sufyān and occurred in the 15th year [after the Hijrah].” (10)

ʿUmar wrote something similar to the people of Lod.(11) And when Khālid ibn al-Walīd conquered Damascus, he wrote something similar to the people: “In the name of Allah the Most-Merciful Bestower of Mercy; this is what Khālid ibn al-Walīd gave to the people of Damascus after he entered it in an effort to assure them the safety of their lives, their wealth, their churches, and their city walls would not be destroyed. Likewise, their homes would not be seized and inhabited by others. For them is the covenant of Allah that remains the direct responsibility of the Messenger of Allah , his successors, and the Muslims. They will not be subjected to anything but good when they pay the obligatory non-Muslim tribute (jizyah).”(12)

And ʿUbādah ibn Ṣāmit documented the following civilized characteristics of the obligatory non-Muslim tribute in Islam while demonstrating the clear Islamic position [regarding it] for Cyrus the magnified one of the Copts when he said:

“Either you answer the call to Islam such that if you did so, you and your companions would certainly succeed in this world as well as the hereafter and we would refrain from fighting you and would not permit you to be harmed or that you would be left vulnerable an unprotected. However, if you refuse this, there is no option other than the obligatory non-Muslim tribute. In this case you would present the obligatory non-Muslim tribute by hand in a state of submission. Here we would interact with you in a manner that is as desirable to you as it is to us every year; indefinitely, so long as we both remain. We would fight on your behalf whoever attacks you and threatens some of your land, blood, and wealth. We would confront this aggression for you if your welfare was our responsibility and there was an agreement regarding this between us and you.” (13)

Secondly, we notice how the Muslim volunteers himself for the protection of the people of the obligatory non-Muslim tribute and their wealth. We also see how the Muslim sacrifices his own money and blood for them in the statement: “We would fight on your behalf whoever attacks you and threatens some of your land, blood, and wealth. We would confront this aggression for you”.

3- The Muslims emphasis upon honoring and fulfilling the agreement which secures the protection of the Muslim State for non-Muslims: The successors of the Prophet were afraid that the Muslims might be negligent regarding the rights of those under the authority of the Muslim State so they would investigate their circumstances. And from the examples of this is what was narrated by aṭ-Ṭabarī in his book of history within the context of the discussion ʿUmar had with the delegation that visited him from the land of a people of those under the authority of the Muslim State.ʿUmar said to the delegation: “Perhaps the Muslims have harmed the people under the authority of the Muslim State and affected them with behavior which is unbefitting? Then they said: ‘We have not experienced anything other than conscientiousness and exemplary behavior.’”(14) And once it became time to collect the money, he asked about its origin out of fear that suffering or hardship may have occurred to them.

And in the narration of ʿUmar which mentions: “…that he was brought a large amount of wealth. Abū ʿUbayd said: I believe it is from the obligatory non-Muslim tribute. Then he [ʿUmar] said: I think that you must have devastated these people. They replied: No by Allah, we didn’t take anything except with forgiveness and fairness. He [ʿUmar] said: Without whipping or hanging? They said: Yes. He [ʿUmar] said: All praise is due to Allah who did not allow that to occur at my hands or under my authority.”(15)

So when the time for collection became near, he [ʿUmar] would never miss an opportunity to advise the Muslims to take care of those under the authority of the Muslim State and would say: “I advise those successors who come after me to be good to those under the authority of the Muslim State. They should honor their agreement with them, fight for them, and not burden them beyond their capacity.” (16)

And ʿAlī wrote to his deputies who were responsible for tax collection:

“If you reach them, then absolutely do not sell their winter and summer clothing, the sustenance that they consume, or their animal which is used to cultivate their land. And you should not hit any of them with even a single strike or cause any one of them to stand on his feet for the sake of a dirham. You should not pursue any of them in order to demonstrate something regarding the tax collection. Certainly, Allah has only commanded us to take their pardon. So if you oppose what I have commanded you to do, then Allah will take you into account for it not me; and if it reaches me that you have done other than this I will remove you from this position.”(17)

And Al-Walīd ibn Yazīd drove the Christians out of Cyprus out of fear that they would assist Rome. So Yazīd ibn al-Walīd (his son) permitted their return after his father (Al-Walīd ibn Yazīd). Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh said about the action of al-Walīd: So the Muslims detested this action just as the Muslim jurists took issue with it. So when Yazīd ibn al-Walīd (his son) ascended to power he returned them to Cyprus. The Muslims were pleased with his action and viewed it as a just response.(18) Then once Al-Walīd ibn ʿAbdul-Mālik took the Church of St.John from the Christians by force and turned it into a part of a Mosque, the Muslims considered this action to be from the type of seizure that is deemed unlawful in Islam. So once ʿUmar ibn ʿAbdul-ʿAzīz ascended to power, the Christians raised their complaints of this to him. Then he wrote to his emissary commanding him to return whatever part of the Mosque (the Great Mosque of Damascus) encroached upon their land.(19)

4- From the statements of the Muslim jurists concerning protecting and ensuring the rights of those under the authority of the Muslim State: And we notice from what has preceded the emphasis and precedence that Islam has placed upon protecting the rights of those under the authority of the Muslim State and preserving the establishment of the symbols of their religion and their churches.

It has been mentioned in the book Qawānīn al-Aḥkām ash-Sharʿiyyah: “The second issue: concerning the obligation surrounding what must be provided for them by us; which involves the necessity for them to be recognized in our land or the Arabian peninsula which includes the ḥijāz and Yemen and that we observe restraint with them and protect them in order to ensure the safety of them and their wealth. And we should not interfere with their churches, intoxicants, and pork so long as they do not partake in these things publically.”(20) And Islamic law (Sharīʿah), protects the one under the authority of the Muslim State and his wealth and subsequently rules on his behalf in the affairs of Islamic legal retribution against whoever may have fought him.

And aṭ-Ṭaḥāwiyyah cites a consensus amongst the Muslims regarding the freedom of those under the authority of the Muslim State to consume pork, alcohol, and other than that from the things permitted by their religion saying:

“And they reached a consensus that it is not lawful for the Imām to prohibit those under the authority of the Muslim State from drinking alcohol, eating pork, and taking up residence in properties that were included in a treaty if it was a city that is uninhabited by the people of Islam. Meaning their lands in which they are the majority.”(21)

And certainly a man from the Muslims during the Caliphate of ʿAlī was taken into custody after having killed another man who was from those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah). Then the killer was ruled against through Islamic legal retribution. Then the brother of the deceased chose to accept the blood money instead of retaliation. So ʿAlī said to him, perhaps they will intimidate you, scare you, or threaten you? He replied: “No, rather I will surely accept the blood money. I do not think that my brother will return to me by my killing this man. So release the killer for me.” And he [ʿAlī] said: “You know that whoever is under our authority is our responsibility. So his blood is like our blood and his blood money is like our blood money.”(22)

And in an effort to protect the wealth of those under the authority of the Muslim State, Islamic law (Sharīʿah) doesn’t differentiate between the wealth of those under the authority of the Muslim State and the wealth of the Muslim. So the wealth of both parties is protected by the threat of losing a hand for the one who seeks to steal it even if the hand belongs to a Muslim. Imām al-Qurṭubī, the famous explainer of the Qurʾān said:

“The one under the authority of the Muslim State should always remain safe since his blood is protected just as the Muslim’s blood is. Both of them are considered from the people (or residents) of the land of Islam. This point is further emphasized by the fact that the hand of the Muslim is cut for stealing from the wealth of the one under the authority of the Muslim State. This indicates that the wealth of the one under the authority of the Muslim State is equivalent to the wealth of the Muslim. So this also indicates how their blood is held in the same regard since the wealth being discussed here is rendered inviolable due to the inviolability of the individual who possesses it (i.e. if a person’s blood is protected so too are their possessions).”(23)

Al-Māwardī said:

“And he (the Imām) constantly provides them with two rights. The first of them is restraint [they are not to be fought] and the second is protection. So with restraint they enjoy safety and with protection they enjoy security.”(24)

And An-Nawwawī said:

“And we are obligated to observe restraint with them and replace anything of theirs that we have destroyed whether that involved lives or property, and we must also defend them against invading forces.”(25)

And the Muslim jurists have consistently continued to emphasize this. Ibn an-Najjār al-Ḥanbalī said:

“It is an obligation upon the Imām to protect those under the authority of the Muslim State, to prevent anyone from harming them, to free their captives, and defend them against anyone who wishes them harm.” (26)

Then when the Tartar-Mongol leader Kutlugh Shah Noyan attacked Damascus in the beginning of the eighth century after the Hijrah. He captured a large number of Muslims and those who were under the authority of the Muslim State from the Jews and Christians. Ibn Taymiyyah set out for Kutlugh Shah Noyan with a group of scholars. They requested that he release the war captives. They were granted the release of the Muslims but were not granted the release of those under the authority of the Muslim State (ahl adh-dhimmah). So Shaykh al-Islam said to him: “It is a must, that you release all of those whom you have imprisoned from the Jews and the Christians who are from those who are under our authority and responsibility. We cannot leave you with a single prisoner. Not from our religion or from the religion of those under our protection since whatever afflicts them afflicts us and whatever happens to us happens to them.”(27) Then the Tartar-Mongol leader freed all of them.

And Imām al-Qarāfī has transmitted from Imām Ibn Ḥazm a consensus amongst the Muslims that is not found in any other nation. He said:

“Whoever is considered from those under the authority of the Muslim State, at a time when invaders attack our land intending them, it is obligatory upon us that we go out to fight them with provisions and weapons and we are prepared to die without them in an effort to protect those who are under the authority of Allah the Exalted and His Messenger . So to hand them over without a fight [literally with anything less] would be carelessness disregard for the agreement of protection for those under the authority of the Muslim State.”(28)

5- Practical examples documenting the behavior of the Muslims towards those under the authority of the Muslim State: Whenever the Muslims are unable to fulfill the rights of those under the authority of the Muslim State and protect them from their enemies, they return whatever they took as payment for the non-Muslim tribute for remaining under the authority of the Muslim state because of their failure to uphold the condition of their agreement which was protection.

And certainly al-Qāḍī Abū Yūsuf in his book al-Kharrāj as well as others from the people of history transmitted from Makḥūl that the news increased with Abū ʿUbaydah [ibn al-Jarrāḥ] regarding growing numbers of Romans gathering. This news was troubling to him as well as the Muslims. So Abū ʿUbaydah wrote to every governor who he had appointed for the cities whose people had entered into agreements with the Muslim state; telling them to return to the people whatever had been taken from them for the sake of paying the non-Muslim tribute and taxes. He wrote these governors explicitly instructing them to tell the people of those cities:

“Indeed, we have returned your money because we have become aware of a growing collection of armed forces. Surely, your condition upon us was that we protect you and we are unable to do so. So we have returned to you what we have taken from you. And we will continue upon our agreed terms and what was originally between us if Allah grants us victory over them.” (29)

And when those who were under the authority of the Muslim State stood up to protect their land alongside the Muslims, the Muslims released them from the responsibility of paying the non-Muslim tribute (jizyah) which they had once paid. This is similar to what Muʿāwiyyah did with the Armenians.

The French historian Joseph Laurent said in his book: Armenia between Byzantium and Islam:

“Certainly, Armenia received the Muslims positively in an effort to release themselves from the yoke of the Byzantines. And they vowed to assist them in fighting against Khazars. The Arabs then did not interfere in their affairs and left them alone to do whatever they had been doing. And a truce was offered by Muʿāiyyah to the Armenian commander Theodore Rshtuni in 653 CE and included all of his people so long as they approved or the majority of what it contained: That the non-Muslim tribute would not be taken from them for three years. Then after that, they would be free to offer whatever they wish. The treaty also stipulated that the Armenians agreed to provide fifteen thousand mounted soldiers in order to compensate for their not paying the non-Muslim tribute. The agreement also stated that the Caliph would not send governors, commanders, horses, and judges to their forts in Armenia. And if they were attacked by Rome, they would be supported with whatever they required in the way of reinforcements. And Muʿāiyyah swore to uphold this.”(30)

And the right of those who are under the authority of the Muslim State is not restricted to defending them against their enemies. Rather, this right extends beyond that to defending them against any harm that might bother them even if that involves a statement of the tongue. Al-Qarāfī said:

“Certainly, the contract of non-Muslim protection entitles them to specific rights upon us since they are our neighbors and under our guardianship (i.e. protection) and responsibility as well as the responsibility of Allah the Exalted and His Messenger , and the religion of Islam. So whoever transgresses against them even by a single statement or through backbiting, certainly the responsibility of Allah, His Messenger , and the religion of Islam has been compromised.”(31)

And the Muslims continued with their civic contributions based upon the guidance of their religion when they developed from recipients of the non-Muslim tribute into providers of wealth out of concern and benevolence toward the poor from those who were under the authority of the Muslim State. Indeed, Ibn Zanjawayh narrated with his chain of transmission that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb saw an elderly man from those who were under the authority of the Muslim State asking the people for money. ʿUmar said: We must not have been just with you if we have consumed the [fruits of] your youth and then demanded from you the non-Muslim tribute. Then he wrote to his representatives that the non-Muslim tribute should not be taken from the elderly.(32) And from the things that he instituted was that: “Whoever cannot afford the non-Muslim tribute will have it reduced for them. And whoever cannot afford to pay anything at all will be accommodated.” (33)

And the Caliph ʿUmar ibn ʿAbdul-ʿAzīz sent messages to his representative in Baṣrah, ʿAdiyy ibn Arṭāh saying:

“And consider those who are before you from the people who are under the authority of the Muslim State that have advanced in age, weakened in strength, and who have exhausted their opportunities to earn a living. Give them from the central treasury of the Muslims whatever is appropriate.”(34)

As for the situation where those under the authority of the Muslim State refuse to offer the non-Muslim tribute (jizyah) while they are able to do so, then this individual should be punished without eliminating his right to protection. Al-Qurṭubī said:

“And as for the punishment of those who willfully reject payment of the non-Muslim tribute, then this is lawful. But if it becomes clear that they are unable to pay, then it is not permissible to punish them because the obligation of paying the non-Muslim tribute does not apply to the one who is unable to pay. And the wealthy are not expected to pay it on their behalf.”(35)

The Muslim jurists have identified the importance of the non-Muslim tribute agreement and the dangers of negligence regarding it and that it is not nullified by the mere non-payment of the non-Muslim tribute. The Ḥanafī scholar al-Kāsānī said:

“As for the description of the agreement [the agreement for payment of the non-Muslim tribute], then it is necessary as it relates to us since the Muslims cannot violate this agreement under any circumstances. And in the case of those who are under the authority of the Muslim State, then this is unnecessary.”(36)

Fourthly (numbering here seems unnecesarry): Accounts from western academics. It is certainly conceivable that a questioner might ask: Have the Muslims truly implemented these lofty examples? Have they fulfilled the responsibility that was passed on to them from their Prophet throughout their long history? In an effort to respond to this, we will present three separate accounts of westerners who spoke regarding these realities that have been confirmed by our glorious history.

Will Durant said:

“To these Dhimmi –Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabaeans, Jews, the Umayyad caliphate offered a degree of toleration hardly equaled in contemporary Christian lands. They were allowed the free practice of their faiths, and the retention of their churches, on condition that they wear distinctive honey-colored dress, and pay a poll tax from one to four dinars ($4.75 to $19) per year according to their income. This tax fell upon non-Muslims capable of military service; it was not levied upon monks, women, adolescents, slaves, the old, crippled, blind, or very poor. In return, the Dhimmi were excused (or excluded) from military service, were exempt from the two and a half percent tax for community charity, and received the protection of the government.” (37)

The German historian Adam Mitz said in his book Islamic civilization during the fourth century after hijrah:

“Those who were under the authority of the Muslim State by virtue of what they used to enjoy from the Muslims’ tolerance and protection of them, used to pay the non-Muslim tribute. Each of them used to pay according to his own ability. They were divided into three groups: The lowest group would pay twelve dirham. The median group would pay twenty four dirham. And the highest group would pay forty eight dirham per year or one, two, or three dīnār in the lands for which the currency was gold. This non-Muslim tribute (jizyah) resembles the taxes which are collected for national defense. And the only individuals who used to pay this tribute were the men who were capable of using weapons [in combat]. The disabled, monks and people of the monasteries would not be required to pay unless they were wealthy.”(38)

And the historian Sir Thomas Arnold said in his book ‘The preaching of Islam’, while clarifying the goal behind the obligatory non-Muslim tribute and those for whom it was legislated:

“This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims.”(39)

In this manner, the innocence of Islam becomes clear and apparent as witnessed by history and those who have written about it who have distinguished it from what has been attributed to it by false claimants and the tongues of those who harbor biases.

And I ask Allah that He opens our hearts to whatever we may have differed about concerning the truth. Surely, He is responsible for this and ever able to do so. And may the prayers of peace and blessings of Allah be upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, and his companions.



1 Sūrah al-Mumtaḥinah 60:8.

2 Extracted by Muslim number 2553.

3 Extracted by Abū Dāwud in his Sunan; narration number 3052: volume 3 page 170. This narration has also been authenticated by Shaykh Al-Albānī (2626). A similar narration can be found in Sunan an-Nasāʾī narration number 2749 in (volume 8 page 25).

4 Extracted by al-Bukhārī narration number 2295 .

5 Extracted by Muslim narration number 2613.

6 Al-Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al-Qurʾān volume 8 page 115 and Tafsīr al-Māwardī volume 2 pages 351-352.

7 Ṭabaqāt by Ibn Saʿd volume 1 page 266.

8 Al-Furūq volume 3 pages 14-15.

9 Aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr by Ibn Saʿd volume 1 page 266.

10 Tārīkh aṭ-Ṭabarī volume 4 page 449.

11 See Tārīkh aṭ-Ṭabarī volume 4 page 449.

12 Futūḥ al-Buldān page 128.

13 Futūḥ Miṣr wa Akhbāruhā by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam page 68.

14 Tārīkh aṭ-Ṭabarī volume 4 page 503.

15 Al-Mughnī volume 9 page 290 and Aḥkām Ahl adh-Dhimmah volume 1 page 139.

16 Extracted by Al-Bukhārī narration number 1392 in 3/1356

17 Al-Kharāj page 9.

18 See Futūḥ al-Buldān page 156.

19 See Futūḥ al-Buldān page 132.

20 Qawānīn al-Aḥkām ash-Sharʿiyyah page 176.

21 Ikhtilāf al-ʿUlamāʾ by Imām aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī page 233.

22 Musnad ash-Shāfiʿī volume 1 page 344

23 Al-Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al-Qurʾān volume 2 page 246.

24 Al-Aḥkām as-Sulṭāniyyah by Al-Māwardī page 182.

25 See Mughnī al-Muḥtāj volume 4 page 253.

26 Maṭālib Ūlī an-Nuhā volume 2 page 602.

27 Majmuʿ Fatāwā volume 28 pages 617-618.

28 Al-Furūq volume 3 pages 14-15.

29 Al-Kharrāj page 135. See also Futūḥ al-Buldān by al-Balādhirī and Futūḥ ash-Shām by al-Adharrī.

30 See Futūḥ al-Buldān page 210-211.

31 Al-Furūq volume 3 page 14.

32 Al-Amwāl volume 1 page 163.

33 Tārīkh Madīnah Damashq volume 2 page 178.

34 Al-Amwāl volume 1 pages 170.

35 Al-Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al-Qurʾān volume 8 pages 73-74.

36 Badāʾiʿ aṣ-Ṣanāʾiʿ volume 7 page 112.

37 The Story of Civilization by Will Durant volume 4 The Age of Faith page 218.

38 Islamic civilization during the fourth century after hijrah by Adam Mitz volume 1 page 96.

39 The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold pages 60-61.