Jihad (4)

Jihad (4)

Payment of Tribute Called “Jizia”

Forign writers on Islam have generally assumed that while the Qu’ran offered one of the alternatives, Islam or death, to other non-Muslims, the Jews and Christians were given a somewhat better position since they could save their lives by the payment of a tax known as jizia. This conception of jizia, as a kind of religious tax of which the payment entitled certain non-Muslims to security of life under the Muslim rule, is as entirely opposed to the fundamental teachings of Islam, as is the myth that the Muslims were required to carry on aggressive wars against all non-Muslims till they had accepted Islam. Tributes and taxes were levied before Islam, and had been levied to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim states, yet they had nothing to do with the religion of the people affected. All that happened in the time of the Prophet was that certain small non-Muslim states were, when subjugated, given the right to administer their own affairs, but only if they would pay a small sum by way of tribute towards the maintenance of the central government at Al-Medina. It was an act of great magnanimity of the Prophet to confer complete autonomy on a people who raised war against the Muslims but were ultimately conquered by them, and a paltry sum of tribute [jizia] in such conditions was not a hardship but a boon. There was no interference at all with their administration, their own laws, their customs and usages, or their religion and, for the tribute paid, the Muslim state undertook the responsibility of protecting these small states against all enemies.

There are cases on record in which the Muslim state returned the jizia, when it was unable to afford protection to the people under its care. Thus when the Muslim forces under the Muslim commander Abu-'Ubaida were engaged in a struggle with the Roman Empire in Syria, they were compelled to beat a retreat at Homs, which they had previously conquered. When the decision was taken to evacuate Homs, Abu-'Ubaida sent for the chiefs of the place and returned to them the whole amount which he had realized as jizia, saying that as the Muslims could no longer protect them, they were not entitled to the payment of jizia[1].

It further appears that exemption from military service was granted only to such non-Muslims as wanted it, for where a non-Muslim people offered to fight the battles of the country they were exempted from jizia. The Bani-Taghlib and the people of Najran, both Christians, did not pay the jizia [2]. Indeed, the Bani-Taghlib fought alongside with the Muslim forces in the battle of Buwaib in 13 A.H. Later on, in the year 16 A.H. they wrote to the Khalifa 'Omar offering to pay the zakat [the legal alms] which was a heavier burden, instead of the jizia.

From the foregoing, it is quite clear the jizia was levied not as a penalty for refusal to accept the faith of Islam, but it was paid in return for protection given to non-Muslims by the Muslim army, to which they were not compulsorily conscripted like the Muslims. This tribute was levied only on able-bodied men and not on women or children, the aged and the indigent, the blind and the maimed were specially exempted as were the priests and the monks.

Islam, Jizia or the Sword

It is generally though that the Muslims were out to impose their religion at the point of the sword, and that the Muslim hosts were overrunning all lands with the message of Islam, jizia or the sword. This is, indeed, a distorted picture of what really happened. The fact that there were people who never became Muslims at all, nor ever paid jizia, and yet were living in the midst of the Muslims, even fighting their battles, explodes the whole theory of the Muslims offering Islam or the jizia or the sword. The truth of the matter is that the Muslims finding the Roman Empire and Persia bent upon the subjugation of Arabia and the extirpation of Islam, refused to accept terms of peace without a safeguard against a repetition of the aggression and this safeguard was demanded in the form of jizia or a tribute, which would be an admission of defeat on their part. No war was ever started by the Muslims by sending this message to a peaceful neighbour or otherwise. History contradicts such an assertion. But when a war was undertaken on account of the enemy's aggression his advance on Muslim territory or help rendered to the enemies of the Muslim state - it was only natural for the Muslims not to terminate the war before bringing it to a successful issue. They were ever willing to avoid further bloodshed after inflicting a defeat on the enemy, only if he admitted defeat and agreed to pay a tribute, which was really a token tribute as compared with the crushing war indemnities of the present day. The offer to terminate hostilities on payment of jizia was thus an act of mercy towards a vanquished foe. But if the token tribute was not accepted by the vanquished power, the Muslims could do nothing but have recourse to the sword until the enemy was completely subdued.

The only question that remains as to whether the Muslim soldiers invited their enemies to accept Islam, and whether it was an offence to do so. Islam was a missionary religion from its very inception, and every Muslim deemed it his sacred duty to invite other people to embrace Islam. The representatives of Islam, wherever they went, looked upon it as their first duty to spread the message of Islam, because they felt that Islam imparted a new life and vigour to humanity, and offered a real solution of the problems of every nation. Islam was offered, no doubt, even to the fighting enemy, but it is a distortion of facts to assume that it was offered at the point of the sword, when there is not a single instance on record of Islam being enforced upon a prisoner of war, nor of Muslims sending a message to a peaceful neighbouring people to the effect that they would be invaded if they did not embrace Islam. All that is recorded is that in the midst of war and after defeat had been inflicted on the enemy in several battles, when there were negotiations for peace, the Muslims in their zeal for the faith related their own experience before the chiefs of the enemy. They stated how they themselves had been deadly foes to Islam, and how ultimately they found Islam to be a blessing and a power that had raised the Arab race from the depth of degradation to great moral and spiritual heights, and had welded their warring elements into a solid nation. In such words did the Muslim representatives invite the Persians and the Romans to Islam, not before the declaration of war but at the time of negotiations for peace. If the enemy then had accepted Islam, there would be no conditions for peace, and the two parties would live as equals and brethren. It was not offering Islam at the point of the sword but offering it as a sign for peace of equality and of brotherhood. The early Khalifas had to wage wars, but these wars were never aggressive nor were they raised for the desire of propagating the faith of Islam by force. They could not do anything which their Prophet never did, and which the Glorious Qu’ran never taught them to do.