4) Muslim Jurisprudents on the Security and Acknowledgment of the Rights of the People of Dhimma.
The Islamic rule was a pioneer in protecting the rights of the people of dhimma. This is reflected in the maintenance of their rituals and churches. The shari'a law provides for the following: "The second issue: The rights due to them by us, namely to maintain their residence in our countries except the Arab Peninsula namely Hijaz and Yemen; to secure their lives and property and not to impair their churches, wine and pigs so long as they do not display the same."[27]
Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by their religion. He says:
"They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the houses which they took by consent where such people are in a non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[28]
The Shari'a maintains the life and property of the dhimmi. It even stipulates the life penalty for the murderer of a dhimmi. A Muslim was sentenced to death during the rule of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, for killing a dhimmi, but the dhimmi's brother appeared and chose ransom instead so Ali told him: "Have they threatened you?" He said: "No but I chose ransom and I don't think my brother will come back by the killing of another man" so Ali released the murderer and said: "You know better that the one in our dhimma is treated as one of us as regards to blood [life] and ransom."[29]
In maintenance and protection of a dhimmi's property, Shari'a does not differentiate between a dhimmi's property and a Muslim's property. So stealing a dhimmi's property is punished for by amputation even if it were a Muslim's hand. Al-Qurtubi says:
"A dhimmis' life is perpetually inviolable and so is a Muslim's life and both have become people of the House of Islam. The evidence of this is that a Muslim's hand is amputated if he steals a dhimmi's property. Therefore, a dhimm's life would by analogy be as inviolable as a Muslim's life as property derives its inviolability from the inviolability of its owner."[30]
Al-Mawardi says:
"And he -– an Imam — is bound to ensure two rights for them; first, to save and spare their lives and second, to protect them so that they would be secure by being spared and guarded by being protected."[31]
Al-Nawawi said:
"We must spare their lives and indemnify them against any damage caused by us to their lives and property. We are also committed to defend them against the people of war."[32]
Muslim jurisprudents reiterated this concept. Ibn Al-Najar Al-Hanbali says:
"An Imam must protect the people of dhimma, deter those who injure them and defend them against those who seek to harm them."[33]
When the Mongolian general Qatloushah invaded Damascus in the early eighth century Hijri and imprisoned Muslims as well as Christian and Jewish dhimmis, Imam Ibn Taimiyyah went to him with an august of scholars claiming the release of the prisoners. The general agreed on releasing the Muslims exclusively. Sheikh-ul-Islam, then replied:
"All prisoners including Jews and Christians who are in our dhimma must be released and we will never let any prisoner with you including Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis are equal to Muslims as regards rights and duties."
So the Mongolian general released them all.[34]
Al-Qarafi quotes Imam Ibn Hazm who in turn accounts for Muslims' unprecedented consensus on the following:
"We are obliged to fight people of war who seek a dhimmi with weapons and we must sacrifice our lives to this end in order to protect people in the dhimma of Allah Almighty and the dhimma of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, as handing a dhimmi over without such struggle and sacrifice is an omission of the dhimma covenant."[35]
5) Examples of the Treatment of Dhimmis by Muslims
When Muslims became incapable of honoring the condition of protection of dhimmis, they refunded to them the jizya for non-satisfaction of its pre-condition namely protection.
Judge, Abu Youssef, quotes in his book, Taxes, as well as other books, Makhoul who reports that a sequence of news was reported to Abu 'Ubaida declaring the invasion by the Roman troops. Abu 'Ubaida and the Muslims found this unmanageable, so Abu 'Ubaida wrote to every visor of the cities whose people agreed with Muslims on Jizya ordering them to refund the Jizya and taxes. He ordered them to inform the dhimmis of the following:
"We hereby reimburse your money as we have been informed of the troops that are about to invade us and the condition between us was to protect you and we cannot do this now, so we will reimburse the money we took from you. We do abide by our agreement and we will honor our condition if Allah rendered us victorious over them."[36]
When the people of dhimma participated in defending their countries, they were exempted from the jizya. This was done by Mu'awaiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, with the Armenians. The French historian Lauren says in his book Armenia between Byzantine and Islam:
"Armenians welcomed Muslims to free them from the oppressive Byzantine rule. They even allied with Muslims to fight the Khazr. Arabs maintained for Armenians their accustomed conditions and the covenant was given by Mu'awaya in 653 AD to Commander Theodor Rakhtoni and to all his co-nationals so long as such is their wish. The covenant in brief is as follows: "They will be exempted from jizya for three years. Then they are free to pay the amount they view appropriate. They also covenanted and assured him that they will cater for fifteen thousand knights instead of jizya and that the Caliph would send to the forts and strongholds of Armenia any Emirs or commanders or horses or judges and that if they were invaded by the Romans he is to provide them with all the help they might need. Mu'awaya hereby takes this covenant before Allah Almighty."[37]
The right of the people of dhimma does not stop short at defending them against their enemy, but it also includes defending them against any injury that might disturb them or cause them unrest even if by speech. Al-Qaraafi says: "The dhimmi agreement stipulates rights for the people of dhimma that we should honor because they are in our protection and neighborhood. They are also in our dhimma, the dhimma of Allah Almighty and the dhimma of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and Islam. So if any person attacks them even by ill speech or backbiting he has violated the dhimma of Allah and the dhimma of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and the dhimma of Islam."[38]
Muslims, guided by their religion, continued their civilized giving when they were transformed from Jizya takers to almsgivers to protect and sustain poor dhimmis. Ibn Zangawaih narrated that 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab(R) saw a senile dhimmi man begging, so he said: "We are unfair to you if after this old age we ask you to pay jizya." Then he wrote to his workers prohibiting them from taking jizya from old people.[39] He also commanded: "Reduce the sum of jizya for people who cannot afford for it and give alms to those who are incapable of paying at all."[40]
Caliph ‘Umar ibn Abd ‘Aziz also wrote to his worker in Basra 'Udai Ibn Arta'a saying: "If you find that a dhimmi becomes old, weak and poor, give him [some alms] from the Muslims' Treasury House."[41]
Nevertheless if a dhimmi who can afford to pay jizya refrains from payment, he will be punished without violating his covenant. Al-Qurtubi says:
"It is permissible to punish them if they refrain from payment while such being affordable. However the one proving to be incapable of payment may not be punished because the one who is incapable to pay is exempted and the rich are not bound to pay the jizya for the poor."[42]
Muslim jurisprudents realized the significance of the dhimma covenant and the seriousness of breaching it; and that it is never terminated by mere abstention from payment. Al-Kasaru Al-Hanafi says:
"As for the agreement (the dhimma covenant) it is binding on us so that Muslims may not terminate it in any way whatsoever. As for dhimmis it is unbinding."[43]
Testimony of Western Historians
A person might ask: Have Muslims realized these magnificent ideal principles? Have they really honored the dhimma of their Prophet throughout their lengthy history? We will hereby state three testimonies by Westerners who repeated the truth duly established in our great history.
Welldiorant says:
"The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them."[44]
Adam Mitz in his book
The Islamic Civilization says:
"Dhimmis used to pay jizya each pro rata his income. Jizya was similar to national defense tax as it was only paid by men who can go to war while the disabled, priests, clergy were exempted unless they have wealth."[45]
Thomas Arnold in his
The Preaching of Islam says:
"The purpose of levying this tax on Christians – as reiterated by some researchers – was not a form of punishment for not accepting Islam. They rather used to pay it with the remaining dhimmis namely non-Muslims subjects of the Islamic state whose beliefs prevent them from joining the military service in return for the protection secured to them by Muslims' swords."[46]
Islam thus is patently cleared by the historical testimony of objective non-Muslims from the allegation attributed to it by the unjust and non-objective.
