lim
subjects is greatly exaggerated. True, the Christian (and other
non-Muslim) subjects of the first two caliphs bore at first
almost the whole burden of taxation. The Muslims, on the other
hand, were liable only to Zakah as a religious duty. Those of
them who cultivated land in the Arabian Peninsula had to pay
also a kind of tithe ('ushr), and soon after the settlement,
contrary to 'Umar's first orders, of whole tribes in Al-~Iraq
and Syria, the Muslims had to pay kharaj on the land they worked.
It is now necessary to make some distinction between the taxes
paid by the Muslims on one hand and those paid by non-Muslim
subjects on the other, and to point out briefly the religious
and political significance in each case. The Qur'ăn is specific
about the payment of jizyah "20"
by the People of the Book. This is the only term used in the
treaties concluded by the Prophet and the military commanders
of his first two caliphs. It meant, in practice, both a poll-tax
and a land-tax. The first may be called 'protection' tax levied
in return for safety of life, property, and freedom of worship
and was a Muslim innovation; the second was a normal form of
revenue under any government. When exactly the term kharaj,
in the sense of land-tax, was first introduced is very hard
to establish."21" But it
seems that it was more frequently used when land-tax became
payable by Muslims outside the Peninsula. Br the strength of
local tradition, the use of the term kharaj "22"
seems to have been gradually adopted instead of, or together
with, the term 'ushr' This resulted sometimes in a confusion
between one kind of jizyah levied from non-Muslims, and kharaj
from Muslims as land-taxes. During the caliphates of Abu Bakr
and Umar the two terms seem to have thus become interchangeable."23"
The religious significance of the payment of jizyah is obvious.
During the caliphate of 'Umar, it acquired also national' and
military significance. It is commonly assumed that the notion
that jizyah was in lieu of military service is a gloss of later
times. That does not seem to be the whole truth. Let us take
the case of Banü Taghuib again. They objected to the payment
of this tribute on two grounds: (a) that it was in general a
mark of humiliation which they as an Arab tribe were unable
to bear; (b) that it implied that they were either incapable,
or not trustworthy, to fight in the ranks of the Muslims."24"
Balădhuri confirms "25"
that Christian Arabs who served in the Muslim army were exempted
from the payment of jizyah. Nor was this an isolated case. The
help of some Christian tribes on the frontiers of Islam was
occasionally secured under similar arrangement. 'It is very
noticeable', wrote an eminent Orientalist,"26"
'that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they
were exempted from the payment of the tax.
There were three possible policies with regard to religion
in the event of conquest in the period preceding and following
the expansion of Islam roughly from A.D. 550 to 6~o. The victors
might try to force their subjects to abjure their faith and
accept that of their masters who might resort to measures of
oppression and persecution to achieve this end. This policy
was tried by the Byzantines in Syria and Egypt with disastrous
results. The second possible policy is complete freedom, leaving
the subjects undisturbed in their faith without any inducements
to change it. The third alternative is tolerance in the sense
of not victimizing the subjects who fail to embrace the religion
of their masters. Religious persecution as practiced by the
Byzantines was clearly foreign to the system introduced in Syria,
Al-'Iraq, and Egypt by the first two caliphs. Their policy was
a mixture of freedom and tolerance, while complete freedom was
foreign to the spirit of the times, the Muslims were bound,
as adherent of missionary religion, to offer it to their prospective
subjects who, in the event of refusing it, were neither persecuted
nor oppressed. They were required to pay tax, 'not as a penalty
for their refusal to embrace Islam' as T. W. Arnold has dem