he following is a summary of one version, framed in
the form of a letter from a given Christian city or community
to the caliph or his representative and opens as follows:"15"
'When you came to us we asked of you safety of our lives, our
families, our property, and the people of our religion, on these
conditions: to pay tribute out of our own hand and be humbled'.
So far the terms sound familiar and genuine. But the document
proceeds to recount, in details, and in language unusual for
any compact made by Muhammad (pbuh) and his early successors,
restrictions on the Christians in respect of worship in their
churches and the display of crosses and the ringing of church
bells; in respect of their dress, haircut, and manner of address
in conversation; in respect of height of their houses and the
kind of saddles for their mounts; in respect of their conduct
towards Muslims and even the former slaves of Muslims.
Modern research has established that these and other similar
provisions represent the intolerance of a later age. 'There
is abundant evidence', writes a well-known authority, "16"
'to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan
conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities.'
De Goeje"17" and Caetani
"18" have proved that these
restrictions attributed to ~Umar belong to a later age."19"
It is safe, therefore, to say that Umar was not responsible
for, nor did he initiate, any of the measures ascribed to him.
His principal concern was the preservation of the Muslim community
and state by keeping a Muslim standing army in camps, well supplied,
equally with the state treasury, by the enormous revenue collected
from ahlu'dhimmah and others. Vexatious measures going so far
as to prescribe the kind of attire his Christian subjects were
permitted to wear ill accords with his character, or indeed
with his conduct with the Patriarch Sophronius in Jerusalem.
The assumption, however, that not only the Islamic state but
the whole Muslim community lived on the labour of their non-Muslim
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
tim