es. 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 demonstrated,
but in return for protection,"27"
i.e. in lieu of military service. The notion that the Muslim
came with the Qur'ăn in one hand and the sword in the other,
offering no other alternative, is utterly false and contrary
to the Bur' an itself, and the practice of Muhammad (pbuh) and
his successors."28" Those
Christians who embraced Islam did so of' their own choice and
free will "29"All the available
evidence confirms that the Christians in Syria, Al-Iraq, and
Egypt enjoyed under the first two caliphs freedom and tolerance,
both religious and civil, as they never heard of under their
former Christian masters.
1) Ibn Abd il-Hakam, Futuh Misr, ed. Charles C. Torrey (New
Haven, 1922), p.53.
2) On the identity of Al-Muqauqas see A. J. Butler, The Arab
Conquest of Egypt (Oxford, 1902), pp.508-26.
3) Ibn Abdi l-Hakam, pp. 70 f.; Baladhuri, pp. 214-15; Tabari,
i. 2588 f.
4) Amr's report to the payment of poll-tax. See Ibn Abd il-Hakam,
Futuh Misr, p. 82.
5) Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, p.102.
6) Ibn Abdi l-Hakam, p. 70; Baladhuri, pp.214-15; cf. H.
I. Bell, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Catalogue with Texts
(London, 1910), iv, pp.xxv and 173. This source mentions trade-taxes
corresponding to land-tax.
7) Ibn Abdi l-Hakam, pp. 158-81.
8) Cf. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, pp.453-4.
9) For detailed examination of the Moslems in Egypt (Old
Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W.R.Harper, vol. ii,
10) Ibn Sa'd, iii, pt. I, pp. 213-14; cf. Baladhuri, p.453.
11) Ibn Sa'd, ii, pt. 2, p. 44. Cf. Tabar i, i.2482 in connexion
with Banu Taghlib. Al-Bukhari's Sahis (Bulaq, 1296), v. 128; Muslim's
Sahih (Cairo, 1331), v. 160. Cf. Muir, The Caliphate (London, 1883),
12) On Abu Bakr's renewal of the agreement see Tabari, i.
13) Cf. however, Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p.41
14) Umar himself, according to a tradition preserved in Muslim's
Sahih v. 160, heard the Prophet say: Truly, I will drive out the
Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula, until I have
left none but Muslims there. Al-Bukhari's Sa