me authorities, also
monks were exempted. The civil service was almost entirely manned
by native Copts. The Arabs lived in :Military camps, such as
Al-Fustăt (from the Byzantine fossatum camp). I may be inferred
from a correspondence between Amr and the Caliph on delays in
tax payment that the people of Egypt may have been overtaxed."7"
But this was not so. There is no doubt that the burden and incidence
of taxation was lighter than under the Byzantines "8"
There was one innovation, however, the privileged classes who
were exempt under Tae former rulers were now liable to tax."9"
The wealth that had poured into Medina not only from Egypt,
but also from Syria and Al-Iraq, was so fabulous that a lesser
man than 'Umar might have failed to administer it properly.
This is not the place to go into details about his institution
of what amounted to a national pension scheme. Soon after Al-Yarmuk
and Al-Qadisiyyah, a system was devised for the distribution
of the income, after defraying the costs of state administration.
This is called Ad-Diwăn by later writer like Ibn al-Tiqtaqa
in Al-Fakhri. The allowances were graduated according to relationship
to the Prophet, priority of conversion to Islam, and participation
in the early wars of Islam from Badr to the battles in Syria,
Al-Iraq, and Egypt. Nor were the ordinary citizens, the widows,
orphans, and slaves forgotten."10"
The covenant made by the Prophet with Najrăn
has been mentioned above. It will be remembered that the covenant
contains in its concluding phrases the equivocal words hattaya't
ya Allahu bi amrihi. This may mean 'until Day Of Judgement,
or 'until circumstances change by God's command'. Now according
to tradition circumstances did change, and the Prophet ordered
during his last illness that within the Arabian Peninsula
'there shall be no faith other than Islam'. "11"
That is the authority for the removal of the people of Najrăn
during the caliphate of 'Umar. The question, however, has
been asked, 'If this was the command of the Prophet, why did
Abu Bakr neglect to execute it? Why did he renew the guarantee
to the people of Najrăn given by his master?"12"
Why did 'Umar himself not act earlier?'
It seems that early inaction was dictated
by caution, not neglect. Neither Abü Bakr nor 'Umar were really
free to act before the second did. They had their hands too
full to cause an internal commotion. First came the civil
war which shook the nascent Islamic state to its foundation;
then came the perilous external wars in Syria and Al~Iraq
. Umar did not take action before these two territories were
firmly under his control, and the might and wealth of the
Islamic state greatly increased. Under these circumstances
Najrăn was not a 'political' menace."13"
There is no evidence that Najran ceased to pay the tribute
under their covenant. Umar's action, therefore, seems to spring,
not from political or economic, but from purely religious
Other explanations were advanced. Some mention
that Najrăn was doomed because of its stubborn refusal to
embrace the state religion. Others that internal division
led the people of Najran themselves to ask to be removed.
Others still, that they practiced usury contrary to their
compact and thus invited trouble. But the only explanation
that seems to command the support of tradition is the religious
Be that as it may, when it ~vas decided to remove the people
of Najrăn in A.H. 15/A.D. 636, they were offered land in exchange
for their own in Syria or Al-Iraq, and were exempted from
the payment of jizyah yak for twenty-four months. Some of
them went to Syria, but the majority settled in the neighbourhood
of Al-KUfah, one of the new military camps which grew into
a large city. The original home of Najrăn in Arabia became
a state domain.
The earliest mention of the so-called Ordinance of Umar is
by an author who died in the middle of the fifth century of
the Hijrah. Nor are its provisions respecting alleged restrictions
to be imposed on Christians (and certain other adherents of
recognized religions) reproduced by various authors in the same
terms. T