Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Islamic State 10: Rights of Ahl al-Ṣulḥ or Mu‘ā’ids

Rights of the Non-Muslims who are not defeated and who accept the Muslim rule for any other consideration on their part are not determined by the Islamic legal code alone. The terms of the treaty or pacts enacted with them provide a parallel source. They are subjected to the responsibilities they take as per the treaty. The Islamic State is obliged to fulfil the terms of the pact. The authorities are accountable before God and the people on their conduct in this regard.
Though this principle determines the status and rights of this kind of non-Muslim population in the Islamic State yet the question remains to what extent the Islamic State can go in facilitating them. A compact and categorical answer to this question is that they can be awarded all kinds of rights that which do not translate into defiance of sovereignty of God and the principles of the sharī‘ah. We, however, feel that in order to create a clear picture of this situation in the minds of the readers, it would be more useful to present examples of treaties enacted by the Prophet and the companions with the non-Muslims of their time. These examples, it is hoped, will help one understand in what circumstances they were enacted, to what kind of non-Muslims they were committed and what were the consideration behind these treaties. It will also make it possible for one to see the scope of rights and privileges allotted to the non-Muslims through these treaties. The Muslim governments can take great help from these examples in solving the issues of the non-Muslim minorities in the present day.

Examples of treaties with non-Muslims in the early history of Islam are numerous. During the rule of the rightly guided caliphs many such regions came under the Islamic State as can be termed protectorates. Aḍraḥ, Bahrayn, ‘īlah, Dawmah al-Jandal, Bayt al-Maqdas, Damascus, most parts of Syria, Bilād al-Jazīrah, Egypt and most parts of Khurasān are cases in point. The inhabitants of all these places entered into treaties with the Islamic State covering many political matters. Writes Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim:

Dealing with them is governed by the terms of the treaties enacted with them. They cannot be deprived of the rights granted by these terms. [1]

A thorough knowledge of these treaties helps us explain the policies regarding the ahl al-ṣulḥ adopted by the Islamic State in its pristine form. Unfortunately I do not have access to many of the related works. Therefore, I have to remain content with a relatively abbreviated discussion based on Qāḍī Abū Yūsuf’s Kitāb al-Kharāj and Abū ‘Ubayd’s Kitāb al-Amwāl. Much of my findings on the current issue are based on these sources.

One prominent example of this kind of treaties is that of the treaty enacted with the People of al-Fidk. The following terms were agreed upon between the Muslims and these people:

It was settled that they would be free. They will own half of their lands and half of their date orchards. The Messenger of God (the government practically) will own half of their lands and date orchards.[2]

These terms clearly state that the people with whom this treaty was enacted enjoyed freedom; they could not be enslaved. Their ownership over half of their lands and orchards was recognized. They were not merely employed to work as peasants on these lands. They were on the contrary, legal owners of half of their estates. When ‘Umar decided to expel these people from there he sent his representatives to them who assessed the worth of the half of their lands and orchards and paid them before they were expelled.

When ‘Umar expelled them out of the land he sent someone to them to assess the worth of their share of the land and the date palms. ‘Umar compensated them.[3]

It needs to be appreciated that they were expelled from the land during the reign of ‘Umar. This shows that the original treaty enacted by the Prophet was still effective. They were not subjected to the payment of jizyah. This provides clear evidence to the fact that the directive of jizyah is not general; it cannot be applied to all kinds of non-Muslims living under the Islamic rule. In that case, they would have been subjected to pay the jizyahright after the revelation of the verses governing the jizyah tax.

Christians of Banū Taghlab were originally Arabs. Their bravery and courage was legendary. ‘Umar wanted to impose jizyah upon them. Their chivalry and sense of honour made them defy the caliph. They accepted to leave their homeland in order to avoid this humility. ‘Ubādah b. Nu‘mān Taghlabī interfered and talked to ‘Umar on this issue.[4] He addressed the caliph in the following words: “You well know the chivalry and bravery of the Christians of Banū Taghlab. These people live on the frontiers directly facing the enemy. If they decided to help your enemy against you the enemy will surely prevail.” Considering this point ‘Umar decided to impose ṣadaqah on them instead of jizyah albeit double the amount of jizyah. The author of Kitāb al-Amwāl writes:

He said: “Being of ‘Arab origin, people of Banū Taghlab consider it too humiliating for them to pay jizyah. They are not herdsmen. They are cultivators and the enemy dreads them. Do not lend power to your enemies by alienating them.” ‘Umar imposed ṣadaqah upon them instead of jizyah. However, he imposed double of the usual amount of payable ṣadaqah.[5]

The above mentioned decision of ‘Umar leads to two important conclusions:
First, if a party among the non-Muslims (which has not been subjugated through war) considers paying jizyah humiliating to them, the Islamic State has the authority to dissolve them from paying the jizyah. Any other form of taxation can be imposed which is acceptable to them. However, any such agreement should not go against principle teachings of Islam and should not cause greater loss to the Bayt al-māl.
Second, if any party among the non-Muslims living under the Islamic rule enjoys some extraordinary political, economic or military importance and it is feared that if they are not appeased the enemy of the Islamic State would easily use their power against Muslims then the government can facilitate them in regards to the payment of taxes provided such an agreement does not violate any basic Islamic rule.

Another example is the treaty enacted with the people of Najrān. We will first quote the terms of the treaty verbatim following an analysis of the rulings derivable from them:

In the name of Allah, the ever Merciful, the Compassionate. This agreement has been written and accepted by the Prophet Muhammad and the people of Najrān while he (the Prophet) has the authority to decide the fate of all their produce, their free men, black, white and yellow among them, and their slaves. But he has been merciful to them. He has left all these remaining content on receiving two thousand ḥillahs(robes), one thousand in the month of Ṣafar and one thousand in the month of Rajab. Every ḥillah will be priced one awqiya (equal to forty dirham).[6] Any excess or shortage of the tax in the form of robes will be payable in the form of awqiyas. Whatever number of hauberks or horses or camels or any other item they will pay will be considered the payable tax. The People of Najrān will be obliged to host for twenty days the state officials visiting Najrān. These officials representing the Prophet will not be made to wait beyond thirty days whenever they go to Najrān for collecting tax. In case of any unrest in Yemen these people will lend the Muslims thirty hauberks, thirty horses and thirty camels. If anything among the lent hauberks, horses or camels is damaged or lost the Prophet’s representatives will compensate the loss. The Almighty Allah and his Messenger guarantee the people of Najrān and its dependencies their lives, their properties. This is for all those who are present in the land, those who are absent and for the original tribesmen and their clients. Their present status will prevail. Neither will their rights be altered nor will their religious affairs be interfered with. Neither will any monk displaced from his position nor will any key bearer of the Church be removed from his post. Whatever they possess, meagre or plenty, will not be confiscated. They will not be questioned for anything happening during the days of jāhiliyyah nor will they be subjected to the payment of blood money or retaliation for any killings prior to the advent of Islam. They will not be called to line together in one place for the payment of the tax. Rather they will be approached by the tax collectors. They will not be subjected to the payment of tithe. Any foreign invasion on them will be deterred. If there will be a dispute among them it will be decided justly.[7] However, if any individual among them devours usury the Messenger of God is not responsible for that. Nobody among them will be held responsible for a crime committed by another. All the terms of this agreement are guaranteed by the Almighty Allah and his Messenger till the Day God decides the matter as long as they fulfil the rights, follow the right path and avoid transgression.[8]

This treaty subjects the people of Najrān to the following obligations:
1. payment of two thousand robes yearly in two equal instalments as kharāj.[9]
2. lending thirty horses and thirty camels in case of unrest and emergency in the province of Yemen. The government will guarantee the return of these things and will pay for them if damaged.
3. hosting the tax collectors for twenty days.[10]
4. payment of the tax during the month determined for the purpose.
5. avoiding usury.

Corresponding to these five major responsibilities, the people of Najrān were granted the following rights:
1. Security of the lives of free men as well as slaves will be guaranteed. The property of all the inhabitants of Najrān and its dependencies will be inviolable. They enjoy religious freedom.
2. Their religion will not be changed for them.
3. Their previous status will not be altered.
4. Their religious system, religious institutions and charity organizations will not be hindered from work.
5. They will not be held responsible for any killings done before the establishment of Islamic rule.
6. The tax collectors will reach their doorsteps for collection. They People of Najrān will not be obliged to gather at a specified place for this purpose.
7. They will not be subjected to the payment of the tithe.
8. They will be defended against foreign aggression.
9. Judicial system will be set up to decide disputes among them.
10. None will be held in custody for a crime committed by others.

While discussing the treaty with the people of Najrān ‘Allāmah Ibn Qayyim indicated towards the different status of ahl al-ṣulḥ and other forms of non-Muslims living under the Islamic rule. In this connection he writes:

The difference between these two is based on the fact that there was no Muslim among the people of Najrān and they were ahl al-ṣulḥ. As regards the question of Yemen it was dār al-salām (land of peace, under Islamic rule) though some Jews lived there. Therefore, it was decided that the people of Yemen should be subjected to the payment of jizyah. The Jurists have considered the payment of jizyah specific for this kind of non-Muslims not to the former kind. We, however, believe that it too is a form of jizyah for it is but wealth which these people are forced to pay. Thus there is no practical difference.[11]

The above quoted statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn Qayyim betrays his understanding that there is but only accidental difference between these two types of non-Muslims. There is no original or foundational difference between the non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State. Since, according to him, the people of Najrān were settled quite apart from the common Muslim settlements and their being set apart removes the administrative difficulties in such a mitigating dealing with them, this made it possible to deal with them in quite different way. Minus this and there is no difference between the two forms, both are subjected to the payment of tax which is but jizyah. There is no legal difference between them and the other kinds of non-Muslims. We differ with ‘Allāmah Ibn Qayyim. We believe that the view of the jurists’ who differentiate between the two kinds on the basis that one party is ahl al-ṣulḥ and other ahl al-‘anwah is valid and sounder. If it were only accidental difference not legal then the only concession allotted them would be of administrative kind. A more basic and foundational difference in the rights and obligations of both the parties could not be observed. ‘Allāmah Ibn Qayyim insists that kharāj imposed upon them was nothing but jizyah which the government forces the non-Muslim subjects to pay. If this view is correct then we do not find any explanation to the treatment of Banū Taghlab by ‘Umar. They were excused from the payment of jizyahfor no other reason than that they considered it humiliating to pay this tax. They insisted that they should be subjected to the payment of zakāh just like Muslims albeit at an increased rate.[12]
Besides another prominent difference between ahl al-ṣulḥ and ordinary ahl al-dhimmah is that the latter occupy their cultivated lands merely as per their inherent status of cultivators while the former, as clear from the terms of the treaties enacted with them, were considered legal owners of their lands. The terms of the treaty with the people of Fidk clearly dictate that they would be the legal owners of the half of their lands and date palms. That is why when ‘Umar removed them from there he paid them the price of their share. Similarly the terms of the treaty with the People of Najrān clearly says that they would remain the legal owner of their lands. They were excused from the payment of jizyahapplicable to the general category of ahl al-dhimmah. When they cancelled their treaty during the rule of the second caliph, who shifted them to Iraq and Syria, he commanded the governors of these two provinces to provide them arable lands equal to what they possessed in their town. He also commanded his governors to excuse them from the payment of kharāj for two years after which they would be subjected to pay kharāj that too on their produce only.[13]
Some of the jurists have elucidated this point:

The land and assets belonging to those who have been forced into subjugation through military action is the right of the Muslims conquerors for the conquered people lose occupation of their land. As for ahl al-ṣulḥ they guard their lands and their lives until a treaty is signed with them. This makes it incumbent for the Muslims to treat them according to the terms of the treaty enacted with them.[14]

Considering this difference between the ahl al-ṣulḥ and ahl al-‘anwah Muslim scholars generally hold it allowable to buy a piece of land from the former group. On the contrary buying a piece of land from a dhimmī who has to pay kharāj is considered disallowed by many jurists. Ahl al-ṣulḥ are legal owners of their lands. Buying it from them is buying something from its legal owner. Contrarily ahl al-‘anwah are not legal owners of their lands. Such lands can be compared to the ones dedicated to public good. They are only considered growers of the land because they have been cultivating it for generations. True legal owners of their lands are the Muslims in their collectivity, not individually. The ahl al-‘anwah can of course buy and sell such lands among themselves. It cannot be sold out to Muslims. If a Muslim buys such land from one of the ahl al-‘anwah that piece of land will remain subject to the payment of kharāj and will not be converted into land subject to the payment of tithe.
Another worth considering point is that the amount of kharāj determined by the terms of the treaty enacted with ahl al-ṣulḥ cannot be increased overtime. It can, however, be decreased no matter how much productive the land is.[15] This distinctive treatment is not offered to all kinds of dhimmīs. The amount of kkarāj they are subjected to pay at one time can be increased or decreased considering the changing circumstances and productivity of their lands.
A careful study of the treaty enacted with the people of Najrān helps us understand that they were provided vast freedom in religious, collective and social affair. Though the ordinary ahl al-dhimmah too are not subjected to extraordinary restrictions, as we shall see later in this discussion, yet regarding the ahl al-ṣulḥ it has been decided as a principle that the religious and cultural freedom accepted in the terms of the treaty enacted with them will always be respected in their territory.

The non-Muslims can openly follow their religious rites and rituals in the cities annexed through a treaty with them. They will not be deprived of anything from the rights granted them in the treaty.[16]

When ‘Umar reached Adhraḥāt on his way to Syria, the inhabitants of the city came out to receive him according to their religious cutoms. At this he asked ‘Abū ‘Ubaydah to stop them from doing so and to command them to return to their homes. ‘Abū ‘Ubaydah told the Caliph that it was the way of the People of ‘Ajam. He also advised the caliph that it would not be expedient to stop them. He thought if they were stopped from that and were made to return, they could have take it to mean that the religious freedom granted them according to the terms reached at with them was being taken back. At this ‘Umar said in a very light mood: “Ok brother, if this is the case then let them carry on for now. ‘Umar as well his progeny are left on the mercy of ‘Abū ‘Ubaydah.”[17]
Similarly it is also an acknowledged principle regarding ahl al-ṣulḥ that their women and children cannot be enslaved. Though the general attitude of the Muslims towards those who had been won over in a battle has been the same as shown to the ahl al-ṣulḥ but that is an example of Muslims kind treatment with those people not the legal right of the subjugated people.[18] On the contrary the ahl al-ṣulḥ cannot be killed or enslaved. They are granted legal protection and will always remain free.

The practice of the Prophet and the Muslims have been that the ahl al-ṣulḥ cannot be taken as slaves and slave girls, they are free.[19]

Before directly dealing the issue of abrogating a treaty it would not be out of place to mention that as for as the Islamic State is concerned it cannot consider the treaties signed by the authorities as an ordinarily diplomatic contract which can be unilaterally abrogated on will on any pretext. The Islamic State observes all such dealings with the others religiously. For it enters into such contracts on the behalf of God and his Messenger. Therefore, unilaterally cancelling a treaty without justifiable cause not only mars the true face of the state but also puts the faith of the believers living in it at stake. Consequently, a true Islamic government would always uphold the sanctity of such accords in the first place, and, if a government falls into committing such offence it is the duty of the Muslim citizens of the state to raise their voice against the transgression and to stop their authorities from defying the guarantee allotted to the other party on behalf of the Almighty Allah and his Messenger. We will present some relevant examples from the early history of Islam so that it becomes clear to the reader that when, an Islamic government, on the behalf of God and his Messenger, guarantees protection to some party or group of people, it goes to all possible extents to honour it. These examples also guide us as to when can the state cancel the treaties. These examples mark for us the conditions to be fulfilled before cancelling a treaty and also delineate the circumstances where this can be done. We will also learn that how Muslims jurists and people of understanding have turned against their rulers whenever they found that the latter failed to observe the limits of the sharī‘ahin this regard.

‘Umar appointed ‘Umayr b. Sa‘īd (or Sa‘d) as governor of Syria. A little after his appointment, the governor came to the Caliph and informed him that there was a city called ‘Arab al-Sūs situated between Syria and the Byzantium. “These people have entered into a treaty with us”, the governor explained. “But they continue spying for the Byzantium and refuse to render the same service to us” he added. ‘Umar gave the governor the following instructions: “Give them two options. First, ask them to accept two goats against every single one they paid to us, two camels against every single camel they paid to us, indeed, they may take two things against every single item and leave the country. If they agree on this let them evacuate their city and then destroy it immediately afterwards. Second, if they are not willing to do so, announce the abrogation of the treaty, wait for a year and expel them from the country.” ‘Umayr presented these offers to those people but they did not agree on the first one. Then he waited for a year and expelled them from the country.[20]

A similar situation developed with the people of Jabal al-Lubnān. This was during the early period of the Abbasid caliphate. These people were ahl al-ṣulḥ. They violated the terms of the treaty enacted with them. At this, Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Alī, the then governor of Syria, expelled them from the country. This was the time Imām Awzā‘ī lived. Students of the history of Islam are well aware of the stature and illustriousness of this great scholar of Islam. He found this action of the governor at variance with the directives of the sharī‘ahand wrote a detailed letter to the Caliph in order to register his protest. We produce below a part of his letter to the Caliph so that we can see, on the one hand, what sort of care has to be observed while dealing the ahl al-ṣulḥand on the other, what is the true status and duties of the scholars in the Islamic State. Thus we will learn how courageously the pious scholars of the past criticized the government if it abandons the sharī‘ah directives. It also reveals what vigilance, moral courage and just approach the earlier scholars showed concerning the rights of the non-Muslims living under the Islamic rule.
Imām Awzā‘ī had written:

The crime for which the people of Jabal al-Lubnān have been expelled from the country was committed by a few. The rebels are only those who committed rebellion. The entire party did not involve in this mutiny. This makes it incumbent upon you (the rulers) to punish only the culprits and rehabilitate the others in their settlements. How would you justify punishing the entire tribe by expelling them from their homes and settlements for the crime of a party among them? The sharī‘ah of God guides us clearly to the fact that He does not hold into account all for crimes committed by some. Contrarily God holds into account few effective people for the crime committed by all then He treats them precisely for what they have done. The command of God is worthy to be followed above all. Then the saying of the Prophet has to be observed where he says: “whoever wrongs a mu‘āh’idand subjects him to do what he cannot do will have me as the fiercest opponent on the Day of Judgment.” The property of those whose lives have been protected as per the terms of the treaty enacted with them is equally sacred. They will be dealt with in complete justice with regards to their property. These people (the people of Jabal al-Lubnān) are not your slaves so that you can toss them around. These are free ahl al-dhimmah. If a married person among them will commit zinā (adultery) he will be stoned to death. If someone among us (the Muslims) marries a woman from them she will be granted a status equal to that of our women with regards to turns, divorce and iddah etc.[21]

The treaty with the People of Qabraṣ was cancelled. These people claimed loyalty with two rival states at the same time. They paid taxes to both of them. On the one hand, during the regime of Mu‘āwiyah, they entered into a treaty with him and agreed to pay a specific amount of kharāj and on the other, they continued paying kharāj to the Romans. This divided their loyalty and their attitude was always suspicious. The Muslims governors, however, continued honouring the treaty. During the Abbasid regime, ‘Abd al-Mālik b. Ṣāliḥ[22] was appointed governor of the Syrian frontiers. These people again betrayed the Islamic State. This forced the governor to take steps against them. Since the issue involved dealing with the ahl al-ṣulḥ, he did not deem it fit to take any step on his own. He, therefore, presented the issue before the scholars and jurists of the time and sought their opinion on the matter. People whom he wrote in this regard and who responded to him include: Layth b. Sa‘d, Mālik b. Anas, Sufyān b. ‘Uyaynah, Mūsā b. A‘yun, Ismā‘īl b. ‘Ayyāsh, Yaḥyā b. Ḥamzah, Abū Isḥāq Farāzī and Makhlad b. Ḥusayn.
A cursory look at these names can help a student of the Islamic history discern their status in knowledge and piety. They were not only the respected leaders of the time but most of them have left behind them legacies of profound knowledge for the posterity. For fear of lengthiness we cannot produce their responses completely. However, we will present a selection so that it can be assessed how a party among the ahl al-ṣulh ̣can be treated as per the sharī‘ah directives when they violate a treaty contracted with the Islamic State.
Layth b. Sa‘d wrote in his response:

The people of Qabraṣ have always been considered loyal to the Romans and disloyal to the Muslims. Therefore, I believe that it would be better to abrogate the treaty with them (he quoted some relevant verses of the Qur’ān to support his view). They should be given respite for one year during which time they can think over the matter and decide what to do. Whoever enters our county trusting the guarantee given to them against the determined amount of kharāj is welcome. Whoever decides to go to the Romans may do so. Those who decide to fight us from Qabraṣ should be fought with. After being granted a respite of one year they will not have any excuse and we will have, by waiting till then, fulfilled the obligations of the treaty.

Sufyān b. ‘Uyaynah writes at the end of his long letter:

We are not obliged to protect the one who has abrogated the treaty he contracted with us and his tribe helped him in so doing.

Mālik b. ‘Anas responded in the following words:

I suggest you should not abrogate the treaty in haste without cutting every possible excuse for them. Then, if, after the itmām-i ḥujjah and warning, they do not straighten up and continue their ill-will then you should fully investigate the matter and make sure that it is they who have first betrayed us. It is only after this you will be free to take some step against them. In this case your view will just and dominating. God will help you and they will be disgraced.

Mūsā b. A‘yun wrote:

Complaints about these people have often been made and the rulers have always treated them properly. People of Qabraṣ have never been punished on these complaints. It is possible that what have been reported this time is a deed of a few among them. They are not collectively responsible for the crimes. This makes me think that the treaty with them should not be abrogated. The people of Qabraṣ are suppressed and wronged ones. The Romans have mastered their lives and their women. It is our duty to protect them and to help them. You know that when Habīb b. Salamah (the governor of Armenia) entered into a treaty with the people of Armenia, he assured them that the treaty would not be dissolved even if the Muslims failed to take care of them and the enemy overpowered them as long as they remained loyal. In the light of this precedent, considering the helplessness of the people of Qabraṣ against the Romans, I believe that the treaty should be honoured. They should be protected. Moreover, you may well know that Walīd b. Yazīd had expelled these people during his rule and forced them to settle in Yemen. All the scholars disapproved this action by the governor. Later on, his son, Yazīd b. Walīd, brought them back and settled them in their homes during his rule. At this the Muslims rejoiced for they believed justice had been done.

Abū Isḥāq and Makhlid b. Ḥusayn both quoted the following view of Imām Awzā‘ī in support of theirs:

The people of Qabraṣ have never been loyal to us. But we take them as our allies. We have entered into an agreement with them on specific terms. It is not allowable to break this treaty with them unless they are engaged in activities which manifestly reveal that they have violated the agreement.[23]

These responses do not call for a commentary. The following principles and rules follow from them.
1. Islamic government has to abide by the treaties to the best of its power.
2. When the authorities come to know that an ally has violated the treaty they should first ascertain whether betrayal has been committed by a few people among the allied nation or the entire community is involved. In the former case, the responsible individuals will be held accountable. If, after due investigation, it is proved that the entire nation helped and supported the culprits in betraying the Muslims, they will be given an opportunity to straighten themselves up so that they are not left with excuse. If they correct themselves that is good. Otherwise the government is free to take appropriate steps against them.
3. The view point of Ismā‘īl b. ‘Ayyāsh stresses and highlights that if the other party in the alliance is forced by a foreign power into violating the terms of the treaty then they deserve protection from the aggressions and not punishment.

[1] Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim b. Salām, Kitāb al-Amwāl, (Beirut: Dār al-Nashr Dār al-Fikr, 1988), 132.
[2] Ibid., 16.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The version of the report found in Abū ‘Ubayd has the name Nu‘mān b. Zar‘ah instead of ‘Abd Allāh b. Nu‘mān Taghlabī. I have relied on the narrative from Kitāb al-Amwāl.
[5] Ibid., 37.
[6] Ḥillah is a robe consisting of two sheets of cloth which was a famous product of Yemen in those times. One awqiyah equalled forty dirhams.
[7] According to the version appearing in Kitāb al-Amwāl, they will not be required to approach the capital for the settlement of disputes. Their cases will be decided in Najrān and justice will be provided them in their hometown.
[8] Ibn Qayyim, Zād al-Ma‘ād,3: 634-5.
[9] I have added the words ‘as kharāj’ in order to indicate that they were not subjected to the payment of jizyah. This has been held by the jurists. (Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, 69).
[10] This condition was included in the treaty because at that time, there was no alternative available. People were distributed, far away from the main settlements. There were no Muslims among these people who could have hosted the administrators, tax collectors and other state officials nor were there any state guest houses.
[11] Ibn Qayyim, Zād al-Ma‘ād, 3: 643.
[12] We do acknowledge that this specific tax too has been termed jizyah. But merely the use of the word of jizyah for two distinct forms of tax should not take away the difference between the legal and customary usage of the term.
[13] Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, 73-4.
It would not be out of place to mention that those people not only started interest based businesses in violation of the terms of the treaty but also engaged in providing war weapons to the enemies of the state. They were not expelled from the empire. They were only shifted to frontiers. If they were let to settle in the heartland, they could be able to create disorder and nuisance in the land in case of internal unrest.
[14] Abū ‘Ubayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl, 205.
[15] Ibid., 69, 131, 190. A prophetic verdict in this regard has also been quoted in the annals of history besides ‘Umar’s decision on such a case.
[16] Ibid., 131.
[17] Ibid., 200.
[18] This category of the non-Muslims can be subjected to a variety of treatment according to the law; they can be taken as prisoners, enslaved and subjected to pay ransom. Those engaged in creating disorder and leading others to the same can be executed.
[19] Abū ‘Ubayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl, 238.
[20] Ibid., 220-1.
[21] Ibid., 222.
[22] Ṣāliḥ (d. 197 AH) was one of the best military commanders who served under the caliphs Rashīd and Amīn.
[23] For detail see Abū ‘Ubayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl, 227-8.