World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Dhimmis

 

Dhimmis

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذميḏimmī IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma") is a historical[1] term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.[1] Dhimma allows rights of residence in return for taxes.[2] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions.[3] They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, did not enjoy certain political rights reserved to Muslims, and were subject to payment of a special tax (jizyah), but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation.[4]

Under sharia law, dhimmi status was originally afforded to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. The protected religions later came to include Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus and Buddhists.[5][6] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic legal thought, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in modern-day Saudi Arabia.[7]

As an example of the distinctions between Muslims, dhimmis, and others, sharia law permits the consumption of pork and alcohol by non-Muslims living in Islamic countries, although they may not be openly displayed.[8] These same commodities are expressly forbidden to Muslims.[9] Modern Hanafi scholars do not make any legal distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[10]

The "dhimma contract"

Based on Quranic verses and Islamic traditions, classical sharia distinguishes between Muslims, followers of other Abrahamic religions, and pagans or people belonging to other polytheistic religions. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have traditionally been considered "People of the Book," and afforded a special status known as dhimmi derived from a theoretical contract - "dhimma" or "residence in return for taxes". There are parallels for this in Roman and Jewish law.[11] Muslim governments in the Indus basin readily extended the dhimmi status to the Hindus and Buddhists of India.[12] Eventually, the largest school of Islamic scholarship applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, Saudi Arabia.[13]

Classical sharia incorporated the religious laws and courts of Christians, Jews and Hindus, as seen in the early caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[14][15] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[16] These courts did not cover cases that involved other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order. By the 18th century, however, dhimmis frequently attended the Ottoman Muslim courts, where cases were taken against them by Muslims, or they took cases against Muslims or other dhimmis. Oaths sworn by dhimmis in these courts were tailored to their beliefs.[17]

Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in certain practices (such as the consumption of alcohol and pork) that were usually forbidden by Islamic law. Zoroastrian "self-marriages", that were considered incestuous under sharia, were also tolerated. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1292–1350) opined that non-Muslims were entitled to such practices since they could not be presented to sharia courts and the religious minorities in question held it permissible. This ruling was based on the precedent that the Islamic prophet, Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming into contact with Zoroastrians and knowing about this practice.[18] Religious minorities were also free to do whatever they wished in their own homes, provided they did not publicly engage in illicit sexual activity in ways that could threaten public morals.[19]

However, the classical dhimma contract is no longer enforced. Western influence has been instrumental in eliminating the restrictions and protections of the dhimma contract, thereby contributing to the current state of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims living in Islamic lands.[20]

According to law professor H. Patrick Glenn of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, "[t]oday it is said that the dhimmi are 'excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges, but on the other hand they are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties' while (and here there are clear parallels with western public and private law treatment of aliens – Fremdenrecht, la condition de estrangers), '[f]or the rest, the Muslim and the dhimmi are equal in practically the whole of the law of property and of contracts and obligations'."[21]

The dhimma contract and sharia law

Main article: Sharia

The dhimma contract is an integral part of traditional Islamic sharia law. From the 9th century AD, the power to interpret and refine law in traditional Islamic societies was in the hands of the scholars (ulama). This separation of powers served to limit the range of actions available to the ruler, who could not easily decree or reinterpret law independently and expect the continued support of the community.[22] Through succeeding centuries and empires, the balance between the ulema and the rulers shifted and reformed, but the balance of power was never decisively changed.[23] At the beginning of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution introduced an era of European world hegemony that included the domination of most of the lands of Islam.[24][25] At the end of the Second World War, the European powers found themselves too weakened to maintain their empires.[26] The wide variety of forms of government, systems of law, attitudes toward modernity and interpretations of sharia are a result of the ensuing drives for independence and modernity in the Muslim world.[27][28]

Muslim states, sects, schools of thought and individuals differ as to exactly what sharia law entails.[29] In addition, Muslim states today utilize a spectrum of legal systems. Most states have a mixed system implementing certain aspects of sharia while acknowledging constitutional supremacy. A few, such as Turkey, have declared themselves secular.[30] Local and customary laws may take precedence in certain matters, as well.[31] Islamic law is therefore polynormative,[32] and despite several cases of regression in recent years, the trend is towards modernization and liberalization.[33] Questions of human rights and the status of minorities cannot be generalized with regards to Islam and the Muslim world. They must instead be examined on a case-by-case basis, within specific political and cultural contexts, using perspectives drawn from the historical framework.[34]

The end of the dhimma contract

The status of the dhimmi "was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews" but the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French Revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis.[35] The continuing and growing pressure from the European powers combined with pressure from Muslim reformers gradually relaxed the inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims.[36]

The collection of the jizya tax from non-Muslims was widespread throughout the history of Islam. In the mid-19th century, the Ottoman Empire significantly relaxed the restrictions and taxes placed on its non-Muslim residents under Ottomanism. These relaxations occurred gradually as part of the Tanzimat reform movement, which began in 1839 with the accession of the Ottoman Sultan, Abdülmecid I.

On November 3, 1839, the Edict of Gülhane (Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane) edict was put forth by the Sultan, in part proclaiming the principle of equality among all subjects regardless of religion. Part of the motivation for this was a desire to gain support from the British Empire, whose help was needed in a conflict with Egypt.

On February 18, 1856, the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856 (Hatt-i Humayan) was issued, building upon the 1839 edict. It came about partly as a result of pressure from and the efforts of the ambassadors of Great Britain, France, and Austria, whose respective countries were needed as allies in the Crimean War. It again proclaimed the principle of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced many specific reforms to this end. For example, the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.[37][38]

Views of contemporary Islamic scholars on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic society

  • Ruhollah Khomeini in his book Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist indicates unequivocally that non-Muslims should be required to pay the poll tax, in return for which they would profit from the protection and services of the state; they would, however, be excluded from all participation in the political process.[39] Bernard Lewis remarks about Khomeini that one of his main grievances against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was that his legislation allowed the theoretical possibility of non-Muslims exercising political or judicial authority over Muslims.[40]
  • Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei, a prominent 20th century Shia scholar, commenting on a hadith that claims that the verse 9:29 has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward dhimmis, states that "abrogation" could be understood either in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should deal with dhimmis strictly in a good and decent manner.[41]
  • Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes in Mizan that certain directives of the Quran were specific only to Muhammad against peoples of his times, besides other directives, the campaign involved asking the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam.[42][43]
  • The Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi states in the selection of the Tafsir Nemooneh that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those Muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and dhimmis' lives and properties on their behalf[44]
  • Legal scholar L. Ali Khan points to the Constitution of Medina as a way forward for Islamic states in his 2006 paper titled The Medina Constitution. He suggests this ancient document, which governed the status of religions and races in the first Islamic state, can serve as a basis for the protection of minority rights, equality, and religious freedom in the modern Islamic state.[45][46]
  • Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford, advocates the inclusion of academic disciplines and Islamic society, along with traditional Islamic scholars, in an effort to reform Islamic law and address modern conditions. He speaks of remaining faithful to the higher objectives of sharia law. He posits universal rights of dignity, welfare, freedom, equality and justice in a religiously and culturally pluralistic Islamic (or other) society, and proposes a dialogue regarding the modern term "citizenship," although it has no clear precedent in classical fiqh. He further includes the terms "non-citizen", "foreigner", "resident" and "immigrant" in this dialogue, and challenges not only Islam, but modern civilization as a whole, to come to terms with these concepts in a meaningful way with regards to problems of racism, discrimination and oppression.[47]

Dhimmi communities

Jews and Christians living under early Muslim rule were considered dhimmis, a status that was later also extended to other non-Muslims like Hindus. They were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule.[48] Islamic law and custom prohibited the enslavement of free dhimmis within lands under Islamic rule.[49] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[50] (but lower under the Muslim rule[51][52]). They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims. The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts.[53] The dhimmi communities had their own chiefs and judges, with their own family, personal and religious laws,[54] and "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century".[55]

The dhimmi communities had their own chiefs and judges, with their own family, personal and religious laws,[54] and "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century".[55] "Muslims guaranteed freedom of worship and livelihood, provided that they remained loyal to the Muslim state and paid a poll tax".[56] "Muslim governments appointed Christian and Jewish professionals to their bureaucracies",[56] and thus, Christians and Jews "contributed to the making of the Islamic civilization".[56]

However, dhimmis faced social and symbolic restrictions,[57] and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[58] Marshall Hodgson, a historian of Islam, writes that during the era of the High Caliphate (7th–13th Centuries), zealous Shariah-minded Muslims gladly elaborated their code of symbolic restrictions on the dhimmis.[59]

From an Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. The dhimmis were also serving a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists.[60] Religious minorities were free to do whatever they wished in their own homes, but could not "publically engage in illicit sex in ways that threaten public morals".[61] In some cases, religious practices that Muslims found repugnant were allowed. One example was the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion. This ruling was based on the precedent that Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming in contact with them and having knowledge of their practices.[62]

The Arabs generally established garrisons outside towns in the conquered territories, and had little interaction with the local dhimmi populations for purposes other than the collection of taxes. The conquered Christian, Jewish, Mazdean and Buddhist communities were otherwise left to lead their lives as before.[63]

Christians

The Arab conquerors included Christian as well as Muslim tribes. The Christian Arabs were regarded as fellow Arabs rather than dhimmis.

Local Christians in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were non-Chalcedonians and many may have felt better off under early Muslim rule than under that of the orthodox Greeks of Constantinople.[64]

In 1095, Pope Urban II urged western European Christians to come to the aid of the Christians of Palestine. The subsequent Crusades brought Roman Catholic Christians into contact with Orthodox Christians whose beliefs they discovered to differ from their own perhaps more than they had realised, and whose position under the rule of the Muslim Fatimid Caliphate was less uncomfortable than had been supposed. Consequently, the Eastern Christians provided perhaps less support to the Crusaders than had been expected.[65] When the Arab East came under Ottoman rule in the 16th century, Christian populations and fortunes rebounded significantly. The Ottomans had long experience dealing with Christian and Jewish minorities, and were more tolerant towards religious minorities than the former Muslim rulers, the Mamluks of Egypt.[66] By the 19th century, European pressure had removed all dhimma restrictions on Ottoman religious minorities.

Jews

Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of discrimination and persecution within the Roman Empire, both pre-Christian and Christian, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers, this time for the better.

María Rosa Menocal, argues that the Jewish dhimmis living under the caliphate, while allowed fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than in the Christian parts of Europe. Jews from other parts of Europe made their way to al-Andalus, where in parallel to Christian sects regarded as heretical by Catholic Europe, they were not just tolerated, but where opportunities to practise faith and trade were open without restriction save for the prohibitions on proselytisation.[67]

Bernard Lewis states:

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character. That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.[68]

Professor of Jewish medieval history at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, notes:

The legal and security situation of the Jews in the Muslim world was generally better than in Christendom, because in the former, Jews were not the sole "infidels", because in comparison to the Christians, Jews were less dangerous and more loyal to the Muslim regime, and because the rapidity and the territorial scope of the Muslim conquests imposed upon them a reduction in persecution and a granting of better possibility for the survival of members of other faiths in their lands.[69]

According to the French historian Claude Cahen, Islam has "shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands." [70]

Comparing the treatment of Jews in the medieval Islamic world and medieval Christian Europe, Mark R. Cohen notes that, in contrast to Jews in Christian Europe, the "Jews in Islam were well integrated into the economic life of the larger society",[71] and that they were allowed to practice their religion more freely than they could do in Christian Europe.[71]

According to the scholar Mordechai Zaken, tribal chieftains (also known as aghas) in tribal Muslim societies such as the Kurdish society in Kurdistan would tax their Jewish subjects. The Jews were in fact civilians protected by their chieftains in and around their communities; in return they paid part of their harvest as dues, and contributed their skills and services to their patron chieftain.[72]

Hindus and Buddhists

By the 10th century, the Turks of Central Asia had brought Islam to the mountains north of the Indic plains.[73] It was not long before they swept south across the Punjab. The Indus basin held a substantial Buddhist population in addition to the ruling Hindu castes, and most converted to Islam over the next two centuries. At the end of the 12th century, the Muslims advanced quickly into the Ganges Plain.[74] In one decade, a Muslim army led by Turkic slaves consolidated resistance around Lahore and brought northern India, as far as west Bengal, under Muslim rule.[75] From these Turkic slaves would come sultans, including the founder of the sultanate of Delhi. Muslims and dhimmis alike participated in urbanization and urban prosperity.[76]

By the 15th century, Islamic and Hindu civilization had evolved in a complementary manner, with the Muslims taking the role of a ruling caste in Hindu society. Nevertheless, the Muslims retained their Islamic identities, and were in some ways regarded by Hindus in much the same light as their own lowest castes.[77]

In the 16th century, India came under the influence of the Mughals (Mongols). Babur, a ruler of the Mongol Timuri empire, established a foothold in the north which paved the way for further expansion by his successors.[78] Until it was eclipsed by European hegemony in the 18th century, the Timuri Moghul emperors oversaw a period of coexistence and tolerance between Hindus and Muslims. The emperor Akbar has been described as a universalist. He sought to establish tolerance and equality between all communities and religions, and instituted far reaching social and religious reforms.[79] Not all the Mughal emperors endorsed the ideals espoused by Akbar, indeed Aurangzeb was inclined towards a more fundamentalist approach.[80]

The entire subcontinent fell under European colonial rule during the 18th century.[81] Independence from their former European colonial rulers, and the subsequent struggles for political power, have brought ethnic and religious strife to this area of the world in modern times.[82]

Restrictions

There were a number of restrictions on dhimmis. In modern sense the dhimmis would be described as second-class citizens.[83]

Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells or the trumpeting of shofars.[84] They were also were not allowed to build or repair churches without Muslim consent.[56] Moreover dhimmis were not allowed to seek converts among Muslims.[85] In the Mamluk Egypt, where non-Mamluk Muslims were not allowed to ride horses and camels, dhimmis were prohibited even from riding donkeys inside cities.[86] Sometimes, Muslim rulers issued regulations requiring dhimmis to attach distinctive signs to their houses.[87]

Most of the restrictions were social and symbolic in nature,[57] and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[58] The major financial disabilities of the dhimmi were the jizya poll tax and the fact dhimmis and Muslims could not inherit from each other.[57] That would create incentive to convert if someone from the family was already converted.[56] The jurists and scholars of Islamic sharia law called for humane treatment of the dhimmis.[88]

Jizya tax

Main article: Jizya

Payment of the jizya obligated Muslim authorities to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. Sura 9 (At-Tawba), verse 29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).[89]

Taxation, from the perspective of dhimmis who came under Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes".[50] Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.[52] In some places, for example Egypt, the obligations of the jizya tax created economic incentives for Christians to convert to Islam.[56]

The importance of dhimmis as a source of revenue for the Muslim community is illuminated in a letter ascribed to Umar I and cited by Abu Yusuf: "if we take dhimmis and share them out, what will be left for the Muslims who come after us? By God, Muslims would not find a man to talk to and profit from his labors."[90]

Most Islamic scholars agree that jizya must be levied only upon adult males. In an important early account, Malik ibn Anas' Muwatta Imam Malik reports that the jizya was collected from non-Muslim men only, and additional taxes were to be levied against dhimmis who travelled on business:

"The sunnah is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma ... do not have to pay any zakat ... This is because zakat is imposed on the Muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them."
—Malik ibn Anas, Muwatta Imam Malik[91]

Lewis notes there are varying opinions among scholars as to how much of a burden jizya was.[89] According to Norman Stillman: "jizya and kharaj were a crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked out a bare living in a subsistence economy."[92] Both agree that ultimately, the additional taxation on non-Muslims was a critical factor that drove many dhimmis to leave their religion and accept Islam.[93] However, in some regions the jizya on populations was significantly lower than the zakat, meaning dhimmi populations maintained an economic advantage.[94]

The early Islamic scholars took a relatively humane and practical attitude towards the collection of jizya, compared to the 11th century commentators writing when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad.[95]

The jurist Abu Yusuf, the chief judge of the caliph Harun Al-Rashid, rules as follows regarding the manner of collecting the jizya [95]

No one of the people of the dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather they should be treated with leniency.

In the border provinces, dhimmis were sometimes recruited for military operations. In such cases, they were exempted from jizya for the year of service.[96]

Administration of law

Religious pluralism existed in medieval Islamic law and ethics. The religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as exemplified in the Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Ottoman Empire and Indian subcontinent.[14][97] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily chose to be judged according to Islamic law. The dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who had their own Halakha courts.[98]

Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems. However, dhimmis frequently attended the Muslim courts in order to record property and business transactions within their own communities. Cases were taken out against Muslims, against other dhimmis and even against members of the dhimmi's own family. Dhimmis often took cases relating to marriage, divorce or inheritance to the Muslim courts so these cases would be decided under sharia law. Oaths sworn by dhimmis in the Muslim courts were sometimes the same as the oaths taken by Muslims, sometimes tailored to the dhimmis' beliefs.[17]

Muslim men could generally marry dhimmi women who are considered People of the Book, however Islamic jurists rejected the possibility any non-Muslim man might marry a Muslim woman.[99] Bernard Lewis notes that "similar position existed under the laws of Byzantine Empire, according to which a Christian could marry a Jewish woman, but a Jew could not marry a Christian woman under pain of death".[54]

Relevant texts

Quranic verses as a basis for Islamic policies toward dhimmis

Lewis states

  • The phrase "Let there be no compulsion in religion:...", from sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayah 256,[100] has usually been interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions to mean followers of other religions should not be forced to adopt Islam.[101]
  • The phrase "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.", from sura 109 (Al-Kafirun), ayah 6,[102] has been used as a "proof-text for pluralism and coexistence".[101]
  • In sura 2 (Al-Baqara) the verse 62[103] has served to justify the tolerated position accorded to the followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Sabianism under Muslim rule.[101]

Hadith

A hadith by Muhammad, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).",[104] is considered to be a foundation for the protection of the People of the Book in Muslim ruled countries.[105]

Majid Khadduri cites a similar hadith in regard to the status of the dhimmis: "Whoever wrongs one with whom a compact (treaty) has been made [i.e., a dhimmi] and lays on him a burden beyond his strength, I will be his accuser."[106]

Constitution of Medina

A precedent for the dhimma contract was established with the agreement between Muhammad and the Jews after the Battle of Khaybar, an oasis near Medina. Khaybar was the first territory attacked and conquered by Muslims. When the Jews of Khaybar surrendered to Muhammad after a siege, Muhammad allowed them to remain in Khaybar in return for handing over to the Muslims one half their annual produce.[107]

After Mecca was brought under Islamic rule, deputations from tribes across Arabia came to make terms with Muhammad and the Muslims. The Constitution of Medina, a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Medina (including Muslims, Jews and pagans), declared that non-Muslims in the Ummah had the following rights:[108]

  1. The security (dhimma) of God is equal for all groups,[109]
  2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[110]
  3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[111]
  4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[112]

Pact of Umar

The Pact of Umar, traditionally believed to be between caliph Umar and the conquered Christians of Jerusalem, was another source of regulations pertaining to dhimmis. However, Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the pact, arguing it is usually the victors and not the vanquished who impose rather than propose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to Umar in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodosian and Justinian Codes of the Eastern Roman Empire suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs.[113]

Cultural interactions and cultural differences

During the Middle Ages, local associations known as futuwwa clubs developed across the Islamic lands. There were usually several futuwwah in each town. These clubs catered to varying interests, primarily sports, and might involve distinctive manners of dress and custom. They were known for their hospitality, idealism and loyalty. They often had a militaristic aspect, purportedly for the mutual protection of the membership. These clubs commonly crossed social strata, including among their membership local notables, dhimmi and slaves – to the exclusion of those associated with the local ruler, or amir.[114]

Muslims and Jews were sometimes partners in trade, with the Muslim taking days off on Fridays and Jews taking off on Saturdays.[115]

Andrew Wheatcroft describes how some social customs such as different conceptions of dirt and cleanliness made it difficult for the religious communities to live close to each other, either under Muslim or under Christian rule.[116]

See also

Islam portal

Notes

References

  • Bosworth, C. E. (1982). The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam In Benjamin Braude and B. Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 2 vols., New York: Holmes & Meier Publishing. ISBN 0-8419-0520-7

Further reading

  • Maribel Fierro and John Tolan |authorlink=John Tolan|, eds, The legal status of ḏimmī-s in the Islamic West (second/eighth-ninth/fifteenth centuries) (Turnhoult, 2013).
  • Karl Binswanger: Untersuchungen zum Status der Nichtmuslime im Osmanischen Reich des 16. Jahrhunderts. Diss. phil. München 1977, ISBN 3-87828-108-0
  • Mark. R. Cohen: Unter Kreuz und Halbmond. Die Juden im Mittelalter. München 2005, ISBN 3-406-52904-6
  • Nabil Luka Babawi: Les droits et les devoirs des chrétiens dans l'état islamique et leurs conséquences sur la sécurité nationale, thèse de doctorat.
  • Nicola Melis, “Il concetto di ğihād”, in P. Manduchi (a cura di), Dalla penna al mouse. Gli strumenti di diffusione del concetto di ğihād, Angeli, Milano 2006, pp. 23–54.
  • Nicola Melis, “Lo statuto giuridico degli ebrei dell’Impero Ottomano”, in M. Contu – N. Melis – G. Pinna (a cura di), Ebraismo e rapporti con le culture del Mediterraneo nei secoli XVIII-XX, Giuntina, Firenze 2003.
  • Nicola Melis, Trattato sulla guerra. Il Kitāb al-ğihād di Molla Hüsrev, Aipsa, Cagliari 2002.
  • Yohanan Friedmann: Classification of Unbelievers in Sunnī Muslim Law and Tradition. In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 22 (1998), pp. 163–195
  • Mohammad Amin Al-Midani: La question des minorités et le statut des non-musulmans en Islam. In: La religion est-elle un obstacle à l'application des droits de l'homme?. colloque tenu les 10–11 décembre 2004 à Lyon.
  • Pessah Shinar: Some remarks regarding the colours of male Jewish dress in North Africa and their Arabic-Islamic context. In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 24/2000, pp. 380–395
  • M. Levy-Rubin: Shurut `Umar and its alternatives: the legal debate on the status of the dhimmis. In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 30/2005

External links

  • Islamic and Christian Spain in the early Middle Ages. Thomas F. Glick: Chapter 5: Ethnic relations
  • Islam and its tolerance level
  • Jihad, the Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-Muslim Subjects

Template:Characters and names in the Quran

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.