Every discussion about the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule tends to revolve around one subject — the Jizya, or the so-called “discriminatory” poll tax. It is the most frequently cited and gravest charge of inequality — and, conveniently, the easiest one to pick on.
This article examines the true nature of that “discrimination.” The sources relied upon here are primarily Muslim, but they are far from “revisionist.” They belong to the period when Islam was at its political and moral zenith — when Muslims did not need to indulge in apologetics.
Among these, Imam Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj occupies a central place. Written for Caliph Harun al-Rashid by an eighth-century jurist and student of Imam Abu Hanifa, it remains a foundational text on Islamic finance, taxation, and public administration. Even if some of its stories lack external verification, the principles they reflect are undeniable. Whether historical fact or transmitted ideal, the moral weight of these narratives lies in the standards that Muslim society aspired to — standards so lofty that even the “myths” (if such they be) testify to the civilisation’s ethical conscience. Two non-Muslim sources cited at the end confirm that these were not mere ideals but broadly reflected historical practice.
I. Imam Abu Yusuf’sKitab al-Kharaj
1. On the exemption of the weak and poor:
“The command of Jizyah stands null and void if a man grows decrepit, suffers from a physical ailment, becomes the recipient of alms and charity donated by members of his religion, or has been reduced to destitution. As long as he stays in the Islamic state, the expenses of his family, along with his own, will be met from the public treasury.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.146; cf. Zia-un-Nabi, Vol.4, pp.308–309)
2. The Caliph Umar’s compassion:
Abu Yusuf records that Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab once encountered an elderly beggar who could no longer pay the poll tax. On learning his story, Umar took him home, provided for him personally, and then ordered the public treasury to support him and others like him. He declared:
“We imposed the poll tax on him when he was young and earning, but as he grew old, we ignored him. Alms are for the poor and the needy.” (9:60)
Umar thereupon abolished the tax for the infirm and decrepit, declaring their upkeep a responsibility of the State. (Kitab al-Kharaj)
3. Protection of Dhimmis from oppression:
Umar also issued strict orders to his tax collectors:
“One who subjects a Dhimmi to oppression, inflicts punishment beyond his capacity, causes him harm, or takes anything from his possession against his will shall be my accuser on the Day of Judgement.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.150)
4. Umar’s final testament:
On his deathbed, Umar left these words:
“I advise my successor concerning the non-Muslim subjects of the State: fulfil the covenant made with them; protect them with your army against all aggression; and do not burden them beyond their capacity.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.149)
II. Al-Inayah Sharh al-Hidayah
Written by Akmal al-Din al-Babarti in the 14th century, this authoritative commentary on the Hanafi legal manual al-Hidayah records that a Muslim who had killed a non-Muslim subject without legal cause was executed by the Prophet himself. The Prophet declared:
“My foremost duty is to uphold justice.”
Justice under Islam, therefore, knew no distinction of faith when it came to life and law. (Al-Inayah Sharh al-Hidayah, Vol.8, p.256)
III. Burhan Sharh-e-Mawahib ar-Rahman
1. Equality of blood and wealth:
During the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, a Muslim had killed a Dhimmi. The victim’s brother forgave the murderer upon receiving compensation. Ali verified that the forgiveness was voluntary and then declared:
“The blood of our Dhimmi is like our blood. His wealth is like our wealth.”
(Burhan Sharh-e-Mawahib ar-Rahman, Vol.2, p.287)
2. Justice without discrimination:
Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered the execution of a Muslim who had murdered a Dhimmi in Heera — a ruling of exact parity.
3. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz’s fairness:
When the Dhimmis of Samarqand complained that a Muslim commander had seized their city unlawfully, Umar II ordered a special court to hear their case. The verdict went in favor of the Dhimmis, and Muslims were ordered to vacate the city.
The Prophet’s warning was recalled:
“Allah will forbid Paradise to one who kills a Dhimmi unjustly.”
The rule of Islamic law thus recognized absolute equality in rights and justice.
IV Tarikh al-Tabari
The 9th-century historian al-Tabari records numerous covenants illustrating this ethos:
1. The pact of Jerusalem:
“Their persons, properties, churches, crosses, sick and healthy are under protection. Their churches shall not be occupied or destroyed. There shall be no compulsion in religion, nor any harm done to them.”
(Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.245)
2. The pact of Heera:
“If I can defend your persons and property, I shall impose a tax upon you. In the event of failure, I reserve no right to levy tax.”
(Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, 1939, Vol.4, p.16)
3. Refund of Jizya:
When Muslim forces under Abu Ubaydah withdrew temporarily from Syria, they refunded the Jizya collected from their non-Muslim subjects, announcing publicly:
“We collected it for your protection. Since we cannot defend you now, it is returned.”
History records no parallel of such integrity among conquerors.
4. Waiver of tax for mutual defense:
When the king of Albab allied with the Muslims in defense, Umar ibn al-Khattab approved the waiver of their Jizya. (Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Vol.5, p.256)
5. Equality in covenants:
Utbah bin Farqad’s pact with the people of Azerbaijan declared protection for all — rich or poor, Muslim or not — according to ability and mutual obligation. (Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol.5, p.25)
V. Bernard Lewis,The Jews of Islam
Bernard Lewis writes:
“Abu Ubayd insisted that Dhimmis must not be burdened beyond their capacity, nor caused to suffer. Abu Yusuf ruled explicitly that none of the Dhimmis should be beaten or humiliated for the collection of Jizya; rather, they should be treated with leniency.” (The Jews of Islam, p.15)
He further observes:
“It was the jurists of early Islam—confident, humane, and expanding—whose attitudes reflected actual governance. The later, harsher interpretations arose in eras of decline and insecurity.” (p.16)
VI. Nassim Nicholas Taleb,Skin in the Game
Taleb, himself from an old Maronite Christian family of Lebanon, writes:
“The Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in converting non-Muslims. In fact, my ancestors saw clear advantages in not being Muslim—mostly in the avoidance of military conscription.”
This was not subjugation, he concludes, but a stable, pragmatic coexistence.
Conclusion
These testimonies — from classical Muslim jurists, historians, and non-Muslim scholars alike — converge on a single truth:
Under Islamic governance, minorities retained their dignity, property, and faith. The Jizya was not a badge of inferiority but a contractual payment in exchange for state protection and exemption from military duty. Where non-Muslims volunteered to fight, their Jizya was waived; where Muslims failed to protect them, it was refunded. The non-Muslims saw the Jizya as an advantage, not as a disadvantage. It assured their protection without the obligation to perform military duty.
Even if some of the stories cited are legends, the legends of Islamic rule breathe the fragrance of justice, and legends, far from being fantasies, express the moral aspiration of a civilisation. There is no reason to doubt their historicity; yet even if they were legends, they still testify to what Islamic rule meant to those who lived and ruled by it. That moral testimony outweighs the absence of corroboration for every story by non-Muslim historians.
—–
A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework.
His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust.
Courtesy: New Age Islam