Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:So, are we now at the point where we agree that Jizya is a tax and that you just now need to be shown evidence that Muslims paid a higher tax?

I'm not aware of that. Could you please quote these 'historians' and 'scholars' to see what they actually have to say? I find that particularly difficult to believe since the taxes Muslim paid was based off of a percentage of their income whereas non-Muslims paid a flat tax. The only way to know who paid more would be to know how much people made back then and adjust the money to the value of modern currency.

These taxes also varied as did the amount of tax owed to the government. But, good luck, maybe I'll start a thread for you on this issue so every one can, once again, witness your deep, scholarly knowledge on this topic

Although in general it is unclear whether Muslims or Dhimmis (despite not having to pay Zakat) had to pay higher taxes, Lewis notes that there are varying opinions among scholars as to how much of an additional burden this was.[79] 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."[83] Ultimately, the additional taxation was a critical factor that drove many dhimmis to shun their religion and accept Islam.[7]

event horizon wrote:The issue was over your claim that Muslims paid more in tax than non-Muslims.

event horizon wrote: You'll have to quote 'scholars' and 'historians' who concur with your belief. Jizya was one tax non-Muslims paid, but there were other taxes - and these taxes were paid at different times and, I believe, were charged different amounts, etc.

event horizon wrote:Considering that Jizya was a flat tax, as I remember, you'll have to cite historians who explain just how much thisflat tax was - that's assuming the tax they paid remained constant and didn't fluctuate, as I know it did.

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[3] monks, hermits and the poor,[4] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law.

event horizon wrote:

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[3] monks, hermits and the poor,[4] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law.

What was that? You were pontificating about something?

event horizon wrote:If you ignore the evidence presented that your claim of 'religious workers' not paying anything in taxes is simply false, then I suppose you would be correct.

event horizon wrote:

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[3] monks, hermits and the poor,[4] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy.

The only evidence you provided CONFIRMED that clergy etc paid zero % Jizya.

So, the poor and the religious orders would not be worse off if they converted - do we agree?

Scholars differ as to the exact burden imposed by the jizya tax. Documentary evidence, including that found in eleventh-century Cairo Geniza documents, suggest that the burden, at least for the poorer classes, was heavy. As the taxation amount was fixed in gold, it became less burdensome over the centuries.[49]

PREACHING OF ISLAM
A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith
BY
Sir Thomas W. ARNOLD

Pg 54 to 57:

Enough has been said to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities. It is true that adherence to their ancient faith rendered them obnoxious to the payment of jizyah or the capitation-tax, but this was too moderate to constitute a burden, seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow-subjects. Conversion to Islam was certainly attended by a certain pecuniary advantage, but his former religion could have had very little hold on a convert who abandoned it merely to gain exemption from the jizyah ; in certain cases also, instead of the kharaj or land-tax, he was allowed to pay a tithe on the produce, but in other cases the kharilj was exacted even after conversion. But, instead of jizyah, the convert had now to pay the legal alms, zakat, annually levied on most kinds of movable and immovable property.

The rates of jizyah fixed by the early conquerors were not uniform, and the great Muslim doctors, Abu Hanifah and Malik, are not in agreement on some of the less important details the following facts taken from the Kitabu-1 Kharaj, drawn up by Abu Yusuf at the request of Harunu-r Rashid (a.d. 786-809) may be taken as generally representative of Muhammadan procedure under the Caliphate. The rich were to pay 48 dirhams a year, the middle classes 24, while from the poor, i.e. the field-labourers and artisans, only 12 dirhams were taken. This tax could be paid in kind if desired ; cattle, merchandise, household effects, even needles were to be accepted in lieu of specie, but not pigs, wine, or dead animals. The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth ; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were- exempt if dependent on the alms of the rich, but had to pay if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.

This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musulmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that " the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others." Again, in the treaty made by Khalid with some towns in the neighbourhood of Hirah, he writes, “If we protect you, then jizyah is due to us ; but if we do not, then it is not due." 5 How clearly this condition was recognised by the Muhammadans may be judged from the following incident in the reign of the Caliph 'Umar. The Emperor Heraclius had raised an enormous army with which to drive back the invading forces of the Muslims, who had in consequence to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The Arab general, Abu 'Ubaydah, accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, ordering them to pay back all the jizyah that had been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people, saying, We give you back the money that we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement." In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, " May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans ; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us."

As stated above, the jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans ; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of Jarajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbour- hood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conquests were pushed to the north of Persia in a.h. 22, a similar agreement was made with a frontier tribe, which was exempted from the payment of jizyah in consideration of military service.

We find similar instances of the remission of jizyah in the case of Christians who served in the army or navy under the Turkish rule. For example, the inhabitants of Megaris, a community of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the payment of this tax on condition that they furnished a body of armed men to guard the passes over Mounts Cithseron and Geranea, which lead to the Isthmus of Corinth. Similarly, the Christian inhabitants of Hydra paid no direct taxes to the Sultan, but -[furnished instead a contingent of 250 able-bodied seamen to the Turkish fleet, who were supported out of the local treasury. The Mirdites, a tribe of Albanian Catholics who occupied the mountains to the north of Scutari, were exempt from taxation on condition of supplying an armed contingent in time of war. 2 In the same spirit, in consideration of the services they rendered to the state, the capitation tax was not imposed upon the Greek Christians who looked after the aqueducts that supplied Constantinople with drinking-water. On the other hand, when the Egyptian peasants, although Muslim in faith, were made exempt from military service, a tax was imposed upon them as on the Christians, in lieu thereof.

Nisaab ul-Zakat for naqd (gold and silver) is defined as the minimum amount of naqd specified by shari’a below which one is not required to pay zakat, whereas if one’s wealth exceeds it then zakat becomes incumbent.

And it is known that zakat ul-maal (wealth) in shari’a is required for the two types of naqd—gold and silver—and what serves their function in modern times (commonly referred to as cash), whether it is dollars or riyals or pounds or otherwise.

Nisaab for gold as our Prophet (peace be upon him) has informed us (and for currencies made from gold) is 20 mithqaalan, a measure which is equivalent to 85 grams of pure gold (1 mithqaal = 4.25 grams). It becomes incumbent upon anyone who owns such an amount in any form to pay zakat on it in the amount of 2.5%.

Nisaab for silver and currencies made from silver is 200 dirhams, which is equivalent to 595 grams of pure silver (1 dirham = 2.975 grams). Likewise, it becomes incumbent upon anyone who owns such an amount in any form to pay zakat on it in the amount of 2.5%.

It is well known that there is a noticeable disparity between the value of nisaab for gold and that of silver in our times. The best and most conservative for a poor person is to assess how many dollars he has that have been in his possession for a complete lunar year (Hijri, which is 354 days). If the amount reaches the value of nisaab for silver or more, then he should pay from it for every 1000 dollars, 25 dollars (i.e., 2.5%) to be spent in the prescribed benficiaries as specified by shari’ah, and we ask Allah to aid us and help us succeed in haqq il-maal wa salla allahu ala nabiyyana muha