Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Yes.

Arnold, as quoted above.

Sheesh, try and keep up. Arnold is quite clear - Zero jizya is less than Muslim taxes and military service, non-poor Muslims pay more tax than non-poor non-Muslims and the minimum rate a poor non-Muslim pays is equivalent to 12 chickens a year, (or around 36g of Silver) when the minimum poverty level was savings of around 600g silver or the value 200 chickens (based on the reports that one dirham would buy a chicken and that during the Islamic period there was no inflation - inflation only really started when interest became integral to the economic system, before that prices were pretty stable)

I knew you may have problems interpreting what Arnold wrote - that is why I highlighted some portions in red and have painstakingly taken you through what Arnold is saying.

So, we have seen that non-Muslims who are the poorest, richest, sick etc - all pay less taxes than Muslims. In the exceptional case where a border-line poor person converts, his 'penalty' in financial terms is at most 7 chickens but he will have to serve in the military - ergo, even in this case the 'tax burden' on a Muslim is higher (because serving in the military must be worth more than 7 dirhams!)

QED

Cheers,
Shafique

I read your copy-paste, but I can't see a situation where non-Muslims not paying taxes - because they are extremely poor (made fewer than 200 dirhams annually, which was not enforced at all under one school of jurisprudence and only sometimes enforced under the three others) differs from how extremely poor Muslims also did not pay the Zakat.

The rest of the points in your post are poorly constructed arguments that have been addressed and demolished before or could easily if I felt they were worth the time in typing out a response.

non-poor Muslims pay more tax than non-poor non-Muslims

Already responded to. Muslims who made 400 dirhams per year paid less in taxes than non-Muslims who made 200 dirhams annually.

So, we have seen that non-Muslims who are the poorest

I agree, in your mind, you see and hear a lot of things. On the other hand, see the above response showing that Muslims who made twice as much as poor non-Muslims (400 dirhams vs 200 dirhams) still paid less in taxes.

(because serving in the military must be worth more than 7 dirhams!)

Was soldering compulsory? Did the soldiers not get paid (and share in the booty) for their work?

For many ancient civilizations, such as Rome, soldiering was almost a requirement for moving up in the world. Perhaps the same holds true in Islam, which has a strong warrior tradition and venerates those who fought (and committed massacres) in battle, such as Muhammad, Ali, and Khalid b. Walid.

Great we are getting somewhere.

So, under the rules and actual implemenation of Jizya - the rate was 'moderate' as Arnold puts it. Where the rate is zero, Muslims pay higher taxes.

For better-off non-Muslims, the tax burden is clearly lower (maximum 48 chickens a year, 4 chickens a month - or 12g silver a month) vs 2.5% of wealth, plus other taxes plus military service.

Even for the poor at the poor threshold, the difference is 7 dirhams plus military service, per annum. This is your 'non-Muslim poor' paying 12 vs someone with between 200 and 400 chickens worth of wealth - the Muslim pays at most 7 dirhams less than the non-Muslim.

So let me repeat this - I agree that between 200 chickens and 400 chickens worth of wealth, a Muslim would pay less Zakaat than a non-Muslim, but the maximum difference is 7 chickens/dirhams. Once we get beyond 400 chickens (not a big amount of wealth per annum), the Muslim pays more Zakaat than the minimum Jizya. HOWEVER you're ignoring the other taxes paid by Muslims - but, happy to do so as I don't need them to make my point that a saving of 7 chickens per annum is hardly worth conversion or an oppressive tax burden for someone with wealth of at least 200 chickens.

(Hmm, I fancy some KFC - I wonder why? )

Ergo, jizya is a moderate capitation tax that did not disadvantage the non-Muslims. Arnold actually goes on and expands on this in the rest of the book, pointing out that conversions took place gradually and not because of jizya. He makes the point in a few places that the continuing presence of non-Muslims in lands ruled by Muslims also is testimony to the conversions to Islam being voluntary (contrast that with European pogroms etc).

Sure, there are exceptions - India for example under a small number of brutal Mughal emperors did have forced conversions and punitive taxation, but they serve to illustrate the benign nature of Islamic rule for the majority and how aberrant these instances were.

Cheers,
Shafique

The first two paragraphs have been addressed before - both poor non-Muslims and poor Muslims did not pay taxes (at least ideally, under one school of jurisprudence, non-Muslims payed taxes regardless of their lack of income).

HOWEVER you're ignoring the other taxes paid by Muslims

Ok, let's look at the other taxes Muslims payed and see if non-Muslims also payed these taxes or if they paid other taxes in addition to jizya.

Also, is Arnold now your 'historian' and 'scholar' you would like to finally cite after you claimed to have read these historians who stated that non-Muslims payed fewer taxes than Muslims?

Great, we are making progress.

Where the poor did not pay taxes, they are not worse off financially by remaining non-Muslim. Should their wealth increase, we clearly agree that non-poor Muslims pay more than non-Christians.

The only area therefore we need to look at is the transition between poor and not-so-poor (basically, the difference between owning 200 chickens and owning 400 chickens a year). In that window, the non-Muslim stands to make a gain of between 2 and 7 chickens a year if they convert. (This is the difference between a Zakat of 5 chickens at when wealth is 200 chickens vs a capitation tax of 12 chickens)

My contention is that this 2 to 7 chickens is less than the other obligations that a non-Muslim would have to pay on conversion - this includes other taxes and also military service.

So, even focussing on the exceptions - we find that Arnold is right to say the Jizya is 'moderate' and that in of itself Jizya was not a force for conversions.

Where Muslim rulers did not apply these rules of Jizya - the taxes were indeed punitive, but (and you can check this out) Arnold also points out that these oppressive rulers ALSO imposed punitive taxes on Muslims. However, we should first agree on the implemenation of Jizya at the start of Muslim rule - rather than focus on the later isolated aberrations.

Arnold also makes a contrast between the taxes that the inhabitants were paying before the Muslim conquests and how jizya was much preferred to the previous taxes - because they were so much lower. Again, you can look this up in Arnold - this is particularly the case in areas which were under Eastern Roman control (aka Byzantium rule).

You wanted evidence, the quotes and stats provide the evidence.

QED

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, you talk of 'quotes' and 'statistics' provided from historians you claim you have provided, but where, exactly, did Arnold make the following claim of yours:

Should their wealth increase, we clearly agree that non-poor Muslims pay more than non-Christians.

Could you please re-quote where Arnold actually says this, so we can filter out your opinion from what a historian *actually* says?

The only area therefore we need to look at is the transition between poor and not-so-poor

Well, looking at the lower class is kind of important seeing as how the lower class, until recent times, were the vast majority of the population. Do you disagree?

In that window, the non-Muslim stands to make a gain of between 2 and 7 chickens a year if they convert.

That's assuming that non-Muslims still were taxed 12 dirhams if they made around 400 per year. The 12 dirham flat tax was only charged to the poor. Does Arnold bother to explain what was considered middle class and what was considered lower class?

My contention is that this 2 to 7 chickens is less than the other obligations that a non-Muslim would have to pay on conversion - this includes other taxes and also military service.

Cool - as I said, what other taxes did Muslims have to pay and what, if any, taxes other than jizya did non-Muslims pay?

I also see that you avoided my question regarding military service. Do you know if soldiers and officers were paid for their service or if every Muslim male was actually conscripted, as you are implying?

I'm afraid you'll have to actually address the previous points if you want to convince anyone but yourself that any 'evidence' and any 'arguments' have been provided.

Oh dear, eh wants a lesson in arithmetic.

Ok then. Let's start.

Zakat is a tax on wealth (savings) - it is set at 2.5% of the savings at the end of each year. When a person has wealth of more than 200 chickens, the Zakat is calculated on this amount of savings. A person who has saved 200 chicken's worth of wealth will pay 5 chickens, a person who has 400 will pay 10, a person who has saved 2000 chicken's worh will pay 50 chickens' worth in Zakat.

Jizya is a capitation tax (aka a 'poll tax') set at 12, 24 or a maximum of 48 chickens - depending on what wealth bracket you fall in.

So a person who cannot save 200 chicken's worth of assets a year is considered below the poverty line and is exempt from paying the wealth tax.

This is 'savings' note, not income. So, if you can save 16 chickens a month, you are still below the poverty line. Only those able to save more than 17 chickens are considered only 'poor'. Therefore income is going to be a lot higher than 200 a year - many multiples more as people only save a fraction of their income when poor.

Let me repeat that, if you can only save 16 or fewer chickens a month, you were below the poverty line. Jizya was set at 1 chicken a month. So, the tax was only applied if you could save at least 17 times the money you saved. I can't see how you can spin this small amount and present it as punitive.

Ergo, Arnold is right when he points out that Jizya is not burdensome.

Now, you can re-read my post above and you'll see that the comparisons between Zakaat and Jizya make this point even clearer.

QED.

On the point of military service - Arnold does point out that some Christian tribes did in fact elect to serve in the military and defend the state - and were exempt from paying the Jizya. When on military duty, I presume that the pay would have to be greater than income given up to make a 'profit' - but the down side is you may get killed! However, the point is that the maximum 'benefit' is only 7 chickens a year and only applies to those who are around the poverty line - for all other classes, the Jizya is less than Zakaat (let alone other taxes).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Ergo, Arnold is right when he points out that Jizya is not burdensome.

Now, you can re-read my post above and you'll see that the comparisons between Zakaat and Jizya make this point even clearer.

I agree shafique, you should try and re-read my post(s) asking for you to quote the 'historians' and 'authors' you claim show that non-Muslims, on average, paid less in taxes than Muslims.

I never mention that taxes non-Muslims paid were burdensome. That is your strawman.

I am only asking you to cite these historians of yours saying that non-Muslims paid less in taxes than Muslims.

!!!

You wrote:

shafique wrote:We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

Do you not remember this message you typed out or are you still googling?

It's interesting, though, that you are the one actually setting up straw-men in your posts by claiming that the issue here is that non-Muslims suffered under a heavy financial burden from taxes they paid to the Muslim state. The only post I brought that up was from the second page of this thread when I quoted from Wikipedia of documentary evidence suggesting that in the eleventh century, extremely poor non-Muslims 'suffered' from heavy taxes at the end of one my posts, ie., it wasn't a main point.

I see now that I should not have bothered to post that since that would give you a reason to avoid what was asked of you since the first page of this thread. That is, if you recall, which 'scholars' and 'historians' you claim to have read support your conclusion that Muslims, on average, paid more in taxes than non-Muslims?

You keep bringing up the issue of Muslims paying other taxes, etc, and ignoring my requests to explain what these other taxes were, exactly, and if these taxes or other taxes were levied on non-Muslims.

You have also not told me what income level (or savings, now that you have partially read one history book) a person must have to be considered poor, middle class or wealthy. Not knowing these ranges, it is extremely difficult to conclude if a Muslim saving 500 dirhams paid less in taxes than a non-Muslim with the same amount of savings.

As I said, I await your quotes from these 'historians' you claim to have read. I hope this post has finally set you straight about what exactly I am requesting.

I'm just saying that the references show that :

1. Jizya of 1 chicken a month is not burdensome (you even make the point that you never argued that Jizya was burdensome - so you would agree with this)
2. Jizya is less than Zakat (only one of the taxes Muslims paid) - for those who are exempt from Jizya and those who are not poor (this is a arithmetical fact).
3. For the non-Muslims around the poverty line - with savings of around 200 to 400 chickens - they would make a saving of between 2 and 7 chickens a year.
4. Muslims are also subject to military service.
5. Anyone who could only save 16 or fewer chickens a month (over a year) is considered poor. Income to generate 16 chickens a month saving is a multiple of this amount - (think about the ratio of expenditure to saving).

All of the above facts are summed up in the quote from Arnold who concludes (quite rightly) that Jizya is not the punitive tax some Islamophobes make it out to be - but is rather a modest capitation tax which affords the non-Muslims religious freedom and Muslim protection (and exception from military service).

The saving of 7 chickens a year in tax is only to be found at a specific point of 'wealth' and doesn't represent the general experience of Jizya - viz a moderate capitation tax which below the level of taxation on Muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

I see you haven't presented any new evidence - and you don't disagree that Muslim savings at around the 200-400 dirham per year range would definitely pay less in taxes than non-Muslims (so your strawman of the majority of Muslims paying more in taxes is another one of your quaint beliefs).

Let me know if you do find historians that say non-Muslims paid less in taxes than Muslims, rather than constructing a strawman concerning whether taxes non-Muslims paid were burdensome.

You can't argue with arithmetic.

The capitation tax was between 12 chickens a year for the less well off and a maximum of 48 chickens a year for the wealthy. That's a maximum of 4 chickens, or approx 12 grammes of silver, per month.

To put this in context, anyone who could not save 17 chickens a month was living below the poverty line.

We've looked at the evidence that Muslims paid a wealth tax and had to undergo military service, and we agree that this needs to be compared to the maximum of 48 chickens a year. We've established arithmetically that the maximum saving a non-Muslim could make by converting is 7 chickens (a year!) - and that assumes they only pay Zakaat and no other tax as a Muslim.

All this backs up what Arnold states - the capitation tax of Jizya was moderate and not oppressive, and the rate of Jizya above are what he quotes. You can't blame Arnold for not pointing out the obvious - in his time the kids who went to school could do mental arithmetic and there was no need to point out the obvious. However, I've patiently shown you that Muslim tax burden was heavier than Jizya - precisely because the moderate Jizya is a fixed, small amount of 12 chickens a year.

Cheers,
Shafique

However, I've patiently shown you that Muslim tax burden was heavier than Jizya - precisely because the moderate Jizya is a fixed, small amount of 12 chickens a year.

No, I apologize, but I do not remember seeing this. Could you post the quotes from 'historians' and 'authors' who say that the tax burden for Muslims was heavier than non-Muslims?

shafique wrote:We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

Come on, I want to help you out. Tell me some of the DOT com websites you trawl through for your arguments and maybe I can find something that you may have missed.

I know Wikipedia.com, alislam.org and Islamic-awareness.org are some of the websites you crawl around. Do you know if other scholarly sites such as Youtube.com might contain the information you are looking for?

Thanks for the offer.

However, I'm glad we've cleared up a number of misconceptions about Jizya in this thread.

1. Jizya is a tax (some argued it was more than this)
2. It is a simple tax, payable by only able bodied and employed men, and is fixed amount per annum.
3. the tax ranges from 12 chickens a year, to 48 chickens a year (or 36g of silver to 144g of silver)
4. The tax is minimal in absolute terms - as poverty was defined as anyone who could not SAVE more than 17 chickens a month (so you the tax was less than 6% of savings - and as it was fixed, the more you earned, the lower the tax burden)
5. Muslims paid taxes which varied with wealth
6. Arnold (and others) have quoted the rates
7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)
8. Some Christian tribes elected to serve in the military and were exempt from Jizya, some Muslims wanted to be exempt from military service and had to pay tax to compensate.

I've taken the trouble and quoted verbatim an extract from Arnold where he provides evidence for all the points above.

So eh - do you disagree with any of the points above (or disagree that the quotes I've given show the facts above)?

Cheers,
Shafique

7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)

Nope - I didn't see how the arithmetic shows that taxes the poor and middle class paid was higher for Muslims than non-Muslims.

All you need to do is quote from a historian who says that. Shouldn't be too difficult - you said so yourself that you've read from these historians that have made this claim. So, which 'historians' and 'authors' have said that?

shafique wrote:We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

Cool, so we have no disagreement on the facts listed, just the arithmetic of fact 7.

I see, perhaps it is a failure to follow the mathematics that was causing you issues. But just to confirm - you agree with all the other facts but can't yet agree to the maths in fact 7?

I refer you to the examples I gave earlier showing that the maximum mathematical saving was 7 chickens - and that this relied on the assumption that only Zakat was paid and this only applied to those people who could 'only' save 17 chickens a month. In the same posts I showed that apart from this small window of people around the poverty line (savings of 17 chickens a month) - those earning above and below this amount mathematically were better off paying Jizya.

So, I invite you to review the workings in the previous posts and let me know what is still confusing you.

I also forgot to add to the list the Historical Evidence provided by Arnold that Jizya was not only moderate, but lower than previous rates of tax paid under the previous rulers. I presume you don't disagree with this fact either?

It is encouraging that you agree with the facts and agree that this comes from the quote I gave from Arnold.

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you having difficulty with finding these quotes from 'historians' and 'authors', shafique?

shafique wrote:We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

A *number* of instances.

No problem at all. Arnold's quote is quite comprehensive and in previous threads I've quoted Kennedy and a number of other historians who all agree with Arnold's descripiton and conclusions.

You're the one that seems to be struggling with the artithmetical conclusions of the quote from Arnold I've already given.

As I said, I'm glad that the facts brought up in this thread are now clear:

1. Jizya is a tax (some argued it was more than this)
2. It is a simple tax, payable by only able bodied and employed men, and is fixed amount per annum.
3. the tax ranges from 12 chickens a year, to 48 chickens a year (or 36g of silver to 144g of silver)
4. The tax is minimal in absolute terms - as poverty was defined as anyone who could not SAVE more than 17 chickens a month (so you the tax was less than 6% of savings - and as it was fixed, the more you earned, the lower the tax burden)
5. Muslims paid taxes which varied with wealth
6. Arnold (and others) have quoted the rates
7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)
8. Some Christian tribes elected to serve in the military and were exempt from Jizya, some Muslims wanted to be exempt from military service and had to pay tax to compensate.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Are you having difficulty with finding these quotes from 'historians' and 'authors', shafique?

shafique wrote:We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

A *number* of instances.

^^^

Need more time to google?

Great, we agree on the facts of what Jizya is and your only quibble is that I've given you one long quote from a historian rather than a number of quotes from different books (which you've said you've read) which agree with Arnold.

How about we make this quite simple then - we have a list of facts above. If you dispute them, please provide quotes from scholars which dispute these facts about Jizya. Arnold's books talks about the times when these rules weren't followed - and is clear these are exceptions (eg in Egypt and India for limited periods in history), so the challenge to you is to show that the rules are wrong according to any reputable scholar. Arnold makes the point that these rules were adhered to in early Islam, and that the aberrations all took place under later rulers who diverted from these rules.

If you can't, then we have therefore arrived at a consensus about what Jizya is and the absolute amount.

Let me know, though, if you're still having trouble with the arithmetic.

Cheers,
Shafique

The request still stands:

We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

Are you having trouble finding one historian who has 'clarified' that the taxes non-Muslims paid were less than what Muslims paid?

shafique wrote:No problem at all. Arnold's quote is quite comprehensive and in previous threads I've quoted Kennedy and a number of other historians who all agree with Arnold's descripiton and conclusions.

Tell me what confused you in this answer?

I take it we agree on the facts then:

1. Jizya is a tax (some argued it was more than this)
2. It is a simple tax, payable by only able bodied and employed men, and is fixed amount per annum.
3. the tax ranges from 12 chickens a year, to 48 chickens a year (or 36g of silver to 144g of silver)
4. The tax is minimal in absolute terms - as poverty was defined as anyone who could not SAVE more than 17 chickens a month (so you the tax was less than 6% of savings - and as it was fixed, the more you earned, the lower the tax burden)
5. Muslims paid taxes which varied with wealth
6. Arnold (and others) have quoted the rates
7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)
8. Some Christian tribes elected to serve in the military and were exempt from Jizya, some Muslims wanted to be exempt from military service and had to pay tax to compensate.

My challenge to you is quite simple - show me where the 'authors' and 'historians' say that non-Muslims paid fewer taxes than Muslims.

I answered your challenge in my quotes above. Arnold's long quote suffices to establish that Jizya was a moderate tax and Muslims paid more. I also reminded you that I have referred you to Kennedy in previous threads, as well as other historians who all agree with Arnold's explanations and conclusions.

I'm not that fussed that I'll go back to the old threads to dig out my comments to you - therefore I've thrown the challenge back to you, if you think that there are historians that disagree with the facts listed - feel free to post their comments here. Thus far you've only posted selected comments about the exceptions (notably in Egypt and India) which took place under later rulers - you've not shown that the facts above describe what Jizya is.

Given that you are now only interested in me producing the quotes I gave before, I'm very happy - as it shows you are agreeing with the facts about Jizya.

Cheers,
Shafique

Nope - didn't see any quote from Arnold where he says that Muslims paid more in taxes than non-Muslims. Perhaps you have another 'historian' and 'author' you can quote, since you used the plural form when mentioning your sources?

I see that arithmetic is not the only problem you are facing on the subject. I used the plural because I had referred you to Kennedy and other historians also - all who agree with what Arnold has written.

Let's review the facts again, shall we:
1. Jizya is a tax (some argued it was more than this)
2. It is a simple tax, payable by only able bodied and employed men, and is fixed amount per annum.
3. the tax ranges from 12 chickens a year, to 48 chickens a year (or 36g of silver to 144g of silver)
4. The tax is minimal in absolute terms - as poverty was defined as anyone who could not SAVE more than 17 chickens a month (so you the tax was less than 6% of savings - and as it was fixed, the more you earned, the lower the tax burden)
5. Muslims paid taxes which varied with wealth
6. Arnold (and others) have quoted the rates
7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)
8. Some Christian tribes elected to serve in the military and were exempt from Jizya, some Muslims wanted to be exempt from military service and had to pay tax to compensate.

The challenge is back at you now eh - provide any quotes from any expert which contradict these facts above and which aren't referring to the later aberrations to the rules in Egypt (or India).

All mouth, no trousers? Surely you'll be able to come up with someone who shares your beliefs?

Cheers,
Shafique

Nope - didn't see any quote from Arnold where he says that Muslims paid more in taxes than non-Muslims. Perhaps you have another 'historian' and 'author' you can quote, since you used the plural form when mentioning your sources?

But I am glad that we now agree that Arnold does not actually state that Muslims paid more in taxes than non-Muslims.

Do you have historians or authors that actually do say this?

I keep asking you this because those were your words, not mine.

I refer you to fact number 7 and also the challenge at the end of my last post.

If you can't find an expert who agrees with your belief - perhaps we should just chalk up this as a new Quaint Belief? Over to you.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm glad we've clarified that Arnold only gives the rates of the flat tax for dhimmis and that your assertion that non-Muslims paid less in taxes than Muslims is a result of your 'calculations', not an expert's.

event horizon wrote:I'm glad we've clarified that Arnold only gives the rates of the flat tax for dhimmis and that your assertion that non-Muslims paid less in taxes than Muslims is a result of your 'calculations', not an expert's.

Did you flunk maths at school? (That was fact 7, fact 2 gives the amount of the jizya - and yes I'm glad we're all agreed that the amount is moderate - only 1 chicken a month if you could +save+ at least 17 chickens a month)

But thanks for clarifying that we have no dispute over the facts, nor can you find any expert who disagrees with the facts (but can only selectively quote those who are describing the later aberrations in Egypt and India).

Therefore, let me end with the facts again and consider the topic closed (unless you can bring some new evidence/expert testimony)

1. Jizya is a tax (some argued it was more than this)
2. It is a simple tax, payable by only able bodied and employed men, and is fixed amount per annum.
3. the tax ranges from 12 chickens a year, to 48 chickens a year (or 36g of silver to 144g of silver)
4. The tax is minimal in absolute terms - as poverty was defined as anyone who could not SAVE more than 17 chickens a month (so you the tax was less than 6% of savings - and as it was fixed, the more you earned, the lower the tax burden)
5. Muslims paid taxes which varied with wealth
6. Arnold (and others) have quoted the rates
7. The arithmetic (as well as the conclusions by Arnold et al) all show that the moderate Jizya was less than Muslim taxes (its a mathematical result of the rates and forms of taxation)
8. Some Christian tribes elected to serve in the military and were exempt from Jizya, some Muslims wanted to be exempt from military service and had to pay tax to compensate.



Cheers,
Shafique

My challenge to you is quite simple - just show me where a 'historian' or an 'author' says that Muslims paid more in taxes than non-Muslims.