Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > The jizya and the dhimmis: regime, rights and truces > The jizya: status, amount and modalities
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The jizya is the poll tax that the Islamic state levies on adult men of the People of the Book and the Magians living inside the territory of Islam, in exchange for the safeguarding of their blood and their property. Jurists of the four schools fixed its foundations: its proofs, its wisdom, the conditions of those who owe it, its amount, its uses and the causes that cancel it.
This page sets out the doctrine school by school, with classical references and the exact amounts transmitted by the Companions.
The legitimacy of the jizya is established by the Book, the Sunna and consensus. As for the Quran, Allah says:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His messenger have forbidden, who do not profess the religion of truth, among those given the Book, until they pay the jizya out of hand, while they are humbled.
Surah at-Tawbah 29
The verse establishes the lawfulness of taking the jizya from the People of the Book whom Allah described with the traits mentioned in it. This is why Allah prescribed striving against the disbelievers and fighting them until they abandon those traits and enter the true religion, or pay the jizya out of hand while humbled. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar stated that this verse is the founding text of the jizya (Fath al-Bari 6/259).
As for the Sunna, many hadiths bear on it. The most explicit is that of Burayda: whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed a commander over an army or an expedition, he charged him privately with fearing Allah concerning himself and the Muslims with him, then said:
Set out in the name of Allah, in the way of Allah. Fight whoever disbelieves in Allah. Set out without exceeding limits, without treachery, without mutilation and without killing a child. When you meet your enemy among the polytheists, invite them to three courses: whichever they accept, accept it from them and refrain from them. Then invite them to enter Islam; if they do, accept it from them and refrain. Then invite them to move from their land to the land of emigration, and tell them that if they do so they will have the rights of the emigrants and be bound by the same duties. If they refuse to move, tell them they will be like the Muslim bedouins, that the judgment of Allah applies to them as to the believers, and that they will have no share in booty or fay unless they strive with the Muslims. If they refuse, ask them for the jizya; if they pay it, accept it from them and refrain from them. If they refuse, seek Allah's help and fight them.
narrated by Muslim (1731)
His words "if they refuse, ask them for the jizya" establish the legality of the jizya and its recognition. As for consensus, Ibn Qudama reports that the Muslims agreed on the lawfulness of taking it in general terms (al-Mughni 12/656), and Ibn al-Qayyim that the jurists agreed on taking it from the People of the Book and the Magians (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/18).
On chronology, Imam at-Tabari, commenting on the verse, reports that it was revealed concerning the command to fight the Byzantines, and that the Prophet (peace be upon him) led the expedition of Tabuk after its revelation; he cites this reading from Mujahid ibn Jabr (Tafsir at-Tabari 10/110). Ibn Kathir states that this noble verse was the first command to fight the two People of the Book, once the affairs of the polytheists had collapsed and people had entered the religion of Allah in crowds and the Arabian peninsula had been settled: the command came in the ninth year (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/91). Ibn al-Qayyim draws from it that the Prophet (peace be upon him) took no jizya from any Arab polytheist, the verse of the jizya having come after the year of Tabuk (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/24).
Ibn Manzur reports on the words "until they pay the jizya out of hand": it is said to mean out of humiliation and acknowledgment that the Muslims' hands are above theirs; it is also said that "out of hand" means as a favor granted, since accepting the jizya from them and sparing their lives is a blessing and a generous kindness; it is further said to mean domination and abasement, as one says "the hand belongs to so-and-so", meaning that effective authority belongs to him. Uthman al-Batti said that "out of hand" means cash, on the palm, not concealed. Abu Ubayd adds: whoever obeys the one who overpowered him and pays without his soul being content has paid "out of hand" (Lisan al-Arab 15/424, Tahdhib al-Lugha 14/169).
Az-Zamakhshari explains that "out of their hand" refers to the hand of the giver or of the taker. In the first sense: they pay with a willing, unstinting hand, since one who refuses withholds his hand, unlike the obedient subject; or hand to hand, in cash and not hidden, nor sent through an intermediary. In the second sense: an overpowering, subjugating hand; or as a favor, since accepting the jizya from them while sparing their lives is a great blessing (al-Kashshaf 2/249, at-Tafsir al-Kabir of ar-Razi 16/25).
Ash-Shafi'i explained "humbled" as the rule of Islam being enforced upon them: he heard men of learning say that "being humbled" means the judgment of Islam is applied to them, who refuse Islam; their payment while submitting to Muslim authority realizes that humiliation (Ahkam al-Qur'an of ash-Shafi'i 2/60). Ibn Kathir writes that they are lowered, lowly and despised: this is why it is not permitted to seek honor for the dhimmis or raise them above the Muslims (Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim 4/91).
Ar-Razi exposes two objections. The first comes from Ibn ar-Rawandi: the Quran insinuates the enormity of the Christians' disbelief in the verses of Mary, yet a single dinar taken from them legalizes them? The answer: the purpose of the jizya is not to ratify their disbelief, but to spare their blood and grant them a delay in which they may discover the merits of Islam and the force of its proofs, and move from disbelief to faith. The second asks whether paying the jizya suffices to spare the blood; the answer follows from the legal nature of the jizya set out below.
The fifth criterion of the liable person is financial capacity. The jurists agree that the jizya is imposed on the poor person who earns a living, that is, one capable of work. They disagree over the poor person without earning who cannot pay it.
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and one position of ash-Shafi'i, hold that the jizya is not due from the poor person incapable of work (al-Mughni 12/672). Their proof is the word of Allah:
Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.
Surah al-Baqarah 286
The poor person incapable of earning cannot afford the jizya, and so is not charged with it.
The historical proof is decisive: Umar ibn al-Khattab fixed the jizya on the heads of men at three tiers: forty-eight dirhams on the rich, twenty-four on the middle, twelve on the poor who earns (Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf, as-Sunnan al-Kubra 9/196, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/276, al-Ikhtiyar 4/146, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/112, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 6/130, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/301, al-Muhadhdhab 2/252, al-Mughni 12/672, al-Kafi 4/125, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/52-53). He did so before a gathering of Companions without anyone objecting: the silence amounts to consensus. Since the lowest tier is the working poor, the implication of the text is that the poor without earning owes nothing. The jurists add that the jizya is wealth due with the passing of the year, so it does not bind the incapable poor, unlike zakat and blood money.
Among the Shafi'is, ash-Shirazi reports two positions on the poor person with no earning. The first: the jizya is not due, for Umar arranged the payers in tiers and placed the working poor at the lowest; just as land without growth owes no kharaj, a person without earning owes no jizya: he remains within the covenant, and if he becomes able, the counting of the year restarts. The second: it is due, since the jizya is imposed as compensation, like a price or a wage, and the two men are equal in being spared on account of their disbelief: his ability is then examined, and if he becomes solvent, past years are claimed from him. Some Shafi'is go further: no examination takes place, since he can spare his blood through Islam; he is told: if you pay, you remain free, otherwise the pact is annulled with you (al-Muhadhdhab 2/252, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/301).
Ibn al-Qayyim rules: no jizya on the poor person unable to pay it: this is the majority position. Ash-Shafi'i held three views, this being the first. The second makes it due on one of two paths: he either leaves the land of Islam, or it remains fixed in his responsibility and is taken whenever he is able (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/53).
Checking the rules confirms this choice: Allah charges no soul beyond its capacity, and Umar imposed the jizya on the working poor only because he can earn what covers it; all the rules of the Law require that no duty be imposed with incapacity, like zakat, blood money, expiation and kharaj, and no prohibition with necessity:
Allah does not burden a soul except with what He has given it.
Surah at-Talaq 7
To the objection that the jizya would remain a debt in his responsibility, claimable once he becomes solvent, Ibn al-Qayyim answers that this is conceivable for human debts, whereas Allah's rights bind only the capable. And if one claims the jizya is rent for residence remaining in his responsibility, the reply is that none of the effects of hire apply to it, and that Umar granted the needy dhimmi a provision from the treasury: how could he be charged the jizya while fed from the Muslims' treasury (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/53)?
Ibn Rushd reports the jurists' agreement: the jizya is due only from one who combines three qualities: maleness, puberty and freedom. It binds neither women nor children, since it is a substitute for killing, and killing, by the command that grounds it, targets only adult men, since killing women and children is forbidden (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/540).
Fourth condition: freedom. The people of knowledge agree that the jizya is not taken from the slaves of the dhimmis, whether the slave belongs to a Muslim or a disbeliever. Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Qudama and Ibn al-Qayyim transmitted this agreement. Ibn Rushd writes that they agreed it is not due on slaves (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/540).
Ibn Qudama adds: it is not due either from a Muslim master on account of his slave, since the slave's charge is discharged by his master, which would amount to imposing a jizya on a Muslim. If the slave belongs to a disbeliever, Ahmad's explicit text is that no jizya is due on him either: this is the view of most people of knowledge. Ibn al-Mundhir writes: "All those whose learning reached us agree that no jizya is due on the slave", either because his blood may be shed like that of women and children, or because he owns nothing. The school of al-Khiraqi permits the jizya to be due on the slave and paid by his master, and this was also narrated from Ahmad (al-Mughni 12/673).
Umar ibn al-Khattab said: "Do not buy the slaves of the covenant people nor what they possess, for they are liable to the kharaj: some of them sell others, and let none of you cast off humiliation once Allah has removed it from him." Ahmad explained: he wanted to preserve the jizya revenue, for when the Muslim buys the slave the charge ceases, while the dhimmi pays the kharaj of his own head and his slave's. A similar report comes from Ali. Another argument makes the slave a taxable male, strong and earning: the jizya would be due on him like the free man, but the first path is preferable.
Two religions cannot share one land, and no Muslim owes the jizya.
narrated by Abu Dawud (2636), at-Tirmidhi (633) and Ahmad; a weak hadith
Seventh condition: freedom from chronic disability. When the one sought for the jizya suffers a permanent disability, illness, blindness or old age depriving him of work and combat, is the jizya taken from him?
The apparent Hanafi transmission, the Maliki and Hanbali school, and one of ash-Shafi'i's two positions, hold that the jizya is not taken from such persons even if wealthy. The import of the fighting verse establishes it: the address targets those capable of combat, since it is impossible to command combat from one lacking the capacity, combat requiring two sides. The jizya is therefore not taken from those who are not combatants: the blind, the incontinent, the paralyzed, the decrepit old man, whether wealthy or not; the jizya is taken from those among the people of war whose killing is lawful, and such persons are not killed (al-Mabsut of as-Sarakhsi 10/79, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/50-51, al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr 1/479, Bilghat as-Salik 2/198, al-Mughni 12/673, Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/222, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/120, al-Insaf 4/222, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/53-54, al-Muhadhdhab 2/252).
Abu Yusuf, among the Hanafis, differs: the jizya is taken from the blind, the incontinent and the very old man if they possess wealth and hold opinions in war, for they would be killed were they to have opinions in battle, so the jizya is due on them like the others; and since the jizya strikes the earning poor, possession of wealth outweighs the capacity to work: it is due from them if wealthy, not if needy.
The treaty concluded by Khalid ibn al-Walid with the people of al-Hira attests it: "I have fixed for them: any old man who becomes unable to work, or is struck by an affliction, or any rich man who becomes poor to the point that his coreligionists give charity for him, has his jizya removed; he and his dependents are maintained from the Muslims' treasury as long as they remain in the land of Islam; if they leave it, the Muslims no longer bear their maintenance" (Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf, p. 158).
The Shafi'i school and Abu Thawr hold that the jizya is taken from persons with chronic disabilities even if not wealthy. They rely on the generality of the verse "until they pay the jizya out of hand, while they are humbled", which covers the incontinent, the blind and the old man; on the hadiths ordering it from every adult, like the hadith of Mu'adh ordering a dinar from every adult, and Umar's words: "It is struck only on the one over whom the blade passes"; and on reason: the jizya is compensation for sparing blood and for residence, and such persons benefit from both like the rest: the jizya does not fall from them for those disabilities, just as the wage does not fall from the excused worker (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/307, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/53-54, al-Muhadhdhab 2/252, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/246, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/85).
Sixth condition: not being a monk withdrawn for worship in the monasteries. The jurists agree that monks who live among the people in their dwellings and occupations owe the jizya, by unanimous agreement: they are still more bound by it than the common run of their coreligionists, for they are the heads of disbelief, in the position of their scholars and priests.
If the monks withdraw into hermitages and monasteries without mixing with the people, is the jizya due on them? Two positions:
The first: the jizya is not imposed on them, whether able to work or not: this is Abu Hanifa's view as transmitted by al-Quduri, Malik's, Ahmad's in one transmission, and one of ash-Shafi'i's views. They are not combatants. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq enjoined not to attack them in his testament to Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan when he sent him to Syria:
Kill neither child, nor woman, nor old man. You will pass by people who have shut themselves in hermitages: leave them until Allah makes them die in their misguidance. You will find people whose crown of the head is shaved: strike what they have shaved with the sword.
narrated by Malik in the Muwatta (965), by Abd ar-Razzaq (5/119, no 9375) and by Sa'id ibn Mansur (2/182, no 2383), with an interrupted chain
The monk whose killing is forbidden even without a pact owes no jizya, since that is due only for sparing blood, like the child and the woman; the monk also counts among the poor, since only a modest amount of wealth is left him (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/54, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/278, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/111, al-Ikhtiyar 4/147, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/121, al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr 1/217, Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi 2/479, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/112, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/540, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/300, al-Muhadhdhab 2/252, al-Mughni 12/674, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/120, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/660).
The second: the jizya is due on them if able to work: this is Abu Hanifa's view in a transmission reported by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Abu Yusuf's, Ahmad's in one transmission, and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz's. Those who condition it on working capacity argue: the active man who abandons work keeps paying the jizya, likewise the capable monk; and kharaj land fit for cultivation does not cease to pay the kharaj because its owner leaves it idle.
The Shafi'i school, Abu Thawr, and the direction toward which Ibn al-Qayyim leans, hold that the jizya is due from monks withdrawn for worship in monasteries and convents, rich or poor, able to work or not. They cite the generality of the verse, the hadiths of Mu'adh and Umar, and what Abu Ubayd reports from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who fixed two dinars on every monk of the convents (Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal 1/52, no 109). Abu Ubayd comments: Umar acted thus only because he knew their community could bear it and that the people of their religion carried it for them, as they cover all their expenses (al-Amwal 1/52; al-Umm 4/176, al-Muhadhdhab 2/252, Rawdat at-Talibin 10/307, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/246, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/85).
Ibn Taymiyya was asked about monks who share worldly life, trading, running farms and dovecotes, while distinguishing themselves by dress, celibacy, abstention from meat and ascetic practices, to the point that anyone wishing to escape the jizya takes up this garb. He answered: the monks disputed by the scholars, concerning their killing and their jizya, are those meant in Abu Bakr's testament: withdrawn, secluded people called "shut in", who in no way aid their religion against the Muslims nor mix with them. The majority of scholars hold that only the one who joins in fighting is killed, otherwise he would be like the women and children; others hold bare disbelief permits killing, women and children being excluded as property. As for the monk who aids his people by hand or tongue, holds a war opinion or a form of incitement, he is killed by the scholars' agreement, and the jizya is taken from him even if secluded alone in his hermitage. As for those who resemble the rest of the Christians in their occupations and commerce, while aggravating their disbelief through their cults and dignities, no scholar disputes that they are the most deserving of fighting and of the jizya: they are the "leaders of disbelief" of the verse:
Fight the leaders of disbelief.
Surah at-Tawbah 12
Allah also says:
Many of the rabbis and monks devour people's wealth unlawfully and turn them from the way of Allah.
Surah at-Tawbah 34
and:
They took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to worship none but one God.
Surah at-Tawbah 31
As for the land of Egypt, it is kharaj land by agreement of the four schools, as the authentic hadith of Muslim states: "Iraq withheld its dirhams and its qafiz, Syria its mudd and its dinar, Egypt its irdabb and its dirhams, and you will return to where you started." Lands of this type cannot be left as endowments to such monks who would exploit them without compensation: taking them back from them is a duty by agreement of the Muslim scholars (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/659, 663).
The jurists laid down several conditions for imposing the jizya on the covenant people: puberty, intellect, maleness, freedom, financial capacity and absence of chronic disability.
First condition: puberty. The jurists agree that no jizya is struck or imposed on the children of the covenant people. Ibn Qudama writes: "We know of no disagreement among the people of knowledge on this," and this is the view of Malik, Abu Hanifa and his companions, ash-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr; Ibn al-Mundhir knows of none besides them (al-Mughni 12/670). Ibn al-Qayyim rules: no jizya on the child, the woman or the insane: this is the school of the four imams and their followers (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/48, al-Ikhtiyar 4/146, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/111, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 6/74, Multaqa al-Abhur 1/471, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/540, Rawdat at-Talibin 1/300, Kifayat al-Akhyar 560, al-Kafi 4/351, Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/221, al-Insaf 4/222, al-Mubdi' 3/408, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 2/596).
The proof is the fighting verse. Al-Kasani explains that the jizya is imposed on those belonging to the combatants: fighting is a reciprocal verb requiring capacity on both sides, so it does not strike one lacking the capacity to fight (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/111). Al-Mawsili adds that the jizya was legislated as requital for disbelief and as a means of pressing toward Islam: it follows the course of killing, and whoever is not punished by killing is not charged with the jizya; Umar moreover imposed no jizya on women (al-Ikhtiyar 4/146). Abu Ubayd reports that Umar wrote to his army commanders to fight in the way of Allah, to fight only those who fight them, to kill neither women nor children, and to kill only the one over whom the blade passes.
Izz ad-Din ibn Abd as-Salam devotes an example to the jizya: it is specific to the two People of the Book and the Magians, because they believe in revealed books most of whose rulings accord with Islam, which lightens their disbelief, unlike the one who denies them entirely. The jizya is not taken to ratify their disbelief: it is not from glorifying the Lord to collect compensations for affirming insult against Him. It is taken in exchange for sparing their blood, protecting their property, sanctuaries and children, together with the defense they enjoy in our lands; it is not taken for residence in the land of Islam, since the covenant can be concluded while they remain in their own lands (al-Qawa'id al-Kubra 1/149).
The jurists diverged on the nature of the jizya: is it a punishment for persistence in disbelief, a compensation for something replaced, or a financial charge without compensation?
Abu Hanifa, some Malikis and Ibn al-Qayyim hold it a punishment for persistence in disbelief. This is why the jizya is not accepted from the dhimmi who sends it through another: he is asked to come himself, standing, while the receiver remains seated. Ibn al-Humam reports that in the soundest narrations of Abu Hanifa, in one variant, he is seized by his forelock and shaken with the words: "Pay the jizya, O dhimmi": the punishment is thus established (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/161, al-'Inaya Sharh al-Hidaya 8/105). They rely on the verse of Surah at-Tawbah and on Ibn Abbas, who explains "out of hand" as his paying it himself, delegating no one (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/115). The jizya derives from the word for requital, which names either the reward for obedience or the punishment for sin; disbelief being sin, the punishment follows. Ibn al-Arabi argues likewise: the jizya became obligatory because of disbelief, which is a transgression, so its cause is punishment, and it strikes only the punishable: adults of sound mind in a state to fight (Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi 2/481).
The majority of jurists hold it a compensation, then differ over what is compensated. Ibn al-Arabi summarizes their views: the Malikis say: in place of the killing justified by disbelief; some Hanafis follow them; ash-Shafi'i says: in place of sparing the blood and of residence; jurists of Transoxiana say: in place of the aid given through jihad, the position chosen by Qadi Abu Zayd, who saw in it Allah's secret in this issue (Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi 2/480-481, al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Qurtubi 8/114).
The Shafi'is object to the sense of punishment that the jizya arises by pact and consent, whereas penalties are not established by agreement; that it varies with affluence and hardship, whereas penalties do not; and that it may be deferred, whereas penalties are immediate. The reply is that Allah commanded fighting them until they pay it under compulsion; that bodily penalties vary with chastity, first offense and concealment, so a monetary penalty varies with affluence; and that deferral rests on the interest assessed by the imam. Practical consequence: if the jizya replaces killing, it falls with Islam as killing falls; in ash-Shafi'i's view it is a debt fixed in responsibility that Islam does not remove, like the rent of a house.
Ibn Qudama rules for the Hanbalis: "The jizya is a punishment due because of disbelief: Islam removes it, like killing" (al-Mughni 12/676, al-Kafi 4/354). Ibn al-Qayyim sets the matter on one pivot: was the jizya instituted to spare blood, or as a manifestation of the humiliation of disbelief and the abasement of its adherents, hence a punishment? Whoever takes the first sense sees no reason for the People of the Book, whose disbelief is lighter, to pay while those of grosser disbelief do not; whoever takes the second extends it to every disbeliever. The text indicates it: "while they are humbled": the jizya is humiliation, comparable to the sword on the neck. The secret of the matter: the jizya belongs to the category of punishments; it is no honor reserved for the People of the Book. The theory of residence rent is weak by many counts (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/29-30).
Killing, indeed, is justified only in exchange for combat, not for disbelief: this is why women, children, the incontinent, the blind and the non-fighting monks are not killed. Such was the conduct of the Prophet (peace be upon him): he fought those who fought him until they entered his religion, concluded a truce, or submitted to the jizya. Keeping the disbelievers alive holds a benefit for the Muslims: money becomes strength for Islam, together with the humiliation of disbelief; and a benefit for the polytheists: survival nourishes hope of their Islam, which Allah loves more than their death. The goal remains that Allah's word be supreme: leaving the disbelievers in honor, with their religion established as they love, is alone contrary to that sense (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/29-30, 36).
Ibn al-Qayyim refutes the rent theory point by point: were the jizya a rent, it would be due from women, children, the incontinent and the blind; the Christian Arabs of Banu Taghlib would not be exempted; it would equal the Muslims' zakat; it would have a fixed term like leases; it would not be tied to humiliation; its amount would vary with the benefit of residence, whereas a house's yearly rent can exceed the jizya severalfold; and the dhimmi renting a house or land from the treasury would owe no jizya on top of his rent. The falsity of this view is known through many channels (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/36).
Al-Qarafi writes that the jizya derives from requital and that, among the Companions, it was exchanged for blood; the reply is that it also covers the safeguarding of property and of children who do not deserve death. To those who assign it to rent, one opposes that the woman benefits from residence without owing it. The right formulation: the jizya covers the whole set of ends attached to the pact (adh-Dhakhira 3/453).
Hanafi jurists hold it the compensation for aid: the aid of the fighters who guard the land of Islam and defend it. Al-Babarti writes that the jizya is due as aid to the fighters, since every inhabitant of the land of Islam owes aid by person and wealth, as Allah says:
O you who believe, shall I point you to a trade that saves you from a painful punishment: believe in Allah and His messenger and strive in the way of Allah with your wealth and yourselves: that is better for you, if you knew.
Surah as-Saff 10-11
The disbeliever, inclined toward enemy territory, is unfit for that aid: the kharaj taken from him and spent on the troops stands in place of aid (al-'Inaya Sharh al-Hidaya 8/92). As-Sarakhsi judges this reading the soundest: the jizya is taken neither from the blind, the decrepit old man, the mentally deficient nor the paralyzed, though they share the residence, since they owed no personal aid had they been Muslim; and it varies with wealth: the rich man, were he Muslim, would bring aid on horseback with a servant riding along, the middle man on horseback, the poor man on foot: its substitute varies likewise (al-'Inaya 8/102, al-Mabsut 10/78). Aid is owed by all subjects of the state, dhimmis included: Muslims render it by persons or wealth; the dhimmis' personal aid being void through their persistence in disbelief, the aid through their wealth, that is, the jizya, becomes due.
If the dhimmis join the fight with the Muslims, the jizya does not fall. The majority of scholars, who hold it compensation for the killing justified by disbelief or for sparing blood and residence, answer that it is not the compensation of aid; aid from a polytheist is moreover not permitted, as Aisha reports:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) set out toward Badr. At the lava field of al-Wabara a man known for his courage and support caught up with him. The companions rejoiced at seeing him. He said: "I have come to follow you and be touched by what touches you." He asked him: "Do you believe in Allah and His messenger?" He said: no. He said: "Go back: I will seek the help of no polytheist." The man caught up a second time, then a third at al-Bayda, repeating his request. The Prophet said to him: "Do you believe in Allah and His messenger?" He said: yes. He said: "Then advance."
narrated by Muslim (1817)
And among the Hanafis who see in it the compensation of aid, it does not fall either. Ibn al-Humam explains that it replaces killing, which is why it does not strike those whose killing is not justified by disbelief, such as children and women; and it stands in for the aid that was lost through their persistence in disbelief: the jurists directed it to the fighters and imposed it on those fit for combat. Even if they fought alongside the Muslims a whole year of their own accord, the jizya would still be collected: the Legislator made their wealth the channel of their aid, and the imam has no power to change the Law. The aid that was lost is the Muslims' aid for Islam, replaced by money: the jizya is thus the substitute for their killing and their aid at once (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/46-47). Al-Babarti confirms it: changing the Law would then be required, and the imam has no such power; the Law made the dhimmi's wealth, not his person, the channel of his aid (al-'Inaya 8/103). Al-Ayni concludes likewise that the imam may not waive the dhimmis' jizya, even if they defend the town alongside the Muslims (al-Bunaya Sharh al-Hidaya 7/249).
Ibn Rushd writes that the jurists agree: the jizya is spent on the general interests of the Muslims, without fixed allocation, like the fay left to the imam's judgment; many even held that the word "fay" in the verse refers to the jizya. The funds of Islam are of three kinds: the legal alms, the fay and the booty (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/544, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/89).
The jizya falls through Islam, death, the overlapping of years, financial incapacity, the state's failure of protection, chronic disability or joining the fight with the Muslims. Some of these cases carry disagreement.
First: Islam. The jurists agree that the jizya falls from whoever of the covenant people enters Islam during the year: it is no longer claimed of him for the future. If he converts after the year has run but before payment, the majority of the people of knowledge, Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, hold that it falls. Ibn Hubayra reports from Malik, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad that even the jizya of two accumulated years falls through his conversion, whether due during the year or after its term (al-Ifsah 2/329, al-Kafi 1/217, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/113, al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 1/105, al-Insaf 4/228, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/112). Ash-Shafi'i holds that Islam after the year does not remove it, and holds two positions for conversion during the year. Ibn Qudama rules: whoever owes it then converts before it is collected is discharged of it.
The proof is the word of Allah:
Say to those who disbelieved: if they desist, what has passed will be forgiven them.
Surah al-Anfal 38
Ibn Abbas reports from the Prophet (peace be upon him): "No Muslim owes the jizya," transmitted by al-Khalal; asked about it, Ahmad said only Jarir transmits it: a weak hadith (Abu Dawud 3053). Umar said: if he took it in his palm then converted, it is returned to him. It is also reported: "The Muslim must not pay the kharaj," meaning the jizya: a weak hadith (Abu Dawud 3047). A dhimmi who converted to escape the jizya was brought to Umar, who said: "Islam is a refuge," and wrote that nothing be taken from him (Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal p. 50, no 122; Abd ar-Razzaq, al-Musannaf 6/94). The jizya is humiliation: it is not taken from him, the punishment falling with Islam as killing falls; Islam moreover demolishes all that preceded it of polytheism and sins. Ibn al-Qayyim rules: whoever converts is discharged, during the year or after; and if the jizyas of several years had accumulated on him, they all fall: this is the view of the jurists of Medina, of the rationalists and of the traditionists, except ash-Shafi'i and his companions, for whom the lapsed jizya is an already accrued debt, like the kharaj and other debts. Ibn al-Qayyim argues: the jizya was instituted as the humiliation of the disbelievers and does not accord with Islam; it is a punishment that falls with Islam; the Legislator's aim is to reconcile people to Islam, and the Prophet gave wealth upon Islam such as he gave on nothing else, Allah even reserving a share of zakat for hearts to be won: how could the disbelievers say that whoever converts is beaten, imprisoned and stripped until he pays his jizya (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/60-62, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/541)? Sufyan ath-Thawri reports from Qabus ibn Abi Zabyan from his father that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "No Muslim owes the jizya" (Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal p. 59, no 121; Ibn Zanjawayh 1/168; ad-Daraqutni 4/156, weak chain; Nayl al-Awtar 3/453). Abu Ubayd interprets it: if a man converts at the end of the year while the jizya is already due, his conversion discharges him of it.
Second: death. The Hanafis, the Malikis and the qadi of the Hanbali school hold that the jizya falls with death, absolutely, whether the death occurs during the year or after its term: a punishment, it falls like the legal penalties; and a means of leading to Islam, it loses its object (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/278, al-Hidaya 2/161, Tuhfat al-Fuqaha 3/308, al-Muntaqa 2/176, Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 2/202, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 2/200, Minh al-Jalil 1/759, al-Ifsah 2/328). The Shafi'is and the Hanbali school hold that it does not fall if death occurs after the year's term: a debt incurred in life, it does not end at death, like human debts; the legal penalty, by contrast, ends with the loss of its object, and Islam is the origin of which the jizya is the substitute: when the origin exists, the substitute is needless, as water dispenses with tayammum; Islam moreover is an obedience fit to protect, death is not (Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni 12/676). During the year, death removes it according to the Hanbalis and one Shafi'i position; the Shafi'i school holds it taken from the estate for the elapsed fraction. An-Nawawi sets out the two positions, the first being the more apparent, others holding firm liability, others the reverse, with two positions for conversion (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/312, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/315). Ibn al-Qayyim reports that Abu Hanifa removes it through death, and that Abu Ubayd reports the following consultation: Hayyan ibn Shurayh, governor of Egypt, wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz asking whether the jizya of deceased Copts should be charged to the living; Umar asked Irrak ibn Malik, who answered: "They were not taken by pact or engagement: they were subdued by force, like game"; Umar therefore wrote to place the dead men's jizya on the living. Another narration has him say: "Neither the one who dies nor the one who flees owes the jizya": it is taken neither from his heirs, nor as a debt, nor from his family if he flees, for they were not guarantors. Those who maintain it invoke the debt; those who remove it invoke the punishment and the humiliation that vanish with their subject; the matter admits both, depending on the weight given to each aspect (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/62).
Third: the accumulation of two or more years of jizya. The majority of scholars, Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, and the two companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, hold that they do not overlap and that the whole is collected: a financial right falling due at the end of each year, it does not overlap like zakat and blood money, and duration has no extinguishing effect, like the kharaj of land (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/279, Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf p. 123, al-Mughni 12/676, Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 2/202, al-Muntaqa 2/176, Bilghat as-Salik 2/201, Mawahib al-Jalil 3/382, Rawdat at-Talibin 10/312, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/62, al-Ifsah 2/329). Abu Hanifa holds the overlapping: the jizya of past years falls and only that of the current year is claimed, since accumulated punishments overlap like the legal penalties, a man taken in repeated fornication owing a single penalty; and the jizya being the substitute for future blood sparing, the hope of his Islam is broken for the past (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/279, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/112, al-Hidaya 2/161, Fath al-Qadir 5/297, al-Mughni 12/676, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/62). Ibn al-Qayyim rules for the majority, adding that it would be even better to lighten his burden by waiving what is due, especially where his delay admits no excuse; doubling it as punishment would be sounder than waiving it (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/63).
The following cases, financial incapacity, monastic withdrawal, insanity, blindness, incontinence and senility, have been treated above.
Last: the failure of protection. In exchange for the jizya, the Muslims owe the covenant people protection, defense, repelling any attacker, Muslim or disbeliever, rescuing their captives and recovering their seized property, whether they live among the Muslims or apart in their town. If the state cannot protect them until the year runs out, is the jizya claimed? The Shafi'is state it explicitly: it falls, for they paid it for their safeguarding and their property; if the state does not defend them, it is not due: its purpose is protection, which did not occur, as rent is not due when the benefit is not made possible. Ash-Shirazi writes that the imam must defend them, repel their attackers, rescue their captives and recover their property, whether they are with the Muslims or apart; if he does not defend them until the year ends, the jizya is not due (al-Muhadhdhab 2/255). Only the Shafi'is state the fall explicitly, all agreeing at least on the obligation of protection. Al-Mawardi writes that in exchange for the jizya two rights are owed them: refraining from harming them, which makes them secure, and protection, which keeps them guarded (al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyya p. 162). Ibn Hazm, in his ranking of consensuses, reports that if the enemy comes into our lands targeting a dhimmi, we are obliged to give them battle and die for it: delivering him up would be neglect of the pact (al-Furuq 3/30, al-Mabsut 26/85, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/243, al-'Inaya 15/260, Ibn Abidin 6/534, al-Kafi 4/364, Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/200).
History bears this out. Abu Yusuf reports that Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, having concluded peace with the people of Syria against payment of the jizya, had pledged to return to them whatever the Muslims took if unable to defend them. When the Byzantines gathered an army without equal, Abu Ubayda wrote to every governor of the towns to return the jizya and kharaj collected, with these words: "We have returned your wealth because news of the forces gathered against us has reached us, and you made our protecting you a condition, yet we are unable to do so. We return what we took, and we remain bound by our pledge should Allah grant us victory over them." The chiefs of the towns answered: "May Allah return you to us and grant you victory over them: they would have returned nothing and taken everything, leaving us nothing." After the Muslim victory, the towns already under treaty welcomed him with markets and honors, and towns not yet under treaty sent their chiefs to seek the same treaty on the same terms (Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf, p. 153-154).
Al-Qarafi concludes: the pact of protection imposes rights toward them, for they live within our neighborly care and our guardianship, under the pact of Allah, of His messenger and of the religion of Islam; whoever attacks them, even with a bad word or gossip, or aids in it, has squandered Allah's pact, His messenger's pact and Islam's pact (al-Furuq 3/29). Ash-Shirwani adds that defending the covenant people is obligatory, that giving charity to those in need among them is permitted, and that feeding one of them who is in need is obligatory (Hashiyat ash-Shirwani 5/36).
The Hanafis distinguish two kinds of jizya. The first, called the treaty jizya, is concluded by consent and peace: it has no fixed limit, being assessed by whatever the imam and the covenant people agree upon. The concluded amounts indeed vary from one group to another: the Prophet (peace be upon him) concluded peace with the people of Najran on two thousand garments, half paid in Safar and the rest in Rajab (Abu Dawud 3041, weak hadith). He ordered Mu'adh, whom he sent to Yemen, to "take a dinar from every adult, or its equivalent in ma'afir," that is, cloths proper to Yemen (Abu Dawud 1576, authentic hadith). Umar concluded peace with the Christians of Banu Taghlib on twice the Muslims' zakat: al-Bayhaqi reports from Ubada ibn an-Nu'man at-Taghlibi that they refused the name of zakat, saying "we are Arabs and will not pay what the non-Arabs pay," and Umar accepted to double the alms under another name: "call it what you wish" (as-Sunnan al-Kubra 9/216).
The second, called the imposed jizya, is fixed by the imam when he conquers a territory: its amount is determined within bounds. On the rich man whose wealth is apparent, forty-eight dirhams a year, collected four dirhams a month; on the middle, twenty-four dirhams a year, two dirhams a month; on the poor who earns, twelve dirhams a year, one dirham a month. The earner is one who can obtain dirhams and dinars by any means, even without mastering a craft; the poor without activity is not liable. Umar fixed these amounts before a gathering of Companions (as-Sunnan al-Kubra 9/196, Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal p. 56, Ibn Zanjawayh, al-Amwal 1/160, Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf p. 120). As-Sarakhsi draws from it that such amounts are not fixed by mere opinion: Umar therefore relied on hearing it from the Prophet (peace be upon him) (al-Mabsut 10/78). Analogy with the kharaj of land, assessed by each land's capacity, confirms that the jizya varies with each person's financial means; and the reasoning through aid: the poor would aid the land on foot, the middle on horseback, the rich on horseback with a servant riding along, so its substitute varies with means (al-Mabsut 10/78, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/111, al-'Inaya 8/91, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/119, Durr al-Hukkam 3/400, al-Lubab 4/143, Dastur al-Ulama 1/273, Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 4/291, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/276, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/50-51, al-Ikhtiyar 4/137).
The Hanafis count up to five opinions on defining rich, middle and poor. The one they adopt, reported by Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi, considers the custom of each region: the owner of fifty thousand in Balkh counts among the wealthiest, not in Basra; the custom of each town is considered, and the one the people of his town judge poor, middle or rich is so in fact. Al-Mawsili writes: "The adopted view is to examine, in each country, the condition of its people and what they deem in this, for the customs of lands differ here" (al-Ikhtiyar 4/145, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/37).
The Malikis likewise distinguish the treaty jizya, concluded with those who defended their persons, property and lands: it is assessed by the two parties' agreement, with no lower or upper limit according to some; Ibn Rushd strengthens this: if the covenant people offer the amount of the imposed jizya, the imam must accept it and it is forbidden for him to fight them. And the jizya imposed by force: four dinars on holders of gold and forty dirhams on holders of silver, without increase or decrease. The proof is what Malik reports from Nafi' from Aslam, Umar's freedman: "Umar ibn al-Khattab struck the jizya on holders of gold at four dinars and on holders of silver at forty dirhams, with in addition the stipends of the Muslims and the hospitality of three days" (the Muwatta of Malik 1/279, no 617). Al-Bayhaqi explains that the Muslims' stipends mean the food of the Muslim soldiers stationed with them, according to the region's custom, and hospitality that of the Muslim traveler passing among the dhimmis (al-Muntaqa 2/173). Malik later said: "I hold that the hospitality and the stipends are dropped today because of the injustices committed concerning them": a means-blocking measure; ad-Dusuqi reports from al-Bayhaqi that should the injustice end, this dropping no longer applies (Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 2/202, Bilghat as-Salik 2/201, at-Tamhid 2/128, al-Istidhkar 3/244, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/542, Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Batal 5/331, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/111, Fath al-Qadir 2/351, al-Muntaqa 2/173, al-Furuq 1/348).
The Shafi'is hold that the minimum of the jizya is one pure gold dinar, with no maximum: the imam may not agree with them on less than a dinar in a position of strength, and increase is permitted, bargaining upward being even recommended if he expects their consent. In a position of weakness, agreeing on less than a dinar is permitted. They rely on the hadith of Mu'adh, on the treaty concluded at Tabuk with Yuhanna ibn Ru'ba of Ayla: one dinar per adult per year, with hospitality for passing Muslims (Abd ar-Razzaq, al-Musannaf 6/86, no 10093), on the treaty of Najran, and on ash-Shafi'i's words: he heard people of learning from Najran say that the value of what was taken from each was one dinar (al-Umm 4/179). Ash-Shafi'i also reports from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, from Abu al-Huwayrith, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) "levied one dinar a year on a Christian of Mecca named Mawhab" (al-Umm 4/179, as-Sunnan al-Kubra 9/195). The figure below the dinar rests on the rule: the imam's disposal over his subjects is tied to the public interest.
Imam Ahmad transmitted four narrations: no increase or decrease over Umar's amounts; increase permitted without decrease; the exception of Yemen, with neither; and the one al-Athram reported as the school: all referred to the imam, who raises and lowers according to the covenant people's capacity and his own judgment. Al-Athram asked Ahmad: is the jizya raised and lowered today? He answered: yes, according to their capacity and as the imam sees, mentioning that two dirhams had been added to them, bringing the total to fifty. Al-Khalal states that practice follows this last path in ten transmissions: this is the school according to al-Mardawi in al-Insaf, and the view of Sufyan ath-Thawri and Abu Ubayd. The proof lies in the generality of the word "jizya" in the verse, in the imam's discretion tied to the interest, and in the variety of cases: Mu'adh's one dinar, Najran's two thousand garments, Umar's three tiers, twice the zakat for Banu Taghlib. Al-Bukhari reports from Ibn Uyayna from Ibn Abi Najih: I asked Mujahid: why do the people of Syria owe four dinars and those of Yemen one? He answered: "It was set according to affluence" (the Sahih of al-Bukhari 1151). Ibn Qudama concludes: wealth taken in exchange for security is of two kinds, the truce and the jizya, both left to the ruler's judgment; and the jizya being a compensation, it has no single amount everywhere, like rent (al-Mughni 12/663-664, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/38-39, Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/230, al-Mubdi' 3/411, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/121, al-Insaf 4/227).
Ibn Rushd sums up the cause of their disagreement: the variety of traditions. Mu'adh was ordered to take a dinar from every adult or its equivalent in Yemeni cloth; Umar struck four dinars on holders of gold and forty on holders of silver, with the Muslims' stipends and three days' hospitality; and Uthman ibn Hunayf, sent to the Sawad, set forty-eight, twenty-four and twelve dirhams there (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/542).
The people of knowledge agree that the jizya is taken from the People of the Book: the Jews, the Christians and those who took the Torah and the Gospel as scripture, such as the Samaritans and the like; and from the Magians. Ibn Rushd and Ibn al-Qayyim transmitted this agreement (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/540, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/18). The proof is the verse of Surah at-Tawbah, and what Umar ibn al-Khattab reported: he hesitated concerning the Magians, saying he did not know how to treat them, when Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf testified that he had heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: "Treat them like the People of the Book" (the Muwatta of Malik 616, ash-Shafi'i in his Musnad 1/209 and al-Umm 4/174, weak hadith). Al-Bukhari reports from Bajala, scribe of Jaz' ibn Mu'awiya, that a letter of Umar dated one year before his death ordered the separation of marriages between close kin among the Magians, and that Umar took no jizya from the Magians until Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf testified that the Prophet (peace be upon him) took it from the Magians of Hajar (the Sahih of al-Bukhari 2987).
As for those who have neither a Book nor the likeness of a Book, the idol worshipers and other polytheists, the scholars differ: are they fought until they enter Islam, or is their jizya accepted?
The Hanafis hold that from the Arab polytheists only Islam or the sword is accepted: the Prophet (peace be upon him) arose among them and the Quran came down in their tongue, so the miracle is most manifest for them. The jizya is accepted from non-Arab idol worshipers, since enslaving them is lawful, so the jizya too, both involving taking from their persons; and if they are subdued before the levy, they, their women and their children fall under the fay, enslavement being lawful for all three categories (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama of at-Tahawi 3/484, al-Mabsut 10/119, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/120, al-Hidaya, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/48-49, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 2/375). Ibn al-Humam sets out the debate with ash-Shafi'i: he holds fighting obligatory against all, the deference to the jizya being established only for the People of the Book by the Quran and for the Magians by the authentic hadith; the reply is that possible enslavement entails possible jizya, and that the general command of fighting was specified for the People of the Book and the Magians in meaning.
Among the Malikis, four positions: the jizya is accepted from the People of the Book, Arab or not; Ibn al-Qasim holds it accepted from all nations if they accept it, and this is the school; Ibn al-Majishun holds it is not; Ibn Wahb holds it is not from Arab Magians but is from others. Ibn al-Arabi explains the origin of the debate and cites the hadith of Burayda quoted above, which opens the jizya to polytheists in general; Umar moreover had paused over the Magians until Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf's testimony. Ibn Wahb's justification: there are no Magians left among the Arabs, all having entered Islam, whoever remains being an apostate. The correct path: to accept it from every nation, in every situation, after invitation and acceptance (Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi 2/477-478, Mawahib al-Jalil 3/381, al-Fawa'id ad-Dawani 1/336, Bilghat as-Salik 2/198).
The Shafi'is hold that the jizya is not taken from one who has neither a Book nor the likeness of a Book: they are fought until they enter Islam, the verse having specified the People of the Book; it is taken from those among them who changed their religion, through the honor inherited from their fathers, and from the Magians (al-Muhadhdhab 2/250, Mukhtasar al-Khilafiyat of al-Bayhaqi 5/59, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/153). The Hanbalis hold it accepted only from a Jew, a Christian or a Magian; from the others only Islam is accepted, otherwise they are killed. This is Ahmad's apparent school; al-Hasan ibn Thawab transmitted another version from him: accepted from all disbelievers except the Arab idol worshipers, the hadith of Burayda excluding these for the gravity of their disbelief (al-Mughni 12/661).
Ibn Rushd identifies the cause of the disagreement: the confrontation of the general and the specific. The general is the verse "Fight them until there is no dissension and the religion is all for Allah" (Surah al-Anfal 39) and the hadith: "I was commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and that they establish the prayer and pay the zakat" (al-Bukhari 25, Muslim 20). The specific is the hadith of Burayda addressed to the commanders sent against the Arab polytheists. Whoever sees in the later general an abrogating text holds that the jizya is accepted only from the People of the Book; whoever builds the general on the specific, or ignores the chronology, holds it accepted from all polytheists, the specification of the People of the Book in the verse standing by agreement (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/519-520).
Ibn al-Qayyim rules: the jizya is taken from every disbeliever, as the hadith of Burayda apparently states, excepting none. One must not say it targets the People of the Book specifically: the wording refuses it, and the Prophet's expeditions mostly faced Arab idol worshipers. The Quran does not establish that restriction: the command to take the jizya from the People of the Book comes from the Quran, that of taking it from the polytheists from the Sunna. The Prophet took it from the Magians, fire worshipers, who cannot be counted among the People of the Book; had they been so in the Companions' eyes, Umar would not have suspended his decision, and the Prophet would not have said "treat them like the People of the Book". The Quran mentions for them neither book nor prophet: if the jizya was taken from fire worshipers, what difference with idol worshipers? To the objection that the Prophet never took it from idol worshipers despite his many battles, he answers that the jizya verse came down in the year of Tabuk, the ninth of the emigration, after the Arabian peninsula had embraced Islam: no idol worshipers remained, and he took it from those who stayed unbelievers among the Christians and the Magians; this is why he took it neither from the Jews of Medina nor from those of Khaybar, the treaties predating the verse's revelation (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/21-22).
Al-Qarafi establishes the one hundred and seventeenth difference between the rule allowing the jizya to be taken from one persisting in disbelief, and the rule forbidding, by consensus, taking compensations for persistence in fornication and other corruptions. Some critics of the religion posed the question: if the corruption of disbelief outweighs any profit from the money taken, why did the Law institute the jizya and make killing the repelling of that corruption? The answer is the secret of that difference: the jizya accepts a light worldly harm to repel the supreme harm and hope for the supreme benefit. The disbeliever who is killed sees the door of faith closed to him forever; the jizya grants him a delay in which he may discover the merits of Islam, be drawn to it through humiliation, and convert: his Islam carries that of his descendants, and one hour of faith outweighs ages of disbelief. Allah created Adam according to wisdom, and most of his descendants are disbelievers; the Prophet (peace be upon him) even counted Adam's creation among the merits of Friday, and reported that Allah will say on the Day of Resurrection: of every thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine go to the Fire and one remains: the benefit of that one's Islam outweighs the harm of all the others. The jizya proceeds from Allah's mercy and from laws established according to wisdom: it is not taken for the money itself, but for the hoped benefit. By contrast, taking money to allow persistence in fornication would prefer a trivial gain over an immense harm: the Law never instituted it, save giving money to someone who consumes it unlawfully so that he abandons a great evil, as prisoners are ransomed or a little cloth handed to a brigand to spare the blood (al-Furuq 3/21-23, adh-Dhakhira 3/454). Ibn al-Azraq summarizes the same difference in the same sense (adh-Dhakhira 3/454).
These rules belong to the classical fiqh of the Islamic state and its war institutions: they describe a historical and doctrinal system, studied here as religious knowledge. No contemporary authority applies them, and a Muslim living in a modern country is bound by its laws. The essential to retain: within the covenant's logic, the contribution replaces military service and grants protection of persons and property, a principle of reciprocity that historical treaties applied up to returning the money when protection lapsed.