Muslims protected Christian churches in the lands they occupied from being harmed. In a letter to Simeon, the Archbishop of Rifardashir and leader of all the bishops of Persia, the Nestorian Patriarch Geoff III wrote:
‘The Arabs, to whom God has given power over the whole world, know how wealthy you are, for they live among you. In spite of this, they do not assail the Christian creed. To the contrary, they have sympathy with our religion, and venerate our priests and saints of our Lord, and they graciously donate to our churches and monasteries.’[1]
One of the Muslims caliphs, Abdul-Malik, took the Church of John from the Christians and made it part of a mosque. When Umar bin Abdulaziz succeeded him as the new Caliph, the Christians complained to him about what his predecessor had done to their church. Umar wrote to the governor that the portion of the mosque that was rightfully theirs be returned to them if they were unable to agree with the governor on a monetary settlement that would satisfy them.[2]
The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is known to historians to be the one of the holiest places of worship in Judaism. Some time ago, it was completely buried under rubble and heaps of debris. When the Ottoman caliph Sultan Sulayman came to know of this, he ordered his governor in Jerusalem to remove all the rubble and debris, clean the area, restore the Wailing Wall, and make it accessible for Jews to visit.[3]
Unbiased Western historians acknowledge these facts. LeBon writes:
‘The tolerance of Muhammad towards the Jews and Christians was truly grand; the founders of other religions that appeared before him, Judaism and Christianity in particular, did not prescribe such goodwill. His caliphs followed the same policy, and his tolerance has been acknowledged by skeptics and believers alike when they study the history of the Arabs in depth.’[4]
Robertson wrote:
‘The Muslims alone were able to integrate their zeal for their own religion with tolerance for followers of other religions. Even when they bore swords into battle for freedom for their religion to spread, they left those who did not desire it free to adhere to their own religious teachings.’[5]
Sir Thomas Arnold, an English Orientalist, wrote:
‘We never heard of a report of any planned attempt to compel non-Muslim minorities to accept Islam, or any organized persecution aimed at uprooting the Christian religion. If any of the caliphs had chosen any of these policies, they would have overwhelmed Christianity with the same ease with which Ferdinand and Isabella exiled Islam from Spain, or with which Louis XIV made following Protestantism a punishable crime in France, or with which the Jews were exiled from England for 350 years. A that time Eastern churches were completely isolated from the rest of the Christian world. They had no supporters in the world as they were considered heretical sects of Christianity. Their very existence to this day is the strongest evidence of the policy of Islamic government’s tolerance towards them.’[6]
The American author, Lothrop Stoddard wrote, ‘The caliph Umar took the utmost care to tend to the sanctity of the Christian holy places, and those who became caliph after him followed his footsteps. They did not harass the many denominations of pilgrims who came annually from every corner of the Christian world to visit Jerusalem.’[7]
The reality is that non-Muslims were treated with more tolerance among the Muslims than anything they experienced with other sects of their own religion. Richard Stebbins spoke of the Christian experience under the rule of the Turks:
‘They (the Turks) allowed all of them, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, to preserve their religion and follow their consciences as they chose: they allowed them their churches to perform their sacred rituals in Constantinople and many other places. This is in contrast to what I can testify to from living in Spain for twelve years; not only were we forced to attend their Papist celebrations, but our lives and the lives of our grandchildren were in danger also.’[8]
Thomas Arnold mentions in his ‘Invitation to Islam’ that there were many people in Italy at that time who longed for Ottoman rule. They wished they could be granted the same freedom and tolerance that the Ottomans gave to their Christian subjects, for they had despaired of achieving it under any Christian government. He also mentions that a great many Jews fled persecution in Spain at the end of the 15th century and took refuge in Ottoman Turkey.[9]
It is worthwhile to reemphasize the following point. The existence of non-Muslims for centuries across the Muslim world, from Moorish Spain and Sub-Saharan Africa to Egypt, Syria, India, and Indonesia are clear evidence of the religious tolerance extended by Islam to people of other faiths. This tolerance even led to the elimination of Muslims, such as in Spain, where the remaining Christians took advantage of Muslim weakness, attacked them, and wiped them out from Spain by either killing them, forcing them to convert, or expulsion. Etienne Denier wrote, ‘The Muslims are the opposite of what many people believe. They never used force outside of the Hejaz.[10] The presence of Christians was evidence of this fact. They retained their religion in complete security during the eight centuries that the Muslims ruled their lands. Some of them held high posts in the palace in Cordoba, but when the same Christians obtained power over the country, suddenly their first concern was to exterminate Muslims.
Islam does not compel non-Muslims citizens living in Muslim lands to be ruled by Islamic Laws. They are exempt from paying the zakah[1]. Under Islamic Law, a Muslim who does not pay the zakah and refuses its obligation becomes an unbeliever. Also, Islamic Law requires military duty from able Muslims, but non-Muslims are exempt from it, even though it is of benefit to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In return for these two exemptions, non-Muslim citizens pay a nominal tax known as jizya. Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.’[2]
Islam also permitted non-Muslims to observe their civil law in matters such as marriage and divorce. Regarding criminal justice, Muslim jurists would pass sentences on non-Muslims in issues considered sinful in their religion such as theft, but exempted them from issues they held to be permissible such as drinking wine and eating pork.[3] This is based clearly of the practice of the Prophet himself when he first came to Medina and established a ‘constitution’. He allowed for individual tribes who were not Muslims to refer to their own religious scriptures and their learned men in regards to their own personal affairs. They could though, if they opted, ask the Prophet to judge between them in their matters. God says in the Quran:
"…If they do come to you, either judge between them or decline to interfere…" (Quran 5:42)
Here we see that Prophet allowed each religion to judge in their own matters according to their own scriptures, as long as it did not stand in opposition to articles of the constitution, a pact which took into account the greater benefit of the peaceful co-existence of the society.
Umar ibn Abdulaziz, a Muslim ruler, found it hard to accept how non-Muslims continued to follow their social regulations that went against the Islamic injunctions. He wrote a letter to Hasan al-Basri[4] seeking his legal advice, saying, ‘How is it that the Rightly-Guided Caliphs before us left the People of the Covenant as they did, marrying close relatives[5], and keeping pigs and wine?’ Hasan’s responded, ‘They paid the jizya so that they could be left to practice what they believed, and you may only follow the Islamic Law, not invent something new.’[6]
The People of the Covenant had their own courts to settle their disputes, but if they wished, they could resort to Islamic courts. God commanded His Prophet:
"So if they come to you, (O Muhammad), judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, God loves those who act justly." (Quran 5:42)
Adam Metz, a Western historian, writes in the Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Century of the Hegira:
"Since the Islamic Law was specifically for Muslims, the Islamic state allowed the people of other religious affiliations to their own courts. What we know about these courts is that they were church courts and prominent spiritual leaders were the chief justices. They wrote a great number of books on canon law, and their rulings were not confined to matters of personal status. They included such problems as inheritance and much of the litigations between Christians that did not involve the state."[7]
Therefore, it can be seen that Islam did not punish non-Muslims for doing what they viewed as permissible according to their religious law, such as consuming alcohol or eating pork, even though they are forbidden in Islam. The tolerance extended by Islam towards non-Muslims is unmatched by any other religious law, secular government, or political system in existence even today. Gustav LeBon writes:
"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam."[8]
God requires Muslims to be just in all their affairs and to act equitably towards everyone. God says:
"And the sky He has raised; and He has set the Balance (of justice), that you may not exceed the (due) balance. But observe the measure strictly, nor fall short thereof." (Quran 55:7-10)
Muslims are divinely ordained to act with justice, even if it means acting against themselves or those close to them, as the Quran states:
"O you who have believed, persistently stand firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is Ever-Acquainted with what you do." (Quran 4:135)
God requires that we apply justice at all times:
"Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing." (Quran 4:58)
Islamic justice towards non-Muslims is multifaceted. Islam gives them the right to go before their own courts; it also guarantees them equality in seeking justice with Muslims, if they choose to present their case in an Islamic court. God says:
"So, if they come to you, (O Muhammad), judge between them, or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them – never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly." (Quran 5:42)
If a Muslim were to steal from a non-Muslim dhimmi, he would be liable to the same punishment as the dhimmi would have been had he stolen from the Muslim. Similarly, a Muslim is liable to receive a sentence for defamation if he slanders a man or woman protected under the covenant.[1]
Islamic history has some beautiful examples of justice meted out by Muslims towards non-Muslims. A man named Ta’ima stole a suit of armor from Qataada, his neighbor. Qataada had hidden the armor inside a sack of flour so, when Ta’ima took it, the flour leaked out of the sack through a hole, leaving a trail up to his house. Ta’ima then left the armor in the care of a Jewish man named Zayed, who kept it in his house, in order to conceal his crime. Thus, when the people searched for the stolen armor, they followed the trail of flour to Ta’ima’s house but did not find it there. When confronted, he swore to them he had not taken it and knew nothing about it. The people helping the owner also swore that they had seen him breaking into Qataada’s house at night, and had subsequently followed the tell-tale trail of flour, which had led them to his house. Nevertheless, after hearing Ta’ima swearing he was innocent, they left him alone and looked for further clues, finally finding a thinner trail of flour leading to the house of Zayed, and so arrested him.
The Jewish man told them that Ta’ima had left the armor with him, and some Jewish people confirmed his statement. The tribe to which Ta’ima belonged sent some of their men to the Messenger of God to present his side of the story, and asked them to defend him. The delegation was told, ‘If you do not defend our clansman, Ta’ima, he will lose his reputation and be punished severely, and the Jew will go free.’ The Prophet was subsequently inclined to believe them, and was about to punish the Jewish man when God revealed the following verses of the Quran to vindicate the Jew.[2] The verse continues to be recited by Muslims today as a reminder that justice must be served for all:
"Indeed, We have revealed to you, (O Muhammad), the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them (in His knowledge) when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative?" (Quran 4:105-109)
Once, a dispute arouse between Ali ibn Ali Talib, when he was the Caliph, and a Jewish man who went to Judge Shurayh al-Kindi. Shuray tells the details of what happened:
"Ali found he was missing his coat of mail, so he went back to Kufa and found it in the hands of a Jewish man who was selling it in the market. He said, ‘O Jew! That coat of mail is mine! I did not give it away or sell it!’
The Jew responded ‘It is mine. It is in my possession.’
Ali said, ‘We will have the judge rule on this for us.’
So they came to me and Ali sat next to me and said, ‘That coat of mail is mine; I did not give it away or sell it.’
The Jew sat in front of me and said, ‘That is my coat of mail. It is in my possession.’
I asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, do you have any proof?’
‘Yes,’ Ali said. ‘My son Hasan and Qanbarah can testify that it is my coat of mail.’
I said, ‘Commander of the Faithful, the testimony of a son in his father’s favor is not admissible in court.’
Ali exclaimed, ‘How Perfect is God! You cannot accept the testimony of a man who has been promised Paradise? I heard the Messenger of God saying that Hasan and Husain are the princes of the youth in Paradise.’[1]
The Jewish man said, ‘The Commander of the Faithful takes me before his own judge and the judge rules in my favor against him! I bear witness that no one deserves worship except God and that Muhammad is His Messenger [the Jewish man accepted Islam], and that the coat of armor is yours, Commander of the Faithful. You dropped it at night and I found it.’[2]
Another amazing story of Muslim justice towards non-Muslims pertains to the conquest of the city of Samarkand. Qutayba, the Muslim military general, had not given the residents of Samarkand a choice between accepting Islam, entering into a protective covenant with the Muslims, or to accept fighting at the time. Years after the conquest, the people of Samarkand lodged a complaint with ‘Umar ibn Abdulaziz, the then current Muslim Caliph. Umar, upon hearing their complaint, ordered the governor of the city to turn it over to the people and vacate it, and then to give the people the three alternatives to choose from. Astounded by this display of instant justice, many of the residents of Samarkand embraced Islam![3]
We also read in history instances where the general Muslim population was aware of the rights of the non-Muslim minorities and would demand justice for non-Muslims from their rulers. Waleed ibn Yazeed, an Omayyad Caliph, exiled the inhabitants of Cyprus and forced them to settle in Syria. The scholars of Islam did not approve his move at the time and declared it to be oppression after the event. They brought the issue up with his son when he became Caliph so that the people could be resettled in their native land once again. He agreed to the proposal, and is thus known to be one of the fairest rulers of the Umayyad dynasty.[4] Another similar historical instance is when the governor of Lebanon, Salih ibn Ali, expelled an entire village of non-Muslims because some of them refused to pay the toll on their produce. The governor was a close advisor of the Caliph, yet Imam Awza’i, a renowned Muslim scholar of Syria, came to their defense and wrote to letter of protest. Part of the letter reads:
‘How can you collectively punish people for the misdeeds of a few, going so far as to expel them from their homes? God states:
"No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." (Quran 53:38)
It is the most compelling evidence to consider and follow. And the most deserving command of the Prophet to preserve and follow is:
"If anyone oppresses a dhimmi or burdens him with something he can not bear, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgment"[5]
They are not slaves whom one is able to take from one place and move to another as one pleases. They are the free People of the Covenant.’[6]
Secular writers and historians have been compelled to acknowledge the justice of Islam towards non-Muslims in their midst. The British historian, H.G. Wells, wrote the following:
‘They established great traditions of just tolerance. They inspire people with a spirit of generosity and tolerance, and are humanitarian and practical. They created a humane community in which it was rare to see cruelty and social injustice, unlike any community that came before it.’[7]
Discussing the Christian sects at the beginning centuries of Islamic rule, Sir Thomas Arnold writes:
‘Islamic principles of tolerance forbade these actions [mentioned previously], that always involved some oppression. Muslims were the opposite of others, and it appears that they spared no effort in treating all of their Christian subjects with justice and equity. An example was the conquest of Egypt, when the Jacobites took advantage of the removal of the Byzantine authorities to dispossess the Orthodox Christians of their churches. The Muslims returned them to their rightful owners when the Orthodox Christians presented them with proof of ownership.’[8]
Amari, a Sicilian Orientalist, observed:
‘At the time of the Muslim Arab rule, the conquered inhabitants of the island of (Sicily) were comfortable and content compared to their Italian counterparts, who were collapsing under the yoke of the Langiornians and Franks.’[9]
Nadhmi Luqa commented:
‘No law can eradicate injustice and prejudice better than one that states:
"…and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just." (Quran 5:8)
Only when a person holds himself to these standards, settling for no other, and devotes himself to a religion with these lofty principles and rectitude, accepting no other… only then can he claim to have honored himself.
Islamic Law protects basic human rights like the preservation of life, property, and honor for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Whether the non-Muslims are residents or visitors, they are guaranteed these rights. These rights cannot be taken away except in a justified case permitted by law. For instance, a non-Muslim may not be killed unless he is guilty of killing. God says:
"Say, ‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. (He commands) that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which God has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason.’" (Quran 6:151)
The Prophet of Islam declared that the life of non-Muslims residents or visitor as inviolable when he said:
"Whoever kills a person with whom we have a treaty, will not come close enough to Paradise to smell its scent, and its scent can be found as far away as forty years of travel." (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)
Islam does not allow assaulting a non-Muslim, violating his honor or property, or hurting him. If someone steals from a dhimmi, he must be punished. If anyone borrows from a dhimmi, the property must be returned. The Prophet of Islam said:
"You must know that it is not lawful for you to take the property of the People of the Covenant unless it is (in payment) for something."[1]
He also said:
"Indeed God, Mighty and Majestic, has not allowed you to enter the homes of the People of the Book except by their permission, nor has He allowed you to hit their women, nor eat their fruit if they give you what is obligatory upon them [from the jizyah]." (Abu Dawood)
There is an interesting story from the era of Ahmad ibn Tulun of Egypt. One day a Christian monk came to Tulun’s palace to complain about his governor. Upon noticing him, a guard inquired about the problem. On finding out that the governor had taken 300 dinars from the monk, the guard offered to pay the monk on the condition that he does not complain, and the monk accepted his offer.
The incident reached Tulun who ordered the monk, guard, and the governor to come to his court. Tulun said to the governor, ‘Are not all your needs met with a sufficient income? Do you have needs that justify taking from others?’
The governor conceded to the force of his argument, yet still Tulun kept on questioning him, eventually removing him from his post. Tulun then asked the monk how much the governor had taken from him, and the monk told him it was 300 dinars. Tulun said, ‘It is too bad you did not say 3000, as he needs a larger punishment, but I can only base it on your statement,’ and took the money from the governor and returned it to the monk.[2]
Non-Muslims have the right that their honor be protected. This right is extended not only to non-Muslim residents, but also to visitors. They all have the right to be secure and protected. God says:
"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of God (the Quran). Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." (Quran 9:6)
The right to asylum makes it a duty on every Muslim to respect and uphold the asylum granted by another Muslim according to the Prophet’s statement:
"The obligation imposed by the covenant is communal, and the nearest Muslim must try hard to fulfill it. Anyone who violates the protection granted by a Muslim will be under the curse of God, the angels, and all people, and on Judgment Day no intercession will be accepted on his behalf."[3]
One of the female companions, Umm Hani, said to the Prophet:
"Messenger of God, my brother Ali claims that he is at war with a man whom I have granted asylum, a man with the name of Ibn Hubayra."
The Prophet answered her:
"Anyone you have given asylum to is under the protection of all of us, O Umm Hani."[4]
The right to asylum and protection requires a Muslim to give asylum and grant security to a non-Muslim who seeks it and warns of severe punishment for anyone who violates it. Asylum guarantees protection from aggression, or attack for anyone who has been given security, a right that is not explicitly granted in any other religion.
The Quran instructs Muslims to treat non-Muslims courteously in a spirit of kindness and generosity, given they are not hostile towards Muslims. God says:
"God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from dealing kindly and justly with them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. God only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – (forbids) that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (Quran 60:8-9)
Al-Qarafi, a classical Muslim scholar, describes the depth of the meaning of "dealing kindly" referred to in the above verse. He explains the term:
‘…gentleness towards the weak, providing clothing to cover them, and soft speech. This must be done with affection and mercy, not by intimidation or degradation. Furthermore, tolerating the fact that they may be bothersome neighbors whom you could force to move, but you do not out of kindness towards them, not out of fear or financial reasons. Also, praying they receive guidance and [thus] join the ranks of the blessed with external reward, advising them in all wordily and spiritual matters, protecting their reputation if they are exposed to slander, and defending their property, families, rights, and concerns. Assisting them against oppression and getting them their rights.’[1]
Divine commandments to treat non-Muslims in this manner were taken seriously by Muslims. They were not just verses to be recited, but Divine Will to be acted upon. The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, himself was the first person to put the divine commands into practice, followed by his caliphs and the general population of believers. The life-story of the Prophet of Islam gives many instances of his kind, tolerant co-existence with non-Muslims. Some of his neighbors were non-Muslims and the Prophet would be generous towards them and exchange gifts. The Prophet of Islam would visit them when they fell sick and do business with them. There was a Jewish family he regularly gave charity to and the Muslims after his death maintained his charity towards them.[2]
When a Christian delegation from Ethiopian churches came to Medina, the Prophet opened up his mosque for them to stay in, hosted them generously, and personally served them meals. He said:
"They were generous to our companions, so I wish to be generous to them in person…"
…referring to the event when they provided asylum to a number of his companions after they fled persecution in Arabia and took asylum in Abyssinia.[3] In another instance, a Jewish man named Zayd ibn Sana came to the Prophet of Islam to reclaim a debt. He grabbed the Prophet by his robe and cloak, pulled the Prophet close to his face, and said, ‘Muhammad, are you not going to give me my due? You and your clan Banu Muttalib never pay debts on time!’ Umar, one of the companions of the Prophet, got agitated and said, ‘Enemy of God, am I really hearing what you just said to God’s Prophet. I swear by the One who sent him with truth, if I were not afraid that he would blame me, I would have taken my sword and cut your head off!’ The Prophet looked calmly at Umar and censured him gently:
"Umar, that is not what we needed to hear from you. You should have counseled me to pay my debts in time and asked him to seek repayment in a respectful manner. Now take him, repay him his debt from my money and give him an extra twenty measures of date."
The Jewish man was so pleasantly surprised by the Prophet’s behavior that he immediately declared his acceptance of Islam![4]
The companions of Prophet Muhammad followed his example in how they treated non-Muslims. Umar set-up a permanent stipend for the Jewish family the Prophet used to take care of in his lifetime.[5] He found justification for allotting funds for the People of the Scripture in the following verse of the Quran:
"Alms are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect (the funds) and for bringing hearts together, and for freeing captives (or slaves) and for those in debt and for the cause of God, and for the (stranded) traveler – an obligation (imposed) by God. And God is Knowing and Wise." (Quran 9:60)
Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, a famous companion of the Prophet Muhammad, would regularly give charity to his neighbors. He would send his servant to take portions of meat on religious occasions to his Jewish neighbor. The surprised servant asked about Abdullah’s concern for his Jewish neighbor. Abdullah told him the saying of Prophet Muhammad:
"The angel Gabriel was so adamant in reminding me to be charitable with my neighbor that I thought he might make him my heir."[6]
Turning to the pages of history, we find a marvelous example of how a Muslim ruler expected his governors to treat the Jewish populace. The Sultan of Morocco, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, issued an edict on February 5th, 1864 CE:
‘To our civil servants and agents who perform their duties as authorized representatives in our territories, we issue the following edict:
‘They must deal with the Jewish residents of our territories according to the absolute standard of justice established by God. The Jews must be dealt with by the law on an equal basis with others so that none suffers the least injustice, oppression, or abuse. Nobody from their own community or outside shall be permitted to commit any offense against them or their property. Their artisans and craftsmen may not be scripted into service against their will, and must be paid full wages for serving the state. Any oppression will cause the oppressor to be in darkness on Judgment Day and we will not approve of any such wrongdoing. Everyone is equal in the sight of our law, and we will punish anyone who wrongs or commits aggression against the Jews with divine aid. This order which we have stated here is the same law that has always been known, established, and stated. We have issued this edict simply to affirm and warn anyone who may wish to wrong them, so the Jews may have a greater sense of security and those intending harm may be deterred by greater sense of fear.’[7]
Renault is one of the unbiased Western historians who has acknowledged the kind and fair treatment of Muslims towards the non-Muslim minorities. He comments:
‘The Muslims in the cities of Islamic Spain treated the non-Muslims in the best possible way. In return, the non-Muslims showed respect to the sensibilities of the Muslims and would circumcise their own children and refrain from eating pork.
Modern welfare states provide social benefits to their poor citizens, but Islam preceded all nations in establishing social security services. Islamic law set up financial provisions for needy Muslims through zakah (obligatory charity) and sadaqa (voluntary charity). Zakah was made obligatory on wealthy Muslims to take care of the poor, whereas sadaqa was left on individual discretion to help the needy. Social security provided by Islam includes non-Muslims as well. Islamic Law requires the state to provide for its citizens with disabilities – Muslim or non-Muslim - that prevent them from employment. They are provided for by the public treasury and the ruler is negligent if he does not do so. Many instances of Muslims providing social security to the non-Muslim citizens are recorded in history. Umar ibn al-Khattab the second caliph of Islam, once passed by a old, blind man begging in front of a house. Umar asked him which religious community he belonged to. The man said he was Jewish. Umar then asked him, ‘What has brought you to this?’ The old man said, ‘Do not ask me; ask …poverty, and old age.’ Umar took the man to his own home, helped him from his personal money, and then ordered the head of the treasury, ‘You must look after this man and others like him. We have not treated him fairly. He should not have spent the best years of his life among us to find misery in his old age.’ Umar also relieved him and others in his situation of paying the jizya.[1]
Another example is found in Khalid ibn al-Walid’s letter to the people of the Iraqi city of Hira. It contains the terms of truce he offered them:
‘If God gives us victory, the people of the covenant will be protected. They have rights promised to them by God. It is the strictest covenant God has made incumbent on any of His prophets. They are also held by the duties that it places upon them and must not violate it. If they are conquered, they will live comfortably with everything due to them. I am commanded to exempt from jizya the elderly who cannot work, the disabled, or the poor who receive charity from their own community. The treasury will provide for them and their dependants as long as they live in Muslim lands or in the communities of Muslim emigrants. If they move outside of Muslim lands, neither they nor their dependants shall be entitled to any benefits.’[2]
In another instance, Umar ibn al-Khattab, the Muslim Caliph, was visiting Damascus. He passed by a group of Christian lepers. He ordered that they be given charity and regular stipends for food.[3]
Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, another Muslim Caliph, wrote to his agent in Basra, Iraq, ‘Search for the people of the covenant in your area who may have grown old, and are unable to earn, and provide them with regular stipends from the treasury to take care of their needs.’[4]
Some of the early Muslims[5] used to distribute part of their post-Ramadan charity (zakat ul-fitr) to Christian monks, based on their understanding of the verse of Quran:
"God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from dealing kindly and justly with them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. God only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – (forbids) that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."(Quran 60:8-9)
Finally, there are other rights that we have not discussed here, because of the assumption that they are elementary and taken for granted, such as the right to work, housing, transportation, education, and so forth.[6] However, before concluding, I would like to make the following observation. Our discussion has clarified how non-Muslims living in Muslim countries enjoy rights that they might not be granted in non-Muslim countries. Some readers may respond with the objection that these rights might have existed in history, but the experience of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries today is different. The author’s personal observation is that non-Muslims still enjoy many of these same rights today, perhaps even more. Allah Almighty has commanded us to be truthful, in the verse:
"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, God is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid justice; and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do."(Quran 4:135)
Further, when we compare the conditions of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries to the status of Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries, whether now or in history, we see a profound difference. What happened to Muslims during the Crusades, under the Spanish Inquisition, in Communist China, or the Soviet Union? What is happening to them today in the Balkans, Russia, Palestine, and India? It would be worthwhile to reflect in order to give an answer based on fairness and declaration of truth and justice. Allah is the best of Judges, and He states:
"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God as just witnesses; and let not the enmity hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety; and fear God. Verily, God is Well-Acquainted with what you do."(Quran 5:8)
Non-Muslim citizens have a similar right to be protected from external enemies just as a Muslim fellow citizen does. The payment of jizya ensures protection against outside aggression, defense against enemies, and ransom to be paid on their behalf if they are taken captive by an enemy.[1]
Writing a few centuries ago, Ibn Hazm, a classical scholar of Islam, said:
‘If we are attacked by an enemy nation who is targeting the People of the Covenant living among us, it is out duty to come fully armed and ready to die in battle for them, to protect those people who are protected by the covenant of God and His Messenger. Doing any less and surrendering them will be blameworthy neglect of a sacred promise.’[2]
History has recorded many examples of Muslims fulfilling their sacred promise towards the dhimmis. The companion of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Ubayda al-Jarrah, was the leader of the army that conquered Syria. He made agreement with its people to pay the jizya.
Realizing the faithful loyalty of the Muslims, the Syrian people of the covenant resisted Muslim enemies and aided the Muslims against them. The residents of each town would send some of their people to spy against the Byzantines, who conveyed the news of the gathering of Byzantine army to Abu Ubayda’s commanders. Finally, when the Muslims feared they would not be able to guarantee their protectect ,Abu Ubayda wrote to his commanders to return all the money they had collected as jizya with the following message for the Syrians:
‘We are returning your money to you because news has reached us of the awaiting armies. The condition of our agreement is that we protect you, and we are unable to do so, therefore, we are returning what we have taken from you. If God grants us victory, we will stand by out agreement.’
When his commanders returned the money and conveyed his message, the Syrian response was:
‘May God bring you back safely to us. May He grant you victory. If the Byzantines had been in your place, they would not have returned anything, they would have taken everything we own and left us with nothing.’
The Muslims were victorious in the battle. When people of other towns saw how their allies were defeated, they sought to negotiate a truce with the Muslims. Abu Ubayda entered into a truce with all of them with all the rights he had extended in the first treaties. They also requested that the Byzantines hiding among them be given safe passage back home, with their families and possessions, without any harm, which Abu Ubayda agreed to.
Then the Syrians sent the jizya and opened their cities to welcome Muslims. On the way back home, Abu Ubayda was met by the representatives of townspeople and villagers requesting him to extend the treaty to them as well, to which he happily complied.[3]
Another example of Muslims’ defending the non-Muslim citizens can be seen in the actions of Ibn Taimiyya. He went to the Tartar leader after they had sacked Syria for release of their captives. The Tartar leader agreed to release the Muslim prisoners, but Ibn Taimiyya protested:
‘We will only be satisfied if all the Jewish and Christian prisoners are released as well. They are people of the covenant. We do not abandon a prisoner whether from our own people or from those under a covenant.’
He persisted until the Tartars released all of them.[4]
Furthermore, Muslim jurists have stated that protecting non-Muslims from external aggression is a duty just as their protection from internal harassment. Al-Mawardi stated:
‘The payment of the jizya entitles the people of the covenant to two rights. First, that they be left undisturbed. Second, that they be guarded and protected. In this way, they can be secure in society and protected from outside threats.’[5]
Islam considers abandoning the protection of its non-Muslim citizens a form of wrongdoing and oppression that is forbidden. God says:
"…And whoever commits injustice among you — We will make him taste a great punishment." (Quran 25:19)
Therefore, harming or oppressing people of the covenant is considered a serious sin. Upholding treaties with them is an obligation on the Muslim Caliph and his representatives. The Prophet promised to argue on the Day of Judgment on behalf of the dhimmi against someone who harms him:
"Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu Dawood)
All evidence in Islamic Law points towards protecting the people of the covenant. Al-Qarafi, another classical Muslim scholar, wrote:
‘The covenant is a contract that has conditions that are compulsory for us, for they are under our protection as neighbors, and the covenant of God and His Messenger, and the religion of Islam. If someone harms them with inappropriate speech, defamation, any type of harassment, or is an accomplice to such actions, then he has made light of the covenant of God, His Messenger, and Islam.’[6]
Umar, the second Caliph of Islam, would inquire from the visitors coming to meet him from other provinces about the situation of the people of the covenant and would say, ‘We may know that the treaty is still being upheld.’[7] On his deathbed, Umar is reported to have said, ‘Command whoever becomes Caliph after me to treat well the people of the covenant, to uphold the treaty, to fight whoever wants to harm them, and not to overwhelm them with burden.’[8]
The writings of Muslim scholars and the actions of many Muslim rulers demonstrate the Islamic commitment from the earliest times to this right of non-Muslims.
