Note: The reports below were taken from the classical book, “Kitab al-Amwaal” by the famous scholar Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam who was born in the year 774 and died in 838 CE.
Prophet Muhammed’s Charity To Non-Muslims,
(1992) “… that the Messenger of God (p) used to give charity to a household of the Jews, and it continues to be given (that is after his death (p).” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 556)
Prophet Muhammed’s (p) wife, Safiyya gave charity to those who professed another faith (among her family),
(1193) “…that Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (p) gave charity to two of her relatives, and both were Jews. This (corpus of the) charity was sold for thirty thousand dirhams.” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 556)
Various companions and scholars gave and had given charity to non-Muslims who lived under their protection throughout the earliest days of Islam,
(1994) “…Abd’Allah Ibn Marwan, who said: ‘ I said to Mujahid: ‘ I have a polytheist relative, who owes me a debt. Should I forgo this debt?’ He replied, ‘Yes, and (give something to) strengthen the bonds between relatives.” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 556)
Charity was also given to Monks,
(1996) He said, ‘Abd al-Rahman related to us from Sufyan from Abu Ishaq from Abu Maysara, who said: ‘The People (Muslims) used to deposit the Sadaqa of Id (Eid) of Fitr with him, and he used to give it, or out of it, to Christian monks.” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 556)
And:
(1997) He said: Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yusuf related to us from Sharik from Abu Ishaq from Amr Ibn Maymun, Amr Shurahbil and Murra alHamdani that they used to give to the Christian monks out of the Sadaqat al-fitr.” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 557)
There is also the remarkable story of the second Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab (586 – 644 CE). He was passing along a house when saw an old, blind man begging. Umar Ibn al-Khattab immediately touched the old man and asked him, whether he was a Christian or a Jew, the man responded by saying that he follows Judaism. The old blind man then further told him that he begged in the day so he could provide himself the daily needs, for his food and pay the Jizya yearly. Umar Ibn al-Khattab upon hearing this story immediately summoned his people to feed him and allowed the man to no longer pay any Jizya:
“To which of the people of the Book do you belong? I am a Jew, responded the blind man. Umar took him by the hand, led him to his own house, GAVE HIM SOMETHING FROM IT (i.e., food) and then sent him to the keeper of the treasure with this message, ‘See to this man and his like, for we have not done right if we devour their youth and neglect their old age. The religious tax is for the poor and needy. The poor are the Muslims; this man is one of the needy of the people of the Book (Christians and Jews). HE FREED THE MAN FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE JIZYAH.“ (Kitab al-Kharaj, by Abu Yusuf Yaqub (d. 798), page 71)
One needs to ponder over these historical reports and understand the magnanimity of Islam and the piety of the Muslims in dealing with minorities who lived under their protection, those who professed other faiths. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Reference:
[1] Charity has been given by Muslims to non-Muslims throughout history. The best example is the Irish famines. The Caliph Abdul Mecid (1824 – 1861 CE), helped the people of Ireland during ‘The Great Hunger’ when over a million died and another million fled. The Ottoman Caliph sent over 1000 silver coins, that would be equivalent to over a £1 million today. He also sent a number of ships full of food. Initially, he wanted to send £10,000 but was blocked by the British as historical reports tell us. James Robert Flynn (AKA Jim Flynn), is the emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, mentions the Caliph’s contribution to Ireland, in his book:
“As an Irish- American married to a Jewish-American, I have a special interest in two groups. Start with the famine in Ireland (An Gorta Mor in Gaelic) by reading Cecil Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849. Over a decade, out of a population of eight million a million died and a million emigrated; even today the Island’s total population is still just over six million. If you want to know why the Irish came to hate the English Crown, in 1845 Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid I declared his intention of sending 10,000 pounds sterling to famine-wracked Ireland; Queen Victoria asked him to send only 1000 because she had sent only 2000. The sultan sent the lesser amount but secretly dispatched three ships full of food. English courts tried to block the ships. However, Ottoman sailors smuggled the food ashore in Drogheda Harbour. The Crown did not try to intercept the $710 sent by American Choctaw Indians. (The Torchlight List: Around the World in 200 Books [2013] by Jim Flynn, page, page 31)
William J. O’Neill Daunt (1807 – 1894 CE) who was born in the early 18th century confirms the above account:
“18th. M’Carthy (the Turk) dined with Charles today. He told me that the Sultan had intended to give £10,000 to the FAMINE-STRICKEN IRISH, but was deterred by the English Ambassador, Lord Cowley, as Her Majesty, who had only subscribed £1000, would have been annoyed had a foreign sovereign given a larger sum…” (A Life Spend For Ireland: Being Selections from the Journals of The Late W. J. O’Neill Daunt, edited by his daughter [From the Library Of Gerald Tighe. London: T. Fisher Unwin Paternoster Square, MDCCCXCVI – University Of Wisconsin – Madison Library, 1896], page 98)
[2] More of Umar’s charity to non-Muslims:
“Umar Ibn al-Khattab once passed by an old Dhimmi (non-Muslim person living under the protection Muslim Government in Muslim land) begging at the doors of the Masaajid. Umar said, ‘We have not treated you fairly. We had been taking Jizya from you when you were young and now that you are old, we have not cared for you. Umar then had an allowance given to him from the public treasury that was adequate for him.” (Kanzul Ummaal, by Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, volume 2, page 301 – 302)
[3] Contemporary scholar Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani on giving charity to non-Muslims:
“Payment Of Sadaqatul-Fitr To A Non-Muslim
Q – “Can the Sadaqatul-fitr be paid to a needy non-Muslim?”
A – According to Imam Abu Hanifah, the Sadaqatul-fitr can be paid to a needy non-Muslim resident in an Islamic country if he does not own the nisab (a surplus amount equivalent to the value of 52.5 tolas of silver).” (Contemporary Fataawa [Published by M. S Omar, 2000] by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, page 46)
[4] The companion of the Prophet Muhammed (p) is said to have given non-Muslims charity and supported their families too for as long as they lived in the Muslims lands:
“Abu Yusuf recorded a report from Khalid Ibn Walid who wrote a pact for the people of al-Heerah, “I have determined for them: Any old man who is weak to work, has been afflicted with an affliction or was rich and is now poor such that his fellow religionists give him charity, he does not have to pay the Jizyah and he shall be supported from the public treasury of the Muslims as well as his dependents for as long as he remains in the land of hijrah and the land of Islam.” Kitab al-Kharaj, bu Abu Yusuf, page 290)
The true Muslim does not restrict his good treatment only to neighbours who are related to him or who are Muslims, but he extends it to non-Muslim neighbours too, so that the tolerance of Islam may spread to all people, regardless of their race or religion. The eminent Sahabi (Companion) Abdullah ibn Amr had a sheep slaughtered and asked his servant, ‘
‘Did you give some meat to our Jewish neighbour? For I heard the Prophet (p) say, “‘Jibril kept on enjoining the good treatment of neighbours to the extent that I thought he would include neighbours as heirs.’” (Bukhari And Muslim)
The people of the Book (Christians and Jews) have lived among Muslims for centuries, knowing that they, their honour, their wealth and their beliefs are secure, and enjoying good neighbourly relations, good treatment and freedom of worship. Evidence of this is seen in the continued existence of their ancient churches, clinging to mountaintops, surrounded by thousands of Muslims who uphold the well-being of their Jewish and Christian neighbours in accordance with Qur’anic teachings:
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for [your] Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just. – Quran 60:8
Anti Shubuhat — 12.11.2022 11:28
Chapter heading: “it is not permissible to making them to what they can not and not torture them on it and not to impression them or hit them”
Sunan Abi Dawud 3052
Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet:
Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.
Translation: “so non of ahlul dhima are forced to Islam for his saying “let there be no compulsion in religion” and Islam permitted them to practice their rituals and there worships for what doesn’t affect the Muslims.”
all non Muslims can be dhimis
Dhimis have the right to show of their crosses in places where not primarily Muslims exist according to hanafia and malikis read this for more
Dhimis also have the right to ask questions about Islam (respectfully) and it is our duty to answer
“Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided.”
(16:125)
And Ibn Hajar writes:
فَلَيْسَ لَهُ قَتْلُ كُلِّ كَافِرٍ بَلْ يَحْرُمُ عَلَيْهِ قَتْلُ الذِّمِّيِّ وَالْمُعَاهَدِ بِغَيْرِ اسْتِحْقَاقٍ
It is not the right of a Muslim to kill every unbeliever. Rather, it is forbidden for him to kill a citizen or protected person without a just cause.
Source: Fath ul-Bari 22/164
Allah says in surah al-Mumtahinah:
لَّا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ * إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأولـئك هم الظالمون
Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly. * It is only those who fought against you on account of religion and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out that Allah forbids you to take as friends and allies. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrongdoers. [60:8-9]
The great scholar Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned the following point regarding these ayaat:
فإن الله سبحانه لما نهى في أول السورة عن اتخاذ المسلمين الكفار أولياء وقطع المودة بينهم وبينهم ، توهم بعضهم أن برهم والإحسان إليهم من الموالاة والمودة ، فبين الله سبحانه أن ذلك ليس من الموالاة المنهي عنها ، وأنه لم ينه عن ذلك بل هو من الإحسان الذي يحبه ويرضاه ، وكتبه على كل شيء ، وإنما المنهي عنه تولي الكفار والإلقاء إليهم بالمودة
When Allah prohibited the Muslims from taking the disbelievers as close friends and allies and cut off the affection between them at the beginning of this surah [60:1], some might think that birr and ihsan – good behavior and excellent treatment – towards them would fall under those prohibited categories of close friendship and affection.
So Allah clarified that these things are not part of the close relationships that He had prohibited, and that He does not prohibit the believers from them. On the contrary, birr and ihsan towards them falls within the excellent behavior which Allah loves and is pleased with, and which He has ordained for everything. What is prohibited is only taking the disbelievers as close friends and allies and meeting them with love and affection.
[Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah 1/301]
Al-Tabari reported: Ibn Abbas explained the saying of Allah Almighty, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors,” (2:190) saying, “Do not kill women, children, old men, or whoever comes to you with peace and he restrains his hand from fighting, for if you did so you would have certainly transgressed.”
Source: Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 2:190
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “The Prophet never forced the religion upon anyone, but rather he only fought those who waged war against him and fought him first. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion, as his Lord the Almighty had commanded him: There is no compulsion in religion, for right guidance is distinct from error (2:256). The negation in the verse carries the meaning of prohibition, namely, you may not force your religion upon anyone.”
Source: Hidāyat al-Ḥayārá 1/237
And Ibn al-Qayyim said, “Fighting is only necessary to confront war and not to confront unbelief. For this reason, women and children are not killed, neither are the elderly, the blind, or monks who do not participate in fighting. Rather, we only fight those who wage war against us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, with the people of the earth. He would fight those who declared war on him until they accepted his religion, or they proposed a peace treaty, or they came under his control by paying tribute.”
Source: Aḥkām Ahl al-Dhimmah 1/110
Al-Miswar ibn Makhramah reported: During the period of ignorance, Al-Mughirah accompanied some people, killed them, and took their wealth. Then, he later embraced Islam. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “As for your Islam, we have accepted it. As for the property, it is the wealth of treachery and we have no need for it.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2765
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Al-Azimabadi said, “The benefit in the tradition is that it is not lawful to seize the wealth of an unbeliever deceptively in a condition of safety. Indeed, it is only lawful to do so against a warrior or combatant.”
Source: ‘Awn al-Ma’būd 2765
Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyah:
“A Insulting a dhimi is a sin and the Muslim is punished if he insulted a kaffir Ash-Shāfi’ie said if he was alive or dead he should be punished for curing him.”
[Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyah (24/141)]
Answering Questions common questions with answers:
What is a dhimmi?
When non Muslim citizens live under Islamic sovereignty, they enjoy a special status and are known along with other minorities as ahl adh dhimma or dhimmis. Dhimma is an Arabic word, which means safety, security, and contract. Hence, they are called dhimmis because they have agreed to a contract by Allah, His Messenger, and the Islamic community, which grants them security. This security granted to dhimmis is like the citizenship granted by a government to an alien who abides by the constitution, thereby earning all the rights of a natural citizen. Thus, upon the preceding basis, a dhimmi is a citizen of the Islamic state, as described by Muslim jurists (See the commentary on As-Sarakhi's As-Siyar Al-Kabir, Volume 1, p. 140; Al-Kasani's Al-Bada'i', Volume 5, p. 281 and Ibn Qudamah's Al-Mughni, Volume 5, p. 516) or a bearer of Islamic nationality, as described by contemporary writers. (See 'Awda, 'Abdul Qadir, Islamic Criminal Legislation, Volume 1, p. 307; Zaydan, 'Abdul Karim, "Ahkam Adh-Dhimmiyyin Wa Al-Musta'minin Fi Dar Al-Islam," pp. 49-51 and 63-66)
What is the Jizyah tax?
It is the duty that a non-Muslim has to pay in order to live in the Muslim land. (Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 12, p. 756)
Who is Required to Pay The Jizyah Tax?
The treaty of protection made by Khalid ibn Al-Walid with the Christians of Al-Hira in Iraq states:
Any aged non-Muslim who is unable to earn his livelihood, or is struck by disaster, or who becomes destitute and is helped by the charity of his fellow men will be exempted from the capitation tax and will be supplied with sustenance by the bait al-mal (the government treasury). (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 144)
The obligation of paying this tax is also cancelled when non-Muslims participate with Muslims in defending the Islamic state against its enemies. Such conditions were clearly stated in contracts and other documents signed by Muslims and non-Muslims during the reign of Umar ibn Al Khattab. (See Zeidan, 'Abdul Karim, Ahkam-Dhimmiyin Wa Al-Musti'minin Fi Dar Al-Islam, p. 155 ff, and Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 217, where it is stated that the emissary of Abu 'Ubaida made a compromise with a party of the Christian Jarajima: if they would support the Muslims and keep an eye on their enemies, they would not have to pay the Jizyah)
Should the Islamic state become unable to abide by the contract, it may not collect the Jizyah. This rule was followed by Abu 'Ubaidah when he learned of the situation in several Syrian cities. Syria had fallen into the hands of the Muslims, but as the Romans were gathering troops to regain it, he decided not to undertake the protection of the non-Muslims. The Jizyah was, therefore, returned with the announcement:
We have returned your money to you because we have been informed of the gathering of the enemy troops. You people, according to the conditions stipulated in the contract, have obliged us to protect you. Since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we are returning your money to you. We will abide by the conditions as agreed upon if we overcome the enemy. (Related by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj)
Thus, a huge amount was taken from the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed,
"May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property. (Imam Tabari, Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 1, p. 2050)
The Jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state's military forces, it was exempted from the Jizyah. Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support the Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the Jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty. (Al-Baladhuri, p. 159) When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from Jizyah in view of their military services. (Ibid.)
Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the Jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were exempted from the kharaj. As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. (Ibid.) The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. (Marsigli, Militare dell'Imperio Ottomano, Volume 1, p. 86) The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, (Finlay, Volume 6, pp. 30-33) for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. (Lazar, p. 56) The Jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, (De Lajanquiere, p. 14) which carried to water to Constantinople, (These bridges were built on pillars, to bring drinking water to the cities. This kind of bridge had been prevalent in the Roman Empire since the first century A.D.) nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, (Thomas Smith, p. 324) as just compensation for their services to the state. However, Egyptian Muslim peasants exempted from military services were still required to pay the Jizyah. (Dorostamus, p. 326)
So as we can see, not all non-Muslims are required to pay the Jizyah tax. There are conditions which may exempt non-Muslims from paying the Jizyah tax, which could be summarized as follows:
Women and children are excused absolutely
Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich
Needy and mad-men
Day laborers, servants or wageworkers
A chronically ill-man even if he is rich
Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories
If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.
If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax. (See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Ummø pp. 172-1)
Why are non-Muslims made to pay it? Isn't this Tax Oppressive and Unjust? What benefits would non-Muslims Get out of paying Jizyah?
Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, said:
"They pay capitation tax so that their properties and lives may be as ours." (Al-Mughni, Volume 8, p. 445, Al-Bada'i', Volume 7, p. 111 quoting from Ahkam Adh-Dhimmiyin Wa Al-Musta'minin, p. 89)
Jizya ensures the safety of the disbelievers in the Muslim land. (Wahba Al Zuhayli, Al Fiqh Al Islami wa adilatuhu, p. 5879)
The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:
This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Call To Islam, pp. 79-81)
The historian Adam Mitz is of the view that because of Islamic tolerance toward non-Muslims and by virtue of the protection granted to them, they paid the Jizyah in accordance with their financial capacities. This Jizyah was like the present-day national defense tax. Only persons who could perform military service were obliged to pay it. So Monks and ascetics were exempted, except for those who could afford to pay. (Islamic Civilization, Volume 1, p. 96)
Another reason for this tax on non-Muslims is similar to that used by governments of any age to justify their taxes. All citizens should pay some of the expenses for public services established for the common good, such as courts, police, public works, repairing of roads and bridges, as well as all other services which lead to the enjoyment of a normal life for all. Muslims support these by paying their zakah, sadaqat al-fitr, and other alms. It is therefore not surprising that a minimal tax, such as the Jizyah, should be levied on non-Muslims. The regulations concerning this tax are spelled out by the Maliki school of thought. (See the Risala of Ibn Abi Zaid and the two commentaries upon it by Ibn Naji and Zaruqi, Volume 1, p. 331 ff)
The good intent behind the term 'dhimmi' can be seen in the letter written by the Caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq to the non-Muslims of Najran:
'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.' (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 79)
If they pay the Jizyah the Imam of the Muslims has to ensure that the Dhimmis are protected from both Muslims and the enemies of the Islamic state. (Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 12, p. 828) and all scholars of jurisprudence have formed a consensus on this issue. (Wahba Al Zuhayli, Al Fiqh Al Islami wa adilatuhu, p. 5884)
Imam al Maawirdi said that the two main rights that the Muslims must give the dhimmis is that we don't harm them and we ensure their protection by fighting for them. (Al Ahkaam Al Sultaania, p. 143) Imam Nawawi states the same thing. (Mughni al Muhtaaj, Volume 4, p. 253) Imam Al Quraafi gives a statement from Ibn Hazm who stated that if any non-Muslim was under the protection of the Muslims and then the enemy comes to the Muslim land in order to harm the non Muslim, the Muslims should go out and fight the enemy with their weapons and die fighting for those that come under the protection of Allah and His Messenger. (Al Furooq, Volume 3, p. 14-15)
When the leader of the Tataars conquered Damascus, Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah and another group of scholars went to them pleading that they release the prisoners from both the Muslims and the dhimmis since the Muslims shared the responsibility in protecting the dhimmis and eventually they were freed. (Majmoo' al Fataawa, Volume 28, pp. 617-618)
The non Muslims and Muslims have equal rights in this connection; the Imam (ruler of the Muslims), by virtue of the executive and military power granted to him by the Islamic Sharia should provide protection for all of them. It is stated in the Hanbali book of Fiqh, Matalib Ula An-Nuha:
"The ruler of the Muslim community is bound to protect the non-Muslims and to save them from aggression. Should they fall into captivity, the Imam must martial all the resources to secure their release and punish the transgressors against their lives and properties even if they were the sole non-Muslims living in a remote village." (Ibn Al Najaar Al Hanbali, Matalib Ula An-Nuha, Volume 2, p. 602-603)
In his book Al Furuq, Imam Al Qarafi al-Malaki, quoting from Maratib Al-Ijma' by Ibn Hazm, states:
"Muslims who have entered into a pact of dhimma, should fight until death with those who try to oppress non-Muslims in the Islamic state in order to abide by the guarantee given to them by Almighty Allah and His Messenger, upon whom be peace. Otherwise they will be considered as traitors."
The Maliki scholar Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi has stated in his book Al-Furuq,
"The contract of dhimma gives them certain rights over us because they are in our land under our protection and under the protection of Almighty Allah, His Messenger, and the Islamic religion. (Volume 2, p. 14)
In this conclusion, Imam Al Qarafi states:
"A contract whose fulfillment endangers the lives and property of Muslims who are protecting the subjects (non-Muslims) from harm is indeed a great one." (Al-Malaki, Imam Al-Qarafi, Al-Furuq, Volume 3, p. 15, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Matalib Ula An-Nuha, Volume 2, p. 602-603)
Why Don't Muslims Get to Pay the Jizyah? Doesn't This Show That There is Discrimination Against Non-Muslims?
Christians have been constantly criticizing Islam's stance regarding Jizyah. They say that it is meant to oppress them. Besides the fact that this concept is also found in their Bible, I will show that Jizyah is not meant to discriminate against the Christians or Jews.
Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 009, Book 088, Hadith Number 208.
Narated By Hudhaifa : Allah's Apostle related to us, two prophetic narrations one of which I have seen fulfilled and I am waiting for the fulfillment of the other. The Prophet told us that the virtue of honesty descended in the roots of men's hearts (from Allah) and then they learned it from the Qur'an and then they learned it from the Sunna (the Prophet's traditions). The Prophet further told us how that honesty will be taken away: He said: "Man will go to sleep during which honesty will be taken away from his heart and only its trace will remain in his heart like the trace of a dark spot; then man will go to sleep, during which honesty will decrease further still, so that its trace will resemble the trace of blister as when an ember is dropped on one's foot which would make it swell, and one would see it swollen but there would be nothing inside. People would be carrying out their trade but hardly will there be a trustworthy person. It will be said, 'in such-and-such tribe there is an honest man,' and later it will be said about some man, 'What a wise, polite and strong man he is!' Though he will not have faith equal even to a mustard seed in his heart." No doubt, there came upon me a time when I did not mind dealing (bargaining) with anyone of you, for if he was a Muslim his Islam would compel him to pay me what is due to me, and if he was a Christian, the Muslim official would compel him to pay me what is due to me, but today I do not deal except with such-and-such person.
Zakat is binding on property, agriculture, food, jewelry, etc.
The Jizyah tax however is not binding on the property and agriculture of the non-Muslims:
Malik Muwatta
Book 17, Number 17.24.46:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to his governors telling them to relieve any people who payed the jizya from paying the jizya if they became muslims.
Malik said, "The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma and the magians do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock. This is because zakat is imposed on the muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them. As long as they are in the country they have agreed to live in, they do not have to pay anything on their property except the jizya. If, however, they trade in muslim countries, coming and going in them, a tenth is taken from what they invest in such trade. This is because jizya is only imposed on them on conditions, which they have agreed on, namely that they will remain in their own countries, and that war will be waged for them on any enemy of theirs, and that if they then leave that land to go anywhere else to do business they will haveto pay a tenth. Whoever among them does business with the people of Egypt, and then goes to Syria, and then does business with the people of Syria and then goes to Iraq and does business with them and then goes on to Madina, or Yemen, or other similar places, has to pay a tenth.
People of the Book and Magians do not have to pay any zakat on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops. The sunna still continues like that. They remain in the deen they were in, and they continue to do what they used to do. If in any one year they frequently come and go in muslim countries then they have to pay a tenth every time they do so, since that is outside what they have agreed upon, and not one of the conditions stipulated for them. This is what I have seen the people of knowledge of our city doing."
Christians might use Surah 9:29 to show that Muslims must fight them until they pay the Jizyah, so this shows discrimination. However, this also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakat. Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakat:
Saheeh Muslim
Book 001, Hadith Number 0029.
------------------------------
Chapter : Command for fighting against the people so long as they do not profess that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as Zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.
So how does this discriminate against the Christians and Jews? (Please note that Surah 9:29 is only to be applied in specific situations.
This is completely justified. If they go against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax evasion (11 Mar. 2001). at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e). You have to understand that these are God's laws. It is probably difficult for a non-Muslim to understand this but from the Muslim perspective it is completely justifiable. For God sake people get executed or punished for crimes against man made laws, what do you expect to happen to people that break God's laws?
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.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation to Islam, p. 77)
Even though there is no fixed rate on the Jizyah, Jasser Auda says:
Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway. (The Fair Logic of Jizyah, Source)
Also, non-Muslims are not to be over burdened with Jizyah:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:
I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."
So not only do Muslims have to pay a higher rate of tax than the dhimmis (Muslims usually pay higher rates). Not only are they obliged to pay it on their property, food, etc unlike the dhimmis. Not only are BOTH MEN AND WOMEN from the Muslims obliged to pay Zakah, unlike how the women from the dhimmis are not obliged to pay, but after all this it is still the Muslims who are obliged to defend the country and protect the non-Muslims!
Any objective observer would probably reach the conclusion that these rules and regulations are unfair to the Muslims, not to the non-Muslims.
Bild
How Should The Jizyah Tax Be Taken From The Non-Muslims?
Imam Nawawi, commenting on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the Jizyah, said,
"As for this aforementioned practice (hay'ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority (jumhur) of scholars say that the Jizyah is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt (dayn). The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the Jizyah." (Rawdat al-Talibin, Volume 10, p.315-16)
Ibn Qudama also said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four caliphs said that taking the Jizyah should be done with gentleness and respect. (Al-Mughni, Volume 4, p.250)
Once, during the reign of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, a Jizyah collector offered the taxes collected from the people to 'Umar, who was upset by the large amount and asked him if he had burdened the people. He replied, "No, not at all! We took only the surplus and lawful taxes." 'Umar asked, "Without any pressure or persecution?" The man replied, "Yes." 'Umar then said to him, "Praise be to Almighty Allah that the non-Muslim citizens have not been oppressed during my rule. (Ibn Salam, Imam Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim, Al-Amwal, p. 43. Also see Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 9, p. 290 & Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume 1, p.139)
Nu’aym ibn Mas’ud reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, speaking to those who were reading the letter of the false prophet Musaylimah the Liar, saying, “What do you both say?” They said, “We say what he said.” The Prophet said, “By Allah, were it not that diplomats are not killed, I would strike both of your necks.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2761
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Ibn Qudamah said, “When immunity is given to enemy combatants, it is forbidden to kill them, seize their wealth, or confront them. Immunity is valid if given by any adult, sane, selected Muslim, male or female, free or slave. This was said by Al-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Al-Shafi’i, Ishaq, Ibn al-Qasim, and the majority of the people of knowledge.”
Source: al-Mughnī 9/195
Ibn Hajar writes:
وأما الذمي فكالمسلم فيما يرجع إلى المنع من الإيذاء لأن الشرع عصم عرضه ودمه وماله … الصواب تحريم غيبة الذمي
As for the non-Muslim under protection, he is like the Muslim in regards to the prohibition of harm, as the divine law has made his reputation, life, and property inviolable… The correct opinion is that it is forbidden to backbite a protected non-Muslim.
Source: al-Zawājir ʻan Iqtirāf al-Kabā’ir 2/27
And Ibn al-Humam writes:
وتثبت أحكام الذمي في حقه … وجوب كف الأذى عنه فتحرم غيبته كما تحرم غيبة المسلم فضلا عما يفعله السفهاء من صفعه وشتمه في الأسواق ظلما وعدوانا
It is established in the rulings of a protected non-Muslim and his rights… that it is obligatory to refrain from harming him and it is forbidden to backbite him, just as it is forbidden to backbite a Muslim, unlike what is done by fools who unjustly and with hostility slap him or insult him in the marketplace.
Source: Fatḥ al-Qadīr 6/24
And Ibn ‘Abidin writes:
إذَا صَارَ ذِمِّيًّا … وَيَجِبُ كَفِّ الْأَذَى عَنْهُ وَتَحْرُمُ غِيبَتُهُ كَالْمُسْلِمِ لِأَنَّهُ بِعَقْدِ الذِّمَّةِ وَجَبَ لَهُ مَالَنَا فَإِذَا حَرُمَتْ غِيبَةُ الْمُسْلِمِ حَرُمَتْ غِيبَتُهُ بَلْ قَالُوا إنَّ ظُلْمَ الذِّمِّيِّ أَشَدُّ
If one becomes a protected non-Muslim… it is obligatory to refrain from harming him and it is forbidden to backbite him, as it is for a Muslim, because of the covenant of protection. He is entitled to our wealth (in charity or welfare) and if it is forbidden to backbite a Muslim, it is also forbidden to backbite him. Rather, some scholars said that wronging a protected non-Muslim is even worse.
Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 4/171
And Al-Buhuti writes:
ومن لعن ذميا معينا أدب لأنه معصوم وعرضه محرم … ولعل المراد أن يلعن فاعل ذلك الذنب على العموم مثل أن يقول لعن الله فاعل كذا أما لعنة معين بخصوصه فالظاهر أنها لا تجوز
Whoever curses a protected non-Muslim by name should be disciplined, as his reputation is inviolable and forbidden… Perhaps the intended meaning is that one may use a general wording to curse someone who commits a sin, such as saying: May Allah curse the doer of this sin! As for cursing a specific person by name, it is obvious that it is not permissible.
Source: Kashshāf al-Qinā’ ‘an al-Iqnā’ 6/125-126
And Zakariyya al-Ansari writes:
وَغِيبَةُ الْكَافِرِ مُحَرَّمَةٌ إنْ كَانَ ذِمِّيًّا … بل تجب بذلا لنصيحة الغير وتحذيره من الشر
Backbiting an unbeliever is forbidden if he is under protection… Rather, it is an obligation to offer sincere advice to others and to warn them from evil.
Source: Asnā al-Muṭālib 3/117
As we can see, a protected non-Muslim has the same legal status as a Muslim in regards to safety from harm to their lives, property, and reputations.
Some scholars extended the protection of non-Muslims to economic activity, such that it is impermissible to undermine their sales or unlawfully outbid them.
Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
لَا يَسُومُ الرَّجُلُ عَلَى سَوْمِ أَخِيهِ
A man must not undermine the transactions of his brother.
Source: Ṣaḥih Muslim 1408, Grade: Sahih
Even though ‘brother’ is used in this tradition, which generally means Muslim brothers (and sisters), jurists extended the principle to include the three categories of protected non-Muslims.
Al-Jamal commented on this tradition, writing:
فالذمي والمعاهدوالمستأمن مثل المسلم وخرج الحربي والمرتد
The non-Muslim citizen, the non-Muslim in a peace treaty, and the non-Muslim granted immunity are all like the Muslim in this regard, excluding the combatant and renegade apostate.
Source: Hashiyat al-Jamal ʻala Sharh al-Manhaj 3/90
Shāykh al-Islam Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī (d. 620 AH) states:
"And if someone, whose coercion into Islam is invalid e.g. a dhimmi or someone who has a treaty with the Muslims, is [forced to] accept Islam, then the rulings of Islam don't apply to them until there is clear proof of their [voluntary] Islam after having been coerced. If they die before this, then their ruling is that of the disbelievers, or if they return to disbelief then killing them is impermissible nor is coercing them to accept Islam. This was the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i and Muhammad Ibn al Hasan [al-Shaybani] said that they would be a Muslim upon the apparent, and if they returned [to disbelief] then they are to be killed unless they return to Islam because of his ﷺ said, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and if they say this, their wealth and blood are protected except by due right." [This is the case, according to al-Shaybani] because they said (or accepted) the truth and their ruling is like that of the Harbi (disbeliever who doesn't have a treaty with Muslims and isn't Dhimmi). According to us (meaning the Hanbalis) compelling them to accept Islam [unlawfully] is not permissible and the rulings of Islam would not apply on them, such as in the case of a Muslim who was forced to disbelieve. The evidence for the impermissiblity of compulsion is His Statement, "There is no compulsion in religion." (Surah 2:256). And the scholars have unaninmously agreed that forcing the dhimmi or the one with a treaty to be compelled if they haven't broken their treaty is not permissible, because this is compulsion where it's not permissible.
•📓 [al-Mug̲h̲nī | 9/23]
From the rights given to the people of the book after marrying a Muslim is that
They don’t have to change their religion and it isn’t permissible for the husband to force her to Islam. Ash-Shafi’ie prohibited a man from mentioning Islam to his Christian wife.
The Christian wife can put crosses, celebrate her religious freedom and go to the church. (Ahkam ahl al-dhimmah 2/822)
Translation: “so non of ahlul dhima are forced to Islam for his saying “let there be no compulsion in religion” and Islam permitted them to practice their rituals and there worships for what doesn’t affect the Muslims.”
all non Muslims can be dhimis
Dhimis have the right to show of their crosses in places where not primarily Muslims exist according to hanafia and malikis read this for more
Dhimis also have the right to ask questions about Islam (respectfully) and it is our duty to answer
“Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided.”
(16:125)
And Ibn Hajar writes:
فَلَيْسَ لَهُ قَتْلُ كُلِّ كَافِرٍ بَلْ يَحْرُمُ عَلَيْهِ قَتْلُ الذِّمِّيِّ وَالْمُعَاهَدِ بِغَيْرِ اسْتِحْقَاقٍ
It is not the right of a Muslim to kill every unbeliever. Rather, it is forbidden for him to kill a citizen or protected person without a just cause.
Source: Fath ul-Bari 22/164
Allah says in surah al-Mumtahinah:
لَّا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ * إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأولـئك هم الظالمون
Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly. * It is only those who fought against you on account of religion and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out that Allah forbids you to take as friends and allies. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrongdoers. [60:8-9]
The great scholar Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned the following point regarding these ayaat:
فإن الله سبحانه لما نهى في أول السورة عن اتخاذ المسلمين الكفار أولياء وقطع المودة بينهم وبينهم ، توهم بعضهم أن برهم والإحسان إليهم من الموالاة والمودة ، فبين الله سبحانه أن ذلك ليس من الموالاة المنهي عنها ، وأنه لم ينه عن ذلك بل هو من الإحسان الذي يحبه ويرضاه ، وكتبه على كل شيء ، وإنما المنهي عنه تولي الكفار والإلقاء إليهم بالمودة
When Allah prohibited the Muslims from taking the disbelievers as close friends and allies and cut off the affection between them at the beginning of this surah [60:1], some might think that birr and ihsan – good behavior and excellent treatment – towards them would fall under those prohibited categories of close friendship and affection.
So Allah clarified that these things are not part of the close relationships that He had prohibited, and that He does not prohibit the believers from them. On the contrary, birr and ihsan towards them falls within the excellent behavior which Allah loves and is pleased with, and which He has ordained for everything. What is prohibited is only taking the disbelievers as close friends and allies and meeting them with love and affection.
[Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah 1/301]
Al-Tabari reported: Ibn Abbas explained the saying of Allah Almighty, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors,” (2:190) saying, “Do not kill women, children, old men, or whoever comes to you with peace and he restrains his hand from fighting, for if you did so you would have certainly transgressed.”
Source: Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 2:190
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “The Prophet never forced the religion upon anyone, but rather he only fought those who waged war against him and fought him first. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion, as his Lord the Almighty had commanded him: There is no compulsion in religion, for right guidance is distinct from error (2:256). The negation in the verse carries the meaning of prohibition, namely, you may not force your religion upon anyone.”
Source: Hidāyat al-Ḥayārá 1/237
And Ibn al-Qayyim said, “Fighting is only necessary to confront war and not to confront unbelief. For this reason, women and children are not killed, neither are the elderly, the blind, or monks who do not participate in fighting. Rather, we only fight those who wage war against us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, with the people of the earth. He would fight those who declared war on him until they accepted his religion, or they proposed a peace treaty, or they came under his control by paying tribute.”
Source: Aḥkām Ahl al-Dhimmah 1/110
Al-Miswar ibn Makhramah reported: During the period of ignorance, Al-Mughirah accompanied some people, killed them, and took their wealth. Then, he later embraced Islam. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “As for your Islam, we have accepted it. As for the property, it is the wealth of treachery and we have no need for it.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2765
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Al-Azimabadi said, “The benefit in the tradition is that it is not lawful to seize the wealth of an unbeliever deceptively in a condition of safety. Indeed, it is only lawful to do so against a warrior or combatant.”
Source: ‘Awn al-Ma’būd 2765
Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyah:
“A Insulting a dhimi is a sin and the Muslim is punished if he insulted a kaffir Ash-Shāfi’ie said if he was alive or dead he should be punished for curing him.”
[Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyah (24/141)]
Answering Questions common questions with answers:
What is a dhimmi?
When non Muslim citizens live under Islamic sovereignty, they enjoy a special status and are known along with other minorities as ahl adh dhimma or dhimmis. Dhimma is an Arabic word, which means safety, security, and contract. Hence, they are called dhimmis because they have agreed to a contract by Allah, His Messenger, and the Islamic community, which grants them security. This security granted to dhimmis is like the citizenship granted by a government to an alien who abides by the constitution, thereby earning all the rights of a natural citizen. Thus, upon the preceding basis, a dhimmi is a citizen of the Islamic state, as described by Muslim jurists (See the commentary on As-Sarakhi's As-Siyar Al-Kabir, Volume 1, p. 140; Al-Kasani's Al-Bada'i', Volume 5, p. 281 and Ibn Qudamah's Al-Mughni, Volume 5, p. 516) or a bearer of Islamic nationality, as described by contemporary writers. (See 'Awda, 'Abdul Qadir, Islamic Criminal Legislation, Volume 1, p. 307; Zaydan, 'Abdul Karim, "Ahkam Adh-Dhimmiyyin Wa Al-Musta'minin Fi Dar Al-Islam," pp. 49-51 and 63-66)
What is the Jizyah tax?
It is the duty that a non-Muslim has to pay in order to live in the Muslim land. (Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 12, p. 756)
Who is Required to Pay The Jizyah Tax?
The treaty of protection made by Khalid ibn Al-Walid with the Christians of Al-Hira in Iraq states:
Any aged non-Muslim who is unable to earn his livelihood, or is struck by disaster, or who becomes destitute and is helped by the charity of his fellow men will be exempted from the capitation tax and will be supplied with sustenance by the bait al-mal (the government treasury). (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 144)
The obligation of paying this tax is also cancelled when non-Muslims participate with Muslims in defending the Islamic state against its enemies. Such conditions were clearly stated in contracts and other documents signed by Muslims and non-Muslims during the reign of Umar ibn Al Khattab. (See Zeidan, 'Abdul Karim, Ahkam-Dhimmiyin Wa Al-Musti'minin Fi Dar Al-Islam, p. 155 ff, and Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 217, where it is stated that the emissary of Abu 'Ubaida made a compromise with a party of the Christian Jarajima: if they would support the Muslims and keep an eye on their enemies, they would not have to pay the Jizyah)
Should the Islamic state become unable to abide by the contract, it may not collect the Jizyah. This rule was followed by Abu 'Ubaidah when he learned of the situation in several Syrian cities. Syria had fallen into the hands of the Muslims, but as the Romans were gathering troops to regain it, he decided not to undertake the protection of the non-Muslims. The Jizyah was, therefore, returned with the announcement:
We have returned your money to you because we have been informed of the gathering of the enemy troops. You people, according to the conditions stipulated in the contract, have obliged us to protect you. Since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we are returning your money to you. We will abide by the conditions as agreed upon if we overcome the enemy. (Related by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj)
Thus, a huge amount was taken from the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed,
"May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property. (Imam Tabari, Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 1, p. 2050)
The Jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state's military forces, it was exempted from the Jizyah. Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support the Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the Jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty. (Al-Baladhuri, p. 159) When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from Jizyah in view of their military services. (Ibid.)
Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the Jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were exempted from the kharaj. As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. (Ibid.) The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. (Marsigli, Militare dell'Imperio Ottomano, Volume 1, p. 86) The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, (Finlay, Volume 6, pp. 30-33) for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. (Lazar, p. 56) The Jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, (De Lajanquiere, p. 14) which carried to water to Constantinople, (These bridges were built on pillars, to bring drinking water to the cities. This kind of bridge had been prevalent in the Roman Empire since the first century A.D.) nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, (Thomas Smith, p. 324) as just compensation for their services to the state. However, Egyptian Muslim peasants exempted from military services were still required to pay the Jizyah. (Dorostamus, p. 326)
So as we can see, not all non-Muslims are required to pay the Jizyah tax. There are conditions which may exempt non-Muslims from paying the Jizyah tax, which could be summarized as follows:
Women and children are excused absolutely
Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich
Needy and mad-men
Day laborers, servants or wageworkers
A chronically ill-man even if he is rich
Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories
If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.
If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax. (See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Ummø pp. 172-1)
Why are non-Muslims made to pay it? Isn't this Tax Oppressive and Unjust? What benefits would non-Muslims Get out of paying Jizyah?
Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, said:
"They pay capitation tax so that their properties and lives may be as ours." (Al-Mughni, Volume 8, p. 445, Al-Bada'i', Volume 7, p. 111 quoting from Ahkam Adh-Dhimmiyin Wa Al-Musta'minin, p. 89)
Jizya ensures the safety of the disbelievers in the Muslim land. (Wahba Al Zuhayli, Al Fiqh Al Islami wa adilatuhu, p. 5879)
The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:
This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Call To Islam, pp. 79-81)
The historian Adam Mitz is of the view that because of Islamic tolerance toward non-Muslims and by virtue of the protection granted to them, they paid the Jizyah in accordance with their financial capacities. This Jizyah was like the present-day national defense tax. Only persons who could perform military service were obliged to pay it. So Monks and ascetics were exempted, except for those who could afford to pay. (Islamic Civilization, Volume 1, p. 96)
Another reason for this tax on non-Muslims is similar to that used by governments of any age to justify their taxes. All citizens should pay some of the expenses for public services established for the common good, such as courts, police, public works, repairing of roads and bridges, as well as all other services which lead to the enjoyment of a normal life for all. Muslims support these by paying their zakah, sadaqat al-fitr, and other alms. It is therefore not surprising that a minimal tax, such as the Jizyah, should be levied on non-Muslims. The regulations concerning this tax are spelled out by the Maliki school of thought. (See the Risala of Ibn Abi Zaid and the two commentaries upon it by Ibn Naji and Zaruqi, Volume 1, p. 331 ff)
The good intent behind the term 'dhimmi' can be seen in the letter written by the Caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq to the non-Muslims of Najran:
'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.' (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 79)
If they pay the Jizyah the Imam of the Muslims has to ensure that the Dhimmis are protected from both Muslims and the enemies of the Islamic state. (Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 12, p. 828) and all scholars of jurisprudence have formed a consensus on this issue. (Wahba Al Zuhayli, Al Fiqh Al Islami wa adilatuhu, p. 5884)
Imam al Maawirdi said that the two main rights that the Muslims must give the dhimmis is that we don't harm them and we ensure their protection by fighting for them. (Al Ahkaam Al Sultaania, p. 143) Imam Nawawi states the same thing. (Mughni al Muhtaaj, Volume 4, p. 253) Imam Al Quraafi gives a statement from Ibn Hazm who stated that if any non-Muslim was under the protection of the Muslims and then the enemy comes to the Muslim land in order to harm the non Muslim, the Muslims should go out and fight the enemy with their weapons and die fighting for those that come under the protection of Allah and His Messenger. (Al Furooq, Volume 3, p. 14-15)
When the leader of the Tataars conquered Damascus, Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah and another group of scholars went to them pleading that they release the prisoners from both the Muslims and the dhimmis since the Muslims shared the responsibility in protecting the dhimmis and eventually they were freed. (Majmoo' al Fataawa, Volume 28, pp. 617-618)
The non Muslims and Muslims have equal rights in this connection; the Imam (ruler of the Muslims), by virtue of the executive and military power granted to him by the Islamic Sharia should provide protection for all of them. It is stated in the Hanbali book of Fiqh, Matalib Ula An-Nuha:
"The ruler of the Muslim community is bound to protect the non-Muslims and to save them from aggression. Should they fall into captivity, the Imam must martial all the resources to secure their release and punish the transgressors against their lives and properties even if they were the sole non-Muslims living in a remote village." (Ibn Al Najaar Al Hanbali, Matalib Ula An-Nuha, Volume 2, p. 602-603)
In his book Al Furuq, Imam Al Qarafi al-Malaki, quoting from Maratib Al-Ijma' by Ibn Hazm, states:
"Muslims who have entered into a pact of dhimma, should fight until death with those who try to oppress non-Muslims in the Islamic state in order to abide by the guarantee given to them by Almighty Allah and His Messenger, upon whom be peace. Otherwise they will be considered as traitors."
The Maliki scholar Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi has stated in his book Al-Furuq,
"The contract of dhimma gives them certain rights over us because they are in our land under our protection and under the protection of Almighty Allah, His Messenger, and the Islamic religion. (Volume 2, p. 14)
In this conclusion, Imam Al Qarafi states:
"A contract whose fulfillment endangers the lives and property of Muslims who are protecting the subjects (non-Muslims) from harm is indeed a great one." (Al-Malaki, Imam Al-Qarafi, Al-Furuq, Volume 3, p. 15, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Matalib Ula An-Nuha, Volume 2, p. 602-603)
Why Don't Muslims Get to Pay the Jizyah? Doesn't This Show That There is Discrimination Against Non-Muslims?
Christians have been constantly criticizing Islam's stance regarding Jizyah. They say that it is meant to oppress them. Besides the fact that this concept is also found in their Bible, I will show that Jizyah is not meant to discriminate against the Christians or Jews.
Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 009, Book 088, Hadith Number 208.
Narated By Hudhaifa : Allah's Apostle related to us, two prophetic narrations one of which I have seen fulfilled and I am waiting for the fulfillment of the other. The Prophet told us that the virtue of honesty descended in the roots of men's hearts (from Allah) and then they learned it from the Qur'an and then they learned it from the Sunna (the Prophet's traditions). The Prophet further told us how that honesty will be taken away: He said: "Man will go to sleep during which honesty will be taken away from his heart and only its trace will remain in his heart like the trace of a dark spot; then man will go to sleep, during which honesty will decrease further still, so that its trace will resemble the trace of blister as when an ember is dropped on one's foot which would make it swell, and one would see it swollen but there would be nothing inside. People would be carrying out their trade but hardly will there be a trustworthy person. It will be said, 'in such-and-such tribe there is an honest man,' and later it will be said about some man, 'What a wise, polite and strong man he is!' Though he will not have faith equal even to a mustard seed in his heart." No doubt, there came upon me a time when I did not mind dealing (bargaining) with anyone of you, for if he was a Muslim his Islam would compel him to pay me what is due to me, and if he was a Christian, the Muslim official would compel him to pay me what is due to me, but today I do not deal except with such-and-such person.
Zakat is binding on property, agriculture, food, jewelry, etc.
The Jizyah tax however is not binding on the property and agriculture of the non-Muslims:
Malik Muwatta
Book 17, Number 17.24.46:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to his governors telling them to relieve any people who payed the jizya from paying the jizya if they became muslims.
Malik said, "The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma and the magians do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock. This is because zakat is imposed on the muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them. As long as they are in the country they have agreed to live in, they do not have to pay anything on their property except the jizya. If, however, they trade in muslim countries, coming and going in them, a tenth is taken from what they invest in such trade. This is because jizya is only imposed on them on conditions, which they have agreed on, namely that they will remain in their own countries, and that war will be waged for them on any enemy of theirs, and that if they then leave that land to go anywhere else to do business they will haveto pay a tenth. Whoever among them does business with the people of Egypt, and then goes to Syria, and then does business with the people of Syria and then goes to Iraq and does business with them and then goes on to Madina, or Yemen, or other similar places, has to pay a tenth.
People of the Book and Magians do not have to pay any zakat on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops. The sunna still continues like that. They remain in the deen they were in, and they continue to do what they used to do. If in any one year they frequently come and go in muslim countries then they have to pay a tenth every time they do so, since that is outside what they have agreed upon, and not one of the conditions stipulated for them. This is what I have seen the people of knowledge of our city doing."
Christians might use Surah 9:29 to show that Muslims must fight them until they pay the Jizyah, so this shows discrimination. However, this also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakat. Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakat:
Saheeh Muslim
Book 001, Hadith Number 0029.
------------------------------
Chapter : Command for fighting against the people so long as they do not profess that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as Zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.
So how does this discriminate against the Christians and Jews? (Please note that Surah 9:29 is only to be applied in specific situations.
This is completely justified. If they go against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax evasion (11 Mar. 2001). at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e). You have to understand that these are God's laws. It is probably difficult for a non-Muslim to understand this but from the Muslim perspective it is completely justifiable. For God sake people get executed or punished for crimes against man made laws, what do you expect to happen to people that break God's laws?
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.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation to Islam, p. 77)
Even though there is no fixed rate on the Jizyah, Jasser Auda says:
Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway. (The Fair Logic of Jizyah, Source)
Also, non-Muslims are not to be over burdened with Jizyah:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:
I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."
So not only do Muslims have to pay a higher rate of tax than the dhimmis (Muslims usually pay higher rates). Not only are they obliged to pay it on their property, food, etc unlike the dhimmis. Not only are BOTH MEN AND WOMEN from the Muslims obliged to pay Zakah, unlike how the women from the dhimmis are not obliged to pay, but after all this it is still the Muslims who are obliged to defend the country and protect the non-Muslims!
Any objective observer would probably reach the conclusion that these rules and regulations are unfair to the Muslims, not to the non-Muslims.
Bild
How Should The Jizyah Tax Be Taken From The Non-Muslims?
Imam Nawawi, commenting on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the Jizyah, said,
"As for this aforementioned practice (hay'ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority (jumhur) of scholars say that the Jizyah is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt (dayn). The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the Jizyah." (Rawdat al-Talibin, Volume 10, p.315-16)
Ibn Qudama also said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four caliphs said that taking the Jizyah should be done with gentleness and respect. (Al-Mughni, Volume 4, p.250)
Once, during the reign of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, a Jizyah collector offered the taxes collected from the people to 'Umar, who was upset by the large amount and asked him if he had burdened the people. He replied, "No, not at all! We took only the surplus and lawful taxes." 'Umar asked, "Without any pressure or persecution?" The man replied, "Yes." 'Umar then said to him, "Praise be to Almighty Allah that the non-Muslim citizens have not been oppressed during my rule. (Ibn Salam, Imam Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim, Al-Amwal, p. 43. Also see Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni, Volume 9, p. 290 & Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume 1, p.139)
Nu’aym ibn Mas’ud reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, speaking to those who were reading the letter of the false prophet Musaylimah the Liar, saying, “What do you both say?” They said, “We say what he said.” The Prophet said, “By Allah, were it not that diplomats are not killed, I would strike both of your necks.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2761
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Ibn Qudamah said, “When immunity is given to enemy combatants, it is forbidden to kill them, seize their wealth, or confront them. Immunity is valid if given by any adult, sane, selected Muslim, male or female, free or slave. This was said by Al-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Al-Shafi’i, Ishaq, Ibn al-Qasim, and the majority of the people of knowledge.”
Source: al-Mughnī 9/195
Ibn Hajar writes:
وأما الذمي فكالمسلم فيما يرجع إلى المنع من الإيذاء لأن الشرع عصم عرضه ودمه وماله … الصواب تحريم غيبة الذمي
As for the non-Muslim under protection, he is like the Muslim in regards to the prohibition of harm, as the divine law has made his reputation, life, and property inviolable… The correct opinion is that it is forbidden to backbite a protected non-Muslim.
Source: al-Zawājir ʻan Iqtirāf al-Kabā’ir 2/27
And Ibn al-Humam writes:
وتثبت أحكام الذمي في حقه … وجوب كف الأذى عنه فتحرم غيبته كما تحرم غيبة المسلم فضلا عما يفعله السفهاء من صفعه وشتمه في الأسواق ظلما وعدوانا
It is established in the rulings of a protected non-Muslim and his rights… that it is obligatory to refrain from harming him and it is forbidden to backbite him, just as it is forbidden to backbite a Muslim, unlike what is done by fools who unjustly and with hostility slap him or insult him in the marketplace.
Source: Fatḥ al-Qadīr 6/24
And Ibn ‘Abidin writes:
إذَا صَارَ ذِمِّيًّا … وَيَجِبُ كَفِّ الْأَذَى عَنْهُ وَتَحْرُمُ غِيبَتُهُ كَالْمُسْلِمِ لِأَنَّهُ بِعَقْدِ الذِّمَّةِ وَجَبَ لَهُ مَالَنَا فَإِذَا حَرُمَتْ غِيبَةُ الْمُسْلِمِ حَرُمَتْ غِيبَتُهُ بَلْ قَالُوا إنَّ ظُلْمَ الذِّمِّيِّ أَشَدُّ
If one becomes a protected non-Muslim… it is obligatory to refrain from harming him and it is forbidden to backbite him, as it is for a Muslim, because of the covenant of protection. He is entitled to our wealth (in charity or welfare) and if it is forbidden to backbite a Muslim, it is also forbidden to backbite him. Rather, some scholars said that wronging a protected non-Muslim is even worse.
Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 4/171
And Al-Buhuti writes:
ومن لعن ذميا معينا أدب لأنه معصوم وعرضه محرم … ولعل المراد أن يلعن فاعل ذلك الذنب على العموم مثل أن يقول لعن الله فاعل كذا أما لعنة معين بخصوصه فالظاهر أنها لا تجوز
Whoever curses a protected non-Muslim by name should be disciplined, as his reputation is inviolable and forbidden… Perhaps the intended meaning is that one may use a general wording to curse someone who commits a sin, such as saying: May Allah curse the doer of this sin! As for cursing a specific person by name, it is obvious that it is not permissible.
Source: Kashshāf al-Qinā’ ‘an al-Iqnā’ 6/125-126
And Zakariyya al-Ansari writes:
وَغِيبَةُ الْكَافِرِ مُحَرَّمَةٌ إنْ كَانَ ذِمِّيًّا … بل تجب بذلا لنصيحة الغير وتحذيره من الشر
Backbiting an unbeliever is forbidden if he is under protection… Rather, it is an obligation to offer sincere advice to others and to warn them from evil.
Source: Asnā al-Muṭālib 3/117
As we can see, a protected non-Muslim has the same legal status as a Muslim in regards to safety from harm to their lives, property, and reputations.
Some scholars extended the protection of non-Muslims to economic activity, such that it is impermissible to undermine their sales or unlawfully outbid them.
Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
لَا يَسُومُ الرَّجُلُ عَلَى سَوْمِ أَخِيهِ
A man must not undermine the transactions of his brother.
Source: Ṣaḥih Muslim 1408, Grade: Sahih
Even though ‘brother’ is used in this tradition, which generally means Muslim brothers (and sisters), jurists extended the principle to include the three categories of protected non-Muslims.
Al-Jamal commented on this tradition, writing:
فالذمي والمعاهدوالمستأمن مثل المسلم وخرج الحربي والمرتد
The non-Muslim citizen, the non-Muslim in a peace treaty, and the non-Muslim granted immunity are all like the Muslim in this regard, excluding the combatant and renegade apostate.
Source: Hashiyat al-Jamal ʻala Sharh al-Manhaj 3/90
Shāykh al-Islam Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī (d. 620 AH) states:
"And if someone, whose coercion into Islam is invalid e.g. a dhimmi or someone who has a treaty with the Muslims, is [forced to] accept Islam, then the rulings of Islam don't apply to them until there is clear proof of their [voluntary] Islam after having been coerced. If they die before this, then their ruling is that of the disbelievers, or if they return to disbelief then killing them is impermissible nor is coercing them to accept Islam. This was the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i and Muhammad Ibn al Hasan [al-Shaybani] said that they would be a Muslim upon the apparent, and if they returned [to disbelief] then they are to be killed unless they return to Islam because of his ﷺ said, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and if they say this, their wealth and blood are protected except by due right." [This is the case, according to al-Shaybani] because they said (or accepted) the truth and their ruling is like that of the Harbi (disbeliever who doesn't have a treaty with Muslims and isn't Dhimmi). According to us (meaning the Hanbalis) compelling them to accept Islam [unlawfully] is not permissible and the rulings of Islam would not apply on them, such as in the case of a Muslim who was forced to disbelieve. The evidence for the impermissiblity of compulsion is His Statement, "There is no compulsion in religion." (Surah 2:256). And the scholars have unaninmously agreed that forcing the dhimmi or the one with a treaty to be compelled if they haven't broken their treaty is not permissible, because this is compulsion where it's not permissible.
•📓 [al-Mug̲h̲nī | 9/23]
From the rights given to the people of the book after marrying a Muslim is that
They don’t have to change their religion and it isn’t permissible for the husband to force her to Islam. Ash-Shafi’ie prohibited a man from mentioning Islam to his Christian wife.
The Christian wife can put crosses, celebrate her religious freedom and go to the church. (Ahkam ahl al-dhimmah 2/822)