The Abbasid Dynasty – Part III, Dhimmitude

Part twelve of a series.

This third article on the Abbasid Dynasty covers the relationship between jihad and dhimmitude, and Islamic law’s development related to this topic. Included are: (1) relevant term definitions, (2) the relationship between dhimmitude and jihad, (3) governance under dhimmitude, (4) taxation, (5) church complicity, and (6) outcomes.

Definitions

In assuming the terms below are unfamiliar, we begin with defining them.

• Ata – A gift, in this case land given to someone participating in jihad.
• Dhimmi – Literally ‘protected people.’ Dhimmi are the peoples of the book conquered through jihad. They belong to the umma and the state administers them on the umma’s behalf.
• Iqta – Land grants to army officials for a limited period of time, in lieu of wages.
• Jihad – Warfare conducted advancing Islam. One can conduct this warfare through either arms or peaceful means. The peaceful means recognized vary, but include jihad of the pen, mind, tongue, wealth, and hand. The Qur’an requires all Muslims participate in jihad.[1] While this term sometimes refers to spiritual warfare, that is not the context used in this article.
• The Maghreb – Region of North Africa between Libya and Morocco, incorporating the Atlas Mountains.
• Mawalis – Non-Arabs who convert to Islam.
• People of the Book – Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians.
• Qadi – Judge within a Muslim community rendering decisions based upon Islamic law.
• Razzia – Bedouin raids conducted to obtain wealth and goods from others. These raids were a normal part of Arab culture long before Muhammad’s birth.
• Umma – The brotherhood of Islamic believers.

Jihad and Dhimmitude

Previous articles discussed the rapid expansion of Islam after Muhammad’s death. “After the Abbasid revolt, the caliphs … contented themselves with sending their troops to pillage, sack, and carry off booty from across their frontiers with Anatolia and Armenia. But in the West, Islamic expansion continued by maritime warfare. In the ninth and tenth centuries, Berbers and Arabs from Spain and the Maghreb raided the coasts of France, Italy, Sicily, and the Greek Islands.”[2]

These attacks reached up the Italian peninsula as far as Rome in 846 and Naples just ten years later. Bat Ye’or has written extensively about this period of Islamic history and dhimmitude specifically. Her book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam provides a good historical overview of this period and Islam’s history. This article references her work extensively. In addition, she cites source material for those wanting to learn more.[3]

The conquered area’s Islamization took place in two phases. “The first phase consists of a military conflict defined by specific rules, the jihad. The second phase represents dhimma, or the government of the conquered peoples. While the jihad stipulated the modalities of dividing the booty (land, property, conquered peoples) between the belligerents, the dhimma assigns a long-term economy function to the dhimmis, which consists of supplying the needs of the Muslim community.”[4]

Jihad’s Drivers

While referenced events occurred across all conquered areas, they unfolded differently between the  towns and rural areas. We also include some information about the Ottomans who replaced the Abbasid in 1258. As mentioned last time, the Turks in large part were the caliphate’s ruling power by the middle of the tenth century. The biggest difference between dhimmitude within the two empires was that Islamic law was still being developed during the Abbasid dynasty, while it was mostly formed by the time the Ottoman’s began ruling.

Jihad’s three drivers included Muslim adventurers, “avid for booty, they, too, became soldiers of holy war (ghazi, from the work ghazwa: razzia). [Second] Arab judges (qadis), who knew the regulations of jihad, flocked toward the frontiers to instruct and lead them. Thus fanaticized by cohorts of theologians, these bands of ghazis, accompanied [thirdly] by regular armies composed of slaves, raided Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, where gradually some Turkish emirates emerged.”[5] This jihad lasted until the seventeenth century, with Islamic forces reaching as far as Vienna in 1683. The wars waged by these ghazis reconciled Islamic faith (as instructed by the Qur’an) with the lust for booty, often satisfied by capturing non-Muslims destined for either slavery or ransom.[6]

Before we close this section, we should note that the taking of the spoils of war, captives as slaves, etc. was not an uncommon practice during this period. You will find many European nations, including the Byzantines, practicing the same things. What is unusual is the degree to which Islam carried out these actions and the period of time over which they extended, along with their link to a religious ideology stemming from Islam itself.

An Historical Context

To say Middle East events, until very recently, represented a new form of extremism is wrong, and ignoring historical facts—while one freely chooses their opinions, facts speak for themselves. Muslim and non-Muslim sources both document this period’s events. The information is there for those who wish to know the truth. We’ll examine extremism later. For now, I’ll close this section with the following from Ye’or’s book:

“The general picture of destruction, ruin, massacre, and deportation of urban and rural populations was common to all the conquered territories in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Well documented by contemporary Syriac, Greek, and Arabic chronicles, the few examples provided illustrate a general situation as it recurred regularly during the seasonal razzias, over the years, and for centuries. The chronicles, in great part translated and published, are well known to specialized historians and indicate clearly, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the rules of jihad concerning booty, the fifth part, the fay, levies on harvests, and the fate of populations (conversion, massacre, slavery, or tribute) were not just vague principles laid down by a theoretical treatise on warfare, construed by some obscure theologian. The Arabs, stirred by their profound belief and the conviction of belonging to an elite nation, superior to all others (Koran 3:106), put them into practice, feeling that they were thereby fulfilling a religious duty and executing the will of Allah.

‘It must be stressed, however, that massacre or slavery of the vanquished peoples, burning, pillage, destruction, and the claiming of tribute were the common practices during the period under consideration of every army whether Greek, Latin, or Slav. Only the excess, the regular repetition and the systemization of the destruction, codified by theology, distinguishes the jihad from other wars of conquest or depredation.”[7]

Rural Areas

Razzias occurred on a seasonal basis. In rural areas these raids often eliminated the forthcoming harvest, the local population’s food supply. However, the raiders also took livestock, people as slaves, and other property of value. All territory and slaves taken from non-Muslims became either fay (property belonging to the umma and administered by the state), or booty given to individuals participating in the raid. The qadi, an Islamic judge, divided property between the state and raiders. These judges normally accompanied the jihadi as they conquered new territory.

“The nomadic tribes demanded that it [booty] be shared out immediately and the conquered peoples enslaved, as at the time of the Prophet. However, the redistribution of power within the Qurayshite clan where the caravan merchant bourgeoisie of Mecca was prominent replaced these practices by the concept of an Islamic state monopoly on the bulk of the war booty, which was then conceded in the form of domains (iqta) or allowances (ata) to the Arab tribes.”[8] Lands were either granted for a specific time period or in perpetuity. A condition for receiving such grants was the receiver both equip an army and participate in the fighting.

The concept of fay and dhimmi derive from Islam’s sources. Fay’s basis comes from Muhammad’s decision to keep the Banu Nadir’s property when exiling them, with the intent of administering it for the umma’s benefit. Dhimmi status came from the Jews of Khaybar’s treatment after their defeat. The Jews became slaves, allowed to stay and farm the land, but in return had to give half their crop to Muhammad. Dhimmi only retained their status so long as Muslims allowed—Muslims could revoke dhimmi status at any time for any reason.

Comparison of Jihad with Serfdom

Some compare dhimmitude to Europe’s feudal system, which had already developed by this time, but they are not the same. A European prince’s power was normally limited, and usually extended only over rural areas. Keeping power required local rulers receive some degree of cooperation from those they ruled. Normally a ruler and their subjects created a social contract outlining each party’s responsibilities. Subjects typically provided labor for the ruler for a specific period of time over the year, and in return the ruler provided protection for their subjects. Violation by either party nullified the agreement.

If a ruler became too oppressive, subjects could just leave that ruler’s kingdom. Those fleeing could move into cities or towns as the feudal system normally didn’t extend over those areas—no one typically owned the buildings or the land upon which they sat. Religious organizations (churches, abbeys, convents, etc.) also sometimes owned the land. Often people leaving feudal lands and remaining within a town for a year and a day were recognized as free. However, dhimmitude tied people to a specific location, they were not free to leave, nor did they have the latitude to produce goods for themselves.

Razzia Effects on the Rural Areas

The raids depopulated rural areas as people either died, became enslaved, fled into the towns, or left an area altogether. The struggles between the state and tribes over the distribution of booty set up continued conflict and destruction across the land while waging war. This left much of the land uncultivated as the remaining native people again attempted to leave, and the invaders, being primarily soldiers, merchants and shepherds, would let the land lie fallow.

As agriculture was the caliphate’s primary income source, these events disrupted its revenue stream. In response, the caliphate used censuses to forcibly repopulate the land with inhabitants who had previously cultivated it. They coupled this action with the wholesale transfer and deportation of dhimmi populations from one area to another. These transfers fragmented the dhimmi populations further, creating groups often hostile toward each other, and creating yet further disintegration. However, the raids continued, each cycle resulting in the death and enslavement of smaller populations. Each time people once again tried to flee to non-Muslim countries, into the relatively remote mountainous regions, or hide within the slave populations in the towns.

The caliphate undertook several actions in response. One was creating passports containing the individual’s name, their parents’ names, and their location. Individuals could not leave their area unless one paid their own and their parents taxes—even if the parents no longer lived. Second, obligations for wearing distinctive clothing and markings for identifying non-Muslims. Violations resulted in harsh treatment.

Towns and Cities

A town’s experience was in some ways quite different. Towns and cities normally had walls protecting their people. Some towns surrendered when deprived of food, and their entire population either put to the sword or enslaved. Others negotiated a treaty instead. At times towns would put up little to no resistance. Normally, at this time far off rulers required towns pay them tribute anyway. From the town’s perspective, it didn’t matter whether they paid tribute to a far-off ruler in Constantinople. Baghdad, or Damascus.

The local populations did not understand the change in purpose driving the Arab razzias. Islam at this time was thought of as just another religious heresy. The inhabitants did not understand the changes taking place through the Arab conversion from paganism to Islam. There were few written copies of the Qur’an, and few who could read Arabic. The native populations did not understand Islam’s tenets, so they did not understand how those differed from their Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian religions—instead they assumed Islam’s beliefs were a variation of their own.

Outcomes

The agreements reached with the invaders largely left their civic and religious structures and leaders in place. This mattered as initially the invaders were in the minority in the lands they conquered. It is doubtful jihad could have conquered such a large area so rapidly if the native populations had rose up in rebellion against the new rule. “All territory taken from infidels became the property (fay) of the state. It formed dar al-Islam, lands administered by Islamic law for the benefit of Muslims and their descendants. This principle, established by the Arab conquest, instituted a political and legal dogma rooted in theology.”[9] Typically one-half of all churches and houses in a conquered area would become the property of Muslims, and the acquired churches converted into mosques.

The two pillars of early Islamic society were the army—formed of both Arab tribes and slaves taken in war—and the conquered peoples; tributaries, slaves, free men, and converts. Second, a workforce used to feed the caliphate’s economic engine. A third pillar, judicial power, was developing, and it is the governance formed under this power we turn to next. We should note that before this last pillar’s development, force alone settled disputes and maintained order.

Governance

As mentioned above, initially the conquerors were the minority population within their acquired lands. When the Abbasids came to power, Muslims were still “the minority among the Monophysite Christian population (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia), or Nestorians (Iraq). Zoroastrians populated the towns and villages of Iran and a numerous Jewish population still survived, principally in Palestine, Syria and Iraq, but also in Persia, Egypt, North Africa and Spain.”[10]

Therefore, the Abbasid typically left the existing civil and religious structures in place. installing a military governor ruling on the caliph’s behalf. The national languages were left intact, as Muslims relied on the native population for society’s day to day functioning. As also mentioned above, the Arab population were generally merchants or shepherds; their governance experience likely based upon tribes and clans. The societies they conquered were both more complex and sophisticated.

Power Consolidation

The caliphs reasoned this situation could not last. The Abbasid needed to consolidate power in order to retain the conquered lands. They undertook a two-pronged approach to achieve that end. First, increasing the Muslim population within the newly acquired lands. “Caliphs, sultans, emirs, or provincial governors—whether Arab or Turkish—encouraged the emigration and settlement of their tribes on the conquered lands in order to consolidate their power against their rivals. The nomads, whose numbers increased incessantly, could only maintain their essential needs by pillaging villages and towns, confiscating goods, extorting money under torture, and ransoming and abducting the youth who were a marketable commodity and a source of wealth as slaves.”[11]

Second, already discussed, the people made slaves within a conquered area were normally sent to other locations. The focuses here were: (1) developing rules for the division and administration of the conquered areas, and (2) both keeping the dhimmi on the land and protecting them—protecting the revenue stream the caliph needed for maintaining the army. In short, the population left working the land simply became economic producers.

Limited Rights

Non-Muslim’s rights were extremely limited. “Islamic law forbade non-Muslims the ownership of landed property and transferred it to the Muslim public treasury administered by the caliph. Military districts were given as fiefs by the caliph to members of his family and to tribes or military chiefs for a limited period of time or in perpetuity-in exchange for the equipping of a military unit and its participation in expeditions. This military administrative hierarchy survived in the Ottoman Empire till the nineteenth century.”[12] Other legal restrictions also developed.

Some Examples

• Numerous verses of the Qur’an (such as 3.27, 114-5, and 5.56) and hadith forbid a Christian or Jew exerting authority over a Muslim, thereby excluding dhimmi from public office.[13]
• “All litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmi was under the jurisdiction of Islamic legislation, which did not recognize the validity of the oath of a dhimmi against that of a Muslim.”[14]
• “Construction of new churches, convents, and synagogues was forbidden, but restoration of pre-Islamic places of worship was permitted, subject to certain restrictions and on condition that they were neither enlarged nor altered.”[15]
• “The Koran forbids forced conversions … [but] the alternatives forced on the Peoples of the Book—namely payment of tribute and submission to Islamic law or the massacre and enslavement of survivors—is, in its very terms, a contravention of the principle of religious freedom … After the Arab conquest, a number of Christianized Arab tribes suffered defeat, enslavement, and forced conversions.”[16] At times forced conversions used torture.[17]
• Non-Muslims providing clothing, along with three days shelter and provisions, to any Muslim traveler in need.
• “The dhimma required the humiliation of the dhimmis, who were accused of falsifying the Bible by deletions, distortions, and omissions of the prophecies heralding Muhammad’s mission.”[18]
  • Houses had to be inferior and smaller than those of Muslims.
  • Forbidding Arab honorific titles to non-Muslims.
  • Marriage and sexual relationships between dhimmis and Muslim women were punishable by death.
  • Dhimmis could not ride upon a noble animal, such as a horse or camel.
  • Dhimmis were normally struck by the tax collector as they paid their taxes as a sign of the dhimmis inferior position.[19]

How Long did These Rules Last?

The above demonstrates the dhimmi’s second class status under Islamic rule. Many of these provisions remained in effect until the eighteenth century, and in some areas retained until the middle of the twentieth century.

Taxation

Just as with other societal aspects, Islam absorbed what was around it and made the foreign structure, concept, or idea its own. This is also true of taxation. “The components of Byzantine and Persian taxation absorbed into Islamic institutions were specified by the concepts of jizya (poll tax on non-Muslims), kharaj (tax in kind or in money on their land), fay (state property), which were integrated into a theological conception of a war of conquest: jihad.”[20]

The Umayyad levied five types of taxes. These included a land tax (kharaj), provisions in kind (related to harvests), a poll tax (jizya), a tax covering the tax collector’s expenses and maintenance, and a general tax levied to provide for the upkeep and clothing of Muslims.[21] As noted earlier, the treatment of dhimmis through continued razzias and the resulting devastation, even after the initial conquest, forced many to flee to comparative safety elsewhere.

The administration resorted to brutal measures to prevent dhimmis from leaving, and extorted taxes using torture and death—particularly crucifixion.[22] When someone could not pay their taxes, children substituted as payment instead. While Islamic works justifying fair treatment of dhimmis in the collection of taxes exist, such as those of Abu Yusuf Ya’qub (731-798). However, chronicles written by witnesses to the tax collection processes in place indicate these practices were seldom, if ever, carried out.

Land

There were two types of land. The first were Arab lands. Muslim tribes on this land paid the caliph tithes. The second were the lands taken from non-Muslims, referred to as kharaj lands. The state owned the latter, administering this land for the Muslim’s benefit. Conquered peoples conversion to Islam and the Arab resettlement of these areas, resulted in gradually transferring these lands from kharaj land to those paying tithes.

Conflict arose between caliph and those participating in jihad as their interests differed. Jihadi participants demanded payment in terms of land, slaves, and possessions, as occurred under Muhammad. This wealth was largely necessary as the Arab people were principally merchants and shepherds. They generally did not know how to farm, and were unable to create incomes sufficient to meet their own needs in the new lands. On the other hand, the caliph’s taking of fay increased his wealth and power, providing needed resources supporting Muslims relocated to the conquered lands.

It is a classic example of the struggle between individuals trying to find a way to meet their own needs, and an elite group claiming to have a higher authority that should provide those needs—although the means used in this case are in no way comparable to those that unfolded in Europe or North America. More information on the struggle between individuals and elitists, or individualism and collectivism, can be found in The Light & The Rod.[23]

The Jizya

The jizya was a wealth tax initially having three rates, depending on the taxpayer’s assessed wealth. The rates and number of tiers increased over time. While dhimmis were subject to the jizya, Muslims were only subject to paying the zakat—the alms required by Islam. Tax collectors used extortion in collecting the jizya, and sometimes demanded additional gifts.[24] In theory those who could not pay—such as women, paupers, the sick, and feeble—were exempt from this tax. However, chronicles from this period indicate widows, orphans, and even the dead paid the jizya.[25] When traveling, it was typical for a dhimmi to display proof they had paid the jizya, either around the neck, wrist, or chest. Traveling without proof risked death.[26]

The caliphate’s funding need increased as the empire grew and war continued. “Economic problems, fragmentation of the empire, and the wars against Byzantium caused a tougher systemization of religious persecution which was integrated into Muslim government institutions.”[27] The oppression became so great that rebellions sometimes resulted. Copt rebellions in Egypt in 725, 739, and again in 832 deserve special note. Ninth century writers indicate a similar situation in Islamic Spain.

Ransoms

In addition to taxes, Muslims often extracted ransoms from either wealthy non-Muslims (notables) or communities as a whole. This taking of ransom was part of Arab culture predating Muhammad; extracted not only by the state, but the tribes and clans as well. Its existence was the product of life in a difficult environment where one often didn’t have enough resources to meet a tribe’s needs, so in order to survive they took what they needed. This relates to the concept called muruwa described in an earlier article. The environment shapes one’s culture, and often changes to such basic beliefs require a very long time to change.

Nonpayment of ransoms (avanias or awarid) could subject an entire community to the sword, torture, or the women and children being taken as slaves in payment. These events, too, occurred over an extremely long period of time. The Abbasid began their rule in the mid-eighth century, but these practices were still written about in areas such as Morocco until the eighteenth century, and in parts of Syria, Palestine, and Iraq until the nineteenth. That is over a thousand years. But as stated earlier in this article, all of this was unlikely to happen without church complicity, and it is that topic we turn to next.

Church Complicity

The initial approach of leaving civic and religious powers in place ensured church complicity in subjugating the dhimmi peoples they led. Civic and religious leaders retained local power over a city or town’s wealth, Their continued leadership subject to the caliph’s will ensured their allegiance in ways unobtainable using Arab tribal leaders.

“In the first centuries of the Arab conquest, mainly Christian and Zoroastrian notables, but also Jewish—as well as innumerable mawalis and Christian and Jewish slaves originating from the spoils of war—held important positions, not only close to the caliphs but also in the administration and the army. …

‘Scribes, secretaries, treasurers, accountants, architects, craftsmen, peasants, doctors, scholars, diplomats, translators, and politicians, the Christians formed the base, the texture, the elite, and the sinews of the Muslim empire. It is probable that without their collaboration the creation and expansion of this empire would not have been possible. The conquered Christian masses placed all the resources—all the proficiency, the accumulation of technical skills, and sciences built up by earlier civilizations—at the service of nomad chiefs or semi nomad Arabs and, later, of Turks.”[28]

A powerful class of dhimmi merchants, bankers, and traders arose. Their presence in the caliph’s courts belied the rural area destruction occurring from the jihad waged at the same time. The group’s composition changed over time, as the group itself lasted for centuries—until well into the nineteenth century under the Ottomans. Local resistance in the form of peasant revolts occurred, but lacking leadership, were usually doomed to failure before even beginning.

Why Collaborate?

There are at least four reasons. First, in the short-term it allowed the church to retain some of its rights; exercising fiscal, legal, and spiritual control over its communities—while also providing great wealth for a privileged minority of its members. The church became the arm of the caliph often initially responsible for tribute collection.

Second, for many small kingdoms, particularly in Eastern Europe, Islam offered the opportunity to settle old scores with surrounding kingdoms—exacting revenge for previous perceived wrongs. The disaffected within a kingdom also migrated toward Islam to settle old scores. “One may discern a self-perpetuating Christian Islamophile current running consistently through history, even swelling the ranks of the Islamic armies, which strengthened and guided them toward the conquest of their former homelands. Princes, adventurers, and frustrated ambitious men flowed in a continuous wave toward the sultans, whom they advised and to whom they gave precise information on the state of the Christian provinces.”[29]

Third, the Byzantine Church itself often repressed those varying from its religious doctrines. These disaffected groups welcomed Islam as liberators. From pseudo Dionysius, a Syriac cleric chronicling ninth century events, “The God of vengeance … seeing the evilness of the Romans [Byzantines] who, wherever they ruled, cruelly pillaged our churches and monasteries and mercilessly condemned us, led the sons of Ishmael from the region of the south in order to deliver us from Roman hands.”[30] Fourth, the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy found collaborating with Islam useful in deterring increased Catholic proselytizing within its areas of influence.

Corruption

Interesting that all the above represent a form of corruption between church and state, with Christianity present. A corruption also present in other European kingdoms at this time, and one of the conditions Pope Gregory VII began reforming in the eleventh century. Also during this time freedom, as we understand it today, began developing within the Northern Italian city states of Venice, Milan, Genoa, and Florence. While events in Europe resulted with King John’s signing Magna Charta in the early thirteenth century, the Abbasid collapsed and the Ottoman rose by the middle of the same century. The merging of the state and church spheres throughout history always leads to corrupting both.[31]

Make no mistake, a definite division of power accompanied Islam’s conquest. While some economic and administrative power initially remained with local civic and religious structures, all executive, political, and military power became exclusively Islamic. Again, for kingdoms under Roman/Byzantine rule for centuries, this probably didn’t seem to be much of a change. However, it also shows these groups didn’t understand the nature of the change’s occurring with Islam’s rise among the Arabic people.

“The collection of different forms of tribute was delegated to the religious leaders of the vanquished peoples. They divided the total amount due among their communities and paid the Islamic treasury the fixed sum, having deducted their part. The disappearance of the Byzantine state thus transferred to the patriarchates the temporal, judicial, and fiscal duties which the Christian state no longer assumed.”[32] This corruption brought not only greater tribute being extracted from the dhimmi by their own leaders, but also gave rise to a number of Islam converts as well.

Summary

A wave of Christian defectors from both the church and civic leaders, attracted by power and wealth, “set in motion the decline and destruction of that Christendom which they deserted.”[33] The caliphs were able to win the hearts “at Serbian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, and Greek courts from among the Slav and Greek clergy by financing a Turcophile party which nourished pessimism, preached the inevitability of the triumph of Islam, and spoke highly of the economic advantages that Muslim markets offered.”[34] Finally, using the element of fear furthered Islam within the conquered lands. In looking at current events, one should ask, how different is the situation today?

Outcomes

The number of dhimmi, and their place in Islamic society, deteriorated during the Abbasid and Ottoman Empires. Factors influencing this population’s decline include:

• The Arab culture existing before Muhammad:
  • The harsh environment created an outcome based society, where right and wrong meant what improved a tribe’s status and/or economic condition.
  • Obtaining resources by conducting raids, and protection payment use creating alliances to prevent raids from occurring.
• Islam’s creating an ideology infusing theology into the state, military, civic, and legal aspects of society.
  • The systemization of jihad to expand the area ruled by Islam.
  • The conflict in interests between the state and the tribes and clans.
  • The elitism inherent in Islam’s tenets. There is no freedom as we know it, only the freedom of a slave.
  • The development of a legal code which only recognized the rights of Muslims— shari’ a. These all resulted in some dhimmi conversion in order to survive.
  • The corruption of both the state and religious spheres by combining both into a single sphere of influence and power.
• Non-Muslim cooperation supported the caliphate’s growth.
  • The church in order to retain its structures and influence.
  • The wealthy and powerful in order to retain some of their wealth and influence.
  • Non-Muslim rulers who allied themselves with the caliphate in order to further their own aims.
  • The disaffected, who saw a chance to gain wealth and power in the service of the caliphate against their homelands.
  • All this influence among non-Muslims disappeared over time, also resulting in some Islam conversions.

A Final Observation

“Over the centuries, paying for their security and survival became the characteristic of the dhimmi communities and the prime condition of their tolerated existence in their own countries.”[35] Dhimmi value came only from what they produced in supporting the Islamic community. Once they no longer had anything left to contribute, they ceased holding any value. As recently as ten or twenty years ago, some middle eastern and North African countries had non-Muslim populations approaching ten percent. In general, until recently that was no longer the case. Some fled, some converted, and others died. But maybe things are changing?

We will finish out the history portion of this series looking at the Ottoman Empire.

Footnotes:

[1] Pickthall, M. M., The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 166, Amana Publications, 1999. One commonly cited verse is S9.29 which states, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” This verse is also cited as authority for the jizya – the poll tax.

[2] Ye’or, Bat, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, p.43, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.

[3] See the reference above for the book noted. Additional relevant works by this author include:

• The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985.
• Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.

[4] Ibid, p.100.

[5] Ibid, p.53.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, pp. 51-52.

[8] Ibid, p. 61.

[9] Ibid, p.70.

[10] Ibid, p. 63.

[11] Ibid, p. 119.

[12] Ibid, p. 70.

[13] Ibid, p. 80.

[14] Ibid, p. 81.

[15] Ibid, p. 83.

[16] Ibid, p. 88.

[17] Ibid, p. 89.

[18] Ibid, p. 91.

[19] Ibid, pp. 92-93.

[20] Ibid, p. 61.

[21] Ibid, p. 72.

[22] Ibid, p.74.

[23] Wolf, Dan, The Light & The Rod: Why Biblical Governance Works and Biblical Governance Corruptions, Living Rightly Publications, 2020.

[24] Ye’or, Bat, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, p.78, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid, p. 79.

[27] Ibid, p. 64.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid, p. 130.

[30] Chronique de Denys de Tell-Mahre [pseudo-Dionysius], translated from Syriac by Jean-Baptiste Chabot (Paris, 1895), pt. 4, 104-5, as cited in Bat, Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: from Jihad to Dhimmitude, p. 57, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.

[31] Wolf, Dan, Collectivism and Charity: The Great Deception, Living Rightly Publications, 2016.

[32] Ye’or, Bat, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, p.123, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.

[33] Ibid, p. 66.

[34] Ibid, p. 67.

[35] Ibid, pp. 79-80.