Western salafism, that is, salafism AS UNDERSTOOD by English speakers in the western world whose only education of salafism is predicated on madkhali ideology, has a whole package of fallacious theories attached to the movement. This particular series will focus on one single yet monumental aspect of western salafi thought. That is the manhajification of fiqh. There are two articles of required reading prior to reading this article to understand the depth of this matter in a bird’s eye view as well as the minuté subtleties that come attached to this concept of manhajifying fiqh.
The first one explores and explains in full detail to the unaware as to why madkhalis are intolerant in fiqh. The bottom line is their manhajification of fiqh approach. This is a must read in order to understand the ideological conception of why and how modern salafis think the way they think.
The second article explores the entire fiqh outline and problems of the salafi movement in terms of its madhabi outlook. I use the term “madhab” here very loosely here for a lack of a better term. In point three of this second article, I stated therein which I quote
3. The next problem of madkhali fiqh is the fact that the exportation of fiqh to madkhali circles have been pigeon-holed to “aspects” of hanbali positions or other predominant positions. In other words, its a shake n bake DIY framework of assessing what rulings the individual finds to his or her advantage.
It is under this clause that I proceed to writting the topic for this matter. The matter is “jizya of the mushrikin”
Classically, there are three stances on the issue of the mushrik being “eligible” for jizya under an Islamic polity (khilafa). They are as follows
- A. The jizya is accepted from everyone under the sky from ahli-kitab and mushrikin EXCEPT the arab mushrikin of the peninsula. This is the position of the Ahnaf in general.
- B. The jizya is accepted from everyone under the sky. Ahlul-kitab and the mushrikin uncondintionally. This is the position of some of the salaf like Imam Abu Bakr al-Awza’i and this is the mashur of the Maliki madhab
- C. The jizya is accepted ONLY from ahlul-kitab and the majus (the mushrik fire worshipper) and unacceptable from the mushrikin. This is the position of the Shafi’i madhab and the preponderant position of the hanbali madhab.
This issue affects najdi salafis moreso than madkhalis.
Where does the manhajification of this issue come in one might ask? Simple! The salafi, or the najdi will deem the position stated in C above as the ONLY ORTHODOX position. In the case of the madkhalis, an opposing view is “opposing the manhaj”. In the case of najdi hardliners among salafi jihadis and similar groups including daish, an opposition to this position is kufr or at minimum, similar to how a madkhali would manhajify the matter.
Before moving on, there is some intricate details into these three main positions with differing minor positions and one that we will explor in detail is Hafidh Ibnul-Qayyim’s departure of the hanbali m’utamid stance in landing into the same stances as the Hanafis and Malikis using Ahmad and the Hanbali school as justification. Some of these details among the other schools are for example the arab mushriks must have been apostates and reverted back to shirk.
The seemingly more legitimate view is actually not the hanbali and shafi’i position but the Hanafi and actually the Maliki positions.
Imam ‘Ala-u-Deen Muhammad bin Ahmad as-Samarqandi says in Tuhfatul-Fuqaha
“The taking of the Jizyah and the contract of the Dhimmah is legitimate in respect to all of the disbelievers except for the apostates from the Arab Mushrikin as the Jizyah is not accepted from them”
Imam al-Qurtubi says in Jam’iul-Ahkam al-Qur’an
“Al-Awza’i said: The Jizyah is taken from every idol and fire worshipper or denier (i.e. atheist) and the Maliki madhab states the same as it viewed that the jizyah is taken from all of the different types of Shirk and denial (unbelief) whether ‘Arab or foreign (i.e. non-Arab), Taghlibiy or Quraish whoever they may be, with the exception of the Murtad”
The truth is in the clarified Sunnah and the practice of the salaf
Those who held that the jizya is accepted from all and sundry regardless of mushrik or ahli-kitab bases their proof from the hadith related by Buraydah in Sahih Muslim
“When you meet your enemy from the Mushrikin then call them to three matters… until he said…Then if they refuse (i.e. enter into Al-Islaam as Muslims) then ask them for the Jizyah. If they respond positively then accept that from them and refrain from them (i.e. fighting them)…”
This hadith indicates that the enemy mushrik is offered the jizyah and that the dhimmah is contracted with them built upon that if they accept it (the jizyah) and reject entering into Islam. The expression ‘enemy from amongst the Mushrikin’ in the hadith is general to encompass all of its types, Arab and non-Arab just as it is general for all beliefs and religions other than Islaam. This opinion is the preponderant view from the Madhab of Malik and it is the opinion that was voiced by Al-Awza’i and the fuqaha of Sham amongst others.
Imam an-Nawawi said in his explaination of this hadith in sharh sahih Muslim:
“This is what Malik used as evidence, al-Awza’i and those who agreed with them in regards to taking the Jizyah from every (type of) Kafir whether Arab or non-Arab, from the people of the Book, the Majoos or other than them”
(Sharh Al-Muslim An-Nawawi 313/7).
The Practice of the Salaf
In practice, no Islamic polity whether it is the khilafa of nubuwa among the khulafa ar-rashidin or from the dynaties of the Umawi khulafa, the abassi khulafa nor the ‘uthmani khulafa that the mushrik was denied or were ineligible of the jizyah.
Muhammad bin Qasim, the 17 year old military leader chosen to open up the entire land of Sindh, the Tariq bin Ziyad of the east (who was also a young lad) is from the era of the tabi’in and an officer under the Umayyid khilafa. Here is a brief excerpt from the history of Islam in India
How could Muhammad bin Qasim PROMISE freedom and security to mushrikin. This is intolerable as per current najdi and madkhali thought patterns whose view is ultimately premised on the hanbali school mainly while they believe it to be “the pure sunnah” by which a contradiction of it equals a contradiction to the sunnah, hence “manhajifying” this matter at hand.
Once Muhammad bin Qasim had established himself in Sindh he sent a letter to the Khalifa at the time in Damascus, Walid bin Abdil-Malik, seeking instruction as to how he should deal with the Hindus and Buddhists of the conquered area. The reply came that they be treated in accordance with the Quranic commandments relating to the People of the Book (ahlul-kitab), the Jews and the Christians. Accordingly, the Buddhists and the Hindus of Sindh were to be given full freedom to practise their faiths, and their lives and property, INCLUDING THEIR TEMPLES, were to be protected. In return for which they were to pay the jizyah. The old, the sick, children and priests were to be exempted from jizyah. The non-Muslims were not obliged to perform military service, unlike the Muslims. Following these dictates, Muhammad bin Qasim thus set a precedent which several other Muslim rulers after him followed.
We ask the najdi salafi “did Walid bin Abdul-Malik rule by other than what Allah has revealed?” If so, why have not the fuqaha in his time address his “kufr”? Are the Imams guilty of kufr too? Are they guilty of neglect? Apparently, not a single faqih, not a single muslim virtually took issue of this, almost as if this was a non issue for them, thereby indicating that hardline conservative conception of the deen is essentially the sane as folklore religion, made up by later generations to appease hardline puritanical sentiments all of which oppose the deen of Allah, the maqsad of the shariah, the way of the Messenger ﷺ and his companions رضي الله عنهم اجمعين.
What “Salafi” Imams have said
Imam Amir as-San’ani
as-San’ani brings a beautiful tahqiq in his Subulus-Salam
“The hadith (of Burayda) is a proof indicating that the jizyah is taken from every disbeliever, from the book or not, from the Arab or non-Arab due to the statement: ‘Your enemy’ which is ‘Aamm (general)”
He then said:
“And that which is apparent is the generality of taking the jizyah from every kafir due to the generality of the hadith of Burayda. As for the ayat – meaning the ayah of al-jizyah that orders the fighting of the Ahlul-Kitab until they give the jizyah from their hands and they are made saghirun (submissive) – then it has established the taking of Jizyah from the Ahl-ul-Kitaab and it does not oppose taking it from other than them or not taking it. Whilst the hadith makes clear that it is taken from other than them and including the Ahlul-Kitab within ‘Your enemy’ is consistent…”
Until he says
“As for not taking it from the Arabs then this is because it was legislated until after the Fat’h (Makkah, 8 Hijrah) and the Arabs had entered into Islam. There remained no one to fight and no one to take as a Sabiy after Al-Fat’h and no one to put the jizyah upon. Indeed those of them who left Islam after that then there was no choice except to face the sword or return to Islam just as this the hukm (legal ruling) in regards to the Ahlur-Riddah (people of apostasy)… He then said: This Hukm continued after his time صلى الله عليه وسلم, the Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم conquered the lands of the Romans and Persians and amongst their subjects their existed Arabs especially in Ash-Sham and Al-Iraq and they did not differentiate between the Arab and non-Arab. Rather the Hukm of As-Saby (taking prisoners as booty) and the Hukm of Jizyah was made general upon all whom they conquered. And with this it is known that the hadith of Burayda came after the revelation of the obligation of the Jizyah. And its obligation was after the Fat’h and it was made obligatory in the eighth year at the time of the revelation of Surah Bara’ah (At-Taubah)”
Source: Subul As-Salaam, As-San’aaniy 47/4
Allahu Akbar. As-San’ani has absolutely slammed the point home. Not only is the jizya taken from all and sundry, he further deconstructs a plausible argument against the sunnah by those who may differ by saying that the hadith may be abrogated. He proves the hadith is NOT abrogated and is acted upon by two facts
1. that the time of revelation came AFTER the ayah of jizya. And he proves it came towards virtually the end of revelation (of the risalah of Muhammad ﷺ)
2. He says this practice in its hukm CONTINUED into the era and practice of the companions and those who came after them in ALL the lands in which they’ve conquered.
Ash-Shawkani says in ‘Naylul-Awtar’ in regards to the hadith of Burayda:
“His words: ‘Ask them for the Jizyah’, its apparent meaning is that there is no differentiation between the foreign (non-Arab) disbeliever and the Arab disbeliever and non-Kitabi (people of the book)…”
Source: Naylul-Awtar 245/7
ash-Shawkani also stated in his book “As-Saylu-Jarar”
“The apparent meaning of the evidences dictates that the Jizyah is taken from any Kafir (disbeliever) makes it obligatory to refrain from fighting him… just like what came in the hadith of Burayda… ‘That when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed an Amir for an army or expedition…Then he mentioned…then if they refuse then ask them to give the Jizyah. Then if they respond positively accept this from them and refrain from (fighting) them.’ His statement: ‘The Messenger used to…’ indicates that this was the same for every army that he sent out and this statement does not negate the statement of Allah: حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ “Until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (At-Taubah, 9:29)
The Ahlul-Kitab are one type from amongst the types of the disbelievers of whom it is obligatory to refrain from fighting if they give the Jizyah. This is also not negated by what has come in regards to the command to fight the Mushrikeen in the ayah of As-Sayf (the sword) (At-Taubah, 9:5) and other ayat. This is because fighting them is wajib (obligatory) unless they give the Jizyah in which case refraining from fighting them is obligatory just as it is obligatory to refrain from them if they embrace Islam. And this generality is not negated by what he صلى الله عليه وسلم did when he commanded the Jews and Christians to be expelled from Jaziratul-Arab (the Arabian Peninsula). This does not mean the Arabian Peninsula that stands today but rather the borders of Al-Hijaz or Makkah and Al-Madinah or other opinions. Refer to: an-Nihayah of Ibnul-Athir 268/1 and Fath al-Bari 171/6). Its aim is that it is not permitted to make a treaty with them in Jaziratul-Arab and this does not negate the permission to do this and place the Jizyah upon them if they are not in Jaziratul-Arab. The summary is that whoever claims that the Jizyah is not permitted to be taken from a certain faction from amongst the factions or types of disbelievers and that they only have the choice between embracing Islam or facing the sword, then they need an evidence for this. And there is no evidence that can be used as proof except for that which relates to the Murtad (apostate)”
Source: as-Saylu-Jarar 570-571/4
The Curious Case of Shamsu-Deen ibnul-Qayyim al-Jawziya
Hafidh ibnul-Qayyim outweighs as the strongest view that it is permissible to take the jizyah and contract the ‘Aqd of Adh-Dhimmah with all of the disbelievers of every kind and religion. This is based upon the permissibility of taking it from the Majus as they are not from the samawi (ahlul-kitabi) religions and as such every disbeliever is attached to them (in ruling). This is also the dalil of the madhab of Malik رحمه الله in regards to taking the jizyah from all of the disbelievers except for the murtadin (apostates): It was stated in ‘Al-Mudawanah’ of Imam Malik (46/3): Maalik stated in regards to the Berber Majus: That ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan took the Jizyah from them.
“A group said: It applies to all peoples that if they give the Jizyah then it is accepted from them. The people of the book are (proven) by the Qur’an and the Majus by the Sunnah. And others are joined to them because the Majus are from the people of Shirk (polytheism) and they have no book and as such the evidence for them is a proof for all of the Muskrikin (polytheists). It is only not taken from the Arab idol worshippers because they all accepted Islam before the ayah of the Jizyah was revealed because it was revealed after Tabuk. And the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم had finished fighting the Arabs and bound all of them to Islam and due to this it was not taken from the Jews who fought against him because it had not been revealed yet. So when it was revealed it was taken from the Christian Arabs and the Majus and had there been at that time idol worshippers remaining to pay it then it would have been accepted from them just as it was accepted from the people of as-Sulban and an-Niran (fire worshippers)! And there is no difference or influence given regard to in respect to the severity of disbelief of one group over another. As such the disbelief of the idol worshippers is not more severe or regarded as worse than the disbelief of the Majus and what is the difference between idol worshipping and fire worshipping! Indeed the Kufr (disbelief) of the Majus is worse as the idol worshippers used to accept the oneness of Ruboobiyah and that there is no creator other than Allah but rather they worshipped their deities in an attempt to gain closeness to Allah.”
Source: Zadul-Ma’ad 5/91-92
Why Does Jizyah from Mushrikin (polytheists) Matter?
The topic is connected with civilizational tolerance and peace. If, we were to entertain the idea that the mushrik only has the option of either Islam or the sword, then this directly implicates Islam as incapable of affording peace or allowing a sector of the human race to even exist.
Wahabi ideologues would retort back by arguing that this form of thinking is akin to “appeasing the disbelievers” in their western liberal conceptions of peace. Wahabis are the abrasive war mongoring antagonist faction against the concept of shirk (paganism) and its people. That might be a seemingly praiseworthy quality for the ignorant among them, but is not praiseworthy when the meaning of this entails surpassing the Prophet’s protection of tawhid and fight against shirk in exceeding the parameters of the Prophet’s sunnah thus innovating into the religion of Allah what has no precedent from His Messenger ﷺ nor what can be found in the practical religion of the companions رضي الله عنهم nor the succeeding generations who followed them.
In either case, this has nothing to do with “appeasement to kuffar” and everything to do with basic common sense logic and the practical applied Islam of the early generations in understanding that jizya can be applicable to all and sundry with exception to the hijaz within the Arabian peninsula.
The only time in which jizya will be legally suspended is when Isa ﷺ will return in which the only viable outcome in the conflicts prophecied to occur will be Islam or war. Other than this, the jizyah will remain applicable and accepted by all factions in any true Islamic polity.