Dhimmi facts for kids

Kids Encyclopedia Facts

Dhimmī (pronounced DIM-mee) is a historical term for non-Muslims who lived in lands ruled by Islamic states. The word means "protected person." It refers to an agreement where the Islamic state promised to protect the lives, property, and religious freedom of these non-Muslims. In return, the non-Muslims showed loyalty to the state and paid a special tax called jizya. This was different from the zakat tax paid by Muslims.

Historically, the dhimmi status was first given to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. These groups are known as "People of the Book" in Islamic teachings. Later, this status was also given to followers of Zoroastrianism, Sikhs, Hindus, Jainism, and Buddhism.

Sometimes, there were rules about how dhimmi communities lived. For example, during the rule of al-Mutawakkil, an Abbasid leader, non-Muslims were asked to wear special clothes to look different from Muslims. They were also not allowed to build new churches or synagogues, only to fix old ones.

However, dhimmi communities usually had their own laws and courts. For instance, the Jewish community in Medina had its own courts. The Ottoman Empire's millet system also let different dhimmi groups govern themselves with their own legal systems. These courts didn't handle cases involving people from other religious groups or very serious crimes. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to do things that were usually forbidden for Muslims, like eating pork.

Today, many Moderate Muslims believe the dhimma system doesn't fit with modern countries and democracies. Islamic scholars have different ideas about whether the dhimma concept is still right for today's world.

There are also differences among Islamic schools of thought (called Madhhabs) about which non-Muslims could be dhimmi. Some schools allowed all non-Muslims to have this status, while others only allowed Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians.

The Dhimma Agreement

Islamic law, called sharia, makes a difference between Muslims, followers of other Abrahamic religions (like Judaism and Christianity), and followers of other religions. Jews and Christians are seen as "People of the Book" because they believe in one God. They were given a special legal status called dhimmi, which came from a theoretical agreement. This agreement was about living in the land in return for paying taxes.

Islamic legal systems often included the religious laws and courts of Christians, Jews, and Hindus. This was seen in early Islamic empires, in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), in the Indian subcontinent, and in the Ottoman Millet system.

In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (an Islamic judge) usually didn't get involved in non-Muslim matters unless both sides chose to follow Islamic law. So, dhimmi communities often had their own laws, separate from sharia law. For example, Jews had their own rabbinical courts. These courts didn't handle cases involving other religious groups or serious crimes.

By the 18th century, dhimmi people often went to Ottoman Muslim courts. They would bring cases against Muslims or other dhimmi people. The promises they made in these courts were based on their own beliefs. Non-Muslims were allowed to do certain things, like eating pork, which were usually forbidden by Islamic law.

Today, the old dhimma agreement is generally not used. Western influence has helped remove many of the old rules and protections of the dhimma agreement in the Muslim world.

The Dhimma Agreement and Sharia Law

The dhimma agreement was an important part of traditional Islamic sharia law. From the 800s AD, Islamic scholars (called ulama) had the power to explain and improve the law. This helped limit the power of rulers, who couldn't easily change laws on their own.

Over many centuries, the balance of power between scholars and rulers changed, but it was never completely shifted. In the early 1800s, the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution led to European countries becoming very powerful and controlling most Muslim lands. After World War II, European powers were too weak to keep their empires. This led to Muslim countries seeking independence and wanting to modernize.

Today, Muslim countries, groups, and individuals have different ideas about what sharia law means. Most countries have a mixed legal system that uses some parts of sharia but also has a constitution. Some countries, like Turkey, are secular (not religious). Local and traditional laws can also be important. So, Islamic law is very diverse. While there have been some steps backward recently, the general trend is towards more freedom. Questions about human rights and the status of minorities in the Muslim world need to be looked at case by case, considering their specific history and culture.

The End of the Dhimma Agreement

For a long time, Christians and Jews generally accepted the dhimmi status. But as Christian countries grew stronger and new ideas from the French Revolution spread, Christian dhimmis became unhappy. Growing pressure from European powers and Muslim reformers slowly led to more equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.

On February 18, 1856, the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856 was issued. This happened partly because of pressure from France, Austria, and the United Kingdom, who were allies during the Crimean War. This edict again stated that Muslims and non-Muslims should be equal. It brought many specific changes, such as ending the jizya tax and allowing non-Muslims to join the army.

Modern Islamic Scholars' Views on Non-Muslims

The Iranian Shi'a Muslim leader Ruhollah Khomeini wrote that non-Muslims should pay the poll tax. In return, they would get protection and services from the state. However, they would not be allowed to take part in political decisions.
The Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that the term dhimmis means they are under God's protection and the Muslim community's care. He also said that modern Islamic scholars could choose to stop using the word dhimmis and instead call them "non-Muslim citizens."
Another Egyptian scholar, Mohammad Salim al-Awa, believes the dhimmi concept should be re-thought for modern Egypt. He argues that Egypt's current state came from Muslims and Christians working together, so the constitution should replace the old dhimma agreement.
Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i, a 20th-century Shia scholar, wrote that dhimmis should be treated "in a good and decent manner."
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a Pakistani scholar, believes that some rules in the Quran were only for Muhammad and his time. He says that after Muhammad, Muslims are not required to fight wars to spread Islam.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, an Iranian Shia jurist, states that the main reason for jizya is to help pay for the security provided by Muslims to protect the state and the lives and property of dhimmis.
Thinkers like Fahmi Huwaidi and Tarek El-Bishry say that non-Muslims should have full citizenship in Islamic states. They base this on the Constitution of Medina, where Muhammad treated Jews as citizens with equal rights and duties.
Legal scholar L. Ali Khan also points to the Constitution of Medina as a guide for modern Islamic states. He says this old document, which gave Jewish tribes equal standing and religious freedom, can be a basis for protecting minority rights today.
Tariq Ramadan, a professor at the University of Oxford, suggests that modern scholars and experts should work together to update Islamic law for today's world. He talks about universal rights like dignity, freedom, and justice in diverse societies. He also suggests discussing the modern idea of "citizenship" for everyone, including non-citizens and immigrants, to fight racism and discrimination.

Dhimmi Communities

Jews and Christians living under early Muslim rule were considered dhimmis. This status was later given to other non-Muslims like Hindus and Buddhists. They were allowed to "freely practice their religion" and have "a large measure of communal autonomy." Their personal safety and property were guaranteed. In return, they paid a tribute and accepted Muslim rule. Islamic law generally prevented the enslavement of free dhimmis.

The taxes paid by dhimmis were often lower than taxes paid to earlier rulers. They were also excused from the zakat tax that Muslims paid. Dhimmi communities had their own laws, separate from sharia law. For example, Jews had their own Halakhic courts. These communities had their own leaders and religious laws. Generally, Muslims were more tolerant of non-believers than Christians were in Europe, until secularism became popular in the 1600s. Muslim governments also hired Christians and Jews for their offices, and these groups helped build Islamic civilization.

However, dhimmis sometimes faced social and symbolic restrictions. These rules were sometimes enforced strictly and sometimes more loosely over time. Marshall Hodgson, a historian of Islam, noted that during the High Caliphate (7th–13th Centuries), some strict Muslims created more symbolic rules for dhimmis.

From an Islamic legal view, the promise of protection gave dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and prevented them from being forced to convert. Dhimmis also played important economic roles. Religious minorities were free to do what they wished in their own homes.

The Arabs often set up military camps outside conquered towns. They didn't interact much with the local dhimmi populations, except for collecting taxes. The conquered Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Buddhist communities were mostly left to live as they had before.

Christians

According to historians, many local Christians in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt might have felt better under early Muslim rule than under the Byzantine Orthodox rule from Constantinople. In 1095, Pope Urban II asked Western European Christians to help Christians in Palestine. The Crusades that followed brought Roman Catholic Christians into contact with Orthodox Christians. They found that their beliefs were more different than they thought. The Orthodox Christians were also less troubled under the Muslim Fatimid Caliphate than expected. Because of this, Eastern Christians might have given less support to the Crusaders than hoped.

When the Arab East came under Ottoman rule in the 1500s, Christian populations grew and did well. The Ottomans had a lot of experience with Christian and Jewish minorities. They were more tolerant of religious minorities than the previous Muslim rulers, the Mamluks of Egypt.

However, Christians under Islamic rule sometimes faced legal disadvantages and even persecution. In the Ottoman Empire, Christians and Jews were given some freedoms under the dhimmi system. But they were generally treated as second-class citizens and sometimes called gavours, a rude word meaning "unbeliever." The rule that non-Muslims couldn't build new places of worship was sometimes enforced and sometimes ignored by local authorities. This led to non-Muslim communities living close to their existing places of worship.

Besides other legal limits, Christians were not seen as equal to Muslims. They faced several bans. Their testimony against Muslims was not accepted in courts where a Muslim could be punished. This meant their testimony was only useful in business cases. They were not allowed to carry weapons or ride horses and camels. Their houses could not be taller than Muslim houses. Their religious practices were also limited; for example, ringing church bells was strictly forbidden.

Jews

Early Islamic conquests often kept much of the existing government and culture. For many people, it felt like little more than a change of rulers. This "brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare."

María Rosa Menocal says that Jewish dhimmis living under Islamic rule, while having fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than Jews in Christian parts of Europe. Jews from other parts of Europe traveled to al-Andalus (Muslim Spain). There, they were not just tolerated, but had opportunities to practice their faith and trade freely, except for rules against trying to convert Muslims.

Historian Bernard Lewis states:

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character. That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Professor Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson notes:

The legal and security situation of the Jews in the Muslim world was generally better than in Christendom, because in the former, Jews were not the sole "infidels", because in comparison to the Christians, Jews were less dangerous and more loyal to the Muslim regime, and because the rapidity and the territorial scope of the Muslim conquests imposed upon them a reduction in persecution and a granting of better possibility for the survival of members of other faiths in their lands.

According to French historian Claude Cahen, Islam has "shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands."

Comparing Jews in the medieval Islamic world and medieval Christian Europe, Mark R. Cohen says that Jews in Islam were well involved in the economy and could practice their religion more freely than in Christian Europe.

Hindus and Buddhists

By the 900s, Turks from Central Asia had invaded parts of India and spread Islam in the northwest. By the late 1100s, Muslims quickly moved into the Ganges Plain. Within ten years, a Muslim army took control of northern India, reaching Bengal. From these Turkic slaves came sultans, including the founder of the Delhi Sultanate. By the 1400s, Muslim rulers, mostly descendants of invaders, controlled large parts of Northern India.

In the 1500s, India came under the Mughals. Babur, the first Mughal ruler, started their control in the north, which led to more expansion. Although the Mughal emperor Akbar was known for being open-minded, most Mughal emperors were harsh towards native Hindu, Buddhist, and later Sikh populations. Aurangzeb was especially strict in his religious approach.

Restrictions

There were a number of restrictions on dhimmis. In a modern sense, dhimmis would be described as second-class citizens.

While dhimmis could perform their religious rituals, they had to do so in a way that wasn't obvious to Muslims. Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells and the blowing of the shofar (a Jewish horn). They were also not allowed to build or repair churches and synagogues without Muslim permission. Also, dhimmis were not allowed to try and convert Muslims. In Mamluk Egypt, where non-Mamluk Muslims couldn't ride horses and camels, dhimmis were even forbidden from riding donkeys inside cities. Sometimes, Muslim rulers made rules requiring dhimmis to put special signs on their houses.

Most restrictions were social and symbolic. Their enforcement varied over time, sometimes strict, sometimes relaxed. The main financial burdens for dhimmis were the jizya poll tax and the fact that dhimmis and Muslims could not inherit from each other. This might encourage conversion if a family member had already converted. Ira M. Lapidus notes that the "payment of the poll tax seems to have been regular, but other obligations were inconsistently enforced." He adds that many non-Muslims became important political, business, and scholarly figures. In the late 800s and early 900s, Jewish bankers were important at the Abbasid court. Islamic law scholars called for humane treatment of dhimmis.

A Muslim man could marry a Jewish or Christian dhimmī woman, and she could keep her religion. However, a Muslim woman could not marry a dhimmī man unless he converted to Islam. Dhimmīs were forbidden from converting Muslims, facing severe penalties. Muslims were encouraged to convert dhimmīs.

Jizya Tax

The jizya tax meant that Muslim authorities had to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. The Quran (Sura 9, verse 29) says that jizya should be collected from non-Muslims for fighting to stop. Islamic judges required adult, free, healthy men among the dhimma community to pay the jizya. Women, children, the elderly, slaves, those with mental or physical disabilities, and travelers who didn't live in Muslim lands were excused. According to Abu Yusuf, dhimmi who didn't pay jizya could be imprisoned until they paid in full. Other judges said that dhimmis who didn't pay should have their heads shaved and wear special clothes to look different from those who paid and from Muslims.

Bernard Lewis says scholars have different ideas about how heavy the jizya burden was. According to Norman Stillman, jizya and kharaj were a "crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry." Both agree that the extra taxes on non-Muslims were a key reason many dhimmis converted to Islam. However, in some areas, the jizya was much lower than the zakat (Muslim tax), giving dhimmi populations an economic advantage. Lewis notes that many dhimmis welcomed the change from Byzantine to Arab rule. They found the new rule much easier, both in taxes and other matters. Some, even among Christians, preferred Islamic rule. Montgomery Watt states, "the Christians were probably better off as dhimmis under Muslim-Arab rulers than they had been under the Byzantine Greeks." In some places, like Egypt, the jizya encouraged Christians to convert to Islam.

Some scholars have tried to figure out the tax rates for Muslims versus non-Muslims in the early Abbasid period. One estimate says Muslims paid about 17-20 dirhams per person on average, rising to 30 dirhams with other payments. Non-Muslims paid 12, 24, or 48 dirhams per person, depending on their tax group, though most likely paid 12.

The importance of dhimmis as a source of money for the Rashidun Caliphate is shown in a letter from Umar I. He said, "if we take dhimmis and share them out, what will be left for the Muslims who come after us? By God, Muslims would not find a man to talk to and profit from his labors."

Early Islamic scholars had a fair and practical approach to collecting jizya. This was different from later commentators in the 11th century, when Islam faced threats.

The judge Abu Yusuf, who was the chief judge for the caliph Harun al-Rashid, gave these rules for collecting jizya:

No one of the people of the dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather they should be treated with leniency.

In border areas, dhimmis were sometimes asked to join military operations. In these cases, they were excused from jizya for that year.

Administration of Law

In medieval Islamic law, different religions had their own legal systems. The religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, were usually allowed within the Islamic legal system. This was seen in the Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Ottoman Empire, and India. In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judge) usually didn't get involved in non-Muslim matters unless the people involved chose to be judged by Islamic law. Dhimmi communities often had their own laws, separate from sharia law, like the Jews who had their own Halakha courts.

Dhimmis were allowed to run their own courts following their own legal systems. However, dhimmis often went to Muslim courts to record property and business deals within their own communities. Cases were brought against Muslims, other dhimmis, and even family members. Dhimmis often took cases about marriage, divorce, or inheritance to Muslim courts so these cases would be decided under sharia law. The promises made by dhimmis in Muslim courts were sometimes the same as those made by Muslims, and sometimes they were based on the dhimmis' own beliefs.

Muslim men could generally marry dhimmi women who were considered People of the Book. However, Islamic judges did not allow any non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman. Bernard Lewis notes that a similar rule existed in the Byzantine Empire: a Christian could marry a Jewish woman, but a Jew could not marry a Christian woman without facing death.

Important Texts

Quranic Verses for Dhimmi Policies

Bernard Lewis explains:

The phrase "Let there be no compulsion in religion: ..." from the Quran (2:256) has sometimes been understood to mean that followers of other religions should not be forced to become Muslim.
The phrase "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." from the Quran (109:6) has been used to support the idea of different religions living together peacefully.
Quranic verse 2:62 has been used to justify the tolerated position given to Christians, Jews, and Sabians under Muslim rule.

Hadith (Sayings of Muhammad)

A hadith (a saying or action of Muhammad) states: "Whoever killed a muʿāhid (a person protected by Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)." This is seen as a basis for protecting the People of the Book in Muslim-ruled countries. Anwar Shah Kashmiri wrote about this hadith: "You know the gravity of sin for killing a Muslim... As for killing a non-Muslim citizen, it is similarly no small matter, for the one who does it will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."

Another similar hadith about dhimmis says: "Whoever wrongs one with whom a compact (treaty) has been made [i.e., a dhimmi] and lays on him a burden beyond his strength, I will be his accuser."

Constitution of Medina

The Constitution of Medina was a formal agreement between Muhammad and all the important tribes and families in Medina (including Muslims, Jews, and pagans). It stated that non-Muslims in the Muslim community had these rights:

God's protection (dhimma) is equal for all groups.
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have self-rule and freedom of religion.
Non-Muslims will fight against the enemy of the Muslim community and share the costs of war. There should be no betrayal between them.
Non-Muslims will not be forced to take part in the religious wars of the Muslims.

Khaybar Agreement

An early example for the dhimma agreement was made between Muhammad and the Jews after the Battle of Khaybar. Khaybar was an oasis near Medina and the first territory conquered by Muslims. When the Jews of Khaybar surrendered to Muhammad after a siege, Muhammad allowed them to stay in Khaybar. In return, they had to give half of their yearly produce to the Muslims.

Pact of Umar

The Pact of Umar is a set of rules traditionally believed to be between the caliph Umar and the Christians of Jerusalem in the 600s. It was another source of rules for dhimmis. However, some Western historians doubt if the pact is truly from that time. They argue that winners usually set the terms of peace, not the defeated. They also find it unlikely that people who didn't speak Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could write such a document. Academic historians believe the Pact of Umar, as we know it today, was created by later judges who said Umar wrote it to give it more authority. The similarities between the Pact of Umar and old Roman laws suggest that parts of it might have been taken from these earlier laws by later Islamic judges. Some parts of the pact also reflect rules first made by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or early Abbasid caliphs.

Cultural Interactions

During the Middle Ages, local groups called futuwwa clubs grew across Islamic lands. There were usually several such clubs in each town. These clubs focused on different interests, mainly sports. They might have had special ways of dressing and customs. They were known for being welcoming, idealistic, and loyal to their group. They often had a military side, supposedly for protecting their members. These clubs often included people from different social levels, including local important figures, dhimmis, and even slaves. They did not include people connected to the local ruler.

Muslims and Jews sometimes worked together in trade. Muslims would take Fridays off, and Jews would take Saturdays off.

Andrew Wheatcroft describes how some social customs, like different ideas about cleanliness, made it hard for religious communities to live very close to each other, whether under Muslim or Christian rule.

In Modern Times

The dhimma system and the jizya poll tax are generally no longer used in most Muslim-majority countries. In the 21st century, jizya is widely seen as not fitting with modern ideas of equal rights for all citizens. However, there have been occasional reports of religious minorities in conflict areas being forced to pay jizya.

In 2009, it was claimed that a group of militants called the Taliban made Pakistan's minority Sikh community pay jizya. This happened after the Taliban took over some of their homes and kidnapped a Sikh leader.

As late as 2013, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood reportedly made 15,000 Christian Copts in Dalga Village pay jizya.

In February 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) announced it would collect jizya from Christians in Raqqa, Syria, which they controlled. Christians who refused to accept the dhimma agreement and pay the tax had to either convert to Islam, leave, or be killed. Wealthy Christians had to pay half an ounce of gold (about $664) twice a year. Middle-class Christians paid half that amount, and poorer ones paid a quarter. In June 2014, the Institute for the Study of War reported that ISIL claimed to have collected jizya. On July 18, 2014, ISIL ordered Christians in Mosul to accept the dhimma agreement and pay the jizya or convert to Islam. If they refused either option, they would be killed.

Images for kids

A robot for kids.