Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:29

The command to fight the People of the Book follows the command to fight the polytheists and the prohibition against them approaching the Sacred Mosque. In the course of this, there is an indication for them of some ways to achieve the promised enrichment. They are expressed by the relative pronoun (alladhina) to signify that the reason for the command to fight is contained within the relative clause, and because they are, for this reason, ranked among the polytheists. Their faith, which they claim to possess, is not as it should be; thus, it is as if it were no faith at all.

...and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden... That is, what has been established as forbidden by revelation, whether recited (the Quran) or non-recited (the Sunnah). The term "the Messenger" refers to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It has been said that it refers to their own messenger whom they claim to follow, for they have altered his law, permitting and forbidding things according to their own desires. Thus, the meaning would be that they do not follow our law nor their own law, and the combination of these two is the cause for fighting them, even if the distortion after the abrogation is not an independent cause.

...and do not practice the religion of truth... That is, the established, immutable religion. The genitive construction is of an attribute with the noun it describes. It refers to the religion of Islam, which is not abrogated by any other religion, just as every other religion was abrogated by it. Qatadah stated that "the Truth" refers to Allah, and "His religion" refers to Islam. It has also been said that it refers to it and others; meaning, they do not practice any of the religions that He, Glory be to Him, sent down to His prophets and legislated for His servants. Under this interpretation, the genitive construction is literal.

...from those who were given the Book... Meaning the genus that includes the Torah and the Gospel. The particle min (from) is explanatory, not partitive, so that it does not imply that some of them are contrary to what has been described until they give...

...until they pay... Meaning: until they accept to pay.

...the Jizya... That is, the amount fixed for them to pay. It is derived from jaza (to pay off) his debt, or from jazaytuhu (I requited him) for what he did, because they are being requited by the pardon granted to them regarding their being killed. In Al-Hidayah, it is stated that it is a requital for disbelief, so it is from "recompense." It is also said that its root involves the hamza, from juz’ (part) and tajzi’ah (partitioning), because it is a portion of wealth that is given. Al-Khwarizmi said it is an Arabized word derived from gazit, which is the land tax in Persian. Its plural is jiza, like lihya and lihan.

...with a willing hand... It is possible for this to be a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "they pay," or a qualifier for the Jizya. "Hand" (yad) may refer to the giving hand or the receiving hand. And ‘an (with/from/about) may signify causality or otherwise. It means: they pay the Jizya with a submissive hand—that is, being compliant or in a state of compliance; or "from their own hand," that is, personally, not by the hands of others such as an agent or messenger, because the purpose here is humiliation, and legal proxies are forbidden for this reason. Or, it means "from wealth," i.e., being wealthy (and thus it is not taken from the needy and incapable); or "from suppression and power," i.e., abased and incapable, or accompanied by humiliation; or "from a favor done to them," since sparing their lives in exchange for the wealth they offer is a great blessing—meaning they are recipients of a favor. Or it could mean "cash," i.e., handed over from hand to hand. The use of "hand" to mean compliance is either literal or metaphorical. From this is the saying of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him: "This is my hand for Ammar," meaning: I am compliant and obedient to him. Its use to mean wealth is a metaphor for the power that necessitates it. Its use to mean "favor" is widespread and common. As for the meaning of "cash," it is due to the fame of "hand to hand" in such transactions, as in the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri regarding usury. The meaning in the verse leads to this, as is not hidden from one who has a long reach in the sciences of meaning and rhetoric.

The interpretation of "hand" here as suppression and power was narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim from Qatadah. Sufyan ibn Uyaynah narrated what indicates that he interpreted it as what comes to mind, in the manner of what we mentioned in the second view, and the rest of the views were mentioned by more than one commentator. The ultimate goal of fighting is not the act of payment itself, but the acceptance of it, as has been indicated. A group of jurists explicitly stated this, saying: "They are to be fought until they accept the Jizya." They used the expression "paying" because it is the intended result of the "acceptance."

...and they are humbled. Meaning: abased. This is done by them paying it while standing, while the receiver is sitting, as said by Ikrimah. From Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, it is said that the Jizya is taken from the dhimmi while his neck is being gripped. In another narration, he is taken by his collar and shaken, and it is said: "Pay the Jizya, O dhimmi." It is also said: his beard is grabbed and he is struck on his jawbone, and it is said: "Fulfill the right of Allah, O enemy of Allah." It is reported from Al-Shafi'i that the "humiliation" is the application of the rulings of the Muslims upon them. Today, we do not see any trace of all these sayings, as the ahl al-dhimma (protected people) have become distinguished above the Muslims, and the matter belongs to Allah Almighty. To such an extent that they are permitted to send the Jizya by the hand of a representative of theirs. The most correct view is that this is not accepted from them, but they are required to bring it themselves, walking and not riding. All this is a sign of the weakness of Islam. May Allah deal with justice toward those who were the cause of it.

According to Abu Hanifah, it is taken from the People of the Book absolutely, and from the non-Arab polytheists and the Zoroastrians, but not from the polytheists of the Arabs, because their disbelief was aggravated by the fact that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, grew up among them, was sent to them, and he—peace be upon him—was from among them, and the Quran was revealed in their language. These were the strongest incentives for their belief. Therefore, nothing is accepted from them but the sword or Islam, as an increase in their punishment, in addition to following what has been reported in this regard. It cannot be objected that the disbelief of the People of the Book was also aggravated because they knew the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, perfectly, yet denied him and altered his name and description in the Book.

According to Abu Yusuf, it is not taken from the Arab, whether he is a person of the Book or a polytheist, and it is taken from the non-Arab, whether a person of the Book or a polytheist. Its collection from the Zoroastrians was established by the Sunnah, for it is authentically reported that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did not take it from them until Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf testified that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took it from the Zoroastrians of Hajar. Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "It is taken from the People of the Book, whether Arab or non-Arab, and it is not taken from the idolaters at all, because its collection is established for the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians by report, so others remain on the original rule."

Our evidence is that it is permissible to enslave them, and whoever can be enslaved can have Jizya imposed upon him if he is among those who could have provided aid, for each of these involves a taking of the self. As for enslavement, it is clear because the benefit of the slave returns to us entirely. As for the Jizya, the disbeliever pays it from his earnings, and since his sustenance is in his earnings, the payment of his earnings—which is the cause of his life—to the Muslims is, in meaning, a taking of the self, legally speaking. Malik and Al-Awza'i held that it is taken from all disbelievers. According to us, it is not taken from a woman, a child, an invalid, or a blind person, nor from the paralyzed or the elderly. From Abu Yusuf, it is narrated that it is taken from him if he has wealth. It is not taken from a poor person who cannot work—contrary to Al-Shafi'i—nor from a slave, a mukattab (a slave with a contract of emancipation), or a mudabbar (a slave to be freed upon the owner's death). It is not taken from monks who do not mingle with people, as mentioned by some of our scholars. Muhammad reported from Abu Hanifah that it is taken from them if they are capable of work, which is the opinion of Abu Yusuf.

It is of two types:

1. Jizya established by mutual consent and treaty, estimated according to what is agreed upon, just as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made a treaty with the people of Najran for one thousand and two hundred garments. Since the cause is mutual consent, it is not permissible to exceed what was agreed upon.
2. Jizya that the Imam initiates by imposing when he overcomes the disbelievers and leaves them in possession of their properties. He imposes upon the visibly wealthy person forty-eight dirhams annually, taken at four dirhams per month; upon the middle-class person, twenty-four dirhams, two dirhams per month; and upon the poor person who is capable of working—even if he does not master a trade—twelve dirhams, one dirham per month. It is evident that the determination of wealth and poverty refers to the custom of the land, as clearly stated by the jurist Abu Ja'far. The view we hold regarding its variation based on wealth, poverty, and the middle state was also held by Umar, Ali, and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them.

It is reported from Al-Shafi'i that the Imam imposes upon every adult one dinar or its equivalent, and the wealthy and poor are equal in this, based on what Ibn Abi Shaybah reported from Masruq that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he sent Mu'adh to Yemen, said to him: "Take from every adult a dinar or its equivalent in ma'afir (garments)," and the Prophet—peace be upon him—did not make a distinction. The answer to this is that it is understood as a treaty. This is supported by what is in some narrations: "From every adult male and female," since the Jizya is not obligatory on women.

The most correct view among us is that the obligation begins at the start of the year, because what is obligatory as a substitute is only realized in the future, so it is impossible to obligate it after the year has passed, so we obligate it at its start. From Al-Shafi'i, it is said that it is obligatory at its end, by analogy to Zakat. Al-Zayla'i rebutted this by saying that Zakat does not apply to us because it became obligatory at the end of the year to ensure growth, so it is not obligatory except on growing wealth, and Jizya is not like that, so the analogy is invalid.

As Al-Jassas stated in Ahkam al-Quran, the requirement to kill those mentioned in the verse until the Jizya is taken from them with humility and abasement implies that they have no right to protection (dhimma) if they dominate the Muslims through authority and the execution of commands and prohibitions, because Allah, Glory be to Him, only granted them protection through the payment of Jizya and their state of being humbled. Thus, it is mandatory to kill those who dominate the Muslims through tyranny and the taking of taxes unjustly, even if the ruler appointed them to that. If he does so without his permission or command, it is even more imperative. This indicates that these Jews and Christians who manage the works of the ruler and his commanders, and from whom injustice, arrogance, and the taking of taxes are manifested, have no protection, and their blood is lawful. If a Muslim intended to kill another Muslim to take his wealth, it would be lawful to kill him in certain instances; what, then, of these disbelievers, the enemies of the religion?

Our jurists have issued fatwas on the prohibition of appointing them to public offices because this is established by the text. The rulers have been afflicted with this to the point that people are in need of referring to them, or even kissing their hands, as we have witnessed repeatedly. Not everything that is known is said. Truly we belong to Allah and truly to Him we shall return.

It has been questioned how the Jizya is taken from these disbelievers when their disbelief is among the greatest forms of disbelief; how can they be confirmed in it by taking a few counted dirhams? Al-Qutb answered that the purpose of taking the Jizya is not to confirm them in disbelief, but to grant the disbeliever a period of respite during which he might grasp the virtues of Islam and the strength of its proofs and therefore convert. Al-Atqani said that the Jizya is not a substitute for confirming disbelief, but rather a compensation for the killing and enslavement that were otherwise due, so it is permissible as a waiver of retaliation in exchange for compensation, or it is a punishment for disbelief like enslavement. The first part is more evident, as the second might imply the permissibility of imposing Jizya on women and their likes. It may also be answered that it is a substitute for the support of our combatants, which is why it varies, because everyone who is from the territory of Islam must support the territory with person and wealth. Since the disbeliever is not fit for this due to his inclination toward the House of War in his belief, the Jizya taken and spent on the combatants is established in its place. It cannot be objected that support is an act of obedience and this is a punishment, so how can a punishment be a substitute for obedience? The answer is as stated in Al-Nihayah: that it is a surrogate for support in the case of Muslims, because in that there is an increase of power for them, and they are rewarded for that increase resulting from their wealth. This is in the position of them lending their mounts to the combatants. From here you know that whoever said it is a substitute for confirming disbelief has imagined a great illusion.