Surah At-Tawbah (9): Verse 29

Contextual Introduction

Know that after Allah, the Exalted, mentioned the ruling concerning the polytheists—regarding declaring disavowal of their covenant, regarding declaring disavowal of them in person, regarding the obligation to fight them, and regarding barring them from the Sacred Mosque—and after addressing the objections they raised and answering them with sound replies, He subsequently mentioned the ruling concerning the People of the Book.

The ruling is that they are to be fought until they pay the Jizyah (poll tax). Upon payment, they are permitted to remain in their current state under specific conditions, thus becoming people of Dhimmah (protection) and covenant.

In this verse, there are several issues:

Know that Allah, the Exalted, mentioned that if the People of the Book possess four specific characteristics, fighting them is obligatory until they either embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.

The First Characteristic: They do not believe in Allah.

The people claim, "We believe in Allah." However, the reality is that most Jews are Mushabbihah (corporalists/anthropomorphists). A Mushabbih asserts that nothing exists except a body or something inhabiting a body. They deny the existence of a Being that is neither a body nor an inhabitant within a body. Since it has been established by proofs that the Deity exists and is not a body nor an inhabitant within a body, the Mushabbih is, in effect, denying the existence of the Deity. Thus, it is established that the Jews deny the existence of the Deity.

Objection: The Jews are divided into two groups: Mushabbihah and Muwahhidun (Unitarians), just as Muslims are divided. Even if the Mushabbihah among them deny the Deity, what is your position regarding the Jewish Unitarians?

Answer: Those Unitarians are not included under this verse. However, the obligation of Jizyah is imposed upon all of them by saying: Since the obligation of Jizyah has been established for some of them, it must be applied to all of them, as no one makes a distinction in this matter.

As for the Christians, they profess belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as well as concepts of Hulūl (incarnation) and Ittiḥād (union), all of which contradict true divinity.

Objection: The essence of the argument is that anyone who disputes any attribute of Allah is denying the existence of Allah. If this is true, you must conclude that most theologians deny the existence of Allah, as most of them disagree on the attributes of Allah. Do you not see the severe disagreements among the Sunnis on this matter? The Ash'ari affirmed eternal existence (al-Baqā’) as an attribute, while Al-Qadi denied it. ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘īd affirmed eternal pre-existence (al-Qidam) as an attribute, while others denied it. Al-Qadi affirmed the perception of tastes, smells, heat, and cold (which are called smell, taste, and touch in humans), while Al-Ustādh Abū Isḥāq denied them. Al-Qadi affirmed seven states corresponding to the seven attributes, while the deniers of states rejected this. ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘īd claimed that Allah’s eternal speech was neither a command, nor a prohibition, nor a report, until it became so upon revelation, which others denied. Some early companions affirmed five eternal words for Allah: command, prohibition, report, inquiry, and calling. The famous view is that Allah’s speech is one. They also differed on whether the opposite of what is known is within divine power or not. This proves the existence of numerous disagreements among our own scholars regarding Allah’s attributes. The disagreements among the Mu'tazilah and other sects regarding Allah’s attributes are too numerous to mention here.

Response: Given this, we ask: Does disagreement over attributes necessitate denying the Essence (Dhat), or not? If it necessitates denial, then most Muslim sects must be considered deniers of the Deity. If it does not necessitate denial, then the deviation of some Jews and Christians toward Hulūl and Ittiḥād does not necessitate that they are deniers of belief in Allah. Furthermore, the Christian doctrine is that the hypostasis of the Word (Kalimah) incarnated in Jesus. The Ḥashwiyyah (literalists) among Muslims say that whoever recites the Word of Allah, what they recite is the very essence of the Divine Word, and the Word of Allah, being an attribute of Allah, enters the tongue of this reciter and the tongues of all reciters. If the Word of Allah is written in a physical object, then the Word of Allah has resided in that object. The Christians only affirmed Hulūl and Ittiḥād concerning Jesus. But these fools affirm the Word of Allah in every person who reads the Qur'an and in every physical object where the Qur'an is written. If affirming Hulūl concerning the single Divine Essence leads to declaring them non-believers, then it must certainly apply to these literalists and incarnationists.

The Answer: The proof indicates that whoever claims the Deity is a body is denying the true Deity. This is because the Deity of the universe exists, is not a body, and does not reside in a body. Therefore, when the corporalist denies this existing Being, he denies the Divine Essence itself. Thus, the dispute between the corporalist and the Unitarian is not over an attribute, but over the Essence. Hence, it is correct to say the corporalist does not believe in Allah. As for the issues you mentioned, they are disagreements over attributes, which clarifies the distinction. As for imposing the doctrine of the Ḥulūliyyah and the Ḥurūfiyyah (those who believe the letters are eternal), we certainly declare them unbelievers (Kuffār). Allah, the Exalted, declared the Christians unbelievers because they believed the Word {Allah} incarnated in Jesus. These others believe the Word {Allah} incarnates in the tongues of everyone who reads the Qur'an and in all physical objects where the Qur'an is written. If affirming Hulūl concerning a single Essence necessitates declaring them unbelievers, then affirming Hulūl concerning all persons and all objects must certainly necessitate declaring them unbelievers.

The Second Characteristic: They do not believe in the Last Day.

It is transmitted from the Jews and Christians that they deny the bodily resurrection (Ba‘th al-Jismānī), leaning instead toward a spiritual resurrection (Ba‘th al-Rūḥānī).

We have explained in this book the types of spiritual happiness and misery and demonstrated the validity of affirming them, citing numerous verses. Nevertheless, we affirm bodily happiness and misery. We acknowledge that Allah makes the inhabitants of Paradise eat, drink, and enjoy female companions (Jawārī). There is no doubt that whoever denies the bodily gathering and resurrection has denied the explicit text of the Qur'an. Since the Jews and Christians deny this meaning, their denial of the Last Day is established.

The Third Characteristic: {Nor do they forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.} (9:29)

There are two interpretations for this:

1. They do not forbid what is forbidden in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger.
2. Abu Rawq said: They do not know what is in the Torah and the Gospel, but rather they distorted them and introduced many rulings from themselves.

The Fourth Characteristic: {Nor do they follow the religion of Truth from those who were given the Book.} (9:29)

The phrase "So-and-so follows such-and-such a religion" means he adopts it as his belief. Thus, {Nor do they follow the religion of Truth} means they do not believe in the validity of Islam, which is the true religion.

After mentioning these four characteristics, Allah said: {from those who were given the Book}, thereby clarifying that those described by these four characteristics are specifically from the People of the Book. The purpose is to distinguish them from the polytheists in ruling, because the ruling for polytheists is either fighting until they accept Islam, whereas the ruling for the People of the Book is fighting, or Islam, or paying the Jizyah.

Then Allah, the Exalted, said: {until they give the Jizyah willingly by hand while they are humbled/submissive.} (9:29)

This involves several issues:

Issue 2.1: The Meaning of Jizyah and "Willingly by Hand" (‘an Yad)

Al-Wāḥidī said: Jizyah is what the protected non-Muslim (Mu‘āhad) pays in exchange for his covenant. It is derived from the verb Jazā (to recompense/pay what is due).

There is a difference of opinion regarding the phrase {‘an Yad} (by hand).

The author of Al-Kashshāf stated that {‘an Yad} can refer either to the hand of the payer or the hand of the receiver.

1. If referring to the Payer's Hand:
   • Meaning 1: It means a compliant hand, not one that resists. One who refuses and resists does not offer his hand, unlike the obedient one. Hence, it is said, "He gave his hand" (a‘ṭā yadahu) when he submitted and obeyed, just as it is said, "He withdrew his hand from obedience," similar to saying, "He cast off the yoke of obedience from his neck."
   • Meaning 2: It means they pay it hand-to-hand, in cash, not deferred (Nasī’ah), and not sent via an intermediary, but directly from the payer's hand to the receiver's hand.

2. If referring to the Receiver's Hand:
   • Meaning 1: It means the Jizyah is taken by a conquering, dominant hand belonging to the Muslims over them, as one says, "The authority (al-Yad) in this matter belongs to so-and-so."
   • Meaning 2: It means it is taken as a favor (In‘ām), because accepting the Jizyah from them and sparing their lives is a great blessing upon them.

Issue 2.2: The Meaning of "While They Are Humbled/Submissive" (wa Hum Ṣāghirūn)

This means the Jizyah is taken from them with humiliation, degradation, and contempt. This is done by the payer coming in person, walking (not riding), and delivering it while standing, while the receiver sits. He may be seized by his beard and told, "Pay the Jizyah," even if he is already paying it, and then pushed in the back of his neck. This is the meaning of Ṣaghār (humiliation). Some say that Ṣaghār here simply means the act of paying the Jizyah itself. Jurists have many rulings concerning the consequences of humiliation mentioned in books of Fiqh.

This verse is used as evidence that a Muslim is not killed in retribution for killing a Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim). The reasoning is that the command {Fight them} implies the permissibility of killing them and the non-obligation of Qiṣāṣ (retaliation in kind) for killing them. When Allah said, {until they give the Jizyah willingly by hand while they are humbled}, we know that the entire set of rulings concluded upon the payment of Jizyah. The conclusion of a set is achieved when one of its components ceases. If the obligation to kill them and the permissibility of their blood cease, then the entire set ceases. There is no need for all components of the set to cease for the whole set to cease.

Since the phrase {Fight a group of the People of the Book} indicates the non-obligation of Qiṣāṣ for killing them, the phrase {until they give the Jizyah} does not necessitate the removal of that ruling (non-retaliation). This is because the cessation of one component—the obligation to kill them—is sufficient for the cessation of the whole set. Therefore, the non-obligation of Qiṣāṣ must remain after the payment of Jizyah, just as it was before.

Unbelievers are of two types:

1. Idol worshippers and those who follow their own whims. These are not permitted to remain in their religion upon paying Jizyah; they must be fought until they say, "There is no god but Allah."
2. The People of the Book: Jews, Christians, Samaritans, and Sabians.

The ruling concerning the Magians is the same as the ruling for the People of the Book, based on the Prophet's saying: "Apply to them the practice applied to the People of the Book." It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) accepted Jizyah from the Magians of Hajar. These groups must be fought until they pay the Jizyah and enter into a covenant with the Muslims to pay it.

We state that Jizyah is only taken from the People of the Book because when Allah mentioned the four characteristics (not believing in Allah, not believing in the Last Day, not forbidding what Allah and His Messenger forbade, and not following the religion of Truth), He qualified them by saying: {from those who were given the Book}. Applying this ruling to others would require nullifying this explicitly stated qualification, which is impermissible.

Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) assessed one Dinar upon every adult male. ‘Umar assessed twelve Dirhams upon the poor among the Ahl al-Dhimmah, twenty-four upon the middle class, and forty-eight upon the wealthy.

Our companions state that the minimum Jizyah is one Dinar, and it should not exceed one Dinar unless by mutual consent. If they consent and agree to an increase, we assess two Dinars upon the middle class and four Dinars upon the wealthy. The evidence is that the original principle is the prohibition of taking the wealth of a responsible person (Mukallaf). However, the verse {until they give the Jizyah} indicates that something must be taken. What we have stated is the minimum amount, so it is permissible to take it. As for anything beyond that, the term Jizyah does not indicate it, and the original principle is prohibition. Therefore, it must remain prohibited.

According to Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), Jizyah is due at the beginning of the year. According to Al-Shāfi‘ī (may Allah have mercy on him), it is due at the end of the year.

According to Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), Jizyah is waived upon embracing Islam or death, based on the Prophet's saying: "There is no Jizyah upon a Muslim." According to Al-Shāfi‘ī (may Allah have mercy on him), it is not waived upon death.

Our companions state that they are permitted to remain in their false religion upon paying Jizyah as an honor to their forefathers who passed away adhering to the truth of the Law of Moses and the Gospel. Furthermore, we grant them respite so that perhaps they may reflect, recognize the truth of Muhammad (PBUH) and his prophethood, and thus transition from disbelief to faith. And Allah knows best.

Two questions remain here:

Question 1: Ibn al-Rāwandī used to criticize the Qur'an, claiming it glorified the disbelief of the Christians. He cited: {The heavens are almost to break apart therefrom, and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in ruin, That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son. And it is not befitting for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.} (19:90-92). He argued that their expression of this belief reached such a magnitude, yet when they paid a single Dinar, the Muslims confirmed them in it and did not forbid it.

Answer: The purpose of taking the Jizyah is not to confirm them in their disbelief. Rather, its purpose is to safeguard their lives and grant them a period of respite, in the hope that during this time they might recognize the merits of Islam and the strength of its proofs, leading them to transition from disbelief to faith.

Question 2: Is paying the Jizyah sufficient to safeguard their lives, or not?

Answer: It is necessary to accompany it with the imposition of humiliation and degradation upon their disbelief. The reason is that the nature of an intelligent person recoils from enduring humiliation and degradation. If the disbeliever is given respite while witnessing the glory of Islam, hearing the proofs of its truth, and observing the humiliation associated with disbelief, it is likely that this will compel him to transition to Islam. This is the very purpose behind legislating the Jizyah.

Verse 30

{And the Jews say, "Uzayr is the son of Allah," and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is what they utter with their mouths, imitating the speech of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah fight them! How they are deluded!} (9:30)