How much of a financial burden was the Jizya on non-Muslims?

[u/[deleted]]

Hello, I'm curious to know how much of a financial burden the Jizya, the tax levied on non-Muslims in Muslim areas, was on the common people, and by extension whether it was enough of a burden to compel people to convert.

I was mostly curious about during the original Muslim conquests during the time of Muhammad and the years following, but I would also be interested in information during other periods, such as the Golden Age of Islam or the Ottoman Empire.

Thank you.

[u/sunagainstgold]

As you suspect, the answer depends on the time and place, but frequently also on the economic status of the dhimmi being taxed. It's important to keep in mind that jizya (and its equivalent in Christian lands!) was just one of a range of economic (and of course other types of) restrictions applied to dhimmi populations, so it's very hard to isolate the impact of just the jizya.

Nevertheless, we can see an interesting pattern emerge. Richard Bulliet has argued based on studies of naming patterns for a logarithmic-type conversion to Islam: initially slow, then increasing at an increasing rate, then slowing down, finally just a trickle as only the real diehards remain (or all the diehards have emigrated). This pattern frequently fits well to the arrival of Islam in new regions--often mirroring the establishment of better infrastructure for tax collection or the rise of a new dynasty that brings its own harsher measures, or turmoil that causes worse economic conditions for Muslims and dhimmis alike. (Which would make paying even more even less attractive.)

In Palestine, for example, the Umayyad caliphate conquering the territory was more interested in rule than conversion. Preferring that cities surrender peacefully, they negotiated terms of surrender that provided religious freedom. And we see that the jizya in these cases was rather light.

Under the Abbasids, however, there was significant political turmoil in the region resulting in already-bad economic circumstances, increasing taxes on everyone already. The extra burden in already-bad times led to more conversion. And when individual rebel groups or governors would desire conversion, we know persecutions like loading people into prison to starve them until they converted, were accompanied by extra economic burdens. For example, Jews in Samaria in the 9th century had to pay a harsh fee to circumcise their sons, an absolute requirement in Judaism.

A major boost towards conversion efforts occurred across the Islamic world in the 12th-13th centuries. Forced conversion of Jews in particular by the Almoravids and Almohads in North Africa and Iberia in the west accompanied increased economic burdens in the east--but also, as 12th century Syrian jurist al-Shayzari tells us, ritualistic aspects surrounding tax collection to cause humiliation:

When the market inspector or his agent comes to collect the tax, he should stand the dhimmi in front of him, slap him on the side of the neck, and say, "Pay the tax, unbeliever." The dhimmi will take his hand out of his pocket holding the tax and present it to him with humility and submission.

Unsurprisingly, this era sees both increasing complaints in Jewish letters from across the Mediterranean about the harsh economic burden of the jizya--and cases of mass conversion to Islam in the Near East.

In Muslim Sicily, the economic burden ramped up with increasing organization and bureaucratization of the ruling class, mirroring patterns of emigration off Sicily, fleeing to areas not yet controlled by Muslims, and conversion. Under the Aghlabids, jizya was just levied on communities instead of individuals. This probably helped remove one of the jizya's major tactics: disproportionate impact on the poor.

Additionally, the Aghlabids didn't apply restrictions uniformly to dhimmi-owned land (although this could be for any number of reasons, not just lack of uniform organization). Some dhimmis were banned from selling their land, and some weren't. Conversion to Islam would instantly lift that restriction, making it an extremely attractive prospect for someone interested in or needing a liquid asset for whatever reason.

But with the brief period of Fatimid rule and the later heirs of its bureaucracy, the jizya was levied more uniformly and harshly, according to the Jewish documents concerning Sicily preserved in the Cairo Geniza.

In al-Andalus (Iberia), the conquering Umayyads applied the jizya strategically with respect to the Christian former aristocracy. They wanted to keep the tax burden heavy enough for them to profit, but light enough to keep profiting. Keeping the former nobility Christian, of course, also allowed the Muslim rulers to keep what could be a troublesome element of the population under more restrictions than they could otherwise justify.

It's also significant in terms of judging the harshness of the jizya, I think, that various dhimmi communities developed strategies to offset its impact. For example, the disproportionate effect on the poor, which al-Shayzari also discusses (for his specific time and place, of course).

The Jewish community in Cairo, as Mark Cohen has so clearly illustrated, banded together and had its elite donate money to a central pool to distribute to the poor. This was earmarked for paying the cash jizya tax. (They had organized other types of collective charity, too.)

In Sicily, monasteries initially served as mediators between the Greek Christian population and their Muslim rulers--a factor in/a result of the jizya's communal application. This blunted the potentially humiliating interactions and allowed a communal response to offset the extra burden on the poor. With the arrival of the Fatimids, the increasing jizya and other restrictions, Christian leaders started fleeing the island in increasing numbers. This re-opened the vulnerability of the population, consequently, burdens and conversions increased.

So by the high Middle Ages, yes, we have sources that directly say the jizya was a problem. We can see its effects both then and earlier. Frequently, a harsher jizya was accompanied by other restrictions. Was the goal conversion to Islam? In some cases it does appear to be used strategically. But we also see the development of institutions to deal with the increased burden among dhimmi populations determined to hold on to their religion.

[u/Milk-and-Honey → u/sunagainstgold]

Would you be so kind as to supply sources for the bit about heavy taxation for Jewish Circumcision?

[u/sunagainstgold → u/Milk-and-Honey]

Sure, it's from Milka Levy Rubin, "New Evidence Related to the Islamization of Palestine," journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43(2000). I think no. 3 that year. I don't remember which primary source she cites, sorry! (I'm just on mobile today). I got the reference from Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World, iirc.

[u/Milk-and-Honey → u/sunagainstgold]

Thank you.

[u/[deleted] → u/sunagainstgold]

Did Christian Kings have a tax for Muslims? I've never read about this. It must not have been institutionalized I am guessing.

Also there are quite a few questionable errors in your statement. Like, what Christian nobility in Spain, and the jizya was never intended for conversion, in fact it was useful for rulers to discourage conversion, because of the tax they gained. And in most areas the jizya, was just the continuation of old taxation policies from their previous rulers (see Ottoman Rumelia for example).

[u/sunagainstgold → u/[deleted]]

Did Christian Kings have a tax for Muslims? I've never read about this. It must not have been institutionalized I am guessing.

You're correct--there's no institutionalized equivalent of the jizya in Christianity! However, individual Christian kingdoms in the Middle Ages applied extra tax burdens to non-Christian populations. It's pretty well known that one of the reasons Jews were allowed to continue living in western Europe in the increasing anti-Semitic later Middle Ages was the king's or city government's ability to tax them extra. Additionally, when the Normans conquered Sicily, they taxed the Muslim population extra. Julie Taylor, Muslims in Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera discusses the jizya as it applied after Frederick II deported the Sicilian Muslims to the mainland, including how certain people could earn exemption. As always, Alex Metcalfe is good on its application in Norman Sicily and Lucera.

Like, what Christian nobility in Spain, and the jizya was never intended for conversion, in fact it was useful for rulers to discourage conversion, because of the tax they gained.

Thomas Glick, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, explains how the Umayyad conquers taxed the former Christian aristocracy more lightly to keep them converting. Which I noted in my answer, if you'd read it.

Milka Levy-Rubin, "New Evidence Relating to the Process of Islamization in Palestine," shows how chronicle sources link forced conversion campaigns (such as starvation in prison until the point of conversion) with increased economic burdens, from extra flat taxes to extra payments to engage in religious practices.

And in most areas the jizya, was just the continuation of old taxation policies from their previous rulers (see Ottoman Rumelia for example).

Indeed, there is plenty of complaint about harsh taxation on all fronts in the Middle Ages. The jizya was an extra tax on top of that. I had discussed the impact of the EXTRA tax in my initial answer as well.

Goitein, the magister of the Cairo Geniza, and Mark Cohen have been repeatedly and thoroughly adamant that the jizya in the high Middle Ages had come to be a MAJOR burden for the Mediterranean Jewish community, particularly its poorer residents. The community worked to avoid its members having to convert away out of economic necessity.

There are also occurrences of straight-up forced conversion-or-exile, in both the medieval Christian and Islamic worlds. Extra taxes are nice, but sometimes religious zeal gets to you. (Obviously Spain 1492 is the most well known, which is Christian, but the Almoravids and Almohads had preceeded them in this, already in Iberia! Ray, The Sephardic Frontier, discusses how there were basically no Jews left in al-Andalus in the final stages of its fall, because they'd all fled to expanding Christian Iberia were the terms of settlement were, sadly temporarily, much nicer than the increasing persecution under the final Andalusi rulers.

[u/[deleted]]

To add to this: I heard somewhere that the Jizya was a replacement for the Zakat - or the alms giving required of Muslims as one of the Five Pillars. I also understand that this interpretation is debated among Islamic scholars and scholars of Islam. Can anyone shed light on this? Especially on the amounts as they compared to each other?