The Jizya: What Non-Muslims Paid, and What For

< Back to The Qur’an and the Messenger ﷺ

Under Muslim rule, some non-Muslim subjects paid a tax called the jizya, which Muslims did not pay. The word occurs once in the Qur’an, in a verse that tells Muslims to fight certain opponents until they pay the jizya. The verse ends with a phrase usually translated as “while they are humbled.”¹ Critics therefore present the tax as a fine for refusing to convert, or as a way to make conversion financially attractive.

The legal rules describe a more specific arrangement. They identify who had to pay, who was exempt, which obligations Muslims bore instead, and what the state owed those from whom it collected the tax.

Jizya refers to the tax itself. Dhimma means the covenant of protection that a Muslim state extended to its non-Muslim subjects, while ahl al-dhimma, often shortened to dhimmi, means the people covered by that covenant. Zakat is the obligatory annual charity required of Muslims. A hadith is a report of something the Prophet ﷺ said or did whose reliability is assessed by specialists. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the two most rigorously screened collections.

The objection

The objection is that the jizya placed financial pressure on non-Muslims to convert:

Non-Muslims paid it while Muslims did not, and conversion ended the liability immediately. On this reading, the tax followed religious belief alone.
The Qur’an connects payment with fighting and closes the verse with a word associated with humiliation. This appears to make degradation part of the tax itself.
A continuing financial penalty on a disfavoured religion can coerce even without physical force. Some people will convert to escape the charge, giving the state conversions without an explicit order to accept Islam.

What the jizya was

The jizya applied to non-Muslim men of military age who had the means to pay. In return, they were exempt from military service and entitled to the state’s protection. The dhimma, or covenant of protection, made those duties binding on the Muslim ruler.
These terms were recorded in written agreements. In the treaty with the people of Hira, the protected party states its right directly: “the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.”²

This is not how a system designed merely to degrade non-Muslims would work. The covenant bound Muslim authorities to protect them from abuse, including abuse by Muslims, and from foreign armies. It imposed duties on the rulers who issued it rather than giving them a free hand.
The tax applied only to non-Muslims who lived under Muslim rule as covenanted subjects. Non-Muslims outside the territory and non-Muslim allies were not liable for it.

Who paid, and who did not

Liability followed military capacity and financial means rather than religious identity by itself. Across all four Sunni schools of law, the jizya applied only to free, adult, sane, non-Muslim men who were physically capable and able to pay.³ The exemptions included:

women and children;
the elderly;
the poor and anyone dependent on charity;
the chronically ill, the disabled, and the blind;
monks and clergy living in monasteries;
anyone who served in the army. Non-Muslims who fought alongside Muslim forces paid nothing because military service and payment were alternatives to one another.⁴

The exemptions show that liability followed the group a state could conscript: adult men physically and financially able to serve. If the jizya had simply been a charge for holding another religion, it would also have applied to women, children, monks, the elderly, the poor, and those unable to fight. It did not.

Abu Yusuf, the Hanafi jurist who served as chief judge under Harun al-Rashid and wrote the earliest surviving manual of Islamic public finance, went beyond exempting those unable to pay. He held that when a man became destitute or infirm, the state owed him support from the treasury.⁵

What Muslims owed instead

Muslims did not pay the jizya, but they carried two obligations that did not apply to a dhimmi, a non-Muslim subject covered by the covenant of protection.

Zakat, the obligatory annual charity, assessed at two and a half per cent of accumulated wealth. This was a continuing religious levy on savings, with no exemption for being able-bodied.
Military service. Muslims were liable to be called up. Non-Muslims were exempt, with the jizya taking the place of that liability.

Neither status was automatically cheaper. The burden varied by year, province, and personal wealth. Muslims and non-Muslims carried different obligations, while military service also brought the risk of injury or death.

The verse, in full

The jizya appears only once in the Qur’an, in verse 9:29:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Sūrat al-Tawbah 9:29), Saheeh International

﴿قَٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا۟ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍۢ وَهُمْ صَٰغِرُونَ ۝٢٩﴾ سُورَةُ التَّوۡبَةِ

The verse addresses a war that was already taking place and gives a condition for ending the fighting. Other Qur’anic passages prohibit compelled belief and require fair treatment of non-Muslims who are at peace with Muslims. Classical exegetes also differed over the meaning of the verse’s closing phrase.

It is addressed to a war already under way

The verse was revealed in the setting of an existing conflict, around the Tabuk expedition on the Byzantine frontier. It tells Muslims when to stop fighting and what settlement to accept. Payment ends the fighting without requiring the defeated population to convert.
Elsewhere, the Qur’an limits fighting to those who wage war against Muslims:

“Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors” (Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:190), Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran

﴿وَقَٰتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ۝١٩٠﴾ سُورَةُ البَقَرَةِ
The Qur’an separately forbids compelling anyone to believe:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:256), Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran

﴿لَآ إِكْرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِ﴾ [سُورَةُ البَقَرَةِ: ٢٥٦]
It also requires kindness and fairness toward non-Muslims who are not at war with Muslims:

“Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair” (Sūrat al-Mumtaḥanah 60:8), Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran

﴿لَّا يَنْهَىٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَٰتِلُوكُمْ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَٰرِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوٓا۟ إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ ۝٨﴾ سُورَةُ المُمۡتَحنَةِ

The closing phrase

The verse closes with the words ʿan yadin wa-hum ṣāghirūn:

﴿حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا۟ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍۢ وَهُمْ صَٰغِرُونَ﴾ [سُورَةُ التَّوۡبَةِ: ٢٩]

ʿan yadin literally means “from a hand,” but exegetes understood the phrase in more than one way. One reading is willingly and from one’s own hand, meaning direct payment rather than payment through an intermediary. Another takes yad in its common sense of capacity or power, so that the phrase means according to one’s means. The rates were in fact assessed in tiers.⁶
ṣāghirūn can mean “humbled,” though exegetes disagreed over what this required. Al-Shafi’i, founder of one of the four schools of law, understood it as submission to the law of the state: acknowledging the authority of a jurisdiction one had not chosen. Other exegetes, including al-Tabari, transmitted reports describing visible submission at the moment of payment.⁷
Whatever the exegetical disagreement, jurists prohibited tax collectors from degrading the payer.

What the covenant obliged Muslims to do

The Prophet’s ﷺ instructions established serious duties toward protected non-Muslims, the ahl al-dhimma.

Killing a covenanted non-Muslim was treated as one of the gravest offences:

“Whoever killed a Mu’ahid — a person granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims — shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years of travelling.” — Sahih al-Bukhari 6914; also Sunan an-Nasa’i 4749–4750, graded sahih, with the wording ahl al-dhimma⁸
The same protection applied during tax collection. When Hisham ibn Hakim saw a governor of Hims forcing Coptic Christians to stand in the sun until they paid, he intervened and cited a saying he had heard directly from the Prophet ﷺ:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: Allah Most High will punish those who punish people in this world.” — Sunan Abi Dawud 3045, graded sahih; the Prophetic saying also in Sahih Muslim 2613⁹

Hisham did not treat the Prophetic warning as an abstract rule. He used it against a serving governor to stop the coercive treatment of Coptic Christians during tax collection.
Another report makes the Prophet ﷺ the adversary of anyone who exploits a covenanted non-Muslim: “if anyone wrongs a covenanted man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead against him on the Day of Judgment.”

Sunan Abi Dawud 3052. Scholars disagree over its reliability: two assessments grade it sahih, while a third grades it daif (weak). It supports the two stronger reports above but is not used as independent proof.

When the state could not deliver, the money went back

The duty of protection was a condition of collection. If the state could no longer provide it, the payment had to be returned.

Before the battle of Yarmuk, a large Byzantine army advanced while Muslim forces withdrew from Syrian cities they could no longer defend. Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah ordered the jizya returned to the inhabitants of Hims and told commanders in the other conquered cities of the Levant to do the same. The money had been collected for protection, and that protection could no longer be provided.¹⁰
Khalid ibn al-Walid had already made the same principle an express condition of a treaty: “If we are able to protect you, we deserve the collection of the jizya; otherwise we shall not.”¹¹

The refund was not symbolic. It shows that protection was part of the exchange itself, not a justification added later. The commanders returned the money while the treasury was under pressure and an army was advancing.

The rates

Abu Yusuf records a three-tier annual rate assessed on wealth: forty-eight dirhams for the rich, twenty-four for those of middling means, twelve for craftsmen and manual labourers.¹² Rates differed by period and province, but this is the structure most often cited.
The tax was assessed annually on each liable adult man, not on the rest of his household.
A man who could not pay was no longer liable. Abu Yusuf ruled that the obligation did not apply to the decrepit, chronically ill, or destitute, whose family expenses were instead paid from the public treasury.⁵

Where the criticism does land

The governing rules did not prevent every ruler or jurist from abusing the tax.

The discriminatory dress codes (ghiyar) enforced by the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil from around 850 CE deliberately humiliated non-Muslims. These codes have no basis in the Qur’an or in the practice of the Prophet ﷺ or the early caliphs.¹³
Some later jurists described degrading rituals for the moment of collection, including striking or seizing the payer as he handed over the money. Major figures within the tradition rejected these rituals as baseless. They came from commentary and local custom without support in the governing sources.
Aurangzeb reimposed the jizya in Mughal India in 1679, more than a century after Akbar had abolished it. This was a political measure directed at a Hindu majority, and contemporaries understood it that way.¹⁴

These were genuine abuses by particular rulers and jurists. Each departed from the legal structure of the tax described above.

Did it drive conversion?

Even when collectors followed the law, the tax gave non-Muslims a continuing financial reason to convert. Historical evidence indicates that this incentive affected some conversions.

Mohamed Saleh and Jean Tirole use Egyptian papyrological tax records and later census data to show that the poll tax was regressive: a flat charge per person consumes a larger share of a poor person’s wealth. Poorer Copts consequently converted at higher rates, leaving a smaller and comparatively wealthier Coptic minority by 1200.¹⁵
The change was gradual. Egypt’s conversion took place over roughly five and a half centuries, from the conquest in 641 to around 1200. The country remained majority-Christian for much of that period under Muslim rule.¹⁵
Each conversion removed a taxpayer and reduced state revenue. Under the Umayyads, the resulting losses in Egypt, Iraq, and Khurasan were serious enough that some provincial governors resisted conversion and continued to collect the tax from men who had already become Muslim.¹⁶
The caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (r. 717–720) ordered the tax lifted from converts despite the loss of revenue and the objection of his governor in Khurasan. A delegation from the governor complained that converts were raiding without pay while still being taxed. Umar’s reported answer was: “Muhammad was sent as a prophet and not as a tax collector.”¹⁷

What remains of the objection

A tax charged according to religious status places pressure on belief even without threats or abusive collection. The state also benefits financially from maintaining that pressure. The legal purposes of the jizya do not erase this effect.

The tax paid for exemption from conscription and bound the state to protect the payer. Officials returned it when they could no longer provide that protection, and a Prophetic directive was used to stop a serving governor’s abusive collection. A charge tied to these obligations cannot be explained solely as a penalty for holding a different belief, even though the state could benefit from its effects.
Because it was a flat charge, its pressure was greatest among poor taxpayers. Saleh and Tirole found that the poor converted at higher rates, showing the harm caused by a regressive head tax. Abu Yusuf’s rates were banded by wealth, and the destitute were exempt altogether.
Al-Mutawakkil’s dress codes and Aurangzeb’s reimposition were coercive in intent. Classical and modern Muslim scholars have criticised both policies as departures from the standards found in the sources.

The conquests themselves, and the wider claim that Islam spread by force, are treated in Did Islam Spread by the Sword?.

The category no longer applies

The jizya presupposes a state that conscripts one religious community and exempts another. Once conscription is no longer divided by religion, the exchange on which the tax rested no longer exists.
Modern states levy taxes and military obligations on citizens without reference to religion. Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, among other authorities, therefore holds that non-Muslims with full legal citizenship and equal duties are not liable for jizya. The condition that created the obligation has ceased to exist.¹⁸
An obligation contracted in exchange for exemption from military service ends along with that exemption.

Conclusion

The jizya was a defence tax paid by non-Muslim men who were exempt from military service. It formed part of a written covenant that required the state to protect them and to return the payment when it could not. Only men of military age with the means to pay were liable, while Muslims owed zakat and military service.

Exegetes understood the closing term ṣāghirūn in different ways. Some read it as submission to the law of the state, while others described visible submission during payment. Neither interpretation gave collectors permission to mistreat the payer. A Companion relied on a saying from the Prophet ﷺ to stop a governor’s coercive collection, while the degrading practices of some later rulers conflicted with those sources.

The financial pressure was nevertheless real. A flat head tax burdened poor members of the taxed community most heavily, and conversion records reflect that effect over several centuries. The legal rules addressed this harm by exempting the destitute and requiring the treasury to support them, but they did not remove every incentive to convert. Umar II’s order to end collection from converts confirms that conversion removed the liability even when doing so cost the state revenue.