DHIMMA OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, ACCORDING

TO EARLY AND MEDIAEVAL ISLAMIC SOURCES

J. Luis Dizon (998869513)

NMC 270 H1F

Submitted to: Dr. Amir Harrak

03 December 2014

0 | Page

The Dhimma (الذمة) comes the Arabic verb dhamma (ذم), which means “to affix

blame” or “to find fault.”1 It refers to a system of subjugation by which

Christians and other People of the Book are allowed to live in Muslim lands in

exchange for payment of the Jizya and various restrictions placed upon them.

Those under such subjugation are referred to as dhimmis. This system was

developed in response to the growing political influence of Islam, as Muslims

expanded their influence over the known world through a combination of

diplomacy and conquest. Initially, the Dhimma system (as found in the Qur’an

and Sirah) was fairly simple, being composed of the payment of a fixed sum,

and the threat of military action against those who refused to do so. As time

went on, a variety of restrictions were developed against the dhimmis to

incentivize their conversion to Islam. It worked, as non-Muslim majorities

gradually shrunk to minorities over the course of centuries.

The Dhimma has been the object of controversy recently as debates ensue

over whether it is a system of oppression or of tolerance. On the one hand are

populist writers who point to it as evidence that Islam is oppressive towards

non-Muslims.2 On the other hand are more apologetically inclined works that

portray the Dhimma as being advanced in its time in terms of religious

1 Sidney H. Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam Princeton University Press, 2012), 16. This is corroborated in E.W. Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, which states that the meaning of the word is “to blame, dispraise, find fault with, censure, in respect of evil conduct” (Bk. 1, p. 975. Cited in Mark Durie, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom (Deror Books, 2010), ch. 6.).2 The most popular example of this today is Robert M. Spencer, who has written numerous works on Islamic fundamentalism. Some representative works include The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005), The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery Publishing, 2006) and most recently, Not Peace but a Sword: The Great Chasm between Christianity and Islam (Catholic Answers, 2013).

1 | Page

pluralism.3 Because of this discrepancy of perceptions regarding the nature of

the system, many scholars have opted to avoid making value judgments

regarding it. Anver Emon, for example, states that the Islamic legal traditions

“contain examples that vindicate both perspectives of tolerance and intolerance

toward the non-Muslim, thereby suggesting that the question whether Islam is

tolerant or not is one that cannot be answered definitively one way or

another.”4

As such, the goal of this essay is to get beyond populist presentations of

the Dhimma—both positive and negative—and examine firsthand the various

sources for Islamic law during the early and mediaeval Islamic sources (The

Qur’an, hadith and sirah literature, commentaries, and other legal documents)

to examine what kinds of rights and restrictions are entailed in the Dhimma, as

well as how the system developed from its simplest form during the lifetime of

Muhammad to its more developed forms during the Umayyad and Abbasid

caliphates and beyond.

It should be noted at this point that the implementation of the Dhimma

was far from consistent, and varies according to location and time period. As

many historians have pointed out, there were many points in history when the

full range of restrictions demanded by the system were not enforced, and

Christians and Jews had more rights and opportunities available to them than a

strict implementation of it would have allowed (although even in such

3 Representative of this viewpoint is John L. Esposito, who has written such books as The Oxford History of Islam (Oxford University Press, 1999) The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (Oxford University Press, 1999) and most recently, What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam (Oxford University Press, 2011)4 Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford University Press, 2012),

2 | Page

circumstances, they were far from equal to their Muslim counterparts in social

standing).5 There were also points where the reverse was true, and the

practice was more severe than the texts themselves warranted. As such, this

essay will focus more on the theological and legal aspects of the system, as

opposed to the historical and sociological aspects. Historical anecdotes will be

mentioned, but only insofar as they provide background behind the

implementation and development of the Dhimma.

SOURCES OF ISLAMIC LAW

To begin with, it is necessary to briefly go through the sources of Islamic law.

Traditionally, there are four sources (grouped into three levels) from which

Islamic law is derived. The first is Islam’s main holy text, the Qur’an. Some

people think that if a certain teaching or practice is not mentioned in the

Qur’an, then that proves that that teaching or practice is not Islamic. However,

this is not the case, as Islam derives its theology and its legal rulings from

multiple sources, of which the Qur’an is just one (albeit the primary source).

After the Qur’an comes the Sunnah, which are traditions concerning

Muhammad’s behaviour and teachings. These are recorded in the various

hadith narrations (pl. ahadith), as well as in the sirah (biographical literature)

of Muhammad.6

5 Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, 308-309. See also Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2009), 108-110; Bernard Lewis, Islam in History (New York: The Library Press, 1973), 1646 Knut S. Vikør, Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law (Oxford University Press, 2005), 31.

3 | Page

Together, the Qur’an and the Sunnah form the first level in establishing

Islamic Law. Below this first level is the third source, which is Qiyas (analogical

deduction), which forms the second level for establishing Islamic Law. Qiyas is

the process by which specific commands and incidents are taken from first

level sources, and legal rulings are extrapolated from those based on the

legal/ethical principles guiding them. Thus, Qiyas is used to develop legal

rulings for situations that are not directly addressed in the Qur’an or the

Sunnah.7

The fourth source in the development of Islamic Law is Ijma (consensus),

which forms the third and final level in establishing Islamic Law. Once a ruling

has been developed by way of qiyas, it is only a potential legal rule, not an

actual one. That ruling must achieve a consensus within one or more of the

madh’habs (schools of Islamic jurisprudence). In Sunnism, there are four

schools: Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali. In Shi’ism, there is also the Jafari

school. Because these different schools of thought have different methods of

reasoning, rulings may attain Ijma in some madh’habs but not in others.8

THE QUR’AN

Having discussed the sources of Islamic law, we now turn to the Qur’an. There

is only one passage in the entire Qur’an that speaks on the issue of placing

Jews and Christians in a system of subjugation, and that is surah 9:29:

ورسوله ه الل م حر ما مون يحر وال خر اآل� �يو�م بال وال ه بالل يؤ�منون ال ذين ال قاتلواوهم� يد عن ية �جز� ال يع�طوا ى حت �كتاب ال أوتوا ذين ال من �حق ال دين يدينون وال

صاغرون7 Ibid., 31-32.8 Ibid., 32.

4 | Page

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.9

Surat al-Tawba, where this ayah appears, is regarded as one of the last Qur’an

chapters (along with al-Ma’ida and al-Nasr) to be revealed before Muhammad’s

death. The ayah directs Muslims to fight “those who were given the book” (

�كتاب ال أوتوا ذين This referred to the Jews and the Christians, because of their .(ال

having books that Islam recognizes as scripture. They are collectively referred

to as “People of the book” ( �كتاب ال ,أه�ل cf. Surah 98:6) or, in the case of

Christians, “People of the Gospel” ( نجيل اإل� cf. Surah 5:47). This status is ,أه�ل

later extended to Zoroastrians and Hindus, as Muslims expand beyond the

Arabian peninsula into Persia, India and Southeast Asia.

The ayah goes on to say that the people are to be fought against “until

they pay the Jizya” ( ية �جز� ال يع�طوا ى The jizya is basically a poll-tax that is .(حت

levied upon People of the Book who have been reduced to dhimmi status. The

tax is paid by all able-bodied adults, with the exception of clergy. It is

commonly held that the jizya is paid in lieu of military service.10 While this is

part of the picture, it is an incomplete explanation for why the Jizya is exacted.

E.W. Lane notes in his Arabic-English Lexicon that the jizya is paid “as though

it were a compensation for their not being slain.”11 Various other Muslim

commentators describe the Jizya as “a pardon for death” and “satisfaction for

9 English translation is by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall.10 Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, 307-308 and 135.11 Cited in Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.

5 | Page

their blood.”12 The 8th century Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf Ya’qub states regarding

the jizya:

The wali is not allowed to exempt any Christian, Jew, Magian, Sabean or Samaritan from paying the tax, and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, because their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the poll tax.13

It is stated that It is further noted that the moment dhimmis cease to pay the

jizya, their protection is nullified and the state of jihad resumes against them.

This is made clear by by Shafi’i jurist al-Mawardi (d. 1058), who stated that “if

they refuse to make payment, however, the reconciliation ceases, their security

is no longer guaranteed and war must be waged on them - like any other

persons from the enemy camp.”14

One notable practice that developed among Hanafi and Shafi’i schools of

jurisprudence was the practice of striking the dhimmi as they pay the jizya,

usually at the back of the neck (although sometimes the jaw under the ear is hit

instead). This is attested to in the writings of Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), Al-Razi (d.

1210) and Nasafi (d. 1310).15 To this, Al-Tabari (d. 923) adds that the posture of

the dhimmi as he hands over the jizya is that they lower themselves “by

walking on their hands, reluctantly.”16 Al-Suyuti (d. 1505) describes how the

dhimmi is to have dirt on his head as he gives the jizya, and how the Muslim

12 Ibid.13 Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), 322.14 Asadulah Yate, The Laws of Islamic Governance, 70-78. Cited in Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.15Ibid.16Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010), 128.

6 | Page

receiving the Jizya is always to have a whip on hand.17 The intent is to remind

dhimmis of their subjugated state (as indicated below under the discussion of

the phrase “made little”).

Moving on, surah 9:29 also states that the jizya is to be given “out of

hand” ( يد -What this phrase means is not agreed on by Muslim scholars. Al .(عن

Baydawi (d. 1280) and Al-Khazin (d. 1340) interpret this to mean that the jizya

is paid by dhimmis out of gratitude to the Muslims for having their lives

spared.18 An alternate interpretation, provided by Al-Zamakhshari (d. 1143), is

that this expression means that the Jizya is given submissively, in a

forthcoming, obedient manner. He likens the dhimmi to a sheep with a leash

around its neck, and refusal to pay with taking off the leash.19 This is also the

interpretation given by the famous Qur’anic commentator Ismail b. Kathir (d.

1373), who interprets the verse to mean “in defeat and subservience.”20 Yet

another interpretation, relatively recent in origin, is that the phrase means that

the dhimmi should pay the jizya in person (ie. with his own hand), rather than

by means of an intermediary such as a clergyman or community leader.21

Finally, at the end the ayah, it is stated that the dhimmis are to be “made

little” (صاغرون). Ibn Kathir interprets this to mean “disgraced, humiliated and

belittled,” and asserts that in light of this, “Muslims are not allowed to honor

the people of Dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable,

disgraced and humiliated.”22 He then states that this phrase is to become the

17 Ibid., 127.18Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.19 Ibid.20 Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, 129.21 Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.22 Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, 129.

7 | Page

basis for various restrictions placed upon dhimmis later on, which will be seen

in later sections below.

As can be seen here, the meaning of this verse has been expanded upon

quite a lot over the centuries to create an entire theology of subjugation. This

verse is further corroborated by other documents from the Islamic tradition,

which will be examined next.

REFERENCES IN THE HADITH AND SIRAH LITERATURE

The exacting of the jizya as described in surah 9:29 can be found in the hadith

and sirah literature, written between 150-250 years after the lifetime of

Muhammad. These sources still do not provide a fully-developed Dhimma

system, but they do provide more details on how the Jizya is to be exacted from

dhimmis, as well as the mandate to implement such a system among them.

The earliest instance of the implementation of the Dhimma goes back to

628, when Muhammad went to war against the Jewish community at Khaybar.

This is recorded in the Sirat Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq (ca. mid-8th century A.D.)

The Jews surrendered and were allowed to remain on that land on the

condition that they recognize the Muslims as the legal owners of the land.

Although there was no jizya at this point, the tax is foreshadowed by the fact

that the Jews were forced to pay half the produce of the land to the Muslims.23

The earliest references to the exacting of the jizya from Dhimmis appears

later on in Sirat Rasul Allah. One such reference reads:

23Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford University Press, 1955), 515.

8 | Page

A Jew or a Christian who becomes a sincere Muslim of his own accord and obeys the religion of Islam is a believer with the same rights and the same obligations. If one of them holds fast to the religion he is not to be turned from it. Every adult, male or female, bond or free, must pay a gold dinar or its equivalent in clothes. He who performs this has the guarantee of God and His apostle; he who withholds it is the enemy of God and His apostle and all believers.24

The passage in question comes at the end of a narrative detailing the

conversion of the Jewish Banu al-Harith tribe to Islam. It is stated therein that

Khalid b. al-Walid was sent to the Banu al-Harith by Muhammad in 631 in order

to give them three days to accept Islam. If they rejected Islam after that period,

they will be attacked. It so happened that most of the Banu al-Harith accepted

Islam, and were then instructed in the sunnah of the prophet.25 Afterwards, the

above passage was given for those among the Banu al-Harith who remained in

Judaism. Here, we can infer that 1) the jizya began to be implemented shortly

after the conquest of Mecca for Jews and Christians who did not convert to

Islam, 2) a fixed price had already been established by that period, along with a

list of who is required to pay the tax, and 3) the guarantee of safety is given to

those who paid the jizya, with the implied threat of military action against

those who refused to pay it and thus rendered themselves as “enemies.”

Notably absent are any list of restrictions, which indicate that such restrictions

were not yet implemented at the time.

Another notable fact about this passage is that it is one of our earliest

historical references to the three-fold call that Muslim armies were to give to

non-Muslims that they were to come upon. This three-fold call appears in Sahih

24 Ibid., 647-648. See p. 643 for another reference to the Jizya with nearly identical wording.25 Ibid., 645-647.

9 | Page

Muslim, and is reiterated in many other Islamic sources that come after it. The

hadith states:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.26

The three-fold call is only made available to those who are described as “people

of the book” (as mentioned above). For pagans without valid scriptures, the

jizya was not made an option, and they could only choose between conversion

to Islam and the sword.27

Historically, the vast majority of conquered populations in the early

Islamic period chose to pay the jizya rather than convert to Islam. As such, the

Muslims often found themselves the minority in the newly conquered lands. It

would not be until several centuries before they became the majority in those

lands.28 This was facilitated by the jizya, which incentivized conversion to

Islam.29 It was also facilitated by various practices that were instituted to keep

dhimmis in a state of inferiority, in line with the injunction in surah 9:29 that

they are to be “made little.” One such practice, recorded in Sahih Muslim and

reiterated in Riyad al-Saliheen, is the prohibition of Muslims initiating

greetings to dhimmis, and the requirement that they be forced to the narrowest

part of a road:

Abu Hurairah reported: The Messenger of Allah said, “Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you; and when you

26 Sahih Muslim 27:4294, cited in Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.27 Ibid.28 Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006), 25-26.29 Durie, The Third Choice, ch. 6.

10 | Page

meet any one of them on the road, force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”30

The commentary provided for in Riyad al-Saliheen states the it “shows the

dignity of Muslims and the disgrace and humiliation of the non-Muslims.”31 Ibn

Kathir reflects the same understanding (see below). This shows that the clear

intent of the practice is to implement the injunction found at the end of surah

9:29.

All that being said, we find that neither the Qur’an nor the ahadith

provide a full-blown Dhimma system, even though elements of it (such as the

jizya and the humiliated stature of the dhimmis) are visible therein. For a more

comprehensive account of the Dhimma, it is necessary to look at one more

important document.

THE PACT OF UMAR

Perhaps the earliest document that provides a comprehensive description of

the Dhimma system is what is known as the “Pact of Umar.” As the name

indicates, the Pact is attributed to the second caliph, Umar b. Al-Khattab (d.

644), though there is some doubt as to whether the text actually goes back to

him.32 There are many variants and accretions in the text, and the standard

30 Sahih Muslim 26:5389, cited in Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Ad-Dimashqi, Riyad-us-Saliheen (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1999), 2:711. 31 Ibid.32 Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, 308.

11 | Page

version dates only to the 9th century.33 Nonetheless, this document has served

as precedent for later dhimmi laws, as seen below.

This Pact was first promulgated after Muslim armies under Umar

conquered Syria and Palestine, and was later implemented in other conquered

territories. It begins with a prologue indicating that the Christians of the

conquered regions sought protection for their lives and possessions from the

Muslims.34 It then goes on to give a description of the restrictions imposed on

them in return for safety:

We will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travellers; that we will receive any Muslim traveller into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims.

That we will not teach our children the Qur’an; that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite anyone to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames; that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine; that we will shave the front of our heads; that we will keep to our own style of dress, wherever we may be; that we will wear girdles round our waists.

That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Muslims, or in their marketplaces; that we will strike the clappers in

33 Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791 (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1999), 14. 34 Ibid., 14-15.

12 | Page

our churches lightly; that we will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm branches or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their marketplaces; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim.35

In the Shafi’i legal manual Kitab al-Umm (ca. 9th century) is a longer version of

the Pact, which reflects further restrictions imposed by the Shafi’i school upon

dhimmis. Therein it states that anyone who speaks blasphemously of

Muhammad, the Qur’an or Islam forfeits the protection of the authorities.36

Additional restrictions found in the longer version include turning Muslims

away from their religion, marrying Muslim women, allowing Muslims to marry

in the presence of non-Muslim witnesses, selling anything to Muslims that is

haram, using idolatrous language about Jesus in the presence of Muslims,

taking the high side of the road and staying in the Hijaz for longer than three

days.37 The payment of the jizya is also limited to free adult men and women

who are of sound mind, exempting slaves and the mentally unsound from

payment.38

Interestingly, many of the provisions contained in the Pact are not

original to it. In fact, no less than six of the restrictions mentioned therein are

derived from Byzantine laws enacted against the Jews.39 This is evidence

against Esposito’s claim that the legal status of religious minorities was

35 Ibid., 15.36 Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin (eds.), Classic Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature London: Routledge, 2003), 91.37 Ibid., 91-92.38 Ibid., 92.39 Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World, 15. See pp. 3-7 for examples of such laws.

13 | Page

improved under Islamic law.40 If the restrictions imposed upon Dhimmis by the

Pact are based upon similar restrictions by the Byzantines, then their legal

status is neither qualitatively better nor worse than it had been prior to Islam,

but is in continuity with their previous state. If the de facto status of religious

minorities improved under the Muslims, it was only insofar as the restrictions

imposed by the Pact were not being enforced by the authorities.

The enduring legacy of the Pact of Umar can be seen by how it continues

to be cited by Muslim theologians and jurists throughout history. In his

commentary on Surah 9:29, Ibn Kathir cites both the Pact and the hadith about

forcing dhimmis onto the narrowest part of the word as examples of how

dhimmis are to be “made little,” stating that “these conditions that ensured

their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.”41 The Pact is also cited

in modern legal opinions given by various Muslim scholars from Cairo in the

18th century.42 This demonstrates that the Pact is not just a historical artifact,

but actually set a precedent for dhimmi laws for many centuries to come.

CONCLUSION

The Dhimma system as shown here has many dimensions to it, with various

provisions being developed to bring out the full significance of this system. It

can be seen here that it is by no means close to modern conceptions of

religious pluralism, although this is to be expected, since such modern

conceptions are anachronistic. This does pose challenges for Muslims who seek

40 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 74.41 Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, 129.42 Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World, 16-20.

14 | Page

to provide an interpretation of Islamic law and social theory that is palatable to

an audience that is steeped in the western liberal tradition without straying

from the larger Islamic tradition. While such an interpretation is arguably

possible, it is not easy to shake off centuries of traditional legal rulings, which

is why debates regarding the provisions of the Dhimma are unlikely to be

resolved anytime soon.

15 | Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ad-Dimashqi, Al-Imam Abu Zakariya. Riyad-us-Saliheen (2 Volumes). Riyadh: Darussalam, 1999.

Bostom, Andrew. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010.

Calder, Norman, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin (eds.). Classic Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature. London: Routledge, 2003.

Durie, Mark. The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom. Deror Books, 2010. Kindle Edition.

Emon, Anver M. Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford Islamic Legal Studies). Oxford University Press, 2012.

Esposito, John L. The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford University Press, 1999.

________. What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, 2011.

Glasse, Cyril. The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.

Griffith, Sidney H. The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton University Press, 2012.

Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, 1955.

Jenkins, Philip. The Lost History of Christianity. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2009.

Karsh, Efraim Karsh. Islamic Imperialism: A History. Yale University Press, 2006.

Lewis, Bernard. Islam in History. New York: The Library Press, 1973.

16 | Page

Marcus, Jacob. The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1999.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation. Public Domain.

Vikør, Knut S. Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ye’or, Bat. The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996.

________. Understanding Dhimmitude: Twenty-one Lectures and Talks on the Position of Non-Muslims in Islamic Societies. RVP Publishers, 2013.

17 | Page