The Classical Framework
Under classical Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims in an Islamic state fell into several categories. The dhimmi — literally “one in a covenant of protection” — were permanent non-Muslim residents, typically People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and, by extension in most schools, any non-Muslim people with whom a covenant was made).
What the dhimma provided:
- Protection of life and property by the Islamic state
- Freedom to practice their religion privately
- Maintenance of their own communal religious courts for personal status matters
What it required:
- Payment of jizya (a per-capita tax, differentiated from zakat which was for Muslims)
- Various conditions that varied by school and period — in some formulations: not building new houses of worship taller than mosques, not proselytizing, distinctive dress markers, not bearing arms
The Jizya Debates
The jizya was explicitly Quranic (9:29). Classical scholars debated:
- Its rate (Hanafi schools specified minimum amounts; Maliki schools allowed negotiation)
- Who was liable (only men; exemptions for the poor, sick, elderly, clergy varied by school)
- Its nature (a tax for protection? A mark of subordination? A substitute for military service obligation?)
Contemporary Reassessments
Modern Muslim scholars have largely taken one of three positions:
- Abrogated by circumstance: The dhimma framework was suited to a pre-modern imperial context; modern nation-states with equal citizenship supersede it
- Internally reformed: The obligations can be replaced by equal military/civic service obligations
- Still applicable in principle: Some traditionalist scholars maintain the classical framework in modified form
The consensus in modern Muslim-majority states is that constitutional citizenship, equal before law, has replaced the dhimma framework.
See also: Fiqh Al Iman Wa Kufr, Fiqh Al Madhab Al Maliki, Fiqh Al Madhab Al Hanbali, Fiqh Al Wasatiyyah, Ilm Al Usul