Did Muslim states really make more revenue from jizya paying dhimmis than from tithe-paying Muslims?

trurle

Banned
Your question makes extensive assumptions regarding economics and of governmental structures. The concept that a state in the “modern world” exists only (you implied this) in the sense of the large bureaucratic and redistributive models of the west, to me is making objective statements regarding a subjective field of discussion.

It is entirely possible for much of the modern amenities that one has in Saudi Arabia, would exist without the massive state models seen in the US, France, Russia, etc... You must prove that such advancements in technology or economics cannot exist without the large bureaucratic driven state now en vogue.

In regards to how a state can maintain incomes for the reasons it claims it requires these (excluding looting), we must first remove some assumptions.

1. The bureaucracy and state structures of the western and now entire world, are funded by and large by the populace with which they rule over. Thus it is a symbiotic or in some cases, parasitic relation. Bureaucracy and rulers are intended to offer benefits to the populace and in exchange, the populace provide an income for these.

My opinion is, I reject this concept for the Islamic society. Bureaucracy and the rulers with which Allah has given us, do not live to be provided for by the labor of the ‘subjects of Allah’. Instead, these bureaucracy are payed for by various other means, which could include:

-Payments by the Royal family and or aristocracy. This would be in the form of patronage or gifts. These are those who will most likely pay.

-Kharaj or taxes upon land.

-The aforementioned tariffs.

-Assuming the state is ruled by land owning elites or at least a state with large land ownership, bureaucracy can be tasked with operation of plots of land in districts that they service.

-Grants from the commoners or Islamic institutions, which are voluntary.

-Any business or income making opportunities.

-Another option is that the bureaucracy is those religious officials who are supported by zakat. Thus, you remove much of the issues regarding payment and also to whom the bureaucracy actually is.

In essence, I reject the notion that the bureaucracy individually speaking, should be provided for by immutable tax laws, which are to begin with, haram according to Allah.

2. In similar methods, the state or actual rulers above the bureaucracy in most states today, rule and in exchange receive forced payments in the form of taxation. These rulers can be elected officials, aristocracy, dictators or royalty. What they are, once they exist upon immutable and haram taxation, does not matter.

The conception of the state, within Islam further, is different than yours. Yours seems to be that the state is a provider, one to whom Power is given only to provide or that it exists in the realm above human interactions as a regulator of these interactions. Our conception is separate. Ours is based upon the understanding that the state is a construct that is not necessary according to Islamic law and that includes any system, the state can be circumvented by all means and the Shariah is such that it gives us a constant and immutable means to avoid the state, if we so choose.

When a state exists, it exists at the behest of Allah and has certain privileges, but not ones with which it is above the rest of the populace. So, the state is in actual terms, non existent to us; it is made up of individuals and entities to whom the right to rule has been gifted.

With this stated, the opinion of myself, is that much of the concepts you discuss exist primarily in a society wherein the rulers are elected and expected to end their previous occupations. My conception differs; for me, the preferable state of affairs is one wherein a state is ruled by a land owning royalty supported by landed aristocracy and a smaller system of local voting of provincial leaders who have some powers, but less so that the aristocracy and royalty.

Thus, in each case, these leaders are supported by the land or business with which they held prior to rule.So, the immutable taxation is not necessary.


“Every road cannot be a toll road”

I do not see why not? However, this may not be ideal, agreed. The idea that because the state in terms of the bureaucracy and rulers, do not provide all road payments and maintenance through immutable income taxes, that these roads will always require toll is flawed. For one, charity provides outlets to pay these tolls for those who cannot pay through either zakat or other forms of charity.

If tolls are too high, the commoners or the Islamic religious institution have rights to protest this by refusal to use said roads or demonstration. Or, it is permissible for them to seek aid of their rulers to pay tolls or discuss lowering the toll levels.

“Issue of where the money comes from”

For one, any form of permissible taxes that do exist and at accumulated by the state; are to be used primarily for military spending and afterwards used for saving and balancing budgets. It is considered a sin for one to take income and then create a deficit when there is no necessity for such.

“If private donations do not cover costs”

For one, only those who cannot pay for their own healthcare or insurance are to be supported by zakat. To pay the entire nation’s population in healthcare or insurance, requires either irregular amounts of income from resources owned by the rulers (say, oil and gas reserves) or high immutable income taxes, which are haram (assuming we wish to balance state budgets).

Secondly, the idea that the government or state has a moral right or duty to provide payments where zakat cannot provide, is rejected by our opinion. These payments should be and preferably coveted by private institutions and or zakat.

—————-

Yes, jizya would still be appropriate. It is the payment due from protector to protected, and submitted to his/her master. One can be exempt from jizya, however, the whole world absent of state fitnah is not one.
I have the feeling what the methods of monetary distributions entrenched in the Muslim traditions as described above, has contributed to the apparent funding problems of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, when the stream of fa'i (loot) has largely ceased.

Back to original point of the thread, at least in Egypt the total cost of social obligations (including taxes) were at periods even higher for Muslim subjects (remember some private talks with Egyptian officers and engineers in 2006-2010 period). It mostly dependent on the indirect costs of military service by Muslim subjects. Yes, it could be period-specific and state-specific, and i would agree with John7755 يوحنا, what jizya was typically neither dominant obligation nor obligation applied for non-muslims only.
 
IMHO the problems with jizya and fa'i is that they are suitable for an expanding polity, but much less so for a successful one. Given that Islam is an aggressively missionizing faith,and there are numerous disabilities placed on non-Muslims living in an Islamic state, the percentage of the population subject to and paying jizya will(and has OTL) decreased over time as non-Muslims convert or leave. In terms of fa'i (loot) a state that is not actively conquering new territory gets no loot, and a Muslim state surrounded by other Muslim states has no potential source of loot. Without debating the overall merits of a bureaucratic state, and there are minus marks as well as plus marks, things like roads and bridges need regular maintenance on a schedule that needs to be determined years (even decades) in advance and a revenue stream planned to accomplish this. It appears even something as simple as a gas tax to fund highways is not permissable or if so, fraught with difficulties - how do you have a sliding scale tax depending on whether or not you are poor, and how poor you are, when you go to fill up. Not an insurmountable problem, but one that has its own costs of administration that must be paid for.

At the risk of treading on dangerous ground, religious injunctions on morality can, and mostly are, time independent. Some "laws" specified in detail many, many centuries ago can be merely inconvenient, such as the need to find halal or kosher food, or can be impossible or counterproductive in the modern world. Detailed specific laws, as opposed to codes of conduct, that were set out thousands of years ago in societies that were very different in a world that was very different, need to be adapted or reinterpreted or they become millstones around the necks of society. There are many examples in all major religions of this sort of thing, not just Islam.
 
@sloreck

This is why I propose Modern Monetary Theory and the usage of fiat money as a means to solve this issue as the theory gets rid of the idea that there are any monetary restrictions for what a state can do as the state issues money and therefore cannot run out of it. It instead proposes that states are limited by their resources and their access to them. This means that the goal of the state is to use and maintain their resources towards goals of achieving the prosperity of it's citizens or in this case, Dar al-Islam thus, instead of being limited by currency, currency becomes another tool to be used by the state to manage itself.

Note that this is just a very botched version of MMT and that there are more in-depth articles, blogs, and models which discuss MMT to greater lengths than the pittance of a summary I hold before you now.
 
@trurle

By the time the Ottoman Empire was established, the system that @John7755 يوحنا described was no longer used and taxes were common place being used to greater degrees than before. It has been this way for eras before the Seljuks even set foot unto the Middle East. The Ottomans had such issues with funding due to the Capitulations and the policies which European bankers and financiers "encouraged" the empire to adopt (a significant policy being free trade) along with their unwillingness to allow the Ottomans any form of economic reform.
 
How was the Caliphate administrated? Did provinces under the Caliphate have much autonomy? What were Futuwwa and the A’yan system and what part did they play in the Caliphate's administration?
 
Top