We have taken up this issue for the purpose of presenting the point of view of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abi Zahrah (Rahimahullah) in regards to generalising or extending the Fareedah (obligation) of Az-Zakaah upon non-Muslims in the same way that it is obligatory upon Muslims. This is as a substitute for the Jizyah that is obligatory upon them.
Before I respond to this question it is necessary to mention the consequences of some hasty answers to this subject. These answers can lead to dangerous or serious ramifications that cause Muslims problems that they are not ready to face at the present time. I say: Those who give Shar’iyah Fatawaa (verdicts) in relation to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah today and even those who take up arms towards the Muslims, are obliged to the think on the consequences of giving hasty answers. They must think long and hard about the present reality and think long and hard about the Nusoos (texts) that relate to our current time and the compatibility of these texts upon the reality that we are suffering. The Fatwaa (verdict) follows this process and then the issuing of the Hukm.
In answer to this they remain upon the status of being Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah even if the Islamic State is no longer present and there is no Imaam for the Muslims in existence. This is because the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah that was contracted with their predecessors is a permanent contract that applies upon them and those that came after them as long as a Dhimmi remains and however much time passes.
The definition of Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah Ibn ul-Qayyim defined the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in his presentation of the different categories of Kuffaar (disbelievers) just as he defined each of those who have an ‘Ahd (covenant) from amongst the disbelievers and this was so as to distinguish the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah from other than them. He said:
A team was dispatched from the US State Department in 1877 to assess the treatment of Jews in the Ottoman Caliphate. Their findings that Jews were very well treated and not persecuted are described in the news article below published on Wednesday 23rd August 1877 by the New York Times.
Narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Maseerah b. Jaleese, where he heard the Prophet ﷺ: “This matter (the Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city, then to Bait-ul-Maqdis. So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).”
The position of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule (dhimmi) is a widely misunderstood topic. Those wishing to attack Islam and its systems portray Islam’s treatment of the dhimmi as worse than its treatment of animals. Historical incidents where dhimmi suffered persecution at particular times are generalised and quoted out of context in order to back up their claims.
Last month the Muslims of Homs in Syria held a rally calling for a return of the Khilafah to replace the tyranny and oppression of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This is not the first time Syria (ash-Sham) has been ruled by a tyrannical ruler. When Homs was first opened to Islam during the time of Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab, ash-Sham was part of the Byzantine Empire under the leadership of Emperor Heraclius. A few years after Homs was conquered and opened to Islam the Muslims were forced in to a temporary retreat back to Damascus. Faced with being ruled again by the Byzantines a similar call for the Khilafah was heard in Homs but this time from the Christian dhimmi. Although these Christians had only lived under the Khilafah for a short period of time, compared to years living under the oppressive Byzantine Empire, they preferred the Islamic rule.
World attention is focussing on Egypt’s Coptic Christians after a bomb exploded outside a Church in Alexandria killing 21 people and injuring 70 more.[1] The attack sparked clashes between Egyptian police and Copts protesting against government inaction in protecting their community and places of worship. “Now it’s between Christians and the government, not between Muslims and Christians,” shrieked one Christian woman as several hundred young men clashed with helmeted riot police in the street outside the targeted church hours after the blast.[2]
Islamic Civilization 