The Arrival of Islam

The Arab Conquests of the Seventh Century

In 638, everything began to change. A mere decade after Heraclius’ triumphant return to Jerusalem, Arab armies seized control of Palestine as one of the first in a succession of strategic advances that completely redrew the map of the ancient world. Soon, other Byzantine provinces fell as well: Egypt in 642 and the region of modern-day Tunisia in the 660s. The Persian Empire fared even worse. In 651, Yazdegird III was killed after having been forced to flee his capital, Ctesiphon, effectively marking the end of Sasanian rule. 

Although the pace slowed, territorial expansion continued into the eighth century, most notably with the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in the west in 711 and at about the same time the Indian province of Sind in the east. 

The Umayyad Caliphate

The caliphate that came into existence during the rule of the Umayyad dynasty (661–750) established its capital in Damascus, in the heart of formerly Byzantine territory, and lavished resources on transforming the sacred geography of Judaism and Christianity, over which it then ruled, into an Islamic holy land. Central to this effort was the completion in 692 of the Dome of the Rock, on a site once occupied by the Temple of Solomon and in a design that offered an explicit architectural rejoinder to the city’s main Christian shrine, the Church of the Resurrection.

While existing Byzantine and Sasanian administrative structures persisted well into the Umayyad period—it was clearly easier for the new rulers to rely on tried-and-true bureaucratic personnel and practices than to create an entirely new government apparatus out of whole cloth—there are indications from relatively early on that Jews perceived that a momentous change had occurred. 

Jewish Views of the Arabs

Drawing on the same stream of traditions that fed the Book of Zerubabbel, Jewish writers in Palestine in the middle of the seventh century began to develop new apocalyptic schemes that made explicit reference to the kingdom of Ishmael. For the authors of these anonymous texts, the conquering armies were divine emissaries, part of God’s plan to deliver the Jews from their suffering under the Byzantine rulers and a sign that the messianic age itself was near. 

Centuries later, Jewish writers would recall with evident gratitude how, after his conquest of Jerusalem in 637, the Muslim caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb reversed the policy of the Byzantine emperors and permitted Jews once again to settle in the holy city.

Legal Status of the Jews under Islam

Under the Umayyad rulers, a formal system began to take shape, defining the legal status of non-Muslims within the caliphate.

Protection and Restrictions

Building on precedents laid down during Muḥammad’s lifetime, as well as on policies implemented by their Byzantine and Sasanian predecessors, the new Muslim rulers adopted a pragmatic approach to deal with Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians living in their midst. They were guaranteed protection of their lives and property and were allowed to continue to practice their ancestral religion so long as they abided by measures designed to reinforce Islam’s place as the dominant faith within the public sphere. Restrictions included the prohibition against bearing arms, the obligation to show deference toward Muslims in a variety of situations, the imposition of distinctive dress, and limitations on the public display of religion and the construction and repair of houses of worship.

The Pact of ‘Umar

The administrative position, which combined elements of toleration with legislated subordination, was buttressed by the theological view, expressed in the Qur’ān, according to which both the Jewish and Christian scriptures were regarded as legitimate—though invalidated—revelations of divine origin. The classical articulation of this policy, a document known as the Pact of ‘Umar, purports to be an agreement drawn up in conjunction with the negotiated surrender of Christian towns in Syria during the conquests of the seventh century, but its clauses were soon applied in other locations and extended to other communities as well, among them Jews.

The Jizya (Poll Tax)

In addition to the specific terms mentioned in the pact, the tolerated minorities were also required to pay an annual poll tax, known in Arabic as the jizya. 

The populations whose liberties were guaranteed in exchange for their adherence to these measures came to be known as ahl al-dhimma, “protected people” (dhimmīs for short).

Was the Pact of ‘Umar Enforced in this Period?

Drawing conclusions about historical realities based on prescriptive legal texts is always hazardous; by nature, such writings present us with an idealized picture of how individuals in power think society should function rather than an accurate description of the way it in fact did. This caveat is particularly apposite when we try to assess the lived experience of members of the dhimmī communities in the medieval Islamic world. 

Indeed, many have observed that, through the end of the twelfth century, there is minimal evidence of Muslim rulers consistently enforcing the terms of the Pact of ‘Umar. 

A similar impression emerges from the records of the Cairo Geniza, which provide us with the clearest picture of day-to-day life in the Middle Ages. It is clear that the symbolic requirements that dhimmīs wear distinctive garb, for instance, or refrain from making repairs to their houses of worship were not strictly maintained in Fatimid lands during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 

One notable exception to this general rule is the jizya. The Geniza sources make it clear that not only was the annual poll tax indeed collected, but that it constituted a considerable burden for much of the population. We hear, for example, of public collections on behalf of individuals who were unable to make payment, as well as heartbreaking stories of individuals who were thrown in prison for nonpayment or who went into hiding to evade the tax collector. We also learn that upon payment of the tax, individuals were issued a receipt (barā’a); those unable to produce one on demand might be required to pay a second time.