The subjugation of Jews justified through religious texts and codified in laws like the Pact of Umar, would leave a lasting impact, shaping Islamic attitudes towards Jews for generations to come.
By Dr. Tim Orr
The history of Jewish-Muslim relations is marked by periods of both cooperation and tension, but at the heart of this dynamic lies the concept of dhimmitude, a system that shaped the way Jews lived under Islamic rule. Imagine a bustling marketplace in medieval Baghdad. A Jewish merchant carefully counts his coins, preparing to pay the jizya tax to the local Muslim authority. Though free to trade, his every step is a reminder of his subservience—he wears a distinctive badge, is forbidden from riding a horse, and knows that his contributions are not merely financial but symbolic, reinforcing his status as a second-class citizen. This image, though from centuries past, encapsulates the realities of dhimmitude: a legal and theological framework that not only protected non-Muslims under Islamic rule but also institutionalized their marginalization. The subjugation of Jews justified through religious texts and codified in laws like the Pact of Umar, would leave a lasting impact, shaping Islamic attitudes towards Jews for generations to come.
The concept of dhimmitude has been a central factor in shaping Islamic antisemitism, serving as both a theological and social framework that institutionalized the subjugation of Jews within Islamic societies. Dhimmitude is derived from the Arabic word dhimma, meaning “protection” or “covenant,” and was applied to non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians, living under Islamic rule. In exchange for protection, these communities—referred to as dhimmis—were required to pay a tax (jizya) and adhere to various legal and social restrictions. Bat Ye’or (1985) emphasizes that while dhimmis were permitted to live under Islamic rule, they were subjected to significant social, economic, and legal inequalities, especially through the payment of the jizya tax. This tax symbolized their submission to Muslim authority and reinforced their subordination, contributing to a perception of Jewish inferiority that would persist for centuries.
To illustrate, imagine a small Jewish community in 12th-century Damascus. Although they have lived alongside their Muslim neighbors for generations, their interactions are governed by strict social hierarchies. Every year, Jewish leaders are summoned to pay the jizya tax. While Muslims in the city go about their daily lives, the Jews arrive at the governor’s residence, where they are publicly humiliated as part of the tax payment ritual. This act, where the payer is sometimes slapped on the neck as a sign of submission, serves as a stark reminder of their subservient status and reinforces the societal view of Jewish inferiority (Lewis, 1984).
The theological underpinnings of dhimmitude are rooted in Islamic concepts such as fitra (natural disposition) and fitna (discord), which provided a religious justification for the marginalization of Jews. According to Islamic thought, fitra refers to the natural human inclination to recognize and worship the one true God. Jews, by rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad, were viewed as deviating from their fitra, which justified their subjugation and inferior status within Islamic society (Dobbs, 2023). This perceived deviation from fitra framed Jews as spiritually misguided, reinforcing their exclusion and justifying their subservience under the system of dhimmitude.
At the same time, fitna, or discord, was often associated with Jews, further legitimizing their marginalization. By portraying Jews as external agents of fitna—disruptors of social harmony—Islamic theology contributed to the enduring perception of Jewish inferiority and provided religious cover for their exclusion from political and social structures (Ye’or, 1985).
These theological constructs were reinforced by Qur’anic injunctions, such as Qur'an 9:29, which mandated the subjugation of non-Muslims, particularly Jews, through the payment of jizya and their acceptance of a subordinate status. Though Jews were allowed to practice their religion, these legal frameworks institutionalized a system of second-class citizenship, ensuring their marginalization and reinforcing antisemitic attitudes within Islamic societies (Lewis, 1984).
The legal framework of dhimmitude was formalized in historical documents such as the Pact of Umar, which outlined the conditions under which Jews and Christians could live under Islamic rule. The Pact imposed various restrictions on non-Muslims, including prohibitions against building new places of worship, carrying weapons, or publicly displaying religious symbols. These legal constraints not only solidified the inferior status of Jews but also institutionalized their marginalization, ensuring their exclusion from political and economic power structures (Ye’or, 1985).
Consider the case of a Jewish doctor in 14th-century Cairo. Though he is a respected physician, his religious status as a dhimmi prevents him from riding a horse to visit his patients—an honor reserved for Muslims. Instead, he rides a donkey through the narrow streets, a visible marker of his lower status in society. Despite his professional skill, the social limitations imposed on him by the Pact of Umar are constant reminders of his subjugation (Ye’or, 1985).
The jizya tax played a critical role in reinforcing the marginalization of Jews within Islamic societies. Both economically and symbolically significant, the tax represented the submission of dhimmis to Muslim rule. Paying the jizya was often accompanied by rituals of humiliation designed to underscore their subordinate status. Economically, the jizya provided essential revenue for the Islamic state, but more importantly, it reinforced the superior status of Muslims over Jews and Christians (Lewis, 1984).
One can imagine the scene in a 10th-century Andalusian town, where a Jewish craftsman is summoned to pay his jizya. The payment, though financially burdensome, carries a deeper humiliation: he is made to bow before the tax collector, further entrenching his marginalized position in society. Over time, this economic and symbolic subjugation contributed to a cultural disdain for Jews within the broader Islamic world.
While dhimmitude institutionalized the subordination of Jews, it is essential to recognize that its enforcement varied across different Islamic regions and historical periods. Scholars such as Fred Donner (1981) point out that the rigidity with which dhimmi restrictions were enforced depended on regional and political factors. In some instances, these rules were applied strictly, while in others, they were symbolic or relaxed, allowing Jewish communities to thrive in certain contexts. This variability complicates a monolithic portrayal of dhimmitude, suggesting that Jewish-Muslim relations were shaped by broader sociopolitical dynamics.
Bernard Lewis (1984) offers the example of Jewish scholars, doctors, and merchants who achieved notable success in Islamic societies despite their second-class status. In some regions and periods, Jews were able to navigate the system of dhimmitude and achieve significant social and economic success, illustrating that their experience was not uniformly oppressive.
The legacy of dhimmitude has had a lasting impact on Islamic antisemitism by institutionalizing and perpetuating the idea of Jewish inferiority through both theological and legal frameworks. The system subjected Jews to social, economic, and legal restrictions, embedding the perception of them as second-class citizens within Islamic society. Over time, this fostered negative stereotypes and antisemitic attitudes that continue to influence Islamic thought and practice today.
Theologically, dhimmitude framed Jews as spiritually deficient due to their rejection of Muhammad's prophethood, while socially and economically, the jizya and other restrictions reinforced their marginalized status. The humiliation associated with the jizya payment, along with prohibitions such as wearing distinctive clothing and limiting public worship, further solidified the subordination of Jews and normalized their inferiority (Ye’or, 1985). These legal structures ensured that Jews were excluded from positions of power and influence, feeding into a broader culture of disdain that contributed to the development of Islamic antisemitism.
The enduring effects of dhimmitude have shaped contemporary Islamic antisemitism. Although the system of dhimmitude no longer exists in the same form today, the underlying attitudes and perceptions of Jewish inferiority persist in many parts of the Islamic world. Stereotypes that portray Jews as weak, subservient, or untrustworthy continue to echo the historical treatment of Jews under Islamic rule. In modern times, antisemitic rhetoric, particularly in regions where political Islamism has gained influence, often draws on these historical narratives to justify hostility toward Jews, reinforcing the legacy of dhimmitude.
In conclusion, dhimmitude played a crucial role in shaping Islamic antisemitism by providing both theological and legal justification for the subjugation of Jews. This system institutionalized Jewish inferiority, embedding antisemitic attitudes within Islamic societies. While scholars such as Lewis and Donner have highlighted the diversity of Jewish experiences under Islamic rule, the legacy of dhimmitude remains a critical factor in understanding the historical and contemporary roots of Islamic antisemitism.
References:
Tim Orr is an Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including three books.
This is an adaptation of a portion of a paper I wrote titled Islamic Antisemitism: A Critical Examination of Theological Foundations and Historical Manifestations, which I have yet to publish.