This is part three in a series of four posts on the financing of jihÄdÂ during the MamlÅ«k period.
In the cases presented in the sources discussed in the previous post, sultans and amÄ«rs met, in general, with firm opposition on the part of several Ê¿ulamÄÊ¾ to the imposition of additional taxes on the population. However, did the MamlÅ«k sultans respect the opinion of these Ê¿ulamÄÊ¾? TÄj al-DÄ«n al-SubkÄ« (d. 771/1370) reports that after al-Ê¿Izz b. Ê¿Abd al-SalÄm issued his fatwÄ, the MamlÅ«k army sold all of its remaining property to finance the war effort. Ibn Aybak al-DawÄdÄrÄ«, however, confirms that the sultan Quá¹uz, who later defeated the Mongols at the battle of Ê¿Ayn JÄlÅ«t on 25 Ramaá¸Än 658/3 September 1260, had taken several measures to collect money from the population to finance the jihÄd against the Mongols, in particular the imposition of a new tax.  These measures were put to an end by Baybars once he became sultan; however, as we have seen, he also attempted to impose such taxes during his reign. Did Quá¹uz respect the fatwÄ or not? By cross-checking and analyzing the two stories, one can propose two hypotheses: either Quá¹uz did not take into account the opinion of Ê¿Izz al-DÄ«n b. Ê¿Abd al-SalÄm and went on to impose new taxes, or he respected the fatwÄ and ordered the amÄ«rs and the combatants to sell any possessions that were not essential for the jihÄd effort but then had to impose a tax after all, as additional financial resources were still required. Considering al-Ê¿Izz b. Ê¿Abd al-SalÄm’s prestige and influence, the second hypothesis is possible. However, it is unlikely that Baybars took into consideration al-NawawÄ«â€™s remarks, and probably did not retract the new taxes, at least for a certain time. Introducing new taxes to finance the jihÄd effort continued under Baybarsâ€™ successors. Before fighting the Mongols at WÄdÄ« al-KhÄzindÄr in RabÄ«Ê¿ al-Awwal 699/December 1299, the MamlÅ«k army, at its halt in Damascus, had been forced to borrow money from orphans and prisoners. As al-MaqrÄ«zÄ« reports, after Syria’s reinstatement in the sultanate following the withdrawal of Ilkhanid troops in the autumn of 700/1300, heavy taxes were imposed and the property was confiscated in both Egypt and Syria to finance the war effort. This money was largely wasted, as it was used to pay Kurdish and Turkoman auxiliary troops, who fled when they learned that the Mongols were attacking once again. The power to impose this type of additional taxes on the population to finance war or any other activity is known as mukÅ«s in Islamic law, as will be explored further in what follows.
Most Muslim jurists are of the view that any tax on Muslim population, other than those legislated by the Qurâ€™Än and the Sunna, is prohibited,Â based onÂ a Prophetic á¸¥ÄdÄ«th reported by Aá¸¥mad, AbÅ« DÄwÅ«d, Ibn Khuzayma and al-á¸¤Äkim:
â€œLÄ yadkhulu al-janna á¹£Äá¸¥ib al-mukÅ«sâ€
â€œThe unjust tax collector will not enter paradise.â€
The word maks (pl. mukÅ«s) refers to any tax or duty that was not originally imposed by the Qurâ€™Än nor the Sunna. MukÅ«s cannot, in theory, be imposed on any Muslim. In his Taá¸¥rÄ«r al-aá¸¥kÄm fÄ« tadbÄ«r ahl al-IslÄm, Badr al-DÄ«n b. JamÄÊ¿a says clearly:
â€œAs for collecting taxes and duties on the goods of Muslims transiting from one country to another, or on the sale of goods, this is forbidden from a religious point of view; neither Islamic law nor justice allows it. To the contrary, this measure is a well-defined type of illegal tax (mukÅ«s) that constitutes an obvious injustice.â€
A little further in the text, he emphasizes that:
â€œAnd all that is taken of the property of Muslims, whether from their businesses or subsistence through taxes, is a clear and obvious injustice […].â€
Ibn Taymiyyaâ€™s position is no different. For him, there is a consensus that the payment of mukÅ«s is not an Islamic principle.
However, there is a gap between theory and practice. As Yossef Rapoport has demonstrated, towards the end of the AyyÅ«bid era, many localities of Fayyum in Egypt were subjected to several different taxes. Were these taxes considered legal by the jurists and the authorities? This question remains open. The MamlÅ«k period is characterized by many episodes of new tax impositions (mukÅ«s). Generally, during the MamlÅ«k period, sultans imposed taxes then retracted them for a time, and then re-imposed them. Although the abolition of these taxes was always good news for the population, the primary reason for such a measure (the abolition of taxes) was not necessarily the well-being and comfort of the population. The repeal of mukÅ«s could be decreed in order to diminish the economic power of certain amÄ«rs who could represent a potential political danger for the sultan.
The imposition of mukÅ«s on the Muslim population was criticized by Ê¿ulamÄÊ¾. In 1386, during the revolt called the áº’ÄhÄ«rÄ« fitna, the scholar Aá¸¥mad al-BurhÄn al-áº’ÄhirÄ« was imprisoned and then presented to al-áº’Ähir BarqÅ«q who asked him about the reasons of his revolt. Among them, Aá¸¥mad al-BurhÄn al-áº’ÄhirÄ« reproached the sultan for the levying of non-sharÊ¿Ä« taxes, namely mukÅ«s. In the last decades of the MamlÅ«k Sultanate, the mukÅ«s issue became recurrent.
Distinction Between al-amwÄl al-sulá¹ÄniyyÄ and amwÄl bayt al-mÄl
In his al-SiyÄsa al-sharÊ¿iyya, Ibn Taymiyya devotes an entire chapter to forms of income and property belonging to rulers (al-amwÄl al-sulá¹ÄniyyÄ) that are distinct from those of the bayt al-mÄl (Public Treasury). They are of three kinds, all of which are legislated by the Qurâ€™Än and the Sunna: al-ghanÄ«ma (the spoils of war), al-á¹£adaqÄt (gifts, alms) and al-fayÊ¾ (booty taken from the enemy without any fighting). However, as Abdul Azim Islahi showed, Ibn Taymiyya does not limit the sources of income to these three, but he leaves the door open for new taxes, if necessary.
According to Ibn Taymiyya, of the eight categories of people mentioned in Qurâ€™Än 9:60 (al-Tawbah) soldiers are those who act â€œin the way of Godâ€ and may receive the á¹£adaqa (alms) as zakÄt, the third pillar of Islam, compulsory for every Muslim who has the financial capacity:
â€œAs for alms, they are for those whom God has mentioned in his Book […] and â€˜in the way of Godâ€™ means those who undertake military expeditions and do not have enough goods to acquire what would allow them to go on an expedition; then we give them some or all the equipment necessary for the harnessing of horses, weapons, equipment costs, salary […].â€
More than its social aspect, zakÄt for Ibn Taymiyya can be used by the authorities, in a context of war, as a tool for financing jihÄd.
In case of a warriorâ€™s death, his wife and children should also be taken care of by using the money of the bayt al-mÄl.
As part of the fayÊ¾, only a tenth (Ê¿ushr) of the income of traders coming from the territories of DÄr al-á¸¥arb (the abode of war), that is to say from the territories with which Muslims are at war, is taxable. The Ê¿ushr (plural aÊ¿shÄr/Ê¿ushÅ«r) is a tax that was introduced by the second caliph Ê¿Umar b. al-Khaá¹á¹Äb (d. 26/644) in response to similar taxes imposed by other countries on Muslim traders, and seems to have become a substantial revenue for the Islamic state ever since. DhimmÄ« traders have to pay half of the Ê¿ushr. This requirement is to be considered as a kind of customs duty and not a tax like the maks. The payment by non-Muslim traders of the Ê¿ushr falls under the category of fayÊ¾ (booty taken from the enemy without any fighting), mentioned in the Qurâ€™Än and the á¸¥ÄdÄ«th, and such payment is lawful. Of course, the Ê¿ushr establishes a considerable difference between a Muslim and non-Muslims trader, given that only the second had to pay Ê¿ushr each time he entered Muslim territory for trading.
In theory, dhimmÄ«s cannot be required to participate in a war effort, even if the enemies are their co-religionists. However, in practice things were sometimes differentt. In 767/1365, Christian powers launched an important expedition against the MamlÅ«k Sultanate from Cyprus by attacking Alexandria. The Franks managed to take the city and, according to Christian and MamlÅ«k sources, they slaughtered a part of the population, and plundered the city during many days before returning to their fleet with a large number of captives and a huge booty. After this humiliation, MamlÅ«k authorities decided to attack Cyprus in reprisal and ordered to take a quarter of the money of all the Christians of Syria. Informed of the latter decision, Ibn KathÄ«r met the nÄÊ¾ib al-saltÄna and explained to him that sharÄ«Ê¿aâ€™s rules do not permit (lÄ yajÅ«z) to take from the dhimmÄ«s more than the amount of the jizya they have to pay. Although the nÄâ€™ib al-saltÄna was convinced by Ibn KathÄ«r, he told him that the MamlÅ«k authorities of Cairo had obtained fatwÄs from Ê¿ulamÄÊ¾ allowing them to impose such taxes. Here, Ibn KathÄ«râ€™s position shows that Ê¿ulamÄâ€™ were sometimes required to play the role of â€œadvocateâ€ of the population, both Muslims and non-Muslims, in the face of the imposition of new taxes.
 TÄj al-DÄ«n al-SubkÄ«, á¹¬abaqÄt al-shÄfiÊ¿iyya al-kubrÄ, eds. Maá¸¥mÅ«d Muá¸¥ammad al-á¹¬annÄá¸¥Ä« and Muá¸¥ammad Ê¿Abd al-FattÄá¸¥ al-á¸¤aluw (Cairo, 1964), 8:215.
 Ibn Aybak al-DawÄdÄrÄ«, Kanz al-durar wa jÄmiÊ¿ al-Ä¡urar, ed. Bernd Ratke (Cairo, 1960-1994), 8:63.
 Ibid.; Al-MaqrÄ«zÄ«, KitÄb al-sulÅ«k li-maÊ¿rifat duwal al-mulÅ«k, ed. Muá¸¥ammad Ê¿Abd al-QÄdir Ê¿Aá¹Ä (Beirut, 1997), 1:657.
 Ibn KathÄ«r, al-BidÄya wa-l-nihÄya, ed. Ê¿Abd AllÄh b. Ê¿Abd al-Raá¸¥mÄn al-TurkÄ« (Giza, 1998), 17:717.
 Al-MaqrÄ«zÄ«, KitÄb al-sulÅ«k li-maÊ¿rifat duwal al-mulÅ«k, 2:335.
 Ibid. 2:335-336.
 Badr al-DÄ«n b. JamÄÊ¿a, Taá¸¥rÄ«r al-aá¸¥kÄm fÄ« tadbÄ«r ahl al-IslÄm, ed. Fuâ€™Äd Ê¿Abd al-MunÊ¿im (Qatar, 1985), 145.
 Ibid. 150.
 Ibn Taymiyya al-SiyÄsat al-sharÊ¿iyya fÄ« iá¹£lÄá¸¥ al-rÄÊ¿Ä« wa-l-raÊ¿iyya, ed. SaÊ¿d b. al-MurshidÄ« al-Ê¿AtÄ«bÄ« (Riyadh, 2015),Â 129.
 Yossef Rapoport, Rural Economy and Tribal Society in Islamic Egypt. A Study of al-NÄbulusÄ«â€™s ‘Villages of the Fayyum’Â (Brepols:Turnhout, 2018), 75-104.
 Lutz Wiederhold, â€œLegal-Religious Elite, Temporal Authority, and the Caliphate in Mamluk Society: Conclusions Drawn from the Examination of a “Zahiri Revolt” in Damascus in 1386,â€ International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 2 (1999): 215-16.
 Ibid. 215.
 Kristen Stilt, Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion and Everyday Experiences in Mamluk Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 187.
 Ibn Taymiyya, al-SiyÄsa al-sharÊ¿iyya fÄ« iá¹£lÄá¸¥ al-rÄÊ¿Ä« wa-l-raÊ¿iyya, ed. SaÊ¿d b. al-MurshidÄ« al-Ê¿AtÄ«bÄ« (Riyadh, 2015), 99-108.
 Ibid. 109-16.
 Ibid. 117-29. For more details see Caterina Bori, â€œOne or Two Versions of al-SiyÄsa al-SharÊ¿iyya of Ibn Taymiyya? And What Do They Tell Us?,â€ ASK Working Paper 26 (2016): 8-10.
 Abdul Azim Islahi, Economic Concepts of Ibn TaymÄ«yah (London: Islamic Foundation, 1988), 211-20.
 â€œCharities are for the poor, and the destitute, and those who administer them, and for reconciling hearts, and for freeing slaves, and for those in debt, and in the path of God, and for the traveler in needâ€”an obligation from God. God is All-Knowing, Most Wise.â€Â Qurâ€™Än, 9:60.
 Ibn Taymiyya, al-SiyÄsa al-sharÊ¿iyya fÄ« iá¹£lÄá¸¥ al-rÄÊ¿Ä« wa-l-raÊ¿iyya, 109-113.
 Ibn Taymiyya, MajmÅ«Ê¿ al-fatÄwÄ, ed. WizÄrat al-shuâ€™Å«n al-islÄmiyya wa-l-irshÄd al-SaÊ¿Å«diyya (Riyadh, 2004), 28:586.
 For more information on Ê¿ushr see Ziauddin Ahmed, â€œUshr and Ushr Lands,â€ Islamic Studies 19, no. 2 (1980): 76-94; Ziauddin Ahmed, â€œUshÅ«r and Maks in Early Islam,â€ Islamic Studies 27, no. 1 (1988): 1-11.
 Ahmad Oran and Salim Rashid, â€œFiscal Policy in Early Islam,â€ Public Finance 44, no. 1 (1989): 89; Volker Nienhaus, â€œZakat, taxes and public finance in Islam,â€ in Islam and the Everyday World: Public Policy Dilemmas, eds. Sohrab Behdad and Farhad Nomani (New York: Routledge, 2008), 178.
 Ibn Taymiyya, al-SiyÄsa al-sharÊ¿iyya fÄ« iá¹£lÄá¸¥ al-rÄÊ¿Ä« wa-l-raÊ¿iyya, 122-23. The other category is that of pilgrims.
 Badr al-DÄ«n b. JamÄÊ¿a, Taá¸¥rÄ«r al-aá¸¥kÄm fÄ« tadbÄ«r ahl al-IslÄm, ed. Fuâ€™Äd Ê¿Abd al-MunÊ¿im (Qatar, 1985), 99.
 Volker Nienhaus, â€œZakat, taxes and public finance in Islam,â€ 178-79.
 Al-MaqrÄ«zÄ«, KitÄb al-sulÅ«k, vol. 4, 283-84; Ibn KathÄ«r, al-BidÄya wa-l-nihÄya, ed. Ê¿Abd AllÄh b. Ê¿Abd al-Raá¸¥mÄn al-TurkÄ« (Giza, 1998), 18:705; Guillaume De Machaut, La prise dâ€™Alexandrie ou chronique du roi Pierre Ier de Lusignan, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie, Imprimerie Jules-Guillaume Fick (GenÃ¨ve, 1877).
 Ibn KathÄ«r, al-BidÄya wa-l-nihÄya, 18:706-07.
 Yaacov Lev, â€œSymbiotic Relations: Ulama and the Mamluk Sultans,â€ Mamluk Studies Review 13, no. 1 (2009): 25.
(Suggested Bluebook citation: Mehdi Berriah, The SharÄ«Ê¿a on the Financing of JihÄd, Islamic Law Blog (Sept. 23, 2021), https://islamiclaw.blog/2021/09/23/the-shari%ca%bfa-on-the-financing-of-jihad/)
(Suggested Chicago citation: Mehdi Berriah, “The SharÄ«Ê¿a on the Financing of JihÄd,” Islamic Law Blog, September 23, 2021, https://islamiclaw.blog/2021/09/23/the-shari%ca%bfa-on-the-financing-of-jihad/)