The Treaty with the Christian Taghlib

صلح نصارى بني تغلب

c. 640 CE · c. 20 AH

In al-Baladhuri through multiple chains: Umar ibn al-Khattab meant to take jizya from the Christian Taghlib, who fled — a body crossing the Euphrates for Byzantine lands — until al-Nu'man ibn Zur'a — or Zur'a ibn al-Nu'man — adjured him: 'Banu Taghlib are Arabs who would scorn the jizya and are a people of stout valour; let not your enemy gain strength against you by them'; Umar sent after them, brought them back and compounded with them for a doubling of the sadaqa taken from the Muslims on every grazing herd and acre — another chain has Umar ordering they be fought till destroyed or converted if they refused — and they accepted, saying 'since it is no jizya like the jizya of foreigners, we accept and keep our religion'; the treaty bound them not to baptize a child nor coerce one into their faith — Dawud ibn Kurdus holding they therefore had no dhimma, meaning they baptized in their faith — and Ali would say 'were I free to deal with Banu Taghlib I should have my way: kill their fighters and take their children captive, for they broke the covenant, their dhimma lapsing when they Christianized their children'; Umar sent Ziyad ibn Hudayr al-Asadi to take of them a half-tithe of their wealth, forbidding him to tithe a Muslim or a kharaj-paying dhimmi; Uthman ordered only gold and silver accepted of them until word came that Umar had taken double-sadaqa, whereupon he retracted; al-Zuhri held there is no sadaqa on the People of the Book's herds save the Christian Taghlib; and Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, Malik ibn Anas, Ibn Abi Dhi'b, Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf all hold that the Taghlibi pays double what a Muslim pays on his land, livestock and wealth — the Iraqis taking double-sadaqa from the minor and the incompetent's land but nothing of their livestock, the Hijazis from both — all agreeing that what is taken of Taghlib's wealth is disposed as kharaj-money, being a substitute for jizya.