AHC/WI: Umayyads adopt less repressive racial policies

[Bomster]

So having done research lately on Umayyad Al-Andalus, it appears that a big factor in the Umayyad Caliphate’s fall which triggered the Berber Revolt and the Abbasid Revolution that exiled the Umayyads to Iberia was its oppressive policies towards non-Arabs. And while the Umayyads in Al-Andalus practiced a high degree of religious tolerance, their continued pro-Arab elite policies would later play a major factor in the disintegration of Al-Andalus into warring taifas, allowing for the Reconquista to take place. How could these policies be changed? What could make the Umayyad dynasty adopt more tolerant policies towards the populations they ruled over? Could the Berber Revolt, Abbasid Revolution, or Taifa period be prevented?

 

[HumptyDumpty]

The main oppressive policy, which spurred revolts most significantly, in question where the application of jizya on Muslim converts. However, the reason for that was that jizya and similar taxes on non-believers were necessary for the state to have any sort of consistent income or tax revenue. The main issue is that Islam forbids any taxes. Zakat is not a tax, and is not at the leisure of the government to use. Kharaj is too low and what few other taxes could be applied are not sufficient to constitute any major income for the state.

Moreover, the Umayyad government was also expected to pay a stipend to any member of the Umayyad army. And Muslim converts joined the army in droves. So not only was the Umayyad government lacking in tax revenue but it was also expected to pay its army essentially a form of basic income. This meant the only way for the Umayyads to obtain any sort of consistent income was warfare and loot. This led to another problem with the Umayyads: overexpansion. And it meant that the minute the Umayyads stopped expanding they would fall apart which is exactly what happened.

So the oppressive policies were not necessarily oriented around racism, though that most certainly played a very big role. It was a matter of the fact that strict obedience to divine law did not allow them to create a stable, long-lasting state. The proceeding Islamic dynasties such as the Abbasids and Ottomans would levy additional, haram taxes on the population along with other haram policies which would be popularly condemned by the ulema or scholars but would contribute to a stable government (though the Ottomans were more lucky in achieving this than the Abbasids were).

To change this, you would have to change Islam itself. Islamic views on income tax and taxation in general should be the easiest to deal with since it is not something that pre-Islamic tribes were too concerned about. Muhammad appeared to have viewed taxation as unjust personally.

 

[Euphemios]

The main oppressive policy, which spurred revolts most significantly, in question where the application of jizya on Muslim converts. However, the reason for that was that jizya and similar taxes on non-believers were necessary for the state to have any sort of consistent income or tax revenue. The main issue is that Islam forbids any taxes.

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but this is false as far as I can tell. Even if it were not, treating Muslims like infidels is infinitely worse.

Oh, there are some hadiths condemning taxes, but to interpret them by oneself, without any expertise in the field, would be folly. The same place where I encountered said hadiths states that they pertain to taxes levied by tyrants, unjust either in their purpose or their amount.

From the cursory research I have done on the topic, the state can pass laws of any nature provided that they not be unwarranted, and that they do not conflict otherwise with jurisprudence. This naturally includes taxes.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but this is false as far as I can tell. Even if it were not, treating Muslims like infidels is infinitely worse.

That is part of treating Muslims like infidels. The jizya tax is derived from non-believers but it was being applied to non-Muslim converts. No one said it was the only reason but it is the main reason because it highlighted that the Umayyad authorities were not following Islamic law and their obligations.

Oh, there are some hadiths condemning taxes

Yes and they are pretty much accepted by most Islamic fiqhs. Islamic law explicitly condemns income tax, or maqs, and Muhammad abolished the maqs and declared it a major sin. Regardless of whether or not you believe this is a faulty interpretation doesn't change the fact that the Umayyads adhered to it or that the vast majority of scholars, including today, viewed the extra taxes imposed by the states after the Umayyads as tyranny or tagha. As such, for the purposes of analyzing the historical causes of the failure of the Umayyad state and what informed its policies it is worth noting.

Ultimately, this specific supremacist policy is a matter of economics due to the constraints the Umayyads felt for their own religion. As such, they had to either break with Islamic law, try to find loopholes that did not produce enough revenue, or simply keep getting loot which was the primary method of obtaining revenue.

The same place where I encountered said hadiths states that they pertain to taxes levied by tyrants, unjust either in their purpose or their amount.

If we are talking about the same ones, like those narrated by al-Nawawi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, then that is not true. It isn't permissible to take the wealth of any Muslim without consent and, moreover, income tax or the maqs is the most evil sin of them all. So I think it is pretty unambiguous overall or at least understandable why most Islamic scholars and Muslims, including the Umayyads, came to the conclusions that they did.

From the cursory research I have done on the topic, the state can pass laws of any nature provided that they not be unwarranted, and that they do not conflict otherwise with jurisprudence. This naturally includes taxes.

Well yeah the underlying problem is that applying taxes conflicts with jurisprudence. The only valid taxes are those on land but that isn't understood as a tax insofar as a service whereby the state serves to defend the land. As such, the state is conceptualized here as a sort of protection racket but with limited authority over the wealth of others. Islamic law covers a lot of areas and imposes restrictions on what laws the state can pass.

 

[Nivek]

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but this is false as far as I can tell. Even if it were not, treating Muslims like infidels is infinitely worse.

Oh, there are some hadiths condemning taxes, but to interpret them by oneself, without any expertise in the field, would be folly. The same place where I encountered said hadiths states that they pertain to taxes levied by tyrants, unjust either in their purpose or their amount.

From the cursory research I have done on the topic, the state can pass laws of any nature provided that they not be unwarranted, and that they do not conflict otherwise with jurisprudence. This naturally includes taxes.

What the Ummayds did was not only a sin, but illegal under Muhhamad(SAW) own rules, you only can charged the Jyzia to dhimmi, and once they converted, they had to be charged the Zakat(if eligible to paid for it or be recipient of it...or neither), that double accounting was BS and they knew it, but wanted that money that much

Also Zakat was a income tax, just one have enough margin if you're genuinely poor(and poor in also cash flow/possesion sense, if you have steady properties and income flow..that's your zakat basis) And some did applied a 'death land' and 'land' taxes but that was very sporadic

 

[HumptyDumpty]

but wanted that money that much

They needed it though. It is simply economic and economic necessity mixed with racism.

Also Zakat was a income tax

Not really since it was a cash transfer to the poor and cannot be used by the state to, for instance, pay its employees or building a bridge and other forms of infrastructure. So I would not call it an income tax. Income tax or maqs is illegal and distinct from zakat, of which the state is only the distributor of.

 

[jacob ningen]

correct me if Im wrong but songhai used tolls to generate wealth and Mali used control of mines. Could the ummayads use those methods for income generation? one ASB that might butterfly everything is Idumean mines remain viable post LBA and Lagids and Nabateans dont overuse yam al malh bitumen reserves.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

correct me if Im wrong but songhai used tolls to generate wealth and Mali used control of mines. Could the ummayads use those methods for income generation? one ASB that might butterfly everything is Idumean mines remain viable post LBA and Lagids and Nabateans dont overuse yam al malh bitumen reserves.

If those mines are not privately owned by Muslims initially and were expropriated by the government from non-believers, sure. But if it ever gets privatized then it can't be taken out of their hands. Honestly, I don't think that even that would have been enough. The Umayyad didn't just have a small budget but also had a huge debt to the members of its army for whom it was obligated to provide a stipend.

 

[jacob ningen]

If those mines are not privately owned by Muslims initially and were expropriated by the government from non-believers, sure. But if it ever gets privatized then it can't be taken out of their hands. Honestly, I don't think that even that would have been enough. The Umayyad didn't just have a small budget but also had a huge debt to the members of its army for whom it was obligated to provide a stipend.

and road tolls violate the Brandeisian anti monopoly according to this gulf times article https://www.gulf-times.com/story/68...85458/Prohibition-against-economic-monopolies

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It might help if we can point to a specific “turning point” -- a specific policy, ruler, or what have you, as long as there’s a specific year (or similarly narrow-ish window of time) -- that we’re looking to avoid here. Were the Ummayads already repressive/racist/badly-taxing by the time of Al-Walid (705-715)?

 

[Jürgen]

It seem to me that if you live in a state where almost any taxes delegitimize the regime, that state will end up in trouble pretty fast. But it do raise the question Persia was the only one of the three Gunpowder Empires which lacked large non-Muslim minorities which it could tax, how did it handled that and could it be replicate earlier among the Umayyad?

 

[jacob ningen]

It seem to me that if you live in a state where almost any taxes delegitimize the regime, that state will end up in trouble pretty fast. But it do raise the question Persia was the only one of the three Gunpowder Empires which lacked large non-Muslim minorities which it could tax, how did it handled that and could it be replicate earlier among the Umayyad?

i believe textiles and maybe Palestine. but Nabulsi production and distribution wont be high enough without industrialization and the deprivatization problem arises.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

It seem to me that if you live in a state where almost any taxes delegitimize the regime, that state will end up in trouble pretty fast. But it do raise the question Persia was the only one of the three Gunpowder Empires which lacked large non-Muslim minorities which it could tax, how did it handled that and could it be replicate earlier among the Umayyad?

To clarify, only the Umayyads strigently applied Islamic law with regards to taxes. The Abbasids, Ottomans, Safavids, etc. did not and applied additional taxes to obtain revenue even though this was illegal in the eyes of the ulema. And the Safavids were Shi'a, of a very exaggerated nature believing Shah Abbas or Ali to be superior to God (if I recall correctly). So I doubt orthodoxy was much a concern for them.

So this is literally only a problem with the Umayyads and maybe the Rashidun. It is not a problem for any other Islamic dynasty because other Islamic dynasties did not obey Islamic law. Even today, Islamist parties and polities in the Islamic world tend to not apply Islamic prohibitions on income tax, sales tax, etc. and the nationalization of resources. Sure, they may have lower taxes than many other parts of the world (to their own detriment as well), but they do not apply that aspect of Islamic law.

 

[Bomster]

To clarify, only the Umayyads strigently applied Islamic law with regards to taxes. The Abbasids, Ottomans, Safavids, etc. did not and applied additional taxes to obtain revenue even though this was illegal in the eyes of the ulema. And the Safavids were Shi'a, of a very exaggerated nature believing Shah Abbas or Ali to be superior to God (if I recall correctly). So I doubt orthodoxy was much a concern for them.

So this is literally only a problem with the Umayyads and maybe the Rashidun. It is not a problem for any other Islamic dynasty because other Islamic dynasties did not obey Islamic law. Even today, Islamist parties and polities in the Islamic world tend to not apply Islamic prohibitions on income tax, sales tax, etc. and the nationalization of resources. Sure, they may have lower taxes than many other parts of the world (to their own detriment as well), but they do not apply that aspect of Islamic law.

So based upon your posts as well as the others it sounds to me that the Umayyad’s strict observance to interpreted Islamic law regarding taxation led to a vicious cycle. The Umayyads needed tax revenue, but weren’t allowed to tax Muslims according to Islamic law. So they had to expand into foreign lands, in order to capture spoils of war and to acquire taxes from conquered inhabitants. However these inhabitants would be unhappy with Umayyad taxation, so they needed a large army to control these people, but this is expensive to maintain, so they need more revenue, so they need to expand even more, which means more minorities, which means more troops to control them, which means they need more revenue, and so on and so on. It suddenly makes a ton of sense why the massive Umayyad Caliphate fell, though how did they linger on in Iberia for almost 300 more years?

 

[HumptyDumpty]

So based upon your posts as well as the others it sounds to me that the Umayyad’s strict observance to interpreted Islamic law regarding taxation led to a vicious cycle. The Umayyads needed tax revenue, but weren’t allowed to tax Muslims according to Islamic law. So they had to expand into foreign lands, in order to capture spoils of war and to acquire taxes from conquered inhabitants. However these inhabitants would be unhappy with Umayyad taxation, so they needed a large army to control these people, but this is expensive to maintain, so they need more revenue, so they need to expand even more, which means more minorities, which means more troops to control them, which means they need more revenue, and so on and so on.

It wasn't that specific cycle. Even with jizya, the state's income was not very high and most of it came from loot. Of course, loot is not a very reliable form of income since it is contingent upon military success which varies. The imposition of jizya on non-Muslim converts was what spurred rebellion but that doesn't imply it was enough (and it was only really a big portion of revenue at the time since Arab Muslims were outnumbered by Muslim converts in many parts of the Caliphate). Any polity that truly aligns itself with Islamic law is going to find itself without a big budget and no real means of running a deficit.

Like, an Islamic state is not designed for spending lots of money or raking in income. It is very much a minarchist state, with regards to economics at least and even socially since much of Sharia enforcement was vested in local governors, imams, patriarchs of different households, etc. The problem is that this means you cannot have a stable empire while being consistently abiding by Islamic law. Because an empire requires a budget that far exceeds the revenue available to Islamic states. Doubly so with how currency has to be backed by or be gold.

It suddenly makes a ton of sense why the massive Umayyad Caliphate fell, though how did they linger on in Iberia for almost 300 more years?

By adding haram taxes and not giving a shit (pardon my language; if that is against the forum's rules let me know). From what I understand, an income tax wasn't applied in many Islamic countries (but then again, this may have been because tracking income is literally impossible for large medieval polities; income tax wasn't a thing in Europe either) but other taxes were. Like sales tax for example which is illegal.

 

[Jürgen]

It wasn't that specific cycle. Even with jizya, the state's income was not very high and most of it came from loot. Of course, loot is not a very reliable form of income since it is contingent upon military success which varies. The imposition of jizya on non-Muslim converts was what spurred rebellion but that doesn't imply it was enough (and it was only really a big portion of revenue at the time since Arab Muslims were outnumbered by Muslim converts in many parts of the Caliphate). Any polity that truly aligns itself with Islamic law is going to find itself without a big budget and no real means of running a deficit.

Like, an Islamic state is not designed for spending lots of money or raking in income. It is very much a minarchist state, with regards to economics at least and even socially since much of Sharia enforcement was vested in local governors, imams, patriarchs of different households, etc. The problem is that this means you cannot have a stable empire while being consistently abiding by Islamic law. Because an empire requires a budget that far exceeds the revenue available to Islamic states. Doubly so with how currency has to be backed by or be gold.

By adding haram taxes and not giving a shit (pardon my language; if that is against the forum's rules let me know). From what I understand, an income tax wasn't applied in many Islamic countries (but then again, this may have been because tracking income is literally impossible for large medieval polities; income tax wasn't a thing in Europe either) but other taxes were. Like sales tax for example which is illegal.

The difference with Europe was that feudal society was made to deal with that problem, a European king ability to raises taxes was limited, but he could get money from his crown land, and the Church established a bureaucracy which made later raising of taxes more easy. The Christian ecclesiastical structure resulted in Europe had a kind of semi-local bureaucrats, so they didn’t need to to leave raising taxes to tax farmers. It also gave a incentive to people in the top to adopt policies which increased the tax base through productivity improvements.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

The difference with Europe was that feudal society was made to deal with that problem, a European king ability to raises taxes was limited, but he could get money from his crown land, and the Church established a bureaucracy which made later raising of taxes more easy. The Christian ecclesiastical structure resulted in Europe had a kind of semi-local bureaucrats, so they didn’t need to to leave raising taxes to tax farmers. It also gave a incentive to people in the top to adopt policies which increased the tax base through productivity improvements.

It's not too relevant to what I was talking about which is that neither had income tax and income tax, along with fiat money, was an innovation which made government spending or running a deficit way easier. And thus that means you can spend more money on social programs, infrastructure, etc. But my underlying point was that Islamic dynasty afterwards were forced to impose additional, haram taxes, deviating from divine law, and Islamic scholars were forced to tolerate just Muslim rulers rather than a truly "Islamic state".

 

[HumptyDumpty]

@HumptyDumpty

Have no idea. My connection to history has been primarily the product of readings of Hourani and nothing too substantive. I can't recall what even the specific policies were. I am pretty sure that jizya was not supposed to be levied on Muslim converts but because it wasn't officially legislated I don't know when exactly the practice started.

 

[Jürgen]

It's not too relevant to what I was talking about which is that neither had income tax and income tax, along with fiat money, was an innovation which made government spending or running a deficit way easier. And thus that means you can spend more money on social programs, infrastructure, etc. But my underlying point was that Islamic dynasty afterwards were forced to impose additional, haram taxes, deviating from divine law, and Islamic scholars were forced to tolerate just Muslim rulers rather than a truly "Islamic state".

Fiat money really wasn’t a major thing in Europe before pretty late, European economic thinking was dominated by mercantilism from when European economic thinking became complex enough to think about it, and there having a significant gold reserve was necessary for the king to raise armies, it’s only when we saw the shift from mercenaries to conscript armies that gold reserve became a luxury instead of necessity.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

Fiat money really wasn’t a major thing in Europe before pretty late

I never said it was.

European economic thinking was dominated by mercantilism from when European economic thinking became complex enough to think about it, and there having a significant gold reserve was necessary for the king to raise armies, it’s only when we saw the shift from mercenaries to conscript armies that gold reserve became a luxury instead of necessity

Similarly, the gold standard that is mandatory in Islam is also pretty bad for the economy. It's odd how Islamists tend to focus so much on social policy but ignore the inconvenient economic aspects of the religion. And also specific policies like the prohibition on music. But that's getting too close to Chat territory so I'll stop there. It's just useful or interesting information is all.