TAXATION IN EGYPT UNDER THE ARAB CONQUEST KOSEI MORIMOTO Kyoto University In order to analyze the system of taxation in the territories conquered by the Arab armies, one must first take into account the issues connected with the form of the conquest and controversies about it among the Muslim historians and jurists. This is as true for Egypt as for anywhere else, as I have shown on the preceding article.* In this article I shall address the question if what kind of fiscal regime was created in Egypt following on the Arab conquest. List of abbreviations John John (I/VIIc.): The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, tr. R. H. Charles, London, 1916. Amwal Abu 'Ubayd (d. 224/838): Kitab al-Amwal, al-Qahira, 1353 H. Ibn Sa'd Ibn Sa'd (d. 230/845): al-Tabaqat al-kubra, 8 vols., Bayrut, 1957-58. Hakam Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam (d. 257/871): Futuh Misr wa ahbarha, ed. C. C. Torrey, New Haven, 1922. Ma'arif Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889): al-Ma'arif, al-Qahira, 1960. Baladuri al-Baladuri (d. 279/892): Futuh al-buldan, 3 vols., ed. S. al-Munaggid, al-Qahira, 1956-[1960]. Ya'qubi al-Ya'qubi (d. 284/897): Ta'rih al-Ya'qubi (Ibn-Wadhih qui dictur al-Ja'qubi: Historiae), ed. M. Th. Houtsma, 2 vols., Lugduni Batavorum, 1969. Waki' Waki' (d. 306/918): Ahbar al-qudat, 3 vols., al-Qahira, 1947-50. Tabari al-Tabari (d. 310/923): Ta'rih al-rusul wa-l-muluk, Annales quos scripsit…, Series I-III, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1879-1901. Eutychius Eutychius (d. 328/940): Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales, texte arabe, 2 vols., Bayrut, 1909, (1954 reimp). Kindi al-Kindi (d. 350/961): Kitab al-Wulat wa Kitab al-Qudat (The Governors and Judges of Egypt), ed. R. Guest, Leiden, 1912 (repr.) Sawirus Sawirus b. al-Mugaffa' (IV/Xc.): History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, Arabic text, ed. & tr. B. Evetts, Patrologia Orientalis, 1/2 & 4, V/1, X/5, Paris. Dahabi al-Dahabi (d. 748/1348): Ta'rih al-Islam, 6 vol., al-Qahira, 1367-68 H & Vol. VI, 1966. Hitat al-Maqrizi (d. 845/1442): Kitab al-Mawa'iz wa-l-i'tibar bi-dikr al-hitat wa-l-atar, 2 vols., Bulaq, 1270 H, (repr. Bagdad, 1970). * "Muslim Controversies regarding the Arab Conquest of Egypt," Orient, Vol. XIII, 1977, pp. 89-105. 71 Tagribirdi Ibn Tagribirdi (d. 874/1469): Nugum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa-l-Qahira, 14 vols., al-Qahira, 1929-72. Suyuti (d. 906/1505): Husn al-muhadara fi ahbar Misr wa-l-Qahira, al-Qahira, 1968. PERF Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, Fuhrer durch die Ausstellung, Wien, 1894. Arabische Abteilung, v. J. Karabacek. Dennett D. C. Dennett: Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, Cambridge, 1950. I. A Critical Survey of the Muslim Traditions As we have already noted, D. C. Dennett says that the following "systems of taxation" came into being in Egypt just after the Conquest:(1) 1. The Arabs had an agreement with the Coptic communities pro- viding for the payment of a money tax based on the rate of two dinars for each adult able-bodied male and one dinar on each fadddn of land. In addition there was a tax on the produce of the land. Lastly, special con- tributions of food, clothing, and entertainment were demanded for the Muslims. This "tribute" was not a lump sum, but a rate for the assess- ment of taxes. 2. Alexandria had been taken by force and was therefore harag land at the complete disposal of the conqueror. 3. The Pentapolis paid a fixed, annual sum, to be neither increased nor decreased. The territory was 'ahd. 4. Finally there were the domain lands and the former autopract es- tates…The Arabs…appropriated the estates, as 'Umar had confiscated the possessions of the Sassanids in the East. From these lands, fiefs were later given. Dennett's views stand in contrast to a number of points advanced previously by C. H. Becker and A. Grohmann. There, starting with the question of whether a gizya of two dinars was a tribute or a poll tax,(2) Dennett raises the controversial points one by one and gives the evidence for his hypotheses within the framework of his four categories. Whether or not these interpretations are justified is the main problem with regard to Dennett's views, and it may be difficult to avoid repeating some points which have already been made. First let us examine the question of the Coptic community. The treaty of capitulation (sulh) contracted by the Patriarch Cyrus (al-Mugawgis) and 'Amr b. al-'As was summed up as an agreement containing the following arti- cles:(3) 1. All male Copts must pay a poll tax of two dinars each. 72 ORIENT TAXATION IN EGYPT UNDER THE ARAB CONQUEST 2. Children, old men, and women are exempt. 3. The Copts must provide three days' hospitality to travelling Muslims. 4. Lands, possessions, and churches of the conquered will not be seized or violated. 5. The Arabs may establish military garrisons where they wish. 6. Landholders, in addition to the two-dinar poll tax, must provide each Muslim with three artabae of wheat and two qists each of vinegar, honey, and oil.... 7. Landholders must also pay on grain lands one dinar plus one half artaba of corn plus two wayba of barley for each faddan of grain land, or one dinar plus three artabae of corn per garib. 8. A complete set of clothing must be provided for each Muslim. Dennett is merely putting together the various traditions reported by Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, al-Suyuti, al-Ya'qubi, Eutychius, and al-Baladuri, and setting forth the conditions described in his sources; but the uncritical use of the traditional materials of the Muslims in this fashion is exceedingly dangerous. Before taking them as evidence, one had to examine the nature of each of these traditions. Except for the notices of Eutychius and al-Suyuti, which are simply copied from Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam and can therefore be left aside, I shall perform this operation for each of the traditions which Dennett uses as a source concerning the treaty of capitulation. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's account of the treaty is derived from the following chains of transmitters (isnads): (a) 'Ubayd Allah b. Abi Ga'far 'Ayyas b. 'Abbas al-Qitbani}→Ibn Lahi'a→'Utman b. Salih(4). (b) A party of tabi'un→Halid b. Yazid→{Halid b. Humayd Yahya b. Ayyub}→Halid b. Nagih→'Utman b. Salib(5) (c) Yazid b. Abi Habib→al-Layt b. Sa'd→'Abd Allah b. Salih(6) (d) Yahya b. Maymun→[Yazid b. Abi Habib]→Ibn Lahi'a→'Abd al-Malik b. Maslama(7) Apart from these four there is one other chain of transmitters which in- directly-that is, by being added into the tradition concerning the conquest of Alexandria-explains the sulh of the whole of Egypt, as follows: (e) al-Husayn b. Sufayy→al-Hasan b. Tawban→{Musa b. Ayyub Risdayn b. Sa'd}→ Hani' b. al-Mutawakkil(8) As I have already introduced (a), (b), (c), and (e) above as the first, second, Vol. XV 1979 73 fourth, and third chains of transmitters, there is no need to repeat the details here.(9) In (d), Yahya b. Maymun was a judge in Egypt appointed by the Umayyad Caliph Hisam, and died in A. H. 114.(10) 'Abd al-Malik b. Maslama proved impossible to identify, though al-Hakam cites his traditions a number of times. But these citations are always brief, and often take the form of notes appended to the principal traditions, so that the level of reliability would appear to be low. The (a) chain of transmitters records the process of conquest from 'Amr's invasion of Egypt to the fall of the fortress of Babylon in considerable detail; the contents read rather like a military romance. Furthermore, the problematic treaty of capitulation appears momentarily as an incongruous interruption and is then dismissed: "Al-Muqawqis (Cyrus) was worried about his own and his companions' fates, and at this time he sought a sulh from 'Amr b. al-'As, on condition that each male Copt pay two dinars in taxes to the Arabs; 'Amr granted this". Whether these two dinars are gizya or, as Dennett holds, poll tax is completely unclear. As we have already seen, the traditions designated (b), (c), and (e) are especially weak when it comes to the historical facts of the conquest of Alex- andria, and cannot be treated as accurate reflections of the immediate post- Conquest situation. They unquestionably embody opinions from later genera- tions, (b) and (c) predating the reign of 'Umar II-or at any rate the for- mulation of the so-called "fay' theory"-and (e) postdating this period. The tradition of the (c) chain concerning the capitulation treaty appears as notes attached to the (b) tradition, and like (a) reports simply that "the treaty was agreed on condition that each Coptic male was to pay two dinars taxes". The tradition of the (d) chain appears in two places, first in the same way as a note to (b). The contents again are very simple; the Coptic men must pay two dinars, and a corollary condition is that this is limited to adult males, and women, old people and children being exempt. But the statement that "at the time these people were so enumerated, they numbered 8,000,000" tends to reduce the degree of confidence one can feel in this tradition.