The Ishmaelite Reversal: Qurʾān 9:29 and the Humbling of the Heirs of the Promise
By the middle of the seventh century, the world of Late Antiquity shuddered before an unexpected storm. From the deserts of Arabia emerged a people long dismissed as the sons of the slave woman, heirs not of the Covenant but of the outcast Ishmael. To Jews and Christians alike, they were the offspring of a rejected line—the children of Hagar the bondwoman, not Sarah the free, the descendants of a wanderer banished from the house of Abraham. For centuries, both synagogue and church had interpreted Ishmael’s destiny as a tale of exclusion, his progeny fated to dwell in the wilderness, his hand “against every man.”
And yet, within a single generation, those very descendants of Hagar rode forth across the world. The armies of Ishmael crossed the Jordan, scaled the Taurus, entered Egypt, Persia, and beyond. The heirs of the promise—the children of Isaac—now found themselves defeated, disarmed, and paying tribute to the lineage they had scorned. For the first time since Abraham’s sons had parted ways, the order of history itself was inverted. The humiliated had become the triumphant; the exiles, the rulers.
It is within this fiery crucible that Qurʾān 9:29 was revealed—one of the most debated verses in the entire scripture, commanding the Prophet’s followers to “fight those who do not believe... until they pay the jizya ʿan yad and are ṣāghirūn.” For centuries, polemicists have seized upon this verse to claim that Islam sanctified humiliation—that ṣāghirūn meant the deliberate degradation of the People of the Book, that the paying of jizya was an act of enforced shame. But this reading—born of later centuries, not of the first—betrays both the Qurʾān’s moral universe and the historical experience of the age that birthed it.
In the first Islamic century, no Muslim imposed humiliation upon the vanquished. The treaties of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt speak of security, protection, and coexistence, not ritual subjugation. The chronicles of the conquered record awe and astonishment, not the enforcement of degradation. The ṣāghirūn of Qurʾān 9:29 were not victims of Muslim cruelty—they were witnesses to their own humbling. The humiliation lay not in the act of paying tribute, but in the spiritual and historical reversal it symbolized: that those once dismissed as bastards of the covenant had now become the masters of the heirs.
To pay the jizya in the seventh century was to confront a living sign of divine irony. It was to see Hagar’s son enthroned and Sarah’s progeny prostrated—to face the bitter recognition that the rejected had been raised, and the chosen had been chastened. The Qurʾānic vision of jizya was not an instrument of vengeance, but a mirror of history’s reversal—a divine theatre where the myth of superiority dissolved under the weight of truth.
Only in later centuries—when empire hardened into hierarchy, and jurists turned conquest into code—did the term ṣāghirūn become reimagined as a people ritually humiliated, their payment of jizya dramatized with lowered heads and slapped necks. It was then, in the Abbasid and medieval age, that a spiritual symbol was recast into a legal spectacle, and the deep theology of reversal reduced to the politics of subjugation.
This blog post will reclaim the verse from that distortion. It will restore Qurʾān 9:29 to its world—the trembling decades of the early conquests, when the sons of Ishmael rose over the heirs of Isaac, and the theology of Late Antiquity cracked before a new revelation. It will trace how the People of the Book interpreted this fall, how the Qurʾān transformed the narrative of exclusion into one of vindication, and how later generations forgot that ṣāghirūn meant the humbled hearts of those who once scorned Ishmael’s seed, not the forced degradation of man by man.
📖 I. “The Son of the Slave Woman Shall Not Inherit”: Ishmael in Jewish Memory
For centuries before the rise of Islam, Ishmael lived on in Jewish memory as the embodiment of rejection—the castaway son whose very existence affirmed the chosenness of another. From the schools of the rabbis in Palestine and Babylonia flowed a river of interpretations that froze Ishmael into a theological foil: wild, untamed, violent, impious. He was the man of the bow, pereʾ adam—“a wild ass of a man”—condemned to dwell in the wilderness and to war against all. His mother, Hagar, the Egyptian slave of Sarah, became the mirror of bondage itself: tolerated but never embraced, fertile but never blessed. Through this lens, the covenant was purified by exclusion. Israel’s election was sharpened through Ishmael’s exile.
By the time the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ began to preach in Yathrib—soon to be al-Madīna—the Jewish tribes who dwelt there carried within their scripture and soul a deep-seated theology of distinction. To them, prophecy was the inheritance of Isaac, not of Ishmael; revelation flowed through the line of Jacob, not through the banished son of the bondwoman. The very claim of an Arab prophet descended from Ishmael struck at the foundation of their sacred hierarchy. It inverted the story they had told for a thousand years: that the son of the slave woman could not inherit the promise of God.
🕎 1. The Rabbinic Portrait of Ishmael
Long before the rise of Islam, Ishmael had already been condemned in the imagination of Israel. His story, preserved in the Book of Genesis, was transformed in rabbinic commentary into a parable of exclusion, his person into a warning. The words spoken by the angel to Hagar—“He shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand shall be against all, and the hand of all shall be against him” (Gen. 16:12)—became, in Jewish tradition, the defining sentence of Ishmael’s destiny.
From the synagogues of Palestine to the academies of Babylonia, the rabbis returned to this verse with feverish energy. Genesis Rabbah 45:9, as cited by Emmanouela Grypeou in The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity, paints Ishmael as pĕreʾ ʾadam—a “wild ass of a man”—whose “hand was against all.” Rabbi Yoḥanan taught that “everyone grows up in civilization, but he grows up in the wilderness.” Resh Laqish, more severe still, declared: “All others plunder wealth, but he plunders lives.” Ishmael thus becomes not merely a wanderer, but a murderer—a desert brigand who steals not gold but blood.
Other rabbinic voices sharpened this portrait further. Genesis Rabbah 53:15 linked Ishmael’s skill as an archer (“and he grew and became a bowman”—Gen. 21:20) to cruelty itself: “As he grew, his hardness grew with him.” Tanḥuma Shemot 1 depicted Ishmael lurking at crossroads, robbing and killing passersby, while Mekhilta Baḥodesh 5 made the Ishmaelites reject the Torah with mockery, saying: “You shall not steal? But theft is our way!”—thus defining the entire nation as a race of thieves. In Sifre Deuteronomy 343 and Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 41, Ishmael’s descendants proclaim that robbery is their very essence, their forefather’s craft and their nation’s nature.
This theological contempt soon spilled over from Ishmael the man to Ishmael the nation. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Ishmael’s lineage is called “a nation of robbers”, and his mother Hagar is identified as the ancestor of the Arabs. The Targum even names Fatima, the Prophet’s blessed daughter, when recounting Ishmael’s later marriage—proof that these texts were redacted in the shadow of Islam, and that their venom was sharpened in reaction to its rise. The rabbis who penned such lines could see before their eyes the impossible made flesh: the sons of the “plunderer” had conquered Jerusalem and ruled the Promised Land.
Rabbinic tradition did not only accuse Ishmael of violence—it made him guilty of the three cardinal sins: idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed. In Tosefta Sota 6:6, the sages debated the meaning of Genesis 21:9, “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing.” Rabbi Aqiba declared that “playing” meant idolatry: Ishmael, he said, “built altars, hunted locusts, and sacrificed them to idols.” Rabbi Eliezer said it meant sexual immorality: Ishmael “violated women in the gardens.” Rabbi Ishmael said it meant murder: “Sarah saw Ishmael taking a bow and arrows and shooting toward Isaac.” In later commentaries such as Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 30 and Genesis Rabbah 53:11, Ishmael was portrayed as a jealous elder brother attempting to kill Isaac, taunting him about inheritance and aiming arrows at him in hatred.
Thus Ishmael, in the Jewish imagination, became the anti-Isaac: the idolater against the monotheist, the sensualist against the righteous, the murderer against the prophet, the thief against the heir. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 32 even wove this ancient contempt into apocalyptic prophecy, claiming that the “sons of Ishmael” would one day rise to oppress the world and that God Himself would hear the cries of mankind “because of what the sons of Ishmael shall do in the last days.” To the Jewish exegete of Late Antiquity, the Arab was not a people newly risen to faith—it was Ishmael returned from exile, a living incarnation of an ancient curse.
By the seventh century, this theology had hardened into a cultural reflex. When the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ arrived in Yathrib, the Jewish tribes of Banū Qaynuqāʿ, Banū Naḍīr, and Banū Qurayẓa did not see before them a messenger from the God of Abraham—they saw the son of Hagar, the bastard of the covenant. His message in Arabic, his claim to prophethood, and his assertion of a divine covenant for Ishmael’s descendants shattered the edifice of rabbinic memory. For a millennium, the rabbis had told their children that “the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free.” Yet here stood that son, commanding revelation, ruling from the very city where they had awaited their own Messiah.
Their hostility to the Prophet ﷺ was thus not born of mere politics or jealousy—it was the rage of a theology overturned. The rise of Ishmael’s seed exposed the impotence of centuries of interpretation. The rabbinic Ishmael—the robber, the idolater, the wild man—had become a prophet and a lawgiver, and the children of the covenant were forced to live under his banner. The humiliation they felt was not at the jizya, which had yet to come—it was at the sight of prophecy speaking Arabic.
In that moment, the wild son of the desert, whom their ancestors had mocked and cast out, had returned not as a fugitive, but as the bearer of God’s final word.
💭 2. Theological Consequence
In the rabbinic mind, Ishmael was never simply a man—he was a mirror, reflecting everything Israel believed it was not. Where Isaac represented divine order, Ishmael embodied natural chaos. Where Isaac’s birth was miracle, Ishmael’s was mistake. He became the archetype of the “anti-covenant”—the son of flesh, not of promise; of the bondwoman, not the free. His very name, Yishmaʿel—“God hears”—was recast as irony: God may have heard his mother’s cry, but not his claim.
Yet behind Ishmael stood his mother, Hagar—the Egyptian handmaid, whose very origins carried the stigma of foreignness. Rabbinic exegesis could not leave her untouched. In Genesis Rabbah 45:1, she is elevated and humiliated in a single breath: “Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh,” said Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai. “When Pharaoh saw the wonders God performed for Sarah, he took his daughter and gave her to Sarah, saying: ‘Better that my daughter be a handmaid in this house than a mistress elsewhere.’”
Emmanouela Grypeou, analyzing this tradition, notes that this rabbinic portrayal of Hagar as Pharaoh’s daughter was meant to exalt Sarah by contrast. Hagar was not merely a slave; she was a royal child reduced to servitude, a “gift” from Egypt’s king to Abraham’s barren wife—a living trophy of divine favor. The word Hagar was even read as a play on ʾāgar (“reward”). In this act of subordination, the nations bow before Israel, and their princesses become Israel’s maids.
But the theological symbolism ran deeper. In making Hagar the daughter of Pharaoh, the rabbis turned her into the very embodiment of Egypt—that old adversary, the house of bondage. To them, the union of Abraham and Hagar represented a lapse, a mingling of the holy with the profane, the covenantal with the carnal. When Ishmael was born, he bore in his flesh the stain of this error. His blood was royal, but his mother’s womb was Egyptian, and therefore impure. His very being testified to the danger of crossing boundaries, to the pollution that came from stepping beyond the line of election.
Thus, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael from Abraham’s household became a theological necessity—a ritual purification of the covenant. In Genesis Rabbah, the rabbis insisted that Abraham’s act was not cruelty but obedience to divine order, and Sarah’s demand—“Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with my son Isaac”—became the charter of chosenness itself. Holiness, they taught, required exclusion. Election could only survive if Ishmael was exiled.
From that moment onward, Jewish self-understanding was shaped as much by negation as by affirmation. To be a son of Isaac was to not be a son of Ishmael. Every retelling of Genesis, every rabbinic sermon, deepened the chasm: Israel’s purity depended on Ishmael’s impurity; Israel’s civilization on Ishmael’s barbarity; Israel’s law on Ishmael’s lawlessness. The covenant’s light shone only because Ishmael had been cast into shadow.
This theology hardened into history. When the Arabs—those whom Jews themselves had long identified with the “sons of Hagar”—rose from the deserts in the seventh century, it was not merely a political shock. It was the return of the rejected. The people whom rabbinic tradition had branded as wild, thieving, and godless were suddenly preaching revelation and ruling Jerusalem. The sons of the handmaid were now masters of the heirs.
For the Jews of Medina, this was a spiritual catastrophe. The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ stood before them as living proof that Hagar’s womb had not been cursed—that the God who had heard her cry in the wilderness still heard her descendants. The Prophet’s message struck at the theological nerve of their identity: that the covenant was theirs alone. To accept him was to dismantle the wall of separation upon which their selfhood rested.
Their rejection of the Messenger was therefore not merely disbelief—it was the revolt of a theology cornered by history. The divine irony of Ishmael’s rise was intolerable. The son of the slave woman, long cast out of the house of Abraham, had returned not in chains, but with a Book. And the children of the promise could not bear to see him seated at the table of prophecy.
🧩 3. Eschatological Shadows
Even as the rabbis consigned Ishmael to the margins of sacred history, they could not erase him from the horizon of the end of days. His shadow lingered on the edges of prophecy—restless, watchful, and ominous. If Ishmael was the castaway of Genesis, he became, in later Jewish imagination, the storm of the apocalypse.
In the late antique and early medieval midrashim, Ishmael’s descendants are pictured as violent desert forces, surging from the wilderness like a human tempest. Genesis Rabbah 45:9 speaks of Ishmael’s hand “against all men,” a phrase that rabbinic commentators read as a prefiguration of the wars of the End. In Tanḥuma Buber, the “sons of Ishmael” are described as plunderers of the world, sweeping across nations as a scourge permitted by God to punish the sins of Israel. They are the desert unleashed, a living embodiment of divine wrath.
This apocalyptic strain reached its fullest voice in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 32, a work composed in the centuries surrounding the rise of Islam. There, the very name Ishmael—“God hears”—is reinterpreted with a grim irony: “Why was he called Ishmael? Because in the last days, the Holy One will hear the cries of His people from what the sons of Ishmael will do upon the earth.” Ishmael, the child once saved by divine compassion, becomes the vessel of divine chastisement. His descendants are the rod of God’s fury, destined to afflict the world before the final redemption.
To the rabbis of the seventh and eighth centuries, the Arab conquests seemed to fulfill their own eschatology. The “wild man of the desert” had returned with an army of believers, and the “nation of robbers” had become a civilization. Unable to accept this as the unfolding of divine purpose, Jewish apocalyptic thought transmuted awe into terror. The rise of Ishmael’s seed was not seen as prophecy vindicated, but as punishment inflicted.
Thus, Ishmael’s image in Jewish memory came to embody a double paradox: he was both the rejected and the instrument of rejection, both the outcast and the scourge. His sons were not the heirs of Abraham but the executioners of his promise—men through whom God rebuked His own chosen people.
By the time Islam’s banners flew over Jerusalem, the “sons of Ishmael” had become, in Jewish imagination, the very agents of divine judgment—harbingers of Gog and Magog, the prelude to Messiah’s arrival. What the rabbis could not accept was that history had already chosen otherwise: that the wilderness had given birth not to an army of desolation, but to a faith of order, monotheism, and mercy.
The stage was thus set for another tradition to inherit this theology of negation—and to magnify it into a new cosmic allegory: the Christian world’s transformation of Ishmael into the symbol of bondage, law, and flesh.
✝️ II. “Cast Out the Bondwoman”: Ishmael in Christian Imagination
By the seventh century, the world of the Cross stretched from the Nile to the Tigris, from the Aegean to the highlands of Nubia and the mountains of Armenia. Syria and Egypt, Mesopotamia and Anatolia, Ethiopia and the Roman West—all lay beneath the shadow of Christendom. In its cathedrals and monasteries, in the chants of its liturgies and the homilies of its bishops, the story of Ishmael had already been transfigured into a vast spiritual allegory. No longer merely a figure of history, Ishmael became a symbol of bondage, carnality, and unbelief—the foil against which the Church defined its own grace.
The foundation of this vision lay in the words of the Apostle Paul: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not inherit with the son of the free” (Gal. 4:30). In Paul’s hands, the ancient family drama of Genesis became a cosmic parable. Hagar and Ishmael stood for the Old Covenant—law, flesh, and slavery—while Sarah and Isaac embodied the New—grace, spirit, and freedom. Through this allegory, the Church proclaimed itself the true Israel, and consigned both the Jews and the descendants of Ishmael to the realm of rejection.
From the pulpits of Alexandria and Antioch to the monasteries of Sinai and Edessa, Christian exegetes universalized Ishmael’s exile. The “son of the slave woman” was no longer just the Arab of the desert, but the archetype of all who lived outside the gospel—a spiritual otherness defined by disinheritance. To the Christian world of Late Antiquity, Ishmael’s tent symbolized the fallen nations: unredeemed, earthbound, and estranged from divine promise.
Thus, when the sons of Ishmael rose from Arabia and overwhelmed the Christian heartlands of Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, the shock was not only imperial—it was theological. The “slave’s children,” long consigned to the wilderness of allegory, now rode forth as conquerors of the “children of the free.” In their victory, the Church saw not merely the fall of cities, but the shattering of a sacred hierarchy: the bondwoman’s son had returned, and he had inherited the world.
📜 1. Paul’s Allegory — Galatians 4:21–31
In the epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul forged one of the most powerful—and perilous—allegories in the history of theology. In his debate with rival Christ-followers who insisted that Gentile converts must accept circumcision and the Mosaic Law, Paul turned to the household of Abraham itself. From its domestic drama, he drew a cosmic parable that would echo through two millennia of Christian thought: the opposition between the slave and the free, the flesh and the spirit, the Law and the Gospel.
Drawing from Genesis 16 and 21, Paul declared: “Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. The son of the slave was born according to the flesh, but the son of the free through the promise.” (Gal. 4:22–23). Here, Hagar became the embodiment of bondage, and Sarah the emblem of freedom. Ishmael stood for the child of nature, conceived by human effort; Isaac for the child of grace, born by divine promise.
But Paul’s argument went further. As David Freidenreich observes, Paul was not writing to Jews but to Gentile Christ-followers, and his real opponents were not Jews per se, but Jewish Christians who sought to impose the Law upon converts. To discredit them, Paul constructed an elaborate table of opposites—Law versus Promise, Flesh versus Spirit, Slavery versus Freedom, Earthly Jerusalem versus the Heavenly Jerusalem. On one side stood his rivals, “children of the slave woman”; on the other, Paul and his followers, “children of the free.”
In this scheme, Hagar became Mount Sinai, the place where the Law was given, and thus the very symbol of human enslavement to commandments. Paul wrote: “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Gal. 4:25–26). It was an audacious claim—the Law itself, revealed to Moses, was the covenant of the slave, while faith in Christ was the covenant of the free.
Paul’s rhetoric, as Freidenreich explains, was not a rejection of Judaism itself but a redefinition of Abraham’s inheritance. For Paul, the covenant with Abraham preceded the Law of Sinai and found its fulfillment in Christ. Circumcision, Sabbath, and the Mosaic code were marks of the flesh; faith alone was the mark of the Spirit. Those who sought righteousness “through works of the Law,” he argued, had “fallen from grace.” “You who desire to be under the Law,” he thundered, “will you not listen to the Law?” (Gal. 4:21).
The allegory culminates in a thunderous command: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Gal. 4:30). In this act of expulsion, Paul transformed a domestic quarrel into a theological verdict. Hagar and Ishmael were not merely Abraham’s kin—they became the archetypes of all who cling to the Law and the flesh. Sarah and Isaac became the prototypes of the Church, the true heirs of the promise. “We are not children of the slave, but of the free.” (Gal. 4:31).
Through this single allegory, Paul gave Christianity its defining grammar of salvation—a dualism that would reverberate across centuries: Law versus Grace, Flesh versus Spirit, Judaism versus Christianity, Earth versus Heaven. His rhetorical weapon was astonishingly effective. It not only shattered the unity of early Christ-followers but also laid the intellectual foundation for Christian anti-Judaism. Later generations would expand his vision even further, identifying Hagar and Ishmael not merely with the “Jerusalem below,” but with the nations outside the Gospel—a symbolism that, after the rise of Islam, would find a new and devastating target.
For now, however, in the world of the first century, Paul’s Ishmael was the Jew still bound to Sinai; his Isaac, the Christian freed by faith. But the categories he forged—the slave of the flesh and the child of the promise—would survive him. And when the sons of Arabia rode forth six centuries later, bearing revelation of their own, Christendom would look upon them and say: “Behold—the children of the bondwoman have returned.”
🏛️ 2. Christian Patristics & Polemics
In the Christian imagination of Late Antiquity, the rivalry of two women—Sarah and Hagar—became a cosmic struggle between two covenants, two Jerusalems, and two peoples.
The Church Fathers, drawing deeply from Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21–31, universalized the story of Hagar and Ishmael into a spiritual typology that defined Christianity itself. From Origen and Didymus the Blind to John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Ephrem the Syrian, the episode was mined for moral, theological, and eschatological meaning. As Emmanouela Grypeou has shown, nearly every major patristic commentator echoed Paul’s formulation: “These things are an allegory... The one from Mount Sinai in Arabia begets children into slavery—this is Hagar.”
The Allegory Renewed
The Fathers recast Hagar as the Synagogue, the enslaved woman who bore children “according to the flesh”—the Jews bound to the Law. Sarah, by contrast, symbolized the Church, the free woman whose offspring were “children of the promise.”
-
Origen and Didymus spiritualized the contrast: Hagar represented the preparatory shadow of Judaism—ritual, sacrifice, and circumcision—while Sarah embodied the perfect and spiritual virtue of Christianity.
-
Chrysostom sharpened the polemic: “The true sons of Abraham are not those born after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” The Christian, not the Jew, was now Abraham’s heir.
-
Cyril of Alexandria went further still, describing Hagar as a type of the Synagogue that “bent her neck to the free woman” and yet “despised her mistress,” just as the Jews persecuted the Church and scorned the Gospel.
From this typology emerged one of the most enduring binaries in Christian thought—Church versus Synagogue, Faith versus Law, Freedom versus Slavery. It was not merely exegesis; it was identity formation through negation.
Origen and Didymus spiritualized the contrast: Hagar represented the preparatory shadow of Judaism—ritual, sacrifice, and circumcision—while Sarah embodied the perfect and spiritual virtue of Christianity.
Chrysostom sharpened the polemic: “The true sons of Abraham are not those born after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” The Christian, not the Jew, was now Abraham’s heir.
Cyril of Alexandria went further still, describing Hagar as a type of the Synagogue that “bent her neck to the free woman” and yet “despised her mistress,” just as the Jews persecuted the Church and scorned the Gospel.
Ishmael’s Character and Condemnation
The Fathers’ commentaries also moralized the Genesis narrative in vivid, human detail. Hagar was portrayed as arrogant, impertinent, and ungrateful, her insolence against Sarah a mirror of Israel’s rebellion against God. Ishmael, too, became a moral warning: the undisciplined son of the flesh, born of human will rather than divine grace.
Ephrem the Syrian, writing in the language of the East, pictured Ishmael as a wild youth—“the son of Hagar was wild and kicked at Isaac”—a metaphor drawn from the verse calling him “a wild ass among men.” His laughter, noted in the Peshitta, was interpreted not as innocent play but as mockery—a symbol of persecution.
John Chrysostom justified Sarah’s anger: Ishmael’s “brashness” and envy of Isaac’s inheritance made coexistence impossible. Diodore of Tarsus read the word “playing” (paizonta, Genesis 21:9 LXX) as fighting, citing 2 Samuel 2:14 where the same verb means “to do battle.” Thus, Ishmael was not a child at play but a persecutor—“the one born according to the flesh persecuting the one born according to the Spirit,” as Paul had written.
Even Jerome, translating the Hebrew text, added that Ishmael “played with idols,” mocking both Isaac and God. To him, Ishmael prefigured idolatrous nations falsely claiming Abraham’s blessing.
Through such readings, the Fathers placed moral and theological guilt upon Hagar and Ishmael, transforming Sarah’s cruelty into divine justice. Ishmael was cast out not as a victim but as the rejected heir, punished for arrogance and violence.
The Egyptian Handmaid
Hagar’s Egyptian origin further deepened her symbolic degradation. Chrysostom, Ephrem, and Theodoret emphasized that she had been “a gift from Pharaoh” to Sarah—an Egyptian slave, not a noble wife. She thus embodied both foreignness and servitude—a double otherness that would later mark her descendants in the Christian imagination.
The Fathers debated Abraham’s concubinage as a moral problem: how could the patriarch of monogamous virtue take a second woman? The solution lay again in allegory. Hagar was not Abraham’s wife in the full sense, but a necessary instrument in God’s plan, the “preparatory era” that had to be endured before the birth of the true heir.
The Desert and the Shadow
When Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael with bread and water, the Fathers saw in it not cruelty but trust in Providence. Eusebius of Emesa defended Abraham’s act: “He sent her away believing that God would protect the boy.” Chrysostom called it a gesture of peace toward Sarah, while Theodoret viewed it as an act of obedience to divine command.
Even the wilderness itself became allegorical—the dry, faithless desert where the slave woman wandered was the world without grace, awaiting revelation. In this symbolic geography, the wilderness of Paran became the abode of exile, and the lineage of Ishmael—those “born according to the flesh”—became a theological cipher for nations outside the Church.
From Allegory to Apocalypse
By the sixth and seventh centuries, this theological typology evolved into an eschatological dread. Christian apocalypses circulating in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic—the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the Edessene Apocalypse, and others studied by Grypeou—foretold the rise of “the sons of Hagar” or “the sons of Ishmael” as the scourge of God.
These desert peoples, said the seers, would pour forth from Arabia “like locusts,” laying waste to the earth as instruments of divine wrath. Their conquests were not yet understood politically, but theologically—as the vengeance of the slave woman’s son, long cast out yet unforgotten.
Thus, when in the early seventh century the Arabs burst from the deserts of Arabia, overwhelming the armies of Rome at Dathin, Ajnadayn, Pella, Damascus, Emesa, and Yarmūk, the Christian world was seized by apocalyptic terror.
To the Christian mind, this was the allegory made flesh. The “sons of the bondwoman,” long banished to the wilderness, had returned not as slaves but as conquerors—God’s rod of chastisement against the empire that had forsaken its covenant.
In their victories, the Church Fathers’ moral universe inverted itself. Hagar’s son had come roaring from the sands of Sinai, and the empire that once called him “the child of the flesh” now felt upon its neck the scourge of his descendants. The theological drama of Paul’s epistle—“Cast out the bondwoman and her son”—had entered history itself.
🔥 3. The “Hagarenes” in Christian Eyes
To the Christian world of Late Antiquity, the Arabs who erupted from the southern deserts were not a new people — they were the return of an old curse.They were the sons of Hagar, the children of Ishmael, the wild ass of the wilderness who had long dwelt “against all his brothers.”
From the fourth century onward, Christian theologians and chroniclers had already cast Ishmael and his descendants as the archetype of the desert barbarian, the uncivilized nomad who lived beyond the boundaries of the “civilized world.” Genesis had made Ishmael’s fate clear: a man “of the desert,” his hand “against all, and the hand of all against him.”
The Greek translators of the Septuagint rendered the prophecy as:
“He shall be a rustic man (ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος), dwelling against his brothers.” (Gen. 16:12)
In the mouths of later interpreters, ἄγροικος — dweller of the open country — soon acquired moral color: rude, boorish, savage. Ishmael thus became, in the Christian imagination, the father of the untamed nations — the wandering Bedouin, fierce, lawless, unbound.
Jerome, writing in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis, glossed the verse with ethnographic scorn:
“Instead of ‘boorish man’ stands written in the Hebrew phara, meaning ‘wild ass’. It signifies that his descendants would dwell in the desert, and refers to the Saracens who wander without fixed abode, invading the nations who border the wilderness — and they are attacked by all.”
Here the Saracens, a vague term for the nomadic tribes of Arabia, were fully grafted into the biblical lineage of Hagar. Eusebius of Caesarea claimed that Abraham’s sons by the Egyptian handmaid “went to Arabia and founded twelve kingdoms,” echoing Genesis 25:14. Epiphanius of Salamis called their descendants Hagarenes, “practicing circumcision but descended from the slave woman.”
Their very name was read as a confession of shame. Sozomen recorded that the Arabs “called themselves Saracens, as if from Sarah, to conceal their descent from Hagar the slave.” In this cruel irony, the Christian world baptized an entire people with the stigma of illegitimacy.
In the Roman mind, Ishmael’s sons were the eternal outsiders — dwellers of sand and shadow, uncultivated, unbaptized, and unworthy. The world of the Church was the world of the urbs — the city, the order of law and empire. Beyond its borders lay the erēmos — the wilderness — the land of Ishmael.
And yet, in that wilderness, prophecy simmered.
“He shall be a rustic man (ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος), dwelling against his brothers.” (Gen. 16:12)
“Instead of ‘boorish man’ stands written in the Hebrew phara, meaning ‘wild ass’. It signifies that his descendants would dwell in the desert, and refers to the Saracens who wander without fixed abode, invading the nations who border the wilderness — and they are attacked by all.”
⚔️ From Allegory to Apocalypse
As centuries passed, the theological turned apocalyptic. Christian seers of the Near East began to read the sons of Ishmael as more than a symbol of the Synagogue; they were now instruments of God’s wrath, harbingers of the Last Days.
The Syriac apocalypses — The Sermon on the End, the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, and the Edessene Apocalypse — reimagined Ishmael’s progeny as the chastisers of the nations. They would arise, it was said, “from the desert of Yathrib,” summoned by God Himself to punish a Christian world grown arrogant.
To the Christians of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, the arrival of the Arabs in the 630s was not a political invasion — it was the eruption of Scripture.
The History attributed to Sebeos (c. 660 CE) saw them as the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision, “a storm from the south, from the terrible desert.” The Sermon of Ephrem on the End and the Judgment identified them as the forerunners of Antichrist. And John of Damascus, writing from the shadow of the new Islamic order, called Islam itself “the heresy of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the Antichrist.”
Thus the theological allegory had hardened into a historical ideology. The “sons of the slave woman” were now real armies thundering across the Fertile Crescent — and their victories were read not as divine favor but as divine punishment.
🌍 The Shattering of the Ancient World
Between 632 and 640 CE, the nightmare became flesh. Out of the Arabian deserts came men who prayed, fasted, and fought in the name of a single God. their own tongue named them Muslims.
Within eight years, these “sons of Ishmael” shattered the world that had ruled the East for nearly eight centuries.
-
Rome, whose legions had conquered Syria in 63 BCE and held it for 708 years, was annihilated.
-
Persia, which had ruled Mesopotamia — first under the Parthians since 141 BCE, then under the Sasanians — for 781 years, collapsed.
-
From Dathin to Ajnadayn, from Pella to Damascus, Emesa, and Yarmūk, the Roman armies were crushed and scattered.
-
In 642 CE, Egypt, the granary of the empire, fell. Jerusalem, once the City of David and the site of the Holy Sepulchre, bowed to the sons of the desert.
In just eight years, the Fertile Crescent — the ancient heart of both Rome and Persia — passed into the hands of the very people whom Christian and Jewish tradition had cast out as the bastard line of Abraham.
The theological wound was unbearable. The descendants of the slave woman, long derided as barbarians beyond the pale of salvation, now ruled the lands of the prophets, the apostles, and the Caesars.
To clergymen and chroniclers of all Christian sects, this was not a triumph of Ishmael — it was the scourge of God upon Christendom.A chastisement for pride.A punishment for heresy.A purgation by the sword of the desert.
They could not yet see that in the heart of this storm — in the voice of the Qurʾān itself — Ishmael was not the symbol of rejection, but of restoration.
That story — of how Islam reclaimed the son cast out — is the next chapter.
Rome, whose legions had conquered Syria in 63 BCE and held it for 708 years, was annihilated.
Persia, which had ruled Mesopotamia — first under the Parthians since 141 BCE, then under the Sasanians — for 781 years, collapsed.
From Dathin to Ajnadayn, from Pella to Damascus, Emesa, and Yarmūk, the Roman armies were crushed and scattered.
In 642 CE, Egypt, the granary of the empire, fell. Jerusalem, once the City of David and the site of the Holy Sepulchre, bowed to the sons of the desert.
🌙 III. “And He Was Pleasing to His Lord” (Q 19:55): Ishmael in Islamic RevelationIn the Qurʾān, the story of Ishmael is no longer one of exile and rejection — it is one of divine election and fulfillment. The son of the slave woman becomes not the castaway of promise, but its guardian and heir. Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) stands among the prophets, not the banished: “He was true to his promise and was a messenger and a prophet. He enjoined upon his people prayer and charity, and he was pleasing to his Lord” (Q 19:54–55). Far from the tainted lineage of Christian and Jewish imagination, the Qurʾān restores Ishmael’s dignity as the obedient servant of God, the co-builder of the Kaʿbah with Abraham, and the patriarch from whose descendants would rise the final messenger.
Here, the axis of sacred history turns. The ʿabd (servant) and the ibn al-amah (son of the slave woman) is no longer outside the covenant, but the vessel of its renewal. The promise once monopolized by Isaac’s seed now flows through Ishmael’s line — through Arabia, through the sanctuary of Mecca, through the tongue of revelation itself. The Qurʾān’s portrayal of Ishmael is, in truth, the great reversal: the humiliated has become the honored, the cast out has become the chosen, and the desert wanderer has become the founder of a new spiritual civilization.
In the Qurʾān, the story of Ishmael is no longer one of exile and rejection — it is one of divine election and fulfillment. The son of the slave woman becomes not the castaway of promise, but its guardian and heir. Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) stands among the prophets, not the banished: “He was true to his promise and was a messenger and a prophet. He enjoined upon his people prayer and charity, and he was pleasing to his Lord” (Q 19:54–55). Far from the tainted lineage of Christian and Jewish imagination, the Qurʾān restores Ishmael’s dignity as the obedient servant of God, the co-builder of the Kaʿbah with Abraham, and the patriarch from whose descendants would rise the final messenger.
Here, the axis of sacred history turns. The ʿabd (servant) and the ibn al-amah (son of the slave woman) is no longer outside the covenant, but the vessel of its renewal. The promise once monopolized by Isaac’s seed now flows through Ishmael’s line — through Arabia, through the sanctuary of Mecca, through the tongue of revelation itself. The Qurʾān’s portrayal of Ishmael is, in truth, the great reversal: the humiliated has become the honored, the cast out has become the chosen, and the desert wanderer has become the founder of a new spiritual civilization.
📖 1. Ishmael in the Qurʾān — The Rehabilitated SonIn the Qurʾān, Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) is not a castaway, but a prophet, messenger, and covenant-bearer. He stands shoulder to shoulder with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as one who “enjoined his people to prayer and almsgiving” — and who “was pleasing to his Lord” (Q 19:54–55).
The Qurʾān radically reframes the biblical story: Hagar’s son is no longer the child of flesh, but the heir of faith, chosen to raise the House of God alongside his father Abraham. What the Hebrew Bible saw as banishment, the Qurʾān reinterprets as divine commissioning. The wilderness ceases to be exile — it becomes sanctuary. The barren valley of Beersheba is replaced by the sacred valley of Bakkah, and the lonely outcast of Genesis becomes the founder of the sanctuary of tawḥīd.
In the Qurʾānic imagination, the covenantal line does not end with Isaac. It extends through Ishmael, through Mecca, through the Kaʿbah, through the final Prophet — Muḥammad, the descendant of Abraham through the son who was once cast out.
As Mohsen Goudarzi has observed, the Abraham segment of Sūrat al-Baqara (Q 2:124–141) stands at the very center of the longest chapter of the Qurʾān, forming the conceptual pivot between the stories of Adam and Israel on one side, and the rise of the Prophet Muḥammad’s community on the other. Its theme is the renewal of the covenant — a covenant now entrusted to a new people, the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, the community of al-Muslimūn.
While the Israelites had been chosen yet repeatedly faltered, Abraham and Ishmael succeed. In this sura, Abraham builds the sanctuary with his son, prays for a “community submitting to God” (ummatan muslimatan), and is assured that divine leadership (imāmah) will endure — but “My covenant shall not include the wrongdoers” (Q 2:124). This is not a rejection of lineage but a purification of it: the covenant survives, not in Israel’s obstinacy, but in Ishmael’s submission.
Thus, al-Baqara portrays Abraham’s family not as divided between legitimate and illegitimate sons, but as united in monotheistic obedience. Even Jacob’s sons affirm: “We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac — One God, and to Him we submit” (Q 2:133). The Qurʾān therefore reclaims Ishmael’s place within the sacred genealogy — not as rival, but as rightful heir.
This Abrahamic section serves a vital theological function: it legitimizes the Prophet’s followers as the new covenantal community, distinct from Jews and Christians, yet rooted in the same Abrahamic promise. As Goudarzi explains, al-Baqara does not discard genealogical election; it redirects it. It is now the Ishmaelites, not the Israelites, who bear the mantle of divine trust — “He it is who named you Muslims aforetime and in this [revelation]” (Q 22:78).
This Ishmaelite inheritance is reaffirmed elsewhere in the Qurʾān. In Sūrat Ibrāhīm (Q 14:35–41), Abraham prays for the descendants he has “settled near Your Sacred House,” thanking God for granting him “Ishmael and Isaac” and invoking divine protection for their progeny. In Sūrat al-Ḥajj (Q 22:26–78), God commands Abraham to purify the House for pilgrims and reminds the believers that this is “the creed of your father Abraham.”
In other verses, Ishmael is listed among the patient, the chosen, the excellent, and the prophets (Q 6:86; 21:85; 38:48). He is described as “true to his promise,” one who “commanded his family to pray and give alms,” and who “was pleasing in the sight of God” (Q 19:54–55). He thus becomes a moral archetype — a paragon of obedience, constancy, and devotion.
Though Ishmael’s name appears only twelve times in the Qurʾān — fewer than Moses or Abraham — his role is theologically immense. He is the bridge linking Abraham’s covenant to Muḥammad’s mission, the spiritual ancestor of a people entrusted with the final revelation and the restoration of pure monotheism.
The Qurʾān’s rehabilitation of Ishmael is not a minor adjustment to the biblical narrative. It is a complete inversion of its moral hierarchy. The slave’s son becomes the model of submission; the outcast becomes the founder; the desert becomes the navel of the world; and the descendants of the castaway become the bearers of divine speech.
In the Islamic vision, Ishmael’s story is not one of rejection — but redemption. It is through him that Abraham’s covenantal light passes eastward, to the Sanctuary of Mecca, to the Revelation of the Qurʾān, and to a universal ummah bound not by blood, but by submission to the Lord of the Worlds.
🕋 2. The Covenant Reversed — Abraham and Ishmael at the Kaʿba
Where Jewish and Christian exegesis had cast Ishmael out of the sacred story — banishing him to the margins of the desert — Islam places him at its very center. The Qurʾān transforms the narrative of exclusion into one of restoration and divine appointment.
In Sūrat al-Baqara (Q 2:125–129), Abraham and Ishmael together raise the foundations of the Kaʿbah, consecrating Arabia — once seen as a spiritual wasteland — as the new axis of divine worship. Their prayer echoes through the ages:
“Our Lord! Accept this from us… Make us submissive to You, and from our progeny a community submissive to You. And show us our rites, and turn toward us in mercy… Our Lord! Raise among them a messenger from among them, who will recite to them Your revelations, teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify them. Truly, You are the Mighty, the Wise” (Q 2:127–129).
Here, the Kaʿbah — not Sinai, not Zion — becomes the epicenter of covenantal faith. And it is Ishmael, the son once expelled, who now stands beside his father as builder and co-custodian of God’s House.
This reversal is deliberate and theological. It is a repudiation of the Jewish and Christian displacement of Ishmael, and a reclamation of his rightful role as heir of Abraham’s covenant. What had been cast as a story of rejection now becomes one of renewal. The son of the slave woman — scorned by Israel and allegorized by Paul as “the child of the flesh” — becomes the restorer of the faith of Abraham, the prototype of submission, and the patriarch of the final ummah.
As Mohsen Goudarzi observes, the Qurʾān’s genealogical rehabilitation of Ishmael was a revolutionary theological act in the landscape of Late Antiquity. For centuries, Jews had regarded Ishmael as an outcast — “a man of the desert,” excluded from the land and the law, unworthy of Abraham’s inheritance. Christians, adopting Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21–31, turned him into a symbol of carnality and servitude — the “son of the slave woman” representing the Old Covenant of bondage in contrast to the freedom of the New Covenant in Christ.
Thus, in both traditions, Ishmael was a theological foil — a shadow cast by the light of Isaac. He was the child who mocked, the man who persecuted, the ancestor of nomads and idolaters. His descendants were imagined as wandering, violent, and accursed. Yet the Qurʾān’s portrait of Ishmael shatters this inherited prejudice. It reclaims his dignity, restores his prophecy, and reverses the verdict of history.
For the Qurʾān, Ishmael is neither sinful nor servile, neither idolater nor outcast. He is rasūlan nabiyyan — “a messenger and a prophet” — patient, steadfast, and “pleasing to his Lord” (Q 19:54–55). As Goudarzi notes, this represents a radical departure from all pre-Islamic characterizations: “The Qurʾānic description of Ishmael as a righteous messenger and prophet therefore represents a radical departure from his pre-Islamic portrayals.”
In other words, the Qurʾān’s rehabilitation of Ishmael is not simply an act of narrative correction — it is a theological reclamation of Abrahamic authority.
The Abrahamic covenant, once claimed exclusively through Isaac’s seed, is now reclaimed through Ishmael’s ummah — the community of islām, the people of submission to God.
While the biblical and patristic imagination made Ishmael the symbol of rejection, the Qurʾān makes him the sign of continuity. His descendants — the Arabs — are no longer aliens to the promise, but trustees of its fulfillment. Their land, once viewed as peripheral and uncivilized, is now the heart of monotheism. Their sanctuary, the Kaʿbah, becomes the axis mundi — the place toward which all believers turn in prayer.
As Goudarzi powerfully summarizes:
“Conceived as the ancestor of the Prophet and his community, Ishmael’s image as a righteous prophet undermines the disparagement of his posterity at the hand of Jews and Christians. The Qurʾānic Ishmael is neither sinful nor servile. As such, there is no reason why his descendants should be excluded from Abraham’s spiritual legacy.”
Thus, what Jewish midrash saw as banishment, and what Christian theology saw as bondage, the Qurʾān reveals as blessing.
Ishmael’s exile becomes election.
His wilderness becomes worship.His progeny becomes the People of the Covenant.
The House of Abraham, once divided between Isaac’s inheritance and Ishmael’s exclusion, is made whole again in Mecca, where father and son build a sanctuary “for all mankind” (Q 3:96).
In this reversal of the covenant, Islam restores to Ishmael what centuries of polemic had denied him: the honor of prophecy, the continuity of Abraham’s mission, and the centrality of his lineage in the unfolding of salvation history.
The son of the slave woman — the boy driven into the desert — returns as the cornerstone of a new covenantal world, where submission, not birth, defines divine election.
⚔️ 3. History as Vindication — The Conquests and the Covenant
Within a single generation, the Ishmaelites—now Muslims—swept across the lands of their rejection. What had once been theological promise became historical fact. The Qurʾānic worldview was not content to remain in abstraction; it was a historical self-assertion, the divine drama of restoration unfolding through conquest.
The very nations that had mocked Ishmael’s lineage—the heirs of Isaac’s covenant, the Romans and Persians—were crushed between 632–652 CE. As the empires of Caesar and Xusro fell, the sons of Hagar stood upon the ruins of the sons of Isaac.
This transformation was not perceived as apocalyptic chaos, but as covenantal vindication—the divine justice of history fulfilling the Qurʾānic prophecy that “the despised would inherit.”
Even contemporary Syriac observers could not ignore the magnitude of the reversal. Writing in 687 CE, Yohannan bar Penkāyē marveled at the scale of Arab dominion:
“They subdued all fortified cities and ruled from the sea to the sea, from East to West—Aegyptos and all of Egypt, from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yāhelmān to the Gates of Alan—Armenians, Syrians, Persians, Romans, Egyptians, and all the lands that are in between.”
In this litany, Crete and Cappadocia mark the empire’s western frontier, the Darial Gorge (“the Gates of Alan”) its northern limit, and Yāhelmān, almost certainly a Syriac rendering of Yemen, its southern reach. Yemen had been ruled by the Sasanians from 572 to 628 CE, and so Bar Penkāyē’s statement implies that the Ishmaelite empire now stretched from the Caucasus to the southern tip of Arabia—an expanse unimaginable only a generation earlier.
He records, too, that only half of the Roman Empire remained after the Arab storm had passed, and that Ethiopia and Spain lay within the sphere of their raids and influence. This panorama of conquest reflects the early Muslims’ astonishing achievement: an empire born from the desert, commanding the civilized world from the Atlantic to Persia.
To late antique observers, this could only mean one thing—the prophecy to Hagar had been fulfilled: “His hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him.”
Yet the Muslim interpretation was profoundly different. It was not viewed as apocalyptic chastisement, as Christians imagined, but as the unfolding of divine justice—the vindication of Ishmael’s covenant, the reversal of sacred history.
As Mohsen Goudarzi insightfully argues, the Qurʾān’s vision of prophecy is deeply genealogical and scriptural. The Qurʾān presents Ishmael not as a pariah, but as the co-heir of Abraham, through whom the covenant continues. It insists that revelation and scripture (kitāb) are not the monopoly of the Israelites, for the Ishmaelites, too, are “the children of Abraham” and thus entitled to divine guidance.
The prayer of Abraham and Ishmael at the Kaʿbah (Q 2:129)—that God send to their descendants “a messenger to teach them the Book and wisdom”—is fulfilled in Muḥammad himself. The Qurʾān thus becomes the second comprehensive scripture, a “Book sent down after Moses” (Q 46:30), granted not to Israel but to the long-forgotten seed of Ishmael.
Whereas Jewish tradition dismissed Ishmael’s descendants as thieves and bandits “unworthy of the Torah,” the Qurʾān overturns the rabbinic insult by making Ishmael’s sons the new bearers of divine revelation.
Goudarzi captures this reversal perfectly:
“Muḥammad’s reception of the Qurʾān was a forceful rebuttal of such conceptions and a living proof that, as Abraham’s children, Ishmaelites were as entitled to divine scripture as their Israelite cousins.”
Thus, the early Islamic conquests were not conceived as merely global dominion, but as the manifestation of a sacred inheritance reclaimed.
The history of the 630s and 640s is, in the Qurʾānic imagination, the fulfillment of covenantal justice:
The son of the slave woman, once cast into the wilderness, now returns as the custodian of God’s house, the heir of Abraham’s promise, and the instrument of divine victory.
The sons of Ishmael—once mocked as outcasts—became the builders of civilization, the restorers of faith, and the bearers of revelation.
History itself bent to the Qurʾān’s proclamation:
“And We desired to favor those who were oppressed in the land, and make them leaders and make them the inheritors.” (Q 28:5)
The conquests, then, were not mere warfare—they were the Abrahamic covenant returned to its rightful heirs.
“Our Lord! Accept this from us… Make us submissive to You, and from our progeny a community submissive to You. And show us our rites, and turn toward us in mercy… Our Lord! Raise among them a messenger from among them, who will recite to them Your revelations, teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify them. Truly, You are the Mighty, the Wise” (Q 2:127–129).
“Conceived as the ancestor of the Prophet and his community, Ishmael’s image as a righteous prophet undermines the disparagement of his posterity at the hand of Jews and Christians. The Qurʾānic Ishmael is neither sinful nor servile. As such, there is no reason why his descendants should be excluded from Abraham’s spiritual legacy.”
“They subdued all fortified cities and ruled from the sea to the sea, from East to West—Aegyptos and all of Egypt, from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yāhelmān to the Gates of Alan—Armenians, Syrians, Persians, Romans, Egyptians, and all the lands that are in between.”
“Muḥammad’s reception of the Qurʾān was a forceful rebuttal of such conceptions and a living proof that, as Abraham’s children, Ishmaelites were as entitled to divine scripture as their Israelite cousins.”
The son of the slave woman, once cast into the wilderness, now returns as the custodian of God’s house, the heir of Abraham’s promise, and the instrument of divine victory.
“And We desired to favor those who were oppressed in the land, and make them leaders and make them the inheritors.” (Q 28:5)
🕋 IV. “Until They Give by Their Own Hand”: The Ishmaelite Reversal in History
For nearly two millennia, Ishmael’s name had been a symbol of exclusion—a living reminder of divine rejection in the eyes of Israel and Christendom alike. To the heirs of Isaac, he was the son of the slave woman, the child of flesh, the man of the wilderness. His descendants were imagined as marauding nomads on the margins of sacred history—unlettered, unchosen, destined to serve the covenant but never bear it. From synagogues to cathedrals, the story was unanimous: salvation belonged to the sons of Sarah, not to the sons of Hagar.
This is the moment when theology became history—when Ishmael’s vindication took flesh in empire, when the words “until they give by their own hand, while they are humbled” (Q 9:29) revealed not humiliation imposed, but humility realized: the recognition, before the eyes of the world, that the God of Abraham had chosen anew.
⚔️ 1. The Fulfillment of the Promise
Jewish and Christian chroniclers could scarcely comprehend it. What they called catastrophe, the Qurʾān had already named destiny, The Qurʾān’s quiet assurance in Ishmael’s covenant—his prayer, his patience, his pleasing before his Lord—had erupted into history itself.
As Milka Levy-Rubin observes,
“The seventh century in the East was a time of major turbulence and upheavals which culminated in the Muslim conquest and dominion over what had been Sasanian Iran as well as over a significant part of the Roman Empire.”
The Arabs who emerged from the Hijaz were, at first, a small minority among ancient and heterogeneous peoples—Greeks, Aramaeans, Persians, Copts, Jews, and others. Yet within decades, their creed had redrawn the map of civilization. The encounter between the new, not yet fully formed Muslim ummah and the ancient societies of Late Antiquity, she writes, was “a momentous event for both the conquerors and the conquered.”
As Levy-Rubin and others have shown, the first effects of the conquests were surprisingly mild and pragmatic, not fanatical or destructive. Treaties were drawn, taxes fixed, churches and synagogues left standing. Life, in her words, “was allowed to take its course”—but its course was now guided by a new revelation.
Fanny Bessard, in Caliphs and Merchants: Cities and Economies of Power in the Near East (700–950), reminds us that the Arab-Muslim conquests were not a storm of barbarism but a measured and astonishingly restrained transformation:
“Islam’s advocacy of tolerance of the People of the Book was immensely appealing to minorities continuously persecuted by Roman imperial authorities, and resulted in many cities in the Levant simply surrendering to the Arabs.”
The new rulers did not tear down churches or obliterate temples. Archaeology, as Bessard highlights, reveals that the mosques of the early conquests were often built alongside Roman streets, reusing their marble and masonry—not to erase the past, but to inhabit it.
“The mosque of ʿUmar,” she writes, “was carefully integrated into the existing fabric.”In cities like Jarash, “the Roman fabric was preserved, the market untouched, the churches still standing.”
Even the Christian inscriptions of the mid-7th century—in Umm al-Jimal, Rihāb, Khirbat al-Samra, and Umm al-Rasas—speak not of persecution, but of continuity. The monks of Palestine and Transjordan remained active, their monasteries unbroken.
As Peter Pentz famously called it, these were “the Invisible Conquests”—a revolution without destruction, a new civilization built within the old.
The conquest of Iraq mirrored that of Syria—swift, strategic, and restrained, & similarly, The Sasanian Empire, weakened by decades of war and dynastic decay, collapsed at al-Qādisiyyah (637 CE) and Nihāwand (642 CE). Within five years, the fertile alluvium of Iraq—the Sawād—was under Muslim rule. The Persians’ grand capital, Ctesiphon, fell after brief resistance, its palaces transformed into administrative centers of the new caliphate.
Further east, the campaigns in Iran and Central Asia were slower and harsher, revealing regional differences. As Bessard notes, “the conquest of Sogdia in Central Asia often led to the decline of previous structures”, yet by the 8th and 9th centuries, the local cities—Samarkand, Panjikent, Termez—rose again, now within the orbit of Islam and under the Persian-speaking Sāmānids, heirs of both Arab and Iranian worlds.
But the essence of the first Islamic century, as Christian Sahner eloquently writes, was not empire for empire’s sake—it was community.
“Social, political, and religious movements tend to be most vulnerable during the earliest stage of their development... The Islamic tradition is very candid about the tribulations of the early Muslims.”
Sahner continues:
“In Medina, the fate of the Muslim community quickly changed. It evolved from a small, persecuted sect into a powerful force in Arabian politics... At this point, the emerging Muslim community became the most powerful political and military force in all of the Arabian Peninsula.”
From there, the early caliphs transformed their spiritual unity into political order,under Abū Bakr, rebellion was crushed; under ʿUmar, empire was born, within a decade, the two great empires of the ancient world—Rome and Persia—had fallen before the believers.
📜 2. The Covenantal Order — Jizya and Justice
When the armies of Islam entered the lands of the People of the Book, they did not raze temples or erase faiths. They established ʿuhūd — covenants of protection and peace. These were not arbitrary decrees of conquest; they were legal continuations of an ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman diplomatic tradition, recast in the light of the Qurʾān.
Across the seventh century, as the Muslims advanced from Arabia to Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, cities and provinces surrendered not through fire and ruin but through written covenants (kuttub, ʿuhūd, amānāt) that guaranteed their safety, property, and worship. These documents—the Covenant of Jerusalem, the Treaty of Najrān, and the Pact of Aelia—echo with a single promise:
“Their lives, their churches, and their property shall be secure.”
The jizya, imposed under these covenants, was not a badge of humiliation but a token of allegiance, a mark of safety, and a sign of covenantal peace. It was the material acknowledgment that political sovereignty had changed hands, yet the moral and religious order of coexistence remained intact.
As the Qurʾān commands:
“Fight those who do not believe… until they give the jizya ʿan yad while they are ṣāghirūn.” (Qurʾān 9:29)
To “pay by hand” (ʿan yad) meant to enter the new order by one’s own hand—a gesture of submission to law, not a ritual of degradation. In the first Islamic century, no Muslim or Christian chronicler records the later humiliating ceremonies described by medieval jurists. The original act of jizya payment was juridical, not theatrical—a civic acknowledgment of protection, not a performance of shame.
As Milka Levy-Rubin has demonstrated in her magisterial study Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire, the surrender agreements (ʿuhūd al-sulḥ, kitāb al-amān, ʿahd al-dhimma) made by the early Muslim conquerors were not improvised innovations, but rather “the continuation of a long-existing tradition of agreements prevalent in the conquered territories.”
The key legal term that came to define these covenants was amān (أمان), from the Semitic root ʾmn—denoting trust, faith, security, and protection. The word corresponds directly to the Greek pistis and Latin fides, both meaning faith or assurance, and to the Syriac melta d-qyama, meaning word of oath or promise of assurance.
Amān, Levy-Rubin writes, “seems to be a loan translation of pistis/fides, its meaning being a basic assurance of protection as was usually granted in such agreements in the Graeco-Roman world.”
In Arabic, the idioms ṭalaba minhu al-amān (“he requested assurance of safety”) and aʿṭāhu amān (“he granted him protection”) mirror the Greek pistin didonai and the Syriac yahbu melta—to “give faith” or “grant word.” Thus, the language of the Muslim treaties was Semitic in tongue but Roman in structure, translating into Arabic the legal vocabulary of Late Antiquity.
The institution of amān, as the legal historian Joseph Schacht observed, was in part an Islamic adaptation of the pre-Islamic Arab jiwar, the system of granting protection to a stranger (jar). But unlike jiwar, which depended on tribal patronage, amān carried the universal sanctity of divine law: to enter the amān was to be protected not merely by men, but by the Covenant of God (dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlih).
Indeed, the Qurʾān itself enshrined this principle:
“If any of the polytheists seeks your protection (istijārah), then grant him protection (ajirhu) so that he may hear the word of God; then escort him to a place of safety.” (Qurʾān 9:6)
The amān of the conquerors thus emerged as the juridical expression of this divine ethic—mercy translated into law.
From the Prophet’s own lifetime, written covenants were central to the emerging Islamic statecraft. As Levy-Rubin notes, “the Prophet’s agreements with Khaybar, Fadak, Ayla, Maqna, and Najrān” already display the formative vocabulary of Islamic diplomacy: ṣulḥ (peace), ʿahd (covenant), jiwār (protection), and amān (assurance).
The Covenant with Najrān, cited on the authority of Yaḥyā b. Ādam, declared:
“To Najrān and its dependents belong the protection (jiwār) of God and the covenant (dhimma) of Muḥammad, the Messenger of God.”
In other cases, the agreements used the verb amuna — “they shall be safe” — as in the Treaty with Bahrain:
“If they accept Islam, they will be safe (fa-innahum āminūn).”
Or the Agreement with Maqna, recorded by al-Balādhurī:
“From the time this letter reaches you, you shall be safe (innakum āminūn); you have the protection (dhimma) of God and His Messenger.”
This formula—safety, protection, covenant—became the archetype of Islamic governance. The conquered entered not into slavery, but into a juridical brotherhood of protection, underwritten by the most sacred oaths known to either faith.
“God and His angels are witnesses—and God suffices as a witness.” (Treaty of Egypt)
In later centuries, Muslim jurists like Abū Yūsuf and al-Shāfiʿī would confirm that such ʿuhūd were legally binding documents, enforceable in court. One Damascus case, cited by Ibn ʿAsākir, tells how the city’s Christians appealed to the qāḍī in 800 CE, producing their original kitāb written by Khālid ibn al-Walīd, which guaranteed their churches. The judge examined the parchment, confirmed its authenticity, and ordered the Muslims to restore the seized property—affirming that “their covenant and their jizya are lawful and binding.”
By the mid-seventh century, Muslim commanders distinguished between two legal forms of conquest:
-
ʿAnwatan — conquest by force, and
-
Ṣulḥan — conquest by treaty.
When cities surrendered by ṣulḥ, they entered the amān: the conquerors granted them written guarantees (kitāb amān, ʿahd, or ṣulḥ). As Levy-Rubin shows, this process mirrors the Roman concept of deditio in fidem—“surrender into trust.”
The texts of these treaties reveal two broad models:
-
The “Surrender Treaty” (kitāb amān) — used in Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. Here, the Muslims vowed to protect the inhabitants’ lives, property, churches, and crosses in exchange for the payment of the jizya. The formula was clear:
“To you belongs the dhimma; upon you is the jizya.”
In some cases, as in al-Ḥīra, the Muslims even stipulated:
“If we fail to defend you, you owe us no jizya until our defense is restored.”
Thus, the jizya was not a penalty—it was the price of peace, the reciprocal of Muslim protection.
-
The “Vassal Treaty” (ʿahd al-nuṣra) — common in Iran and the Caucasus. In these agreements, local rulers retained control under Muslim suzerainty and undertook obligations of loyalty (wafāʾ), counsel (naṣīḥa), hospitality (qirā), and military aid (nusra).The Qurʾānic ethic “and cooperate in righteousness and piety” (5:2) was thus embodied in legal form: “We owe you protection; you owe us loyalty.”
Both forms of covenant were renewed with each new caliph or governor, much as the Romans renewed their treaties upon succession. Levy-Rubin cites how the baqt with Nubia and the ʿahd with Ruḥā were renewed under ʿUmar II, and how local bishops or elders produced their original copies (nusakh) from safekeeping to ensure continuity. These were, as she notes, “insurance policies of survival”—documents guarded like relics, the written proof that Islam’s conquest was a covenantal, not a coercive, act.
Within this legal and theological architecture, the jizya emerges as a symbol of covenantal reciprocity, not of servitude. It was the material expression of peace under divine sovereignty—a substitute for bloodshed, a lawful exchange between protector and protected.
To pay the jizya ʿan yad was to give one’s hand into the covenant of God and His Messenger. To be ṣāghirūn was to be humbled before divine history, not humiliated before men.
As the early sources show, the first Muslims conquered not by annihilation, but by agreement. Their power was not arbitrary domination—it was the outward form of a theological order of justice, where faith was left to conscience, property to its owner, and worship to its temple.
The sword was raised to end oppression, not to impose belief.
Thus, the ʿuhūd of the first century AH—rooted in the Qurʾān, modeled on the covenants of Late Antiquity, and sanctified by divine oath—stand as living proof that Islam’s rise was a restoration of moral order, not a reign of subjugation.
When the armies of Islam entered the lands of the People of the Book, they did not raze temples or erase faiths. They established ʿuhūd — covenants of protection and peace. These were not arbitrary decrees of conquest; they were legal continuations of an ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman diplomatic tradition, recast in the light of the Qurʾān.
Across the seventh century, as the Muslims advanced from Arabia to Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, cities and provinces surrendered not through fire and ruin but through written covenants (kuttub, ʿuhūd, amānāt) that guaranteed their safety, property, and worship. These documents—the Covenant of Jerusalem, the Treaty of Najrān, and the Pact of Aelia—echo with a single promise:
“Their lives, their churches, and their property shall be secure.”
The jizya, imposed under these covenants, was not a badge of humiliation but a token of allegiance, a mark of safety, and a sign of covenantal peace. It was the material acknowledgment that political sovereignty had changed hands, yet the moral and religious order of coexistence remained intact.
As the Qurʾān commands:
“Fight those who do not believe… until they give the jizya ʿan yad while they are ṣāghirūn.” (Qurʾān 9:29)
To “pay by hand” (ʿan yad) meant to enter the new order by one’s own hand—a gesture of submission to law, not a ritual of degradation. In the first Islamic century, no Muslim or Christian chronicler records the later humiliating ceremonies described by medieval jurists. The original act of jizya payment was juridical, not theatrical—a civic acknowledgment of protection, not a performance of shame.
As Milka Levy-Rubin has demonstrated in her magisterial study Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire, the surrender agreements (ʿuhūd al-sulḥ, kitāb al-amān, ʿahd al-dhimma) made by the early Muslim conquerors were not improvised innovations, but rather “the continuation of a long-existing tradition of agreements prevalent in the conquered territories.”
The key legal term that came to define these covenants was amān (أمان), from the Semitic root ʾmn—denoting trust, faith, security, and protection. The word corresponds directly to the Greek pistis and Latin fides, both meaning faith or assurance, and to the Syriac melta d-qyama, meaning word of oath or promise of assurance.
Amān, Levy-Rubin writes, “seems to be a loan translation of pistis/fides, its meaning being a basic assurance of protection as was usually granted in such agreements in the Graeco-Roman world.”
In Arabic, the idioms ṭalaba minhu al-amān (“he requested assurance of safety”) and aʿṭāhu amān (“he granted him protection”) mirror the Greek pistin didonai and the Syriac yahbu melta—to “give faith” or “grant word.” Thus, the language of the Muslim treaties was Semitic in tongue but Roman in structure, translating into Arabic the legal vocabulary of Late Antiquity.
The institution of amān, as the legal historian Joseph Schacht observed, was in part an Islamic adaptation of the pre-Islamic Arab jiwar, the system of granting protection to a stranger (jar). But unlike jiwar, which depended on tribal patronage, amān carried the universal sanctity of divine law: to enter the amān was to be protected not merely by men, but by the Covenant of God (dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlih).
Indeed, the Qurʾān itself enshrined this principle:
“If any of the polytheists seeks your protection (istijārah), then grant him protection (ajirhu) so that he may hear the word of God; then escort him to a place of safety.” (Qurʾān 9:6)
The amān of the conquerors thus emerged as the juridical expression of this divine ethic—mercy translated into law.
From the Prophet’s own lifetime, written covenants were central to the emerging Islamic statecraft. As Levy-Rubin notes, “the Prophet’s agreements with Khaybar, Fadak, Ayla, Maqna, and Najrān” already display the formative vocabulary of Islamic diplomacy: ṣulḥ (peace), ʿahd (covenant), jiwār (protection), and amān (assurance).
The Covenant with Najrān, cited on the authority of Yaḥyā b. Ādam, declared:
“To Najrān and its dependents belong the protection (jiwār) of God and the covenant (dhimma) of Muḥammad, the Messenger of God.”
In other cases, the agreements used the verb amuna — “they shall be safe” — as in the Treaty with Bahrain:
“If they accept Islam, they will be safe (fa-innahum āminūn).”
Or the Agreement with Maqna, recorded by al-Balādhurī:
“From the time this letter reaches you, you shall be safe (innakum āminūn); you have the protection (dhimma) of God and His Messenger.”
This formula—safety, protection, covenant—became the archetype of Islamic governance. The conquered entered not into slavery, but into a juridical brotherhood of protection, underwritten by the most sacred oaths known to either faith.
“God and His angels are witnesses—and God suffices as a witness.” (Treaty of Egypt)
In later centuries, Muslim jurists like Abū Yūsuf and al-Shāfiʿī would confirm that such ʿuhūd were legally binding documents, enforceable in court. One Damascus case, cited by Ibn ʿAsākir, tells how the city’s Christians appealed to the qāḍī in 800 CE, producing their original kitāb written by Khālid ibn al-Walīd, which guaranteed their churches. The judge examined the parchment, confirmed its authenticity, and ordered the Muslims to restore the seized property—affirming that “their covenant and their jizya are lawful and binding.”
By the mid-seventh century, Muslim commanders distinguished between two legal forms of conquest:
-
ʿAnwatan — conquest by force, and
-
Ṣulḥan — conquest by treaty.
When cities surrendered by ṣulḥ, they entered the amān: the conquerors granted them written guarantees (kitāb amān, ʿahd, or ṣulḥ). As Levy-Rubin shows, this process mirrors the Roman concept of deditio in fidem—“surrender into trust.”
The texts of these treaties reveal two broad models:
-
The “Surrender Treaty” (kitāb amān) — used in Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. Here, the Muslims vowed to protect the inhabitants’ lives, property, churches, and crosses in exchange for the payment of the jizya. The formula was clear:
“To you belongs the dhimma; upon you is the jizya.”
In some cases, as in al-Ḥīra, the Muslims even stipulated:
“If we fail to defend you, you owe us no jizya until our defense is restored.”
Thus, the jizya was not a penalty—it was the price of peace, the reciprocal of Muslim protection.
-
The “Vassal Treaty” (ʿahd al-nuṣra) — common in Iran and the Caucasus. In these agreements, local rulers retained control under Muslim suzerainty and undertook obligations of loyalty (wafāʾ), counsel (naṣīḥa), hospitality (qirā), and military aid (nusra).The Qurʾānic ethic “and cooperate in righteousness and piety” (5:2) was thus embodied in legal form: “We owe you protection; you owe us loyalty.”
Both forms of covenant were renewed with each new caliph or governor, much as the Romans renewed their treaties upon succession. Levy-Rubin cites how the baqt with Nubia and the ʿahd with Ruḥā were renewed under ʿUmar II, and how local bishops or elders produced their original copies (nusakh) from safekeeping to ensure continuity. These were, as she notes, “insurance policies of survival”—documents guarded like relics, the written proof that Islam’s conquest was a covenantal, not a coercive, act.
Within this legal and theological architecture, the jizya emerges as a symbol of covenantal reciprocity, not of servitude. It was the material expression of peace under divine sovereignty—a substitute for bloodshed, a lawful exchange between protector and protected.
To pay the jizya ʿan yad was to give one’s hand into the covenant of God and His Messenger. To be ṣāghirūn was to be humbled before divine history, not humiliated before men.
As the early sources show, the first Muslims conquered not by annihilation, but by agreement. Their power was not arbitrary domination—it was the outward form of a theological order of justice, where faith was left to conscience, property to its owner, and worship to its temple.
The sword was raised to end oppression, not to impose belief.
Thus, the ʿuhūd of the first century AH—rooted in the Qurʾān, modeled on the covenants of Late Antiquity, and sanctified by divine oath—stand as living proof that Islam’s rise was a restoration of moral order, not a reign of subjugation.
💫 3. “While They Are Humbled” — The Grammar of Destiny
This single verse — often mistranslated, too often misunderstood — captures the emotional core of Qurʾān 9:29, the verse that has stirred centuries of debate. Yet when its Arabic is read closely, its grammar, etymology, and context reveal not cruelty, but cosmic irony — the humbling of pride before divine destiny.
To understand this, we must read the verse in full, as thunderous and magnificent as when it first echoed in 630 CE across the Arabian north:
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ، حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ.“Fight those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth — among those who were given the Book — until they give the jizya, by hand, while they are humbled.”
Let us dissect it — word by word, clause by clause — as the early Arabs would have heard it, and as the first listeners would have felt it.
⚔️ Step 1 — قَاتِلُوا (Qātilū)
👊 “Fight.”
💡 Linguistically, qātilū captures engaged struggle, a confrontation with those who wage war or stand in defiance of the divine order — not an indiscriminate command to violence.
🌍 The World at the Moment of Revelation
As Ibn Kathīr records:
“This noble verse was revealed when the matter of the polytheists had been settled, and people were entering Islam in droves. Once Arabia stood firm, God and His Messenger commanded the fight against the People of the Book — the Jews and Christians — in the ninth year [of the Hijra]. Thus the Messenger of God ﷺ prepared to fight the Romans, summoned the tribes, and set out with thirty thousand fighters in the blazing summer, in a year of hardship, toward Tabūk.”(Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr on Q 9:29)
It was not a war of expansion, but a declaration of the universalization of the Abrahamic covenant — that Ishmael’s house, too, had now been summoned to bear the divine banner.
🏛️ The Cosmic Juxtaposition — Heraclius in Jerusalem, Muḥammad ﷺ in Tabūk
While the Prophet ﷺ marched through the burning sands of north Arabia toward Tabūk, Heraclius — the Roman emperor — was making his own procession to Jerusalem.
In March 630 CE, he restored the True Cross to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — a spectacle meant to crown his final victory over Persia, to proclaim Christendom’s cosmic renewal.
Yet, as Howard-Johnston writes:
“No contemporary could deny that God had intervened in human affairs with the most spectacular results… The Cross was in the hands of an emperor who was, for the first time, visiting the holy city. It was an extraordinary conjunction which impressed itself deeply on the collective consciousness.”
“The Turkish Empire collapsed and the steppes entered a period of turbulence… The great war thus ended in an extraordinary triumph for Christian Roman arms. Heraclius was in command of the Middle East and could watch developments in the surrounding world from a position of unchallenged superiority.”
🌅 The Ishmaelite Dawn
As Heraclius celebrated “the final victory of Christendom,” another procession was setting out — not from Constantinople, but from Medina.
In the same year that Heraclius lifted the Cross upon Golgotha, the Prophet ﷺ lifted his standard at Tabūk, commanding the sons of Ishmael to march north under the banner of lā ilāha illā Allāh.
🔥 The Verse and the Vision
🙏 Step 2 — “Those Who Do Not Believe…”
📜 ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ
“Those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the religion of truth — among those who were given the Scripture.”
(Q 9:29)
🔎 The Grammar of Unbelief
⚖️ “Nor Forbid What God and His Messenger Have Forbidden…”
🌅 “Nor Do They Follow the Religion of Truth” — wa lā yadīnūna dīna al-ḥaqq
⚔️ The Jurists and the Prophet’s Doctrine of Jizya
Qurʾān 9:29 specifies “those who were given the Scripture” (alladhīna ūtū al-kitāb) as the primary group from whom the jizya could be taken. Early jurists wrestled with how far this category extended, and whether non-Scriptural peoples could also pay. Their opinions reveal not only textual reasoning, but also the pressures of expanding frontiers and imperial encounters.
📜 Ibn Kathīr’s Summary of the Debate
Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) captures the key positions:
“Some have argued from this noble verse that jizya is only taken from the People of the Book — or those resembling them, such as the Magians — for it is soundly reported that the Prophet ﷺ took it from the Magians of Hajar. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad (in the most well-known narration from him).Abū Ḥanīfa said: Rather, it may be taken from all non-Arabs, whether they are People of the Book or polytheists, but not from Arabs except the People of the Book.Imām Mālik said: It is permissible to impose jizya on all disbelievers — Jew, Christian, Magian, idol-worshipper, and others. The evidences for these schools are too lengthy to mention here.”
Thus, already by the 8th–9th centuries, three lines of reasoning crystallized:
-
Shāfiʿī & Aḥmad → Restrictive: jizya only from Jews, Christians, and Magians (because of explicit Prophetic precedent).
-
Abū Ḥanīfa → Expansive but ethnic: jizya from all ʿajam (non-Arabs), but not Arab pagans.
-
Mālik & al-Awzāʿī → Universal: jizya from all non-Muslims except apostates.
📜 Al-Baghawī’s Expansion
Al-Baghawī (d. 516/1122) preserves even more detail:
-
Consensus (ijmāʿ): All agreed on jizya from Jews and Christians, if not Arab.
-
Disagreement:
-
Shāfiʿī: Jizya is about religion, not ethnicity. Thus it can be taken from any Jew or Christian, Arab or foreign. But not from idolaters.
-
Mālik & al-Awzāʿī: From all unbelievers — Scriptural or not.
-
Abū Ḥanīfa: From all non-Arab polytheists and Scripturalists, but not from Arab idolaters.
-
Abū Yūsuf: Even stricter — no jizya from any Arab, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan. Only from non-Arabs.
-
-
Magians: All Companions agreed that jizya applied to them after ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf testified that the Prophet ﷺ had said, “Treat them as the People of the Book.” (Musnad reports; cf. Umar’s hesitation until this testimony).
-
Arab Christians (e.g., Tanūkh, Bahraʾ, Banū Taghlib):
-
ʿUmar accepted jizya from them, but forbade eating their meat or marrying their women, since it was uncertain if their Christianity predated Islam or was adopted later.
-
Thus, he tolerated them fiscally (jizya), but not ritually (nikāḥ or dhabaʾiḥ).
-
📜 The Prophet’s Military Doctrine
Yet all this juristic wrangling must be weighed against the Prophet’s own clear doctrine, preserved in the ṣaḥīḥayn. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Book of Jihad, no. 1731), the Prophet ﷺ instructed commanders before battle:
“When you meet your enemy from the polytheists, call them to three matters:
Call them to Islam — if they accept, spare them.
If they refuse, call them to emigrate and join the Muhājirūn — if they do, they have the same rights and duties as the Emigrants; if not, they are like the Muslim Bedouin, subject to God’s law but not entitled to spoils.
If they refuse both, then ask them for the jizya. If they agree, accept it and refrain from fighting. If they refuse, seek God’s help and fight them.”
This hadith is decisive. It does not limit jizya to People of the Book. It places it as the third option for any enemy force, after Islam and hijra.
Thus, the Prophet’s doctrine was pragmatic and universal: fight only if faith and covenant are both refused.
⚖️ Why the Schools Differed
So why did jurists later split?
-
Shāfiʿī & Aḥmad (restrictive) → Anchored in the Qurʾānic phrase min alladhīna ūtū al-kitāb and the specific Prophetic precedent of taking jizya from Jews, Christians, and Magians. They feared overstepping the text.
-
Abū Ḥanīfa (expansive-but-ethnic) → Influenced by Arab ethnocentrism: Arabs were either Muslims or dead; non-Arabs could be taxed instead. This reflects early Kufan political realities with Arab tribal pride.
-
Mālik & al-Awzāʿī (universal) → Reading the hadith of Buraidah: any enemy may accept jizya. Living in the frontier zones of Syria and North Africa, they saw practical necessity in extracting revenue and peace from diverse groups.
-
Abū Yūsuf (narrowest) → Reflects Abbasid court influence: only non-Arabs should pay, to preserve Arab prestige.
⚖️ Table: Who May Pay the Jizya? The Juristic Spectrum
| School / Jurist | Who Can Pay Jizya? | Excluded Groups | Rationale / Textual Basis | Historical Context / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ | All opponents — any group that refuses Islam or emigration may instead pay jizya | Apostates (murtaddūn) | ḥadīth of Burayda (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1731): “Call them to Islam; if they refuse, call them to jizya; if they refuse, fight.” | Universal, pragmatic: aimed at peace, not conversion by force. No limitation to Jews or Christians. |
| Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 820) | Jews, Christians, and Magians (Zoroastrians) only | All other pagans or idolaters | Qurʾān 9:29: “from those who were given the Scripture” — taken literally; reinforced by the Prophet’s precedent with the Magians of Hajar. | Textual literalism; concern for prophetic precedent. |
| Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855) | Same as Shāfiʿī — Jews, Christians, Magians | Others (idolaters, pagans) | Same textual logic; emphasis on transmitted precedent (āthār). | Rooted in ḥadīth orthodoxy and early Medinan tradition. |
| Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 767) | All ʿajam (non-Arabs) — whether Scripturalists or pagans | Arab polytheists | Jizya a civil tribute for non-Arabs; Arab pagans seen as inexcusable rejectors of Islam. | Reflects early Kufan view and Arab tribal exceptionalism; theologically weak but politically influential. |
| Abū Yūsuf (d. 798) | Only non-Arabs, whether Scripturalists or pagans | All Arabs | Ethno-political reading: jizya cannot degrade Arabs. | Abbasid court context — preserving Arab prestige under empire. |
| Imām Mālik (d. 795) | All non-Muslims — Jews, Christians, Magians, idolaters, others | Apostates only | Based on ḥadīth of Burayda; understood “those given the Book” as an example, not a limit. | Realist frontier theology — in North Africa and Syria, most non-Muslims were neither Jews nor Christians. |
| Al-Awzāʿī (d. 774) | All non-Muslims | Apostates | Same as Mālik. | Practical Syrian-Roman context; prioritizing peace treaties and taxation over forced conquest. |
🕊️ Summary of the Prophetic Doctrine
| Option | Action | Result | Legal Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1️⃣ Islam | They accept faith. | Equality with Muslims. | Full rights and duties. |
| 2️⃣ Emigration (Hijra) | They join the Muslim polity. | Equal citizenship, no spoils unless they fight. | Bound by dīn al-ḥaqq. |
| 3️⃣ Jizya | They retain their faith and sovereignty under protection. | Safety (amān), self-rule, and legal autonomy under the covenant. | The covenant of peace (ʿahd al-dhimma). |
| ❌ Refusal of all three | They choose war. | Combat under divine sanction. | Legitimate jihad — defensive or disciplinary, not extermination. |
Against this juristic complexity, the Prophet’s own teaching remains simple and luminous:
-
No forced conversion.
-
No extermination for rejecting Islam.
-
Three doors are always open: Islam, emigration (covenant), or tribute (peace).
This was the military doctrine of the Prophet ﷺ — one that transcended ethnicity, focused on justice, and embodied the Qurʾān’s balance of faith, law, and mercy.
💰 Step 3 — “حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ” (ḥattā yuʿṭū al-jizyah)
💸 The key verb here is يُعْطُوا (yuʿṭū), from the root أعطى — “to give.”
It is active, not passive.
👉 The Qurʾān does not say “يُؤْخَذُ منهم” (yuʾkhadhu minhum) — “it shall be taken from them.”
It says “يُعْطُوا” — “they give.”
That single grammatical choice transforms the entire moral landscape.
The act is not one of confiscation, but of acknowledgment.
The payer retains agency.
The tribute is given, not extracted.
🧭 The Lexical Core — “Jizya”
Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923 CE), transmitting the earlier exegetical tradition, roots the term deeply in Arabic moral language:
“والجزية: الفعلة من جزى فلان فلانًا ما عليه إذا قضاه، يجزيه، والجِزية مثل القِعدة والجِلسة.”“Al-jizya derives from the verb jazā — ‘to recompense, to repay what one owes.’ It is the verbal noun, like qiʿda (a sitting) or jilsa (a session).”(Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, ad Q 9:29)
He then explains its meaning in the early Muslim context:
“حتى يعطوا الخراج عن رقابهم، الذي يبذلونه للمسلمين دفعًا عنها.”“Until they give the kharāj upon their necks — that which they pay to the Muslims in return for protection over themselves.”
🏛️ The Coin of Peace — Dinars and Dirhams
📜 2. The Prophetic Ordinance — One Dinar, One Hand
When the Prophet ﷺ sent Muʿādh ibn Jabal as governor to Yemen — then a mixed society of Jews, Christians, and pagans — he gave a command preserved in Sunan al-Tirmidhī (Kitāb al-Zakāh):
“The Messenger of God ﷺ commanded him to take from every adult male one dinar, or its equivalent in garments of Maʿāfir.”(Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 625; also in Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Kharāj).
From this ḥadīth, every jurist — regardless of school — extracted the same foundational facts:
-
The payer: “every ḥālim” — meaning every adult, sane, free male.
-
The exempt: women, children, slaves, the poor, monks, and the infirm.
-
The amount: one dinar — roughly 4.25 grams of gold, the weight of the Roman solidus.
-
The alternative: its equivalent in local goods, symbolized here by Maʿāfir cloth — Yemeni textiles.
The Prophet ﷺ thus established the jizya not as an oppressive levy, but as a uniform gesture of allegiance — a token of peace from each man under the new covenant.
This Prophetic command is striking in its moral minimalism:
“From every adult — one dinar.”
No distinction between rich and poor.
No progressive scale.
No ritual humiliation.
Only the simple acknowledgment that sovereignty had changed hands.
It was not a tax of servitude, but a sign of submission to order.
It said, in coin and conscience alike: “We accept your rule, and we seek your protection.”
🏺 4. The Juristic Evolution — From Revelation to Bureaucracy
Al-Baghawī (d. 1117 CE) — one of the finest voices of the Shāfiʿī school — codified the classical doctrine in his Maʿālim al-Tanzīl (Tafsīr al-Baghawī, ad Q 9:29):
“وأما قدر الجزية: فأقله دينار، لا يجوز أن ينقص منه، ويقبل الدينار من الفقير والغني والوسط…”“The least of the jizya is one dinar; it cannot be less. It is accepted from the poor, the wealthy, and the middle class alike.”
He then records the Iraqi jurists’ innovation — the first sign of fiscal differentiation:
“وذهب قوم إلى أنه على كل موسر أربعة دنانير، وعلى كل متوسط ديناران، وعلى كل فقير دينار — وهو قول أصحاب الرأي.”“Some said: from every wealthy man, four dinars; from the middle class, two; from the poor, one — the view of the jurists of opinion (aṣḥāb al-ra’y).”
These were the Hanafis, the jurists of Kufa and Baghdad — thinkers like Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and al-Shaybānī — who systematized taxation for the Abbasid state.
Thus, what had begun as a symbolic token of allegiance under the Prophet ﷺ evolved into a structured fiscal mechanism of empire — complete with categories, receipts, and ledgers.
🧮 5. Evaluating the Opinions — Between Prophecy and Policy
| Opinion | Jizya Rate | Basis | Historical Plausibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prophetic / Muʿādh’s Precedent | One dinar (or equivalent) for all adult males | Direct Prophetic command; 7th-century praxis in Yemen and Syria | ✅ Most authentic. Reflects early Islamic simplicity, pre-imperial economy, and moral parity. |
| Iraqi (Hanafi) View | 4 / 2 / 1 dinar tiers | Rational extrapolation (ra’y) for social fairness in Abbasid bureaucracy | ⚠️ Plausible administratively, but not scripturally derived. Emerged under fiscal expansion. |
| Abbasid / Late Shāfiʿī View | Same as Iraqi, codified | Based on al-kharāj (land-tax manuals) and need for revenue stability | ⚠️ Historically real but imperial, not Prophetic. Reflects empire-building, not revelation. |
| Extremist Late Views | “Jizya on the necks” — literal humiliation | Derived from idiom “خراج على رقابهم” misread as physical | ❌ Implausible. Philologically incorrect and theologically alien to early Islam. |
🕋 6. The True Economic Ethos of the Jizya
Its payment was the legal signature of a moral reality: that the age of Ishmael had dawned, and that the sons of the bondwoman now governed by divine justice, not vengeance.
💫 “Until they give it by their own hand — while they are humbled.”(Q 9:29)
Not humbled by men — but by the mirror of history, in which the heirs of Sarah now bowed to the sons of Hagar.
✨ Summary
-
Prophetic jizya: One dinar. Equal for all. Voluntary and peaceful.
-
Rashidun jizya: Continued Prophetic precedent — covenantal, not coercive.
-
Abbasid jizya: Stratified by wealth — practical but bureaucratic.
-
Later juristic jizya: Moral decline — humiliation rituals emerged.
Prophetic jizya: One dinar. Equal for all. Voluntary and peaceful.
Rashidun jizya: Continued Prophetic precedent — covenantal, not coercive.
Abbasid jizya: Stratified by wealth — practical but bureaucratic.
Later juristic jizya: Moral decline — humiliation rituals emerged.
The truth of history lies with Muʿādh’s dinar, not the Abbasid scales.
The Prophet ﷺ’s economy of peace was founded on moral dignity, not imperial domination.
✋ Step 4 — “عَنْ يَدٍ” (ʿan yad)
Now comes the most linguistically delectable phrase of the verse. 😏
Let’s unpack this with the help of the earliest voices in tafsīr — and then place it back in the world of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions, not the later empires that turned a handshake into a humiliation.
🧠 Linguistic Core — “From Hand to Hand”
Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923 CE), the master chronicler of early interpretation, explains the idiom in beautifully plain Arabic:
وأما قوله: (عن يد)، فإنه يعني: من يده إلى يد من يدفعه إليه.“As for His saying ʿan yad, it means: from his hand to the hand of the one to whom he gives it.”
He adds:
وكذلك تقول العرب لكل معطٍ قاهرًا له، شيئًا طائعًا له أو كارهًا: أعطاه عن يده، وعن يد. وذلك نظير قولهم: كلمته فمًا لفمٍ، و لقيته كفةً لكفةٍ، وكذلك: أعطيته عن يدٍ ليد.“The Arabs say ‘aʿṭāhu ʿan yad’ — whether one gives willingly or reluctantly — just as they say ‘I spoke to him mouth-to-mouth,’ or ‘I met him palm-to-palm.’ It denotes direct exchange, hand to hand.”
It is a gesture of peace, not a ritual of conquest.
📜 The Spectrum of Early Meaning
(عن يد) عن قهر وذلّ. قال أبو عبيدة: يقال لكل من أعطى شيئًا كرهًا من غير طيب نفس: أعطاه عن يد. وقال ابن عباس: يعطونها بأيديهم ولا يرسلون بها على يد غيرهم. وقيل: عن يد أي عن نقد لا نسيئة. وقيل: عن إقرار بإنعام المسلمين عليهم بقبول الجزية منهم.
Translated:
“ʿAn yad — some said: out of subjugation and humility.Abū ʿUbaydah said: it is said of anyone who gives something unwillingly — he gave it ʿan yad.Ibn ʿAbbās said: they give it with their own hands, not sending it through another.Others said: ʿan yad means in ready payment, not deferred.And others said: ʿan yad means as acknowledgment of the Muslims’ favor in accepting the jizya from them.”
Here, four readings coexist:
-
Linguistic idiom — “by hand,” “directly.”
-
Fiscal sense — “cash payment,” not “credit.”
-
Theological sense — “acknowledgment of Muslim protection.”
-
Imperial gloss — “under compulsion.”
It is that last meaning — “under humiliation” — which crept in centuries later, after the Islamic polity had ceased to be a community of faith and become an empire of protocol.
By the 14th century, Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373 CE) echoes the imperialized vocabulary of his time:
(عن يد) أي: عن قهر لهم وغلبة.“ʿAn yad means: under compulsion and dominance.”
🕋 The 7th-Century Reality — The Handshake of Peace
But to understand the Qurʾān’s language, we must return to the Prophet’s world — to the year 630 CE, when this verse was revealed during the Tabūk campaign.
-
Arabia had just been unified.
-
The idols had fallen.
-
Heraclius had celebrated his “triumph of the Cross” in Jerusalem only months earlier (March 630 CE), believing the world restored to Christendom.
-
Persia had collapsed in civil war.
-
And the sons of Ishmael were now approaching the northern frontier — not to plunder, but to proclaim divine justice.
It was in this world, not the Abbasid chancery, that ʿan yad first sounded.
“This is the covenant of Muḥammad, the Messenger of God, to the Christians of Najrān and their allies: their persons, their faith, their churches, and their property shall be under the protection of God and His Messenger. None shall be coerced in faith, nor shall their churches be destroyed.”(ʿAhd Najrān, ca. 631 CE)
✋ The True Meaning
In the Qurʾān’s moral lexicon, ʿan yad connotes:
| Dimension | Meaning | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 🖐️ Literal | “From hand to hand” | A personal, direct act |
| 💰 Fiscal | “In ready payment” | Not delayed or coerced |
| 🤝 Covenantal | “In acknowledgment” | Acceptance of protection |
| 💭 Psychological | “By one’s own agency” | They give — they are not stripped |
🕊️ Back to Revelation
“Fight those who do not believe… until they give the jizya, by their own hand.”
😳 Step 5 — “وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ” (wahum ṣāghirūn)
وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ“While they are humbled.”
At first glance, it sounds harsh. But within its syntax lies the story of a civilizational reversal — not a command to humiliate, but a description of a people witnessing the collapse of their own sacred order.
🧩 The Grammar That Changes Everything
The word ṣāghirūn (صاغرون) comes from ṣaghara — “to be small, low, humbled.”
It is:
-
an active participle, plural, in the nominative case,
-
preceded by wahum (“while they are”).
In Arabic grammar, this forms a ḥāl — a circumstantial clause, describing the state of the subject at the time of the action.
➡️ Thus, the Qurʾān does not say:
❌ “wa-ajʿilūhum ṣāghirīn” — “and make them humbled.”
It says:
✅ “wahum ṣāghirūn” — “while they (themselves) are humbled.”
That single syntactic nuance transforms the entire moral landscape.
The humbling is inward, not inflicted.
The Qurʾān describes what they feel, not what Muslims do to them.
📜 Early Exegesis — Between Description and Empire
📖 The Earliest Exegesis — Muqātil’s Moral Humbling
Before al-Ṭabarī, before the empire's ritualized courtly humiliations, we have the voice of the earliest surviving complete Qurʾānic exegete: Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 767 CE).
On the phrase wa hum ṣāghirūn (وهم صاغرون), he writes:
وَهُمْ صاغِرُونَ – يعني مذلّون، إن أعطوا عفوا لم يؤجروا، وإن أخذوا منهم كرها لم يُثابوا.“While they are humbled — that is, subdued. If they give [the jizya] willingly, they receive no reward; and if it is taken from them unwillingly, they receive no merit.”
This is extraordinary.
Muqātil’s language — madhallūn (“subdued”) — mirrors the Qurʾān’s own tone. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It depicts a state of being, not a ritual to be imposed.
It is the humility of those who now find themselves outside the current of revelation, paying tribute not to men, but to destiny.
🧠 Al-Ṭabarī (10th century): The Interpreter of the Transitional Age
Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH / 923 CE), the great historian and exegete of Baghdad, offers the most balanced record of how this phrase was understood.
He begins with a neutral lexical gloss:
وأما قوله: (وهم صاغرون)، فإن معناه: وهم أذلاء مقهورون.
“As for His saying ‘while they are humbled’, its meaning is: they are lowly and subdued.”
Then he notes the linguistic usage:
يقال للذليل الحقير: صاغر.
“The lowly, the humbled, is called ṣāghir.”
From there, al-Ṭabarī does what few later exegetes did — he preserves all sides of the debate, recording at least three distinct interpretive lines:
🧍♂️ Opinion 1 — The Postural Interpretation (Attributed to ʿIkrimah)
أن يعطيها وهو قائم، والآخذ جالس.
“That he gives [the jizya] while standing, and the receiver sits.”
😣 Opinion 2 — The Emotional Interpretation (Attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās)
يعطونها عن أنفسهم، بأيديهم يمشون بها، وهم كارهون.“They give it themselves, with their own hands, and they dislike it.”
💰 Opinion 3 — The Essential Interpretation
إعطاؤهم إياها هو الصغار.
“Their very giving of it is the humbling.”
The giving, not the gesture, is the smallness.
✅ Why this is correct:
-
It perfectly matches the grammatical construction (wahum ṣāghirūn) — describing the payer’s condition as they give.
-
It reflects the historical context — the People of the Book acknowledging the new divine order after Heraclius’ triumph and the Prophet’s march to Tabūk.
-
It fits the Qurʾān’s moral economy — humbling before divine decree, not subjection before human power.
🕊️ This is the prophetic meaning.
The humbling is existential, not performative.
It is the recognition that divine history has turned.
🏛️ Al-Baghawī (11th century): The Abbasid Ritualization
By the time of al-Baghawī (d. 516 AH / 1113 CE), the Islamic world had become an empire of palaces, courts, and tax bureaucracies. His tafsīr reflects this environment — a world where theology had fused with political theatre.
He records the full spectrum of opinions:
(وهم صاغرون) أذلاء مقهورون. قال عكرمة: يعطون الجزية عن قيام، والقابض جالس. وعن ابن عباس قال: تؤخذ منه ويوطأ عنقه. وقال الكلبي: إذا أعطى صفع في قفاه. وقيل: يؤخذ بلحيته ويضرب في لهزمتيه. وقيل: يلبب ويجر إلى موضع الإعطاء بعنف. وقيل: إعطاؤه إياها هو الصغار. وقال الشافعي: الصغار هو جريان أحكام الإسلام عليهم.
“(Wa-hum ṣāghirūn)” — meaning: humbled and subdued. ʿIkrimah said: They give the jizyah while standing, and the collector receives it while seated. Ibn ʿAbbās said: It is taken from him while his neck is trodden upon. Al-Kalbī said: When he gives it, he is struck on the back of his neck. Others said: He is seized by his beard and struck on his cheeks. Still others said: He is grabbed by the collar and violently dragged to the place of payment. Another opinion holds: The very act of giving it constitutes humiliation (ṣaghār). Al-Shāfiʿī said: The ṣaghār means that the laws of Islam run their course over them.
Let’s break these down carefully:
| Opinion | Description | Origin | Plausibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| ʿIkrimah | Standing payer, sitting collector | Bureaucratic/Romano-Persian court culture | ❌ Lacks Qurʾānic basis |
| Ibn ʿAbbās (variant) | Payer’s neck trodden as he gives | Imperial ritualization (Abbasid legalism) | ❌ Theatrical, historically implausible |
| al-Kalbī | Slap on the back of the neck | Court fiction of humiliation | ❌ Anti-Prophetic; mirrors Persian servitude rituals |
| Anonymous reports | Beard pulled, face struck | Abbasid-era narrative of dominance | ❌ Contradicts early ʿahd al-dhimma treaties (Najrān, Aylah) |
| Unnamed scholar | “Their giving is the humbling” | Early exegetical tradition (Tabarī’s 3rd view) | ✅ Grammatically, historically, and theologically sound |
| al-Shāfiʿī | “Humbling means subjection to Islamic law” | Juridical rationalization of sovereignty | ⚖️ Partially correct — legal not linguistic |
⚔️ Ibn Kathīr (14th century): The Empire Fully Formed
By the time of Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH / 1373 CE), Islam had become a civilization of niẓām (hierarchy). His commentary represents the culmination of this imperial theology:
(وهم صاغرون) أي: ذليلون حقيرون مهانون. فلهذا لا يجوز إعزاز أهل الذمة ولا رفعهم على المسلمين، بل هم أذلاء صغرة أشقياء.“While they are humbled — meaning: lowly, base, degraded. Hence it is impermissible to honor the dhimmīs or elevate them over Muslims; they are lowly, humiliated, wretched.”
🌅 The Only Coherent Meaning — “Their Giving Is the Humbling”
Among all these readings, only one coheres with:
-
The grammar — wahum ṣāghirūn is a ḥāl, not an imperative.
-
The syntax — no command of humiliation is issued.
-
The theology — the verse describes the humbling before divine history, not forced abasement by human power.
-
The history — the first ʿahd al-dhimma treaties (Aylah, Najrān, Maqna, and Adhruḥ) involved no humiliation rituals, only mutual pledges.
Hence, the earliest and most authentic interpretation is:
إعطاؤهم إياها هو الصغار.“Their act of giving it — that itself is the humbling.”
✨ Conclusion: The Humbling of the Heirs
History is a mirror.In it, the once-exalted see themselves lowered, and the despised find themselves raised.
For centuries, the heirs of Sarah had mocked the son of the slave woman.They cast Ishmael into the wilderness, branded his descendants as thieves, idolaters, and wild men of the desert.From Paul’s allegory to Origen’s homilies, from the rabbis of Galilee to the fathers of Antioch, Ishmael was the rejected Other — circumcised, yet cut off; blessed, yet banished.
But when the Qurʾān spoke, it reversed that verdict.It called Ishmael rasūlan nabiyyan — “a messenger and a prophet” — and declared of him, wa kāna ʿinda rabbihi marḍiyyā (Q 19:55): “He was pleasing to his Lord.”The son of the slave woman had become the servant most beloved.
Then came history’s own revelation.In the seventh century, the “wild man” of Genesis — the son whose “hand was against everyone” — now held in his hand the sword of empire.The descendants of the handmaid stood before the sons of promise, not as supplicants, but as sovereigns.The mighty heirs of Rome and Jerusalem now gave tribute by their own hand — not to be shamed, but to acknowledge what time had shown: that God had fulfilled His word in a way no rabbi or patriarch had foreseen.
Qurʾān 9:29 was not a call to humiliate.It was a call to remember.Its humbling — wahum ṣāghirūn — was not the cruelty of men but the correction of history.As Muqātil said, the humbling lay in the act itself: in the quiet moment when the heirs of Isaac paid the sons of Ishmael, and history bowed to prophecy.
This was not the humiliation of the weak by the strong.It was the humbling of pride before divine justice.It was the mercy of God, who gives victory to the forgotten and tests the victors in turn.
The Qurʾān spoke not to exalt Ishmael over Isaac, but to remind both that power belongs to neither — it belongs to God.The rise of the outcast is His sign; the humbling of the heirs is His balance.
This is the Ishmaelite Reversal:The covenantal tables turned, the wilderness vindicated, the mocked made manifest.The children of the slave woman now carried revelation, and the children of the free woman now stood before them in awe.
THE END
THE END
📚 Works Cited
-
Primary Sources
al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.
Al-Baghawī, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn ibn Masʿūd. Maʿālim al-Tanzīl fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān [Tafsīr al-Baghawī]. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh al-Nimr, ʿUthmān Jumʿah Ḍumayriyyah, and Sulaymān Muslim al-Ḥarash. 4th ed., Dār Ṭayyibah li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 1417 AH / 1997 CE. 8 vols.
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Tarbiyah wa-l-Turāth, Mecca, n.d. 24 vols.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.
Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.
Al-Baghawī, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn ibn Masʿūd. Maʿālim al-Tanzīl fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān [Tafsīr al-Baghawī]. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh al-Nimr, ʿUthmān Jumʿah Ḍumayriyyah, and Sulaymān Muslim al-Ḥarash. 4th ed., Dār Ṭayyibah li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 1417 AH / 1997 CE. 8 vols.
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Tarbiyah wa-l-Turāth, Mecca, n.d. 24 vols.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.
Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.
Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Muqātil ibn Sulaymān al-Azdī al-Balkhī, Abū al-Ḥasan. Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān. Edited by ʿAbd Allāh Maḥmūd Shaḥātah. 1st ed., Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, Beirut, 1423 AH.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Penn, Michael Philip, translator and editor. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.
Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Muqātil ibn Sulaymān al-Azdī al-Balkhī, Abū al-Ḥasan. Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān. Edited by ʿAbd Allāh Maḥmūd Shaḥātah. 1st ed., Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, Beirut, 1423 AH.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Penn, Michael Philip, translator and editor. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.
Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Secondary Sources
Avni, Gideon. The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Bcheiry, Iskandar. An Early Christian Reaction to Islam: Išū‘yahb III and the Muslim Arabs. Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Bessard, Fanny. Caliphs and Merchants: Cities and Economies of Power in the Near East (700–950). Oxford University Press, 2020.
Borrut, Antoine, and Fred M. Donner, editors. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, 2016.
Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.
Freidenreich, David M. Jewish Muslims: How Christians Imagined Islam as the Enemy. University of California Press, 2023.
Furman, Yulia, and Dmitry Cherkashin. “‘Superiority Is Due to Us, and the King Should Come from Among Us’: The Arab Conquests and Conflicts of the Early Umayyad Era in a 7th-Century Syriac Universal History of Yoḥannān bar Penkāyē.” Der Islam, vol. 101, no. 2, 2024, pp. 346–382. De Gruyter.
Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Samuel N.C. Lieu, editors. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook. Routledge, 2002.
Goudarzi, Mohsen. “The Ascent of Ishmael: Genealogy, Covenant, and Identity in Early Islam.” Arabica, vol. 66, 2019, pp. 415–484. Brill.
Grypeou, Emmanouela, and Helen Spurling. The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis. Brill, 2013.
Grypeou, Emmanouela. “The Abomination of Desolation: Eastern Christian Apocalyptic Literature and the Symbolic Construction of Islam.” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia, vol. 20, 2023, pp. 57–71.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Hurvitz, Nimrod, Christian C. Sahner, Uriel Simonsohn, and Luke Yarbrough, editors.
Conversion to Islam in the Premodern Age: A Sourcebook. University of California Press, 2020.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. “Were the Jews Prohibited from Settling in Jerusalem? On the Authenticity of al-Ṭabarī’s Jerusalem Surrender Agreement.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), vol. 36, 2009.
Linder, Amnon, editor. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Wayne State University Press and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987.
Lindstedt, Ilkka. Muḥammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill, 2023.
Maas, Michael, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Marsham, Andrew. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.
Miller, David J. D., and Peter Sarris. The Novels of Justinian: A Complete Annotated English Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Morony, Michael G. Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Gorgias Press, 2005. (Facsimile reprint of the 1984 Princeton University Press edition.)
O’Donnell, J. J. The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History. Harper Perennial, 2009.
Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Sarris, Peter. Justinian: Emperor, Soldier, Saint. Basic Books, 2023.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. “Shaving Hair and Beards in Early Islamic Egypt: An Arab Innovation?” Al-Masāq, vol. 30, no. 1, 2018
Simonsohn, Uriel I. A Common Justice: The Legal Allegiances of Christians and Jews under Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
Weitz, Lev E. Between Christ and Caliph: Law, Marriage, and Christian Community in Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment