Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma has been described as taking a harsher approach to non-Muslims than that found in earlier discussions. Is this true? For some parts of the text, yes. Let’s look at how Ibn al-Qayyim answers the question of whether non-Muslims can work for a Muslim state.

This question was relevant because many state administrators in 14th century Egypt and Syria were Christian and not Muslim. Sometimes there were calls to exclude non-Muslims from running the state bureaucracy.

Most legal texts recommended that the ruler employ Muslims and not non-Muslims, but didn’t push the point, partly because condemning the practice outright would have implied a criticism of the ruler’s policy. Generally, Muslim jurists avoided criticising the ruler directly.

Ibn al-Qayyim broke with the tradition of subtle criticism by writing ca. 7500 words condemning the practice. He argues that employing Jews and Christians for state service is forbidden in the Qur’an and that non-Muslims will use the authority of their position to harm Muslims.

Neither the tone nor the argument of this section is typical for legal texts. Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma contains lots of material copied from earlier legal compendia, but this discussion has been copied from texts of a different genre, better described as advice treaties for rulers.

By including this passage in his book of aḥkām (rulings) Ibn al-Qayyim gives it more authority and raises the profile of these more inflammatory arguments against Jews and Christians.

This is what led one 20th century editor of the text to see IQ as taking a harder line than earlier Muslim jurists towards non-Muslims. But there are other examples where I think he’s more open to inter-religious cooperation than his contemporaries. More on that soon.