JIBRĀʾĪL (جبرائيل‎). The angel Gabriel. [GABRIEL.]

JIBT (جبت‎). An idol of the Quraish mentioned in the Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 54: “They (certain renegade Jews) believe in Jibt and T̤āg͟hūt, and say of the infidels, These are guided in a better path than those who hold the faith.” The Jalālān say certain Jews used to do homage to these idols in order to please the Quraish.

JIHĀD (جهاد‎). Lit. “An effort, or a striving.” A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muḥammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qurʾān and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islām and of repelling evil from Muslims.

When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:—

(1) The reception of Islām, in which case the conquered become enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state.

(2) The payment of a poll-tax (Jizyah), by which unbelievers in Islām obtain protection, and become Ẕimmīs, provided they are not the idolaters of Arabia.

(3) Death by the sword, to those who will not pay the poll tax.

Ṣūfī writers say that there are two Jihāds: al-Jihādu ʾl-Akbar, or “the greater warfare,” which is against one’s own lusts; and al-Jihādu ʾl-Aṣg͟har, or “the lesser warfare,” against infidels.

The duty of religious war (which all commentators agree is a duty extending to all time) is laid down in the Qurʾān in the following verses, and it is remarkable that all the verses occur in the al-Madīnah Sūrahs, being those given after Muḥammad had established himself as a paramount ruler, and was in a position to dictate terms to his enemies.

Sūrah ix. 5, 6: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful. If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge.”

Sūrah ix. 29: “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute (jizyah) out of hand, and they be humbled.”

Sūrah iv. 76–79: “Let those then fight on the path of God, who exchange this present life for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God’s path, whether he be slain or conquer, we will in the end give him a great reward. But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and for the weak among men, women, and children, who say, ‘O our Lord! bring us forth from this city whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us a champion from Thy presence; and give us from thy presence a defender.’ They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe not, fight on the path of T̤āg͟hūt: Fight therefore against the friends of Satan. Verily the craft of Satan shall be powerless! Hast thou not marked those to whom it was said, ‘Withhold your hands awhile from war; and observe prayer, and pay the stated alms.’ But when war is commanded them, lo! a portion of them fear men as with the fear of God, or with a yet greater fear, and say: ‘O our Lord! why hast Thou commanded us war? Couldst thou not have given us respite till our not distant end?’ Say: Small the fruition of this world; but the next life is the true good for him who feareth God! and ye shall not be wronged so much as the skin of a date-stone.”

Sūrah ii. 214, 215: “They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: To war therein is bad, but to turn aside from the cause of God, and to have no faith in Him, and in the Sacred Temple, and to drive out its people, is worse in the sight of God; and civil strife is worse than bloodshed. They will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your religion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his religion and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitless in this world, and in the next: they shall be consigned to the fire; therein to abide for aye. But they who believe, and who fly their country, and fight in the cause of God may hope for God’s mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful.”

Sūrah viii. 39–42: “Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s. If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do: but if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector: Excellent protector! excellent helper! And know ye, that when ye have taken any booty, a fifth part belongeth to God and to the Apostle, and to the near of kin, and to orphans, and to the poor, and to the wayfarer.”

Long chapters in the Traditions are devoted to the subject of Jihād (see Ṣaḥīḥu ʾ-Buk͟hārī and Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, Arabic editions, Bābu ʾl-Jihād), from which the following are quotations of the sayings of the Prophet:—

“God is sponsor for him who goeth forth to fight on the road of God (Sabīlu ʾllāh). If he be not killed, he shall return to his house with rewards and booty, but if he be slain, he shall be taken to Paradise.”

“I swear by God I should like to be killed on the road of God, then be killed and brought to life again, then killed again and then brought to life again, so that I may obtain new rewards every time.”

“Guarding the frontiers of Islām for even one day is worth more than the whole world and all that is in it.”

“The fire of hell shall not touch the legs of him who shall be covered with the dust of battle in the road of God.”

“He who assists another with arms to fight in the way of God, is as the champion, and is a sharer of the rewards. And he who stayeth behind to take charge of the family of a warrior is even as a champion in war.”

“This religion will ever be established, even to the Day of Resurrection, as long as Muslims fight for it.”

“In the last day the wounds of those who have been wounded in the way of God will be evident, and will drop with blood, but their smell will be as the perfume of musk.”

“Being killed in the road of God covers all sins, but the sin of debt.”

“He who dies and has not fought for the religion of Islām, nor has even said in his heart, ‘Would to God I were a champion that could die in the road of God,’ is even as a hypocrite.”

“Fighting in the road of God, or resolving to do so, is a divine duty. When your Imām orders you to go forth to fight, then obey him.”

The following is the teaching of the Ḥanafī school of Sunnīs on the subject of Jihād, as given in the Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 140:—

“The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who said in the Qurʾān, ‘Slay the infidels,’ and also by a saying of the Prophet, ‘War is permanently established until the Day of Judgment’ (meaning the ordinance respecting war). The observance, however, in the degree above mentioned, suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of advancing the true faith or repelling evil from the servants of God; and when this end is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as in the prayers for the dead—(if, however, no one Muslim were to make war, the whole of the Muslim, would incur the criminality of neglecting it)—and also because if the injunction were positive, the whole of the Muslims must consequently engage in war, in which case the materials for war (such as horses, armour, and so forth) could not be procured. Thus it appears that the observance of war as aforesaid suffices, except where there is a general summons (that is, where the infidels invade a Muslim territory, and the Imām for the time being issues a general proclamation requiring all persons to go forth to fight), for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants, whether men or women, and whether the Imām be a just or an unjust person; and if the people of that territory be unable to repulse the infidels, then war becomes a positive injunction with respect to all in that neighbourhood; and if these also do not suffice it, then comes a positive injunction with respect to the next neighbours; and in same manner with respect to all the Muslims from east to west.

“The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.

“It is not incumbent upon infants to make war, as they are objects of compassion; neither is it incumbent upon slaves or women, as the rights of the master, or of the husband, have precedence; nor is it so upon the blind, the maimed, or the decrepid, as such are incapable. If, however, the infidels make an attack upon a city or territory, in this case the repulsion of them is incumbent upon all Muslims, insomuch that a wife may go forth without the consent of her husband, and a slave without the leave of his master, because war then becomes a positive injunction; and possession, either by bondage or by marriage, cannot come in competition with a positive injunction, as in prayer (for instance) or fasting. This is supposing a general summons; for without that it is not lawful for a woman or slave to go forth to make war without the consent of the husband or master, as there is in this case no necessity for their assistance, since others suffice, and hence no reason exists for destroying the right of the husband or master on that account. If there be any fund in the public treasury, so long as the fund lasts any extraordinary exaction for the support of the warriors is abominable, because such exaction resembles a hire for that which is a service of God as much as prayer or fasting, and, hire being forbidden in these instances, so is it in that which resembles them. In this case, moreover, there is no occasion for any extraordinary exactions, since the funds of the public treasury are prepared to answer all emergencies of the Muslims, such as war, and so forth. If, however, there be no funds in the public treasury, in this case the Imām need not hesitate to levy contributions for the better support of the warriors, because in levying a contribution the greater evil (namely, the destruction of the person) is repelled, and the contribution is the smaller evil, and the imposition of a smaller evil to remedy a greater is of no consequence. A confirmation of this is found in what is related of the Prophet, that he took various articles of armour, and so forth, from Ṣafwān and ʿUmar; in the same manner also he took property from married men, and bestowed it upon the unmarried, in order to encourage them and enable them to go forth to fight with cheerfulness; and he also used to take the horses from those who remained at home, and bestowed them upon those who went forth to fight on foot. When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn ʿAbbās relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war. The Prophet, moreover, has said we are directed to make war upon men only until such time as they shall confess, ‘There is no God but one God.’ But when they repeat this creed, their persons and properties are in protection (amān). If they do not accept the call to the faith, they must then be called upon to pay jizyah, or capitation tax, because the Prophet directed the commanders of his armies so to do, and also because by submitting to this tax war is forbidden and terminated upon the authority of the Qurʾān. (This call to pay capitation tax, however, respects only those from whom the capitation tax is acceptable, for, as to apostates and the idolaters of Arabia, to call upon them to pay the tax is useless, since nothing is accepted from them but embracing the faith, as it is thus commanded in the Qurʾān). If those who are called upon to pay capitation tax consent to do so, they then become entitled to the same protection and subject to the same rules as Muslims, because ʿAlī has declared infidels agree to a capitation tax only in order to render their blood the same as Muslims’ blood, and their property the same as Muslims’ property.

“It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

“If a Muslim attack infidels without previously calling them to the faith, he is an offender, because this is forbidden; but yet if he do attack them before thus inviting them and slay them, and take their property, neither fine, expiation, nor atonement are due, because that which protects (namely, Islām) does not exist in them, nor are they under protection by place (namely, the Dāru ʾl-Islām, or Muslim territory), and the mere prohibition of the act is not sufficient to sanction the exaction either of fine or of atonement for property; in the same manner as the slaying of the women or infant children of infidels is forbidden, but if, notwithstanding, a person were to slay such, he is not liable to a fine. It is laudable to call to the faith a people to whom a call has already come, in order that they may have the more full and ample warning; but yet this is not incumbent, as it appears in the Traditions that the Prophet plundered and despoiled the tribe of al-Muṣt̤aliq by surprise, and he also agreed with Asāmah to make a predatory attack upon Qubnā at an early hour, and to set it on fire, and such attacks are not preceded by a call. (Qubnā is a place in Syria: some assert it is the name of a tribe.)

“If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. And having so done, the Muslims must then with God’s assistance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike engines (as the Prophet did by the people of T̤āʾif), and must also set fire to their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain, because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified by the law.

“It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against the infidels that there may chance to be among them a Muslim in the way either of bondage or of traffic, because the shooting of arrows and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim slave or trader is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted, and also because it seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims, since it is most probable that there are Muslims residing in them, either in the way of bondage or of traffic, and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed. If the infidels in time of battle should make shields of Muslim children, or of Muslims, who are prisoners in their hands, yet there is no need on that account to refrain from the use of missile weapons, for the reason already mentioned. It is requisite, however, that the Muslims in using such weapons aim at the infidels, and not at the children or the Muslim captives, because, as it is impossible in shooting to distinguish precisely between them and the infidels, the person who discharges the weapon must make this distinction in his intention and design by aiming at the infidels, and not at the others, since thus much is practicable, and the distinction must be made as far as is practicable.

“There is also neither fine nor expiation upon the warriors on account of such of their arrows or other missiles as happen to hit the children or the Muslims, because the war is in observance of a divine ordinance, and atonement is not due for anything which may happen in the fulfilment of a divine ordinance, for otherwise men would neglect the fulfilment of the ordinance from an apprehension of becoming liable to atonement. It is otherwise in the case of a person eating the bread of another when perishing for hunger, as in that instance atonement is due; although eating the bread of other people, in such a situation, be a divine ordinance, because a person perishing for hunger will not refrain from eating the provision of another, from the apprehension of atonement, since his life depends upon it; whereas war is attended with trouble and dangerous to life, whence men would be deterred, by apprehension of atonement, from engaging in it. There is no objection to the warriors carrying their Qurʾāns and their women along with them, where the Muslim force is considerable, to such a degree as to afford a protection from the enemy, and not to admit of any apprehension from them, because in that case safety is most probable, and a thing which is most probable stands and is accounted as a thing certain. If the force of the warriors be small (such as is termed a Sarrīyah), so as not to afford security from the enemy, in this case their carrying their women or Qurʾāns along with them is reprobated, because in such a situation taking those with them is exposing them to dishonour; and taking the Qurʾān with them, in particular, is exposing it to contempt, since infidels scoff at the Qurʾān, with a view of insulting the Muslims; and this is the true meaning of the saying of the Prophet, ‘Carry not the Qurʾān along with you into the territory of the enemy’ (that is, of the infidels). If a Muslim go into an infidel camp under a protection, there is no objection to his taking his Qurʾān along with him, provided these infidels be such as observe their engagements, because from these no violence is to be apprehended.

“It is lawful for aged women to accompany an army, for the performance of such business as suits them, such as dressing victuals, administering water, and preparing medicines for the sick and wounded; but with respect to young women, it is better that they stay at home, as this may prevent perplexity or disturbance. The women, however, must not engage in fight, as this argues weakness in the Muslims. Women, therefore, must not take any personal concern in battle unless in a case of absolute necessity; and it is not laudable to carry young women along with the army, either for the purpose of carnal gratification, or for service; if, however, the necessity be very urgent, female slaves may be taken, but not wives. A wife must not engage in a fight but with the consent of her husband, nor a slave but with the consent of his owner (according to what was already stated, that the right of the husband and the master has precedence), unless from necessity where an attack is made by the enemy.

“It does not become Muslims to break treaties or to act unfairly with respect to plunder or to disfigure people (by cutting off their ears and noses, and so forth); for as to what is related of the Prophet, that he disfigured the Oorneans, it is abrogated by subsequent prohibitions. In the same manner it does not become Muslims to slay women or children, or men aged, bedridden, or blind, because opposition and fighting are the only occasions which make slaughter allowable (according to our doctors), and such persons are incapable of these. For the same reason also the paralytic are not to be slain, nor those who are dismembered of the right hand, or of the right hand and left foot. Ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that aged men, or persons bedridden or blind, may be slain, because (according to him) infidelity is an occasion of slaughter being allowable, and this appears in these persons. What was before observed, however, that the paralytic or dismembered are not to be slain, is in proof against him, as infidelity appears in these also, yet still they are not slain, whence it is evident that mere infidelity is not a justifiable occasion of slaughter. The Prophet, moreover, forbade the slaying of infants or single persons, and once, when the Prophet saw a woman who was slain, he said, ‘Alas! this woman did not fight, why, therefore, was she slain?’ But yet, if any of these persons be killed in war, or if a woman be a queen or chief, in this case it is allowable to slay them, they being qualified to molest the servants of God. So, also, if such persons as the above should attempt to fight, they may be slain, for the purpose of removing evil, and because fighting renders slaying allowable.

“A lunatic must not be slain unless he fight, as such a person is not responsible for his faith, but yet where he is found fighting it is necessary to slay him, for the removal of evil. It is also to be observed that infants or lunatics may be slain so long as they are actually engaged in fight, but it is not allowed to kill them after they are taken prisoners, contrary to the case of others, who may be slain even after they are taken, as they are liable to punishment because they are responsible for their faith.

“A person who is insane occasionally stands, during his lucid intervals, in the same predicament as a sane person.

“It is abominable in a Muslim to begin fighting with his father, who happens to be among the infidels, nor must he slay him, because God has said in the Qurʾān, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother,’ and also because the preservation of the father’s life is incumbent upon the son, according to all the doctors, and the permission to fight with him would be repugnant to that sentiment. If, also, the son should find the father, he must not slay him himself, but must hold him in view until some other come and slay him: for thus the end is answered without the son slaying his father, which is an offence.

“If, however, the father attempt to slay the son, insomuch that the son is unable to repel him but by killing him, in this case the son need not hesitate to slay him, because the design of the son is merely to repel him, which is lawful; for if a Muslim were to draw his sword with a design of killing his son, in such a way that the son is unable to repel him but by killing him, it is then lawful for the son to slay his father, because his design is merely repulsion. In a case, therefore, where the father is an infidel, and attempts to slay his son, it is lawful for the son to slay the father in self-defence à fortiori.

“If the Imām make peace with aliens, or with any particular tribe or body of them, and perceive it to be eligible for the Muslims, there need be no hesitation, because it is said in the Qurʾān: ‘If the infidels be inclined to peace do ye likewise consent thereto,’ and also because the Prophet in the year of the punishment of Eubea, made a peace between the Muslims and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years; peace, moreover is war in effect where the interest of the Muslims requires it, since the design of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace: contrary to where peace is not to the interest of the Muslims, for it is not in that case lawful, as this would be abandoning war both apparently and in effect. It is here, however, proper to observe that it is not absolutely necessary to restrict a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years), because the end for which peace is made may be sometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term. If the Imām make peace with the aliens for a single term (namely, ten years), and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muslim’s interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war after giving them due notice, because, upon a change of the circumstances which rendered peace advisable, the breach of peace is war, and the observance of it a desertion of war, both in appearance and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the forsaking of it is not becoming (to Muslims). It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this case indispensably requisite in such a manner that treachery may not be induced, since this is forbidden. It is also requisite that such a delay be made in renewing the war with them, as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be universally received among them, and for this such a time suffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the same to the different parts of their dominion, since by such a delay the charge of treachery is avoided.

“If the infidels act with perfidy in a peace, it is in such case lawful for the Imām to attack them without any previous notice, since the breach of treaty in this instance originates with them, whence there is no occasion to commence the war on the part of the Muslims by giving them notice. It would be otherwise, however, if only a small party of them were to violate the treaty by entering the Muslim territory and there committing robberies upon the Muslims, since this does not amount to a breach of treaty. If, moreover, this party be in force so as to be capable of opposition, and openly fight with the Muslims, this is a breach of treaty with respect to that party only, but not with respect to the rest of their nation or tribe, because, as this party have violated the treaty without any permission from their prince, the rest are not answerable for their act; whereas if they made their attack by permission of their prince, the breach of treaty would be regarded as by the whole, all being virtually implicated in it.

“If the Imām make peace with the aliens in return for property, there is no scruple; because since peace may be lawfully made without any such gratification, it is also lawful in return for a gratification. This, however, is only where the Muslims stand in need of the property thus to be acquired; for if they be not in necessity, making peace for property is not lawful, since peace is a desertion of war both in appearance and in effect. It is to be observed that if the Imām receive this property by sending a messenger and making peace without the Muslim troops entering the enemy’s territory, the object of disbursement of it is the same as that of jizyah or capitation-tax; that is, it is to be expended upon the warriors and not upon the poor. If, however, the property be taken after the Muslims have invaded the enemy, in this case it is as plunder, one-fifth going to the Imām and the remainder to be divided among the troops, as the property has in fact been taken by force in this instance. It is incumbent on the Imām to keep peace with apostates, and not to make war upon them, in order that they may have time to consider their situation, since it is to be hoped that they may again return to the faith. It is, therefore, lawful to delay fighting with them in a hope that they may again embrace Islām; but it is not lawful to take property from them. If, however, the Imām should take property from them, it is not incumbent upon him to return it, as such property is not in protection. If infidels harass the Muslims, and offer them peace in return for property, the Imām must not accede thereto, as this would be a degradation of the Muslim honour, and disgrace would be attached to all the parties concerned in it; this, therefore, is not lawful except where destruction is to be apprehended, in which case the purchasing a peace with property is lawful, because it is a duty to repel destruction in every possible mode.”

[For K͟halīfah ʿUmar’s treatment of the garrison of Jerusalem when captured, see the treaty given in the article JERUSALEM.]

JIHĀZ (جهاز‎). (1) The wedding trousseau of a Muḥammadan wife. Those vestments and furniture which a bride brings to her husband’s house, and which ever remain the property of the wife. (Hidāyah, vol. iii. p. 100.) (2) The word is also used for the shroud of a dead Muslim.

JINĀYAH (جناية‎), pl. Jināyāt. The legal term for all offences committed against the person, such as murder, wounding, drowning, &c.

JINN (جن‎). [GENII.]

JĪRĀN (جيران‎). “Neighbours.” “If a person make a bequest to his neighbours (jīrān) it includes, according to some doctors, all those houses which are within forty cubits of his house in every direction. Some say it is forty houses on either side of his.” (See Baillie’s Digest of Imāmīyah Law, pp. 216, 246.) [NEIGHBOURS.]

JIRJĪS (جرجيس‎). George. St. George of England. The author of the G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah says that, “Jirjīs Bāqiyā is the name of a prophet who was on several occasions killed by his people, and was again raised to life by God, and over and over again instructed and preached the way of God. He is called Bāqiyā on account of his being raised up from the dead.” This seems to be a wild and exaggerated account of the story of George of Cappadocia, who suffered death in the first year of the reign of Julian. It is a mystery how this George ever was admitted into the Christian Calendar at all, and still more marvellous how he became a Muḥammadan prophet as well as the patron saint of England. Jalālu ʾd-dīn as-Suyūt̤ī, in his History of the Temple of Jerusalem, says Jirjīs was at Damascus in the time of Muʿāwiyah the K͟halīfah. [AL-KHIZR.]

JIZYAH (جزية‎). The capitation tax, which is levied by Muḥammadan rulers upon subjects who are of a different faith, but claim protection (amān). It is founded upon a direct injunction of the Qurʾān: “Make war upon such of those, to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God or in the last day, and forbid not that which God and his Apostles have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of truth, until they pay tribute (jizyah) out of their hand, and they be humbled.”

According to the Hidāyah (vol. ii. p. 211), jizyah is of two kinds: that which is established voluntarily, and that which is enforced. The usual rate is one dīnār for every male person, females and children being exempt according to Abū Ḥanīfah, but included by Ash-Shāfiʿī. It should be imposed upon Jews, and Christians, and Magians, but it should not be accepted from the Arabian idolators, or from apostates, who should be killed. But from idolators of other countries than Arabia it may be accepted. It should not be levied upon monks, or hermits, or paupers, or slaves. He who pays the capitation tax and obtains protection from the Muḥammadan state is called a ẕimmī.

JOB. Arabic Aiyūb (ايوب‎). Mentioned in the Qurʾān as a prophet and an example of patience.

Sūrah xxi. 83, 84: “And remember Job: when he cried to his Lord, ‘Truly evil hath touched me: but Thou art the most merciful of those who show mercy.’ So we heard him, and lightened the burden of his woe; and we gave him back his family, and as many more with them,—a mercy from us, and a memorial for those who serve us.”

Sūrah xxxviii. 40–44: “And remember our servant Job when he cried to his Lord, ‘Verily, Satan hath laid on me disease and pain.’ ‘Stamp,’ said we, ‘with thy foot. This is to wash with; cool, and to drink.’ And we gave him back his family, and as many more with them in our mercy; and for a monition to men of judgment. And we said, ‘Take in thine hand a rod, and strike with it, nor break thine oath.’ Verily, we found him patient! How excellent a servant, one who turned to us, was he!”

Sūrah iv. 161: “And we have inspired thee as we inspired … Jesus and Job and Jonah, and Aaron, and Solomon.”

Sūrah vi. 84: “And we have guided … David and Solomon, and Job, and Joseph.”

Mr. Sale, following the commentators al-Jalālān and al-Baiẓāwī, says: “The Muḥammadan writers tell us that Job was of the race of Esau, and was blessed with a numerous family and abundant riches; but that God proved him by taking away all that he had, even his children, who were killed by the fall of a house: notwithstanding which, he continued to serve God and to return Him thanks as usual; that he was then struck with a filthy disease, his body being full of worms and so offensive that as he lay on the dunghill none could bear to come near him: that his wife, however (whom some call Raḥmeh the daughter of Ephraim the son of Joseph, and others Makhir the daughter of Manasses), attended him with great patience, supporting him with what she earned by her labour; but that the devil appearing to her one day, after having reminded her of her past prosperity, promised her that if she would worship him he would restore all they had lost: whereupon she asked her husband’s consent, who was so angry at the proposal, that he swore, if he recovered, to give his wife a hundred stripes; and that after his affliction his wealth increased, his wife also becoming young and handsome again, and bearing him twenty-six sons. Some, to express the great riches which were bestowed on Job after his sufferings, say he had two threshing-floors, one for wheat and the other for barley, and that God sent two clouds, which rained gold on the one and silver on the other till they ran over. The traditions differ as to the continuance of Job’s calamities: one will have it to be eighteen years: another, thirteen; another, three; and another, exactly seven years seven months and seven hours.”

JOHN BAPTIST. Arabic Yaḥyā (يحيى‎). Mentioned three times in the Qurʾān.

The XIXth Sūrah opens with an account of the Birth of John the Baptist:—

“A recital of thy Lord’s mercy to his servant Zacharias; when he called upon his Lord with secret calling, and said: ‘O Lord, verily my bones are weakened, and the hoar hairs glisten on my head, and never, Lord, have I prayed to Thee with ill success. But now I have fears for my kindred after me; and my wife is barren: give me, then, a successor as Thy special gift, who shall be my heir and an heir of the family of Jacob: and make him, Lord, well pleasing to Thee.’ ‘O Zacharias! verily we announce to thee a son,—his name John: that name We have given to none before him.’ He said: ‘O my Lord! how when my wife is barren shall I have a son, and when I have now reached old age, failing in my powers?’ He said: ‘So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said, Easy is this to me, for I created thee aforetime when thou wast nothing.’ He said: ‘Vouchsafe me, O my Lord! a sign.’ He said: ‘Thy sign shall be that for three nights, though sound in health, thou speakest not to man.’ And he came forth from the sanctuary to his people, and made signs to them to sing praises morn and even. We said: ‘O John! receive the Book with purpose of heart’:—and We bestowed on him wisdom while yet a child; and mercifulness from Ourself, and purity; and pious was he, and duteous to his parents; and not proud, rebellious. And peace was on him on the day he was born, and the day of his death, and shall be on the day when he shall be raised to life!”

Sūrah xxi. 89: “And Zacharias; when he called upon his Lord saying, ‘O my Lord, leave me not childless: but there is no better heir than Thyself.’ So we heard him, and gave him John, and we made his wife fit for child-bearing. Verily, these vied in goodness, and called upon us with love and fear, and humbled themselves before us.”

Sūrah vi. 85: “And we guided … Zacharias, and John, and Jesus, and Elias, all righteous ones.”

JOKING. Arabic Mizāḥ (مزاح‎). It is said Muḥammad was fond of jesting, but Ibn ʿAbbās relates that the Prophet said, “Do not joke with your brother Muslim to hurt him.”

Anas relates that the Prophet said to an old woman, “No old woman will enter Paradise.” The old woman said “Why?” And the Prophet said, “Because it is written in the Qurʾān (Sūrah lvi. 35) ‘We have made them virgins.’ There will be no old women in heaven.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. xii.)

JONAH. Arabic Yūnus (يونس‎). Mentioned in the Qurʾān as a prophet, and as Sāḥibu ʾl-Ḥūt and Ẕū ʾn-Nūn, “He of the Fish.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 139–148: “Jonas, too, was one of the Apostles (mursalīn), when he fled unto the laden ship, and lots were cast, and he was doomed, and the fish swallowed him, for he was blameworthy. But had he not been of those who praise Us, in its belly had he surely remained, till the day of resurrection. And we cast him on the bare shore—and he was sick;—and we caused a gourd-plant to grow up over him, and we sent him to a hundred thousand persons, or even more, and because they believed, we continued their enjoyments for a season.”

Sūrah lxviii. 48–50: “Patiently then await the judgment of thy Lord, and be not like him who was in the fish (Ṣāḥibu ʾl-Ḥūt), when in deep distress he cried to God. Had not favour from his Lord reached him, cast forth would he have been on the naked shore, overwhelmed with shame: but his Lord chose him and made him of the just.”

Sūrah x. 98 (called the Sūratu Yūnus): “Verily they against whom the decree of thy Lord is pronounced, shall not believe, even though every kind of sign come unto them, till they behold the dolorous torment! Were it otherwise, any city, had it believed, might have found its safety in its faith. But it was so, only with the people of Jonas. When they believed, we delivered them from the penalty of shame in this world, and provided for them for a time. But if thy Lord had pleased, verily all who are in the earth would have believed together. What! wilt thou compel men to become believers?”

Sūrah vi. 86: “We guided … Ishmael and Elisha, and Jonah, and Lot.”

Sūrah xxi. 87: “And Ẕū ʾn-Nūn (he of the fish), when he went on his way in anger, and thought that we had no power over him. But in the darkness he cried, ‘There is no God but Thou: Glory be unto Thee! Verily, I have been one of the evil doers’: so we heard him and rescued him from misery: for thus rescue we the faithful.”

[Sale, in his Notes on the Qurʾān, quoting from al-Jalālān and al-Baiẓāwī, says: “When Jonah first began to exhort the people to repentance, instead of hearkening to him, they used him very ill, so that he was obliged to leave the city, threatening them at his departure that they should be destroyed within three days, or, as others say, within forty. But when the time drew near, and they saw the heavens overcast with a black cloud which shot forth fire and filled the air with smoke and hung directly over the city, they were in a terrible consternation, and getting into the fields, with their families and cattle, they put on sackcloth and humbled themselves before God, calling aloud for pardon and sincerely repenting of their past wickedness. Whereupon God was pleased to forgive them, and the storm blew over. It is said that the fish, after it had swallowed Jonah, swam after the ship with its head above water, that the prophet might breathe; who continued to praise God till the fish came to land and vomited him out. Some imagine Jonah’s plant to have been a fig; and others, the móz (or banana), which bears very large leaves and excellent fruit, and that this plant withered the next morning, and that Jonah being much concerned at it God made a remonstrance to him in behalf of the Ninevites, agreeably to what is recorded in Scripture.”]

JORDAN. Arabic Ardan, Urdunn (اردن‎). Referring to Sūrah iii. 39, the legend is that the priests threw lots, by casting arrows into the river Jordan, as to which should take charge of the Virgin Mary after the Annunciation. “Thou wert not by them when they threw their lots which of them should take care of Mary, nor wert thou by them when they did dispute.”