fled into the towns, and the towns afterwards capitulated. That seems to have been the normal course of events. The Arabs, therefore, claimed to have taken the land by force. Theoretically on the basis of the Qur'an and the Prophet's example that was "booty" (ghanima), and fell to be divided amongst the Moslems taking part in the expedition, after a fifth part had been assigned as the share of the State. The theory, however, was not strictly carried out. The land was not as a rule divided amongst the Moslems, but remained in the hands of the previous cultivators on condition of payment of an annual sum to the State. This revenue was then, according to the arrangement of the Caliph Omar, used to pay fixed pensions to the Moslem soldiers. What Baladhuri (p. 180) reports regarding Raqqa is probably typical. 'Iyad b. Ghanam made, as we have already noted, a treaty of capitulation with the town. But he said, "The land belongs to us, we have set foot on it and secured it". He left it, however, undisturbed in their hand on condition of the payment of the Kharaj (tax on the produce of the land). That part of it which he did not restore to the people of the Covenant (i.e. the Christian population), and which they renounced, he assigned to the Moslems on condition of payment of a tenth (i.e. Sadaqa or Zakat, which all Moslems were required by the Qur'an to pay). He also laid the Jizya upon them, imposing upon each man a dinar per annum, women and children being exempt. Along with the dinar he imposed upon them an annual payment of a measure of wheat, some olive oil,

raiment, and honey. (These latter exactions, we may note, had also their prototype in the Roman system of taxation.)

Similarly in the case of Egypt, we are informed, the demand was made that the land should be divided. 'Amr b. al-'As, the Moslem general at the conquest, demurred, and the case was referred to Omar the Caliph, who decided that it should not be divided amongst the Moslems, but should remain in the hands of the former population on condition of certain payments. These payments could, however, be increased, Moslem law placing no limit upon them, and they were, as a matter of fact, largely increased in many cases. Altogether the system was a fruitful source of trouble, and we shall have to mention it again. We have first, however, to consider the position which Islamic law assigned to Christian (and Jewish) populations.

The Qur'an is, as we have seen, not quite consistent in its attitude to Jews and Christians. Muhammad made advances to both in turn, but as he learned more regarding them, found that they would not recognise him, and as he found himself growing in power he broke with both in turn. On the whole, however, the People of the Book (i.e. Jews, Christians, Sabi'ans, and Magians, but principally the two former) are more favourably dealt with in the Qur'an than the idolaters. With the latter there is no compromise. Idolatry, according to Muhammad, was to be completely rooted out. Theoretically that is what Moslem law as afterwards developed demands. Where Moslem power extends, idolaters have the choice of Islam or death. At most it is permitted that