offer. He, therefore, gave them one year at the expiration of which he destroyed it. The people of ʿArbassûs had a covenant similar to that of the people of Cyprus. To leave the Cyprians on the terms made with them and to have the Moslems use in their own cause what they receive [as tax] from the Cyprians is preferable. All holders of covenant, for the sake of whom the Moslems are not supposed to fight and on whom the Moslem regulations are not binding, are not dhimmis but 'people of tribute'[1] to be spared so long as they are worthy, to be treated according to the covenant so long as they abide by it and consent to it, and to be forgiven so long as they pay their dues. It is reported that Muʿâdh ibn-Jabal always hated to have the enemy capitulate on definite terms unless the Moslems were by the force of circumstances compelled to make terms, because no one could tell whether such capitulation would be of value and strength for the Moslems."
The opinion of abu-Isḥâḳ and Makhlad. Abu-Isḥâḳ al-Fazâri and Makhlad ibn-al-Ḥusain wrote as follows:—"We can find nothing more similar to the case of Cyprus than the case of ʿArbassûs and the decision of ʿUmar ibn-al-Khaṭṭâb regarding it. ʿUmar gave them two alternatives to choose from: a double fold of what they possessed and the evacuation of the city, or a respite of one year after casting off their treaty. Having rejected the former proposition, they were given one year at the end of which the city was destroyed. Al-Auzâʿi repeated a tradition to the effect that when Cyprus was conquered, the status quo of the people was kept, and terms were made on 14,000 dînârs of which 7,000 should go to the Moslems and 7,000 to the Greeks; and it was stipulated that the Cyprians should not
- ↑ Ar. ahl fidyah, who are governed by their own laws and pay something to be let alone. For fidyah see at-Tahânawi, Kashf Iṣṭilâḥât al-Funûn, vol. ii, p. 1157.
