[75] Caetani, vol. iii. p. 813; vol. v. p. 394. (“Gli abitanti accettarono con non celato favore il mutamento di governo, appena ebbero compreso che gli Arabi avrebbero rispettato i loro diritti individuali, ed avrebbero lasciata completa libertà di coscienza in materia religiosa. In Siria, città ed interi distretti si affrettarono a trattare con gli Arabi anche prima della rotta finale dei Greci. Nel Sawād si lasciarono passivamente sopraffare accettando il nuovo dominio senza pattuire condizioni di sorta; è probabile che anche in Siria questo fosse il caso per molte regioni remote dalle grandi vie di comunicazioni.”) [76] Gottheil has brought together a valuable collection of documentary evidence as to the condition of the protected peoples under Muslim rule in his “Dhimmīs and Moslems in Egypt.” [77] Balādhurī, pp. 74 (ad fin.), 116, 121 (med.). [78] For a discussion of this document, see Caetani, vol. iii. p. 952 sqq. [79] Ṭabarī, i. p. 2405. [80] Balādhurī, p. 129. [81] Ibn Sʻad, III, i. p. 246. [82] Mémoire sur la conquête de la Syrie, p. 143 sq. [83] Annali dell’Islām, vol. iii. p. 957. [84] Some authorities on Muhammadan law held that this rule did not extend to villages and hamlets, in which the construction of churches was not to be prevented. (Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 219.) [85] “The ʻUlamāʼ are divided in opinion on the question of the teaching of the Qurʼān: the sect of Mālik forbids it: that of Abū Ḥanīfah allows it; and Shāfiʻī has two opinions on the subject: on the one hand, he countenances the study of it, as indicating a leaning towards Islam; and on the other hand, he forbids it, because he fears that the unbeliever who studies the Qurʼān being still impure may read it solely with the object of turning it to ridicule, since he is the enemy of God and the Prophet who wrote the book; now as these two statements are contradictory, Shāfiʻī has no formally stated opinion on this matter.” (Belin, p. 508.) [86] Such as the forms of greeting, etc., that are only to be used by Muslims to one another. [87] Abū Yūsuf (p. 82) says that Christians were to be allowed to go in procession once a year with crosses, but not with banners; outside the city, not inside where the mosques were. [88] The nāqūs, lit. an oblong piece of wood, struck with a rod. [89] Gottheil, pp. 382–4, where references are given to the various versions of this document. [90] There is evidence to show that the Arab conquerors left unchanged the fiscal system that they found prevailing in the lands they conquered from the Byzantines, and that the explanation of jizyah as a capitation-tax is an invention of later jurists, ignorant of the true condition of affairs in the early days of Islam. (Caetani, vol. iv. p. 610 (§ 231); vol. v. p. 449.) H. Lammens: Ziād ibn Abīhi. (Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. iv. p. 215.) [91] Goldziher, vol. i. pp. 50–7, 427–30. Caetani, vol. v. p. 311 sqq. [92] Caetani, vol. v. pp. 424 (§ 752), 432.