ADMINISTRATIONIt was 'Uthman ibn I;Iunayf who set the basic grain tax at one
dirham and one qafiz of wheat per jar/b,14 This rate was convertible
to cash, with the value of a qafiz being three dirhams.1S Thus, four
dirhams were levied per jar/b of wheat while two dirhams per jar/b
were levied on barley, and one dirham per two jar/bs of uncultivated
land. Vineyards were assessed ten dirhams per jar/b, rutba (pI. ritiib,
a fodder crop) five dirhams per jar/b, and date palms variously five,
eight, or ten dirhams per jar/b. Figured separately, each fiiris/ palm
paid one dirham and each daqal palm one-half dirham. Fruit trees
paid ten dirhams per jar/b. It should be noted that the Sasanian system
of assessing taxes per unit of area on grain fields and vineyards was
apparently applied by the Muslims to groves of palm and fruit trees,
thus increasing the standardization of the system. In addition, sugar
cane was assessed at six dirhams per jar/b and cotton at five dirhams
per jar/b.^16 'Umar is then said to have instructed Abii Miisa to intro-
duce this system in the territory of BasraY
As far as the details of these rates are concerned, it must be concluded
that the Muslims radically altered the late Sasanian situation. Not only
were the rates changed but the method of assessing the tax on palm
and fruit trees was changed and new crops were taxed. However, the
most obvious and significant change is the great increase in tax rates:
fourfold for wheat and fiiris/ date palms, and double for barley.
Only the tax on rutba went down. The main reason for increasing the
rates appears to have been the need of the new regime to wring as
much as possible out of a reduced tax base for the support of the
occupying forces. The agricultural districts closest to Kufa were the
most immediately affected, although the tax on fallow land may have
been intended to cover lands that had been abandoned by their land-
lords or allowed to go uncultivated during the conquest. So, although
the Islamic regime used and even extended the Sasanian principle of
taxing per unit of area, the greater pressure of the Muslim state on
14 Ibid., pp. 56, 59, 129; Baladhuri, Futul;, p. 269; Ibn Rustah, A'liiq, p. 104;
Khadduri, Islamic Law of Nations, p. 143; Mawardi, Al;kiim as-sultiiniyya, p. 168.
15 Mawardi, Al;kiim as-sultiiniyya, p. 143.
16 Abii Yiisuf, Khariij, pp. 56-58, 60,129; Baladhuri, FutUl;, pp. 269-70; Ibn I:Iawqal,
$urat al-arr;l, p. 234; Ibn Khurradadhbih, Masiilik, p. 14; Ibn Rustah, A'liiq, p. 105;
Khadduri, Islamic Law of Nations, p. 143; Mawardi, Al;kiim as-su!tiiniyya, pp. 143,
168-69; Qudama, Khariij, p. 39; Ya'qiibi, Ta'rzkh, 11,174-75. Note that rice is omitted
from these Muslim tax rates. The native scribes knew better and apparently this knowl-
ege was used to create problems for 'Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad (Tabari, Ta'rzkh, 11, 458).
17 Ya'qiibi, Ta'rzkh, 11, 174-75.