The taxes in grains consisted mainly of wheat, barley and broad beans. Beyond these staple grains, there was also a range of other summer and winter crops subject to mun\u0101jaza<\/em> lease contracts, including rice, Jew\u2019s mallow, vetch, sesame, rape, cumin, and coriander. There are also rare instances where the mun\u0101jaza<\/em> is specified in cash, mentioned as a tax on the cultivation of cotton and lentils.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n The mun\u0101jaza<\/em> lease contract was a cheaper alternative to the expensive annual survey of individual plots.[2]<\/a> The fifteenth-century author al-Qalqashand\u012b explains that a mun\u0101jaza<\/em> contract is based on average yields: \u2018the arable land of the village is being tendered (tunajjaz<\/em>) for a specified sum not subject to decrease or increase, and the land-tax is being demanded according to that lease\u2019.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Alongside the mun\u0101jaza<\/em>, a minority of villages paid another category of land-tax in grains, called the mush\u0101\u1e6dara<\/em>. While mush\u0101\u1e6dara<\/em> has the apparent legal meaning of share-cropping, specifically for 50 per cent of the harvest,[4]<\/a> in al-N\u0101bulus\u012b\u2019s survey the term is practically interchangeable with mun\u0101jaza<\/em> contracts, and, because it is often specified in round numbers, does not seem to be a fixed share of the produce.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Data: Land tax in kind<\/a><\/p>\n Distribution of land-tax on grains; shaded areas represent non-wheat grains (barley, beans, rice)<\/p><\/div>\n Fields of winter and summer cash crops, including the widespread flax, were subject to a \u2018land-tax on feddans\u2019 or \u2018cash land-tax on feddans\u2019 (khar\u0101j al-fudun<\/em>, muf\u0101dan\u0101t<\/em>, khar\u0101j fudun al-\u02bfayn<\/em>). These were taxes on field cultivation, paid in cash according to a scale of tax-rates per feddan. Crops subject to this land-tax in cash were flax, cotton, garlic, colocasia, alfalfa, green vegetables, cucurbitaceous fruits, and carrots.<\/p>\n The amount of tax to be paid was calculated according to the area of cultivation (given in feddans) multiplied by the tax-rate (qa\u1e6d\u012b\u2018a<\/em>), which depended on the crop. Al-N\u0101bulus\u012b sometimes provides both the area under cultivation in feddans and the tax assessment in dinars, or sometimes \u2014 especially for flax and cotton \u2014 just the tax assessment.<\/p>\n The tax-rates mentioned are 1 dinar per feddan on alfalfa;[6]<\/a> 2 dinars per feddan on garlic,[7]<\/a> green vegetables (khu\u1e0dar),[8]<\/a> henna, indigo,[9]<\/a> and cucurbitaceous fruits;[10]<\/a> 3 or 5 dinars per feddan on colocasia;[11]<\/a> and 3 or 5 dinars per feddan on flax. Cotton was mostly taxed at a rate of 1.5 dinar per feddan, but rates of 1.25 dinar or 2 dinars per feddan are also mentioned.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n The cash crop tax category was supplemented by an \u2018addition\u2019 (i\u1e0d\u0101fa<\/em>), a 12.5 per cent surcharge over the basic tax.<\/p>\n Data: Land Tax on Field Cash Crops<\/a><\/p>\n Map: Land-tax on flax and on cotton<\/p><\/div>\n The taxes on orchards and vineyards were levied through a category of \u2018land-tax on perennial trees and water-wheels (khar\u0101j al-r\u0101tib wa\u2019l-saw\u0101q\u012b<\/em>)\u2019. As the name suggests, this tax was closely associated with year-round irrigation by water-wheels. The tax was levied per feddan and was probably collected in Mad\u012bnat al-Fayy\u016bm upon the sale of the produce, a method attested in fourteenth-century Damascus.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n Orchards were subject to a standard tax-rate of a 2 dinars, supplemented by a 12.5 per cent surcharge. Land designated for viniculture was subject to a higher rate of 5.33 dinars, plus a surcharge of 12.5 per cent. Young trees were subject to lower rates. Unlike field cultivation, orchards and enclosures were akin to private property, and there are references to named individual owners.<\/p>\n Also included in this category were taxes on lands designated as long-term leases (a\u1e25k\u0101r<\/em>). The terms of these long-term leases allowed the lessees freedom of use, but it seems they were mostly planted with trees and vines. Lands subject to long-term leases paid the same rate as orchards, 2 dinars per feddan, made up of a basic tax-rate of one dinar per feddan and an additional tax-rate of another dinar per feddan.<\/p>\n Data: Land tax on Orchards Palms Enclosures and Vineyards<\/a><\/p>\n Map: Land-tax on orchards and vineyards<\/p><\/div>\n Taxes on trade were due from sites of commercial activities, mainly shops, usually in the form of rent or concession. These were known as \u2018lunar calendar taxes\u2019 (al-m\u0101l al-hil\u0101l\u012b<\/em>), since they were paid monthly and followed the Islamic, lunar, calendar. This category occasionally also included agricultural activities that did not depend on the solar calendar, such as fishing and pasture.<\/p>\n The taxes on trade were levied as rent paid for the usufruct of buildings and structures, such as water-mills, store-houses (\u0101dur<\/em>), weavers\u2019 pits, pottery kilns, tanneries, shops, and bath-houses.[14]<\/a> Often, the taxes on trade are described as \u2018rent of the D\u012bw\u0101n\u2019s shops\u2019, \u2018rent of the shops\u2019, or simply revenues \u2018from the shops\u2019, a catch-all category that included small-scale artisanal workshops.<\/p>\n The term surety or concession (\u1e0dam\u0101n<\/em>) is also used to designate rent payments on shops, as well as concessions for the operation of ferryboats and the sale of chicken.<\/p>\n Data: Commercial taxes (lunar calendar taxes)<\/a><\/p>\n The process of harvesting, measuring, threshing, and transporting grains was subject to an array of fees, reported in a separate section of the tax record for each village. The fees also included payments to local officials and set payments for armed protection and for religious services. None of these fees is adequately explained in the administrative literature.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n 1. A\u00a0threshing-floor fee (rasm al-ajr\u0101n<\/em>), in cash and in grains, is mentioned in nearly all villages which were subject to land-tax in grains. The threshing floor payments in grains are sub-divided into the different types of crops. For every ardabb of grains paid in threshing-floor fees, cultivators had also to add 0.8\u20130.9 dirhams in cash.<\/p>\n 2. A\u00a0separate measurement fee (al-kiy\u0101la<\/em>) was paid in kind, again sub-divided into different categories of grains. The total amount of the measurement fees in kind is roughly equivalent to the total threshing-floor fees, but there is no consistent correlation between the two categories of fees.<\/p>\n 3. A\u00a0surcharge payment, called wafr<\/em>, is attested in nine villages with very high grain production. It was calculated as an additional 3 per cent on top of the land-tax in kind.[16]<\/a> A handful of very large villages also had to pay a transport fee, with an inconsistent rate.<\/p>\n 4. A\u00a0uniform harvest fee (rasm al-\u1e25i\u1e63\u0101d<\/em>) of 53 dirhams was levied in nearly all grain-cultivating villages in the province, regardless of the amount of grains they were expected to produce.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n 5. A\u00a0uniform and modest protection fee (rasm al-khaf\u0101ra<\/em>) was collected from most villages, at a fixed value of 15 dirhams. This minimal and uniform tax appears to be a blanket policing fee.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n 6. A fee for \u2018supervision of cash payments\u2019 (shadd al-\u02bfayn<\/em>), found in about half the villages in the Fayyum, was linked to the collection of cash land-tax on field crops. The largest fees are found in villages which also had substantial cash-crops, especially flax.<\/p>\n 7. A \u2018dredging fee\u2019 (rasm al-jar\u0101r\u012bf<\/em>) was paid by most villages that lay along gravity-fed canals (a total of sixty-two villages), averaging at around 1 dinar per village. It is not found in villages that relied on basin irrigation.<\/p>\n 8. About half the villages along gravity-fed canals made small payments of grains to the official known as khawl\u012b al-ba\u1e25r<\/em> (The Canal Controller), who was in charge of the schedule of opening and closing of weirs.<\/p>\n 9. A\u00a0minority of villages paid their taxes on cash field crops in the form of fees, sometimes called \u2018settlement\u2019 (mu\u1e63\u0101la\u1e25a<\/em>). This was common with less valuable field crops, such as carrots, where the tax-collectors dispensed with the costly land survey and collected the taxes as fees based on estimates.<\/p>\n II_5_Fees<\/a><\/p>\n A complex set of fees governed a strict monitoring of grazing. Pasture areas were divided into permanent areas of high quality, known as r\u0101tib<\/em>,[19]<\/a> and seasonal or occasional pasture lands called \u1e6d\u0101ri\u02be<\/em>, sub-divided according to their quality. Each category of pasture area was assigned a tax-rate per head of grazing animal.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n The fee for the permanent pasture areas was set at 2.25 dirhams per head of livestock. The fees for seasonal grazing areas were subject to a scale of rates, from 1 dirham per head to 0.25 dirhams per head, apparently depending on the quality of the pasture.<\/p>\n The tax collection and counting of animals was administered by a group of clerks, who received a \u2018government agents\u2019 fee\u2019 (rasm al-mustakhdam\u012bn<\/em>), calculated as 6.25 dirham per hundred heads of livestock.[21]<\/a> The assumption appears to be that the animals remained in the same pasture area throughout the entire season.<\/p>\n Permanent pasture lands (r\u0101tib<\/em>) were sometimes subject to a fixed pasture-tax (m\u0101l al-mar\u0101\u02bf\u012b<\/em>), regardless of the number of grazing animals. It was also called the \u2018permanent pasture-tax\u2019 (mar\u0101\u02bf\u012b r\u0101tib<\/em>). A\u00a0fixed tax on permanent pasture lands was a simpler alternative to the collection of fees per head, and obviated the need to count the numbers of livestock entering the pasture area.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n Data: Pasture fees<\/a><\/p>\n Map: Permanent and seasonal pasture areas, by number of grazing animals<\/p><\/div>\n Islamic alms-tax, the zak\u0101t<\/em>, was reintroduced to Egypt by Saladin as part of an Islamization project.[23]<\/a> In Ayyubid Fayyum, it was levied on livestock, categories of dry fruits, capital, and slaves.<\/p>\n 1. The principal concern of the alms-tax was livestock. Payment was required from freely pasturing herds or flocks of large and small cattle in full private ownership.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n For cows and buffalos, one year-old calf (tab\u012b\u02bf<\/em>) was levied from a herd of more than thirty cows, and one cow in her second year (musinna<\/em>) for every forty heads.<\/p>\n The alms-tax on sheep and goats was one sheep or goat for a flock of over forty heads, two for 120\u2013200 heads, and then a rate of one animal for every additional hundred. Camels were paid for in heads of goats, one goat for every five camels.[25]<\/a> The terms used for small livestock are bay\u0101\u1e0d<\/em> (lit., \u2018white\u2019) for sheep and sha\u02bfriyya<\/em> (sing.; pl. shi\u02bf\u0101r\u0101<\/em>) for goats. These terms also appear in Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b\u2019s section on the alms-tax.[26]<\/a> Occasionally, a distinction is made between the local small cattle (qar\u0101riyya<\/em>) and transient small cattle (muntaji\u02bf\u016bn<\/em>).<\/p>\n The alms-tax was specified in heads of animals, but actual payment was taken in cash, after the monetary value of the animal was assessed. For example, each head of sheep levied in alms-tax was commuted to around one gold dinar.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n 2. Alms-tax, probably at a rate of 5 per cent, was levied on the dry fruit of date-palms, vineyards, and olives. This alms-tax was levied on privately owned trees and, according to legal literature, was supposed to apply above a minimum threshold of five aws\u0101q<\/em> (about 610\u00a0kg). In the Villages of the Fayyum, The alms-tax was limited to these three varieties of dry fruit, in line with Sh\u0101fi\u02bf\u012b and M\u0101lik\u012b doctrine.[28]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b reports that alms-tax is levied on the fruits of the date-palm and the grape-vine, but exempts olives.[29]<\/a><\/p>\n The alms-tax on these fruits was calculated as an estimate (khar\u1e63<\/em>) of the yield. In Islamic law, the alms-tax on grapes, dates, and olives was calculated when the fruits were yet unpicked, leading to an estimate of the projected yield as dried fruit.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n 3. Alms-tax was also levied on commercial capital and on slaves. According to legal texts, the alms-tax on capital and on slaves was at a rate of 2.5 per cent, above a minimum threshold of 20 dinars. This category was levied almost exclusively in Mad\u012bnat al-Fayy\u016bm, suggesting that neither capital nor slaves were widely available beyond the city.<\/p>\n Data: Alms tax<\/a><\/p>\n Map: Alms-tax on small cattle<\/p><\/div>\n The majority of villages, sixty-one settlements, were subject to a tax on religious services paid to the Ministry of Endowments of Congregational and Neighbourhood Mosques. The tax ranged from 0.5 dinar in small villages to a significant 20 dinars in al-L\u0101h\u016bn.<\/p>\n A small fee, in dirhams, was paid in the same villages for the upkeep of local religious buildings. This fee was closely correlated with the tax due to the Ministry, as a rate of 2\u20133 dirhams to every dinar of tax (5%\u20137.5%).<\/p>\n Data: Payments for Muslim Religious Endowments<\/a><\/p>\n The poll-tax (al-jaw\u0101l\u012b<\/em>; the legal term jizya<\/em> does not occur) was levied at a flat rate of 2 dinars per annum on every non-Muslim adult male, in agreement with evidence regarding contemporary practice elsewhere in Egypt. While the majority of the Sunni schools of law exempt the poor, or those incapable of paying, Fatimid and Ayyubid policies were generally to grant no exemptions and to levy a flat rate.[31]<\/a><\/p>\n The collection of the poll-tax was undertaken by officials called \u2018beast-chasers\u2019 (\u1e6darr\u0101d\u016bn al-wa\u1e25sh<\/em>; also once in singular, \u1e6darr\u0101d al-wa\u1e25sh<\/em>). These officials were given a small annual payment of 0.5 dinar each, deducted from the government\u2019s poll-tax revenues.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n In the poll-tax register, a quarter of Fayyumi non-Muslims were registered as absentees, either in Upper or in Lower Egypt.<\/p>\n Data: Poll tax<\/a><\/p>\n All grain-producing villages were liable to a levy of hay (muwa\u1e93\u1e93af al-atb\u0101n<\/em>), that is, the stalks of grains after the harvest, measured in bales (shan\u012bf<\/em>).[33]<\/a> The hay levy is discussed by Ibn al-Mamm\u0101t\u012b, who describes a complex tax of which we have only an occasional trace in the treatise. According to Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b, the levy was divided up between the D\u012bw\u0101n, the iq\u1e6d\u0101\u02bf-holder and the cultivator. The cultivator could buy the D\u012bw\u0101n\u2019s share for cash, at a rate of 4.16 dinar per hundred loads (\u1e25iml<\/em>).[34]<\/a><\/p>\n Data: Hay levy<\/a><\/p>\n Iq\u1e6d\u0101\u02bf-holders were entitled to small amounts of cereal dishes of three varieties: kishk<\/em> (dried yogurt with crushed wheat), saw\u012bq<\/em> (parched grain with butter and fat), and far\u012bk<\/em> (green wheat). These taxes were levied in kind, specifically for the benefit of iq\u1e6d\u0101\u02bf-holders, and are called in literary sources \u2018hospitality dues\u2019 (\u1e0diy\u0101fa<\/em>), although the term is not mentioned in al-N\u0101bulus\u012b\u2019s text.<\/p>\n Data: Foodstuff levy<\/a><\/p>\n A levy of chickens is mentioned in eighty-seven villages, amounting to about 55,000 birds. The local tenant cultivators reared chicks, which probably hatched in two major hatcheries (sing. ma\u02bfmal al-farr\u016bj<\/em>) in Mad\u012bnat al-Fayy\u016bm and Sinn\u016bris. The villagers delivered the mature birds either to the government\u2019s kitchens or to the local iq\u1e6d\u0101\u02bf-holders. In return they received a \u2018rearing wage\u2019 (ujrat al-tarbiya<\/em>) of one-third of the amount of chickens they were due to deliver.<\/p>\n There are no taxes on chicken, and it seems that poultry production was not permitted beyond this network of hatcheries and village rearing. Monopolies over the sale of chicken are mentioned in two villages, where small payments for the concession of chicken (\u1e0dam\u0101n al-farr\u016bj<\/em>) are mentioned. This may represent a system where a contractor (\u1e0d\u0101min<\/em>) held a monopoly over the sale of chickens in a given area, as reported for the early Mamluk period.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n Data: Poultry levy (chicken breeding)<\/a><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Mun\u0101jaza<\/em> tax on Cotton: Tu\u1e6d\u016bn and Buljus\u016bq; on lentils: Mi\u1e6dr \u1e6c\u0101ris. Unspecified mun\u0101jaza<\/em> in cash: Gh\u0101bat B\u0101ja and Dum\u016bshiyya.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ab\u016b al-\u1e24asan Ibn \u02bfUthm\u0101n al-Makhz\u016bm\u012b, Al-muntaq\u0101 min kita\u0304b al-minha\u0304j fi\u0304 \u02bbilm khara\u0304j Mi\u1e63r<\/em>, ed.\u00a0by Claude Cahen and Yu\u0304suf Ra\u0304ghib (al-Qa\u0304hirah: Institut franc\u0327ais d\u2019arche\u0301ologie orientale, 1986), p.\u00a059 (fol.\u00a0166r). See also Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0189.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Al-Qalqashand\u012b, \u1e62ub\u1e25<\/em>, iii, 458.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> For a mush\u0101\u1e6dara contract from the early Mamluk period in which the produce is divided equally between the landlord and the peasant, see Taq\u012b al-D\u012bn Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu\u0304\u02bfat al-fata\u0304w\u0101 li-Shaykh al-Isla\u0304m Ibn Taymi\u0304ya<\/em>, ed.\u00a0by \u02bbAbd al-Rahm\u0323a\u0304n ibn Muh\u0323ammad Ibn Qa\u0304sim and Muh\u0323ammad ibn \u02bbAbd al-Rahm\u0323a\u0304n Ibn Qa\u0304sim (Riyadh: Mat\u0101bi\u02bf al-Riya\u0304d,\u0323 1961), xxx, 119\u201320.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b makes it clear that land subject to mush\u0101\u1e6dara pays its taxes in kind, but he does not elaborate; Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b, Kit\u0101b qaw\u0101n\u012bn al-daw\u0101w\u012bn<\/em>, ed. \u02bfA\u1e6diya, p.\u00a0259; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0115 (6.3.14). Al-Makhz\u016bm\u012b distinguishes between land-tax on \u2018feddans of cash and of grains\u2019 and feddans of mush\u0101\u1e6dara<\/em>; Makhzu\u0304mi\u0304, al-minha\u0304j<\/em>, p.\u00a060 (fols 166v\u2013167r). Cahen equates mun\u0101jaz<\/em>a and mush\u0101\u1e6dara<\/em> and defines them as the dividing of the total tax of a villages among the individual taxpayers. See his \u2018Contribution \u00e1 l\u2019\u00e9tude des impots dans l\u2019\u00c9gypt m\u00e9di\u00e9vale\u2019,\u00a0Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient<\/em>, 5\u00a0(1962), 244\u201378 (p.\u00a0264); Cahen, \u2018Le r\u00e9gime des imp\u00f4ts\u2019, p.\u00a014. See also Rabie, The Financial System<\/em>, p.\u00a075; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0190 (\u2018the process whereby an assessment for an entire district was handed down by the central government and then apportioned among the taxpayers of the district\u2019). See also Cooper, \u2018The Assessment and Collection of Khar\u0101j Tax in Medieval Egypt\u2019,\u00a0Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/em>,\u00a096. 3\u00a0(1976), 365\u201382.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Compare Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0117 (6.3.6), although Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b says there is disagreement on this tax-rate.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0 Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0117 (6.3.7).<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b reports tax-rate of 2 dinars for lettuce and cabbage; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0121 (6.4.12, 6.4.13).<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b has 3 dinars for indigo; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0120 (6.3.6, 6.4.09).<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b has 1\u20132 dinars; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0118 (6.3.6, 6.4.02).<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b has the current tax-rate as 4 dinars per feddan, down from 5 under the Fatimids; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0120 (6.4.06).<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b has cotton taxed at 1 dinar per feddan; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, p.\u00a0119 (6.4.04).<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Taxes on the fruits and vegetables grown in Damascus were levied after the produce was brought to a central location, called D\u0101r al-Bi\u1e6d\u1e6d\u012bkh wa\u2019l-F\u0101kiha (\u2018Hall of Melons and Fruits\u2019), to be sold and taxed there. See Mathieu Eychenne, \u2018La production agricole de Damas et de la Gh\u016bta au xive si\u00e8cle: diversit\u00e9, taxation et prix des cultures mara\u00eech\u00e8res d\u2019apr\u00e8s al-Jazar\u012b (m.739\/1338)\u2019, Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient<\/em>, 56. 4\u20135 (2013), 569\u2013630 (p.\u00a0597).<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> On this category, see al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 228. Al-Nuwayr\u012b explains that rent (ujra)<\/em> is levied on covered, or roofed, properties, while surety (\u1e0dam\u0101n<\/em>) is levied on uncovered properties.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a>Al-Nuwayr\u012b states that cash fees (\u1e25\u016bq\u016bq<\/em>) were paid on every feddan of grain cultivation, at a rate of 2\u20134 dirhams per feddan; al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 249. Note that in the Villages of the Fayyum<\/em> the fees are mostly specified in kind and not in cash.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> According to al-Nuwayr\u012b, a payment called wafr was to be taken from the officials in charge of measuring the grains and buying the crops for cash. In his account the wafr seems akin to a fee; al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 252, 296.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a>The tiny village of Dim\u016bh al-D\u0101thir was liable to only 25 dirhams, and was also exempt from the \u2018protection fee\u2019, so must have had its unique arrangements.<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> This is perhaps the same fee as the one mentioned by al-Nuwayr\u012b in connection with the measurement of crops; al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 296.<\/p>\n [19]<\/a> The terminology here is similar to that used for non-Muslims subject to the poll-tax, where r\u0101tib<\/em> is a local established resident, \u1e6d\u0101ri\u02be<\/em> is a new-comer, and n\u0101shi\u02be<\/em> is one who recently became adult; al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 242.<\/p>\n [20]<\/a> Al-Nuwayr\u012b, Nih\u0101yat al-arab<\/em>, viii, 191, 262. See also Rabie, The Financial System<\/em>, p.\u00a079.<\/p>\n [21]<\/a> See Rabie, The Financial System<\/em>, pp.\u00a079\u201380. Rabie argues that the categories of the pasture fee depended on the size and age of the animals.<\/p>\n [22]<\/a> The two categories of taxes on permanent pasture \u2014 fees based on the number of animals and the fixed pasture tax \u2014 are mentioned together only in the entry for the village of Shisfa.<\/p>\n [23]<\/a> Rabie, The Financial System<\/em>, p.\u00a096; Aron Zysow, \u2018Zak\u0101t\u2019, EI2<\/em>, xi, 406\u201322.<\/p>\n [24]<\/a> According to a view ascribed to al-Sh\u0101fi\u02bf\u012b, even one day of feeding on fodder would exempt the owner of an animal from paying alms-tax; the \u1e24anbal\u012bs view this as a loophole; Ibn Qud\u0101ma, al-Mughn\u012b<\/em>, iv, 13. The dominant opinion cited by al-Nawaw\u012b is that animals are subject to alms-tax as long as the fodder they receive is not necessary for their survival, which would mean up to three days of fodder. See Ya\u1e25y\u0101 bin Sharaf al-Nawaw\u012b, Kit\u0101b al-majm\u016b\u2018: Shar\u1e25 al-muhadhdhab<\/em>, ed.\u00a0by Mu\u1e25ammad Naj\u012bb al-Mu\u1e6d\u012b\u2018\u012b, 12 vols (Beirut: D\u0101r I\u1e25y\u0101\u2019 al-Tur\u0101th al-\u2018Arab\u012b, 2001), v, 231.<\/p>\n [25]<\/a> Ibn Mamm\u0101t\u012b, Kit\u0101b qaw\u0101n\u012bn al-daw\u0101w\u012bn<\/em>, ed. by \u02bfA\u1e6diya, pp.\u00a0311\u201312; Cooper, \u2018Ibn Mammati\u2019s Rules\u2019, pp.\u00a0266\u201367.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/projects.history.qmul.ac.uk\/ruralsocietyislam\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2018\/10\/FayyumMap4-1024x654.png\")
Land Tax on Field Cash-crops<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/projects.history.qmul.ac.uk\/ruralsocietyislam\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2018\/10\/FayyumMap8_flax_cotton-1024x654.png\")
Land-Tax on Orchards, Palm Enclosures, and Vineyards<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/projects.history.qmul.ac.uk\/ruralsocietyislam\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2018\/10\/FayyumMap9-1024x654.png\")
Lunar-calendar Taxes on Trade (al-m\u0101l al-hil\u0101l\u012b<\/em>)<\/h3>\n
Fees (rus\u016bm<\/em>)<\/h3>\n
Pasture Fees<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/projects.history.qmul.ac.uk\/ruralsocietyislam\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2018\/10\/FayyumMap6-1024x613.png\")
Alms-tax (zak\u0101t<\/em>)<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/projects.history.qmul.ac.uk\/ruralsocietyislam\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2018\/10\/FayyumMap5-e1539951701365.png\")
Payments for Minisrty of Religious Endowments (D\u012bw\u0101n al-A\u1e25b\u0101s)<\/h3>\n
Poll-Tax<\/h3>\n
Hay Levy<\/h3>\n
Foodstuff Levy<\/h3>\n
Poultry Levy<\/h3>\n
\n