Chapter 11

Other than the martyrs, they are to be washed, shrouded, and the funeral prayer is to be performed over them, as is the obligation in Shariah and the right of every deceased Muslim. It is on this basis that Asma bint Abi Bakr performed the ghusl (washing) of her son, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (1), when he was killed while fighting against those who had usurped authority after the oath of allegiance (bay'ah) had been correctly established for him. As stated in Fath al-Bari: '.. Most of the regions pledged allegiance to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and his authority was established over the Hijaz, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the entire East, and all the lands of al-Sham, including Damascus. No one withheld their allegiance except for the Banu Umayya and those who shared their inclinations, who were in Palestine. They gathered around Marwan ibn al-Hakam, pledged allegiance to him as Caliph, and he set out with those who obeyed him toward Damascus, where al-Dahhak ibn Qays had already secured the bay'ah for Ibn al-Zubayr.' (2) The significant point here is that the killing of Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was at the hands of the rebels who had usurped authority. Thus, his mother, Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, washed him because she did not consider him a martyr in the sense of one killed in war against disbelievers, and none of the Sahabah objected to her action. Furthermore, it has already been mentioned in our discussion on fighting the rebels (ahl al-baghy) that we have favored this second jurisprudential opinion, which is that this fighting is not considered jihad in the path of Allah in the technical Shariah sense. Those killed from the side of truth and justice are considered martyrs in the afterlife only; they have their reward with Allah, while in terms of worldly rulings, the same rules that apply to non-martyred deceased Muslims apply to them. Indeed, historical texts exist that describe the fighting against those who usurped authority as 'jihad.' Consequently, either the intended meaning of this term is the linguistic jihad—meaning the exertion of effort in fighting the disobedient and resisting the rebels and usurpers—or the authors of those texts held the other jurisprudential view which posits that such combat is indeed jihad in the path of Allah in its technical Shariah sense. ¶

Among these historical texts is what is narrated in 'Tarikh al-Tabari' on the tongue of one who went out with 'Husayn ibn Ali' (may Allah be pleased with him) to fight the forces of 'Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah,' the usurper of the Caliphate. He said: 'By Allah, I was indeed eager for jihad against the polytheists, and I hope that the reward for jihad against these people—who are fighting the son of the daughter of their Prophet—will be no less in the sight of Allah than the reward I would have received for jihad against the polytheists...' (1) And thus, we conclude the discussion on fighting the usurper of authority, so let us move on to another type of fighting in another discussion! ¶

Ninth Topic: Fighting the People of the Dhimma (Non-Muslim subjects) ¶

- Introduction: - First Issue: Who are the People of the Dhimma? What are their obligations, and what are their rights? A - Definition of the People of the Dhimma. B - Obligations of the People of the Dhimma. C - Rights of the People of the Dhimma. - Second Issue: What are the violations that cause the People of the Dhimma to collectively breach the covenant? And what are the consequences thereof? ¶

★ Opinions of Islamic Fiqh regarding the invalidators of the covenant. ★ What are the consequences of breaching the covenant due to bearing arms, according to varying circumstances? 1 - The People of the Dhimma bearing arms against Muslims in alliance with the rebels (ahl al-baghy). 2 - The People of the Dhimma bearing arms against rebels, in support of the Islamic authority. 3 - The People of the Dhimma bearing arms against Muslims in acts of highway robbery. 4 - The People of the Dhimma bearing arms against Muslims independently, with the intention of insurrection. 5 - The People of the Dhimma bearing arms against Muslims in alliance with the belligerents (ahl al-harb). - The consequences resulting from the breach of the covenant due to reasons other than bearing arms against Muslims. ¶

★ Does the violation of a treaty apply only to the one who committed the act that constitutes a breach of the covenant, or does its ruling extend to others as well? ■ What is the legal status (hukm) of the Ahl al-Dhimmah in our current era, following the dissolution of the Islamic state? ■ What is the ruling regarding the Ahl al-Dhimmah of today if they deviate from the conditions that were established during the time of their predecessors? Is their covenant invalidated by this deviation, or not? - Third issue: Is the combat by Muslims against those among the Ahl al-Dhimmah who have violated the covenant considered part of Jihad in the path of Allah? ¶

Ninth Topic: Combatting the People of the Dhimma ¶

Introduction: By this heading, I mean the situation where the citizens among the People of the Dhimma resort to bearing arms against the Muslims for any reason, leading to the outbreak of combat between the two parties. Is this combat, from the perspective of the Muslims, considered Jihad in the path of Allah, or not? In the subsequent sections of this treatise, we will address a number of issues related to the People of the Dhimma and some of their rulings that pertain to the subject of this work. As for here—in this discussion—it is necessary for us, in light of what we meant by the heading, to define the issues around which our discourse must revolve in addressing this topic. Muslim jurists, when discussing the rulings of the People of the Dhimma, examined the invalidators of the covenant (nawaqid al-'ahd). They mentioned the violations committed by the People of the Dhimma, distinguishing between those that constitute a breach of the covenant and those that do not, and clarified the legal ruling (hukm) in both instances. What pertains to our subject regarding the breaches of the covenant is that which is related to combat. The reality of combat is that it is a war between two parties, each possessing the power and defense (mana'ah) with which they fight, attack, and maneuver. Based on this, our discussion does not include instances such as a Dhimmi who involves himself with a Muslim woman through marriage or adultery, or a Dhimmi who insults the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or spies on the Muslims—whether this is considered a breach of the covenant or not? Because such violations are acts for which the perpetrator is subject to the Shariah ruling, regardless of whether we consider them to have broken the covenant or not. ¶

Do we hold that a breach of covenant can be committed by an individual, or do we not? What is relevant to our discussion, however, is a breach of covenant committed by the collectivity of the Dhimmi, or by a specific faction of them in one of the Muslim lands that possesses power and strength (man'ah), and who refuse to submit to the authority of the Islamic state in implementing the Shariah rulings that have become applicable to them as a result of such violations. In this case, it is necessary to suppress the rebellion carried out by these citizens from among the Dhimmi who possess power and strength, whether they initiated the fighting to refuse submission to the state's authority, or responded with fighting when the state sought to use force to bring them under its authority. So, is this fighting to suppress the rebellion carried out by the Dhimmi considered 'Jihad fi Sabil Allah' (Jihad in the path of Allah) in its technical sense, or not? This is the subject of our research, and accordingly, to address this issue, it is necessary to discuss the following matters: 1. Who are the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected people), what are their duties, and what are their rights? 2. What are the violations that make them collectively violators of the covenant, and what is the Shariah ruling that results from this? 3. Is the fighting of the Ahl al-Dhimma who have violated the covenant considered part of Jihad in the path of Allah, in its technical sense, or not? First Matter: Who are the Ahl al-Dhimma? And what are their duties and rights? A - Definition of Ahl al-Dhimma: Ibn al-Qayyim defined the Ahl al-Dhimma in the context of classifying the types of disbelievers, just as he defined every disbeliever who has a covenant, so that the Ahl al-Dhimma could be distinguished from others. We hereby quote his words: 'The disbelievers are either Ahl Harb (people of war) or Ahl 'Ahd (people of covenant). And the people of the covenant are of three categories: Ahl al-Dhimma, Ahl al-Hudna (people of truce), and Ahl al-Aman (people of safety)... The term 'Dhimma and 'Ahd' covers all of them in principle... for Dhimma is a term of the same kind as 'Ahd (covenant) and 'Aqd (contract)... However, in the terminology of many jurists, 'Ahl al-Dhimma' has become an expression for those who pay the Jizya. These have a perpetual Dhimma (protection/covenant). They have covenanted with the Muslims that the ruling of Allah and His Messenger shall apply to them; for they reside in the Dar (territory) where the ruling of Allah and His Messenger is implemented.' ¶

In contrast to them are the 'ahl al-hudna' (people of the truce), who have entered into a peace agreement with the Muslims on the condition that they remain in their own territory, whether the treaty involved financial compensation or not. The laws of Islam are not applied to them in the same manner as they are to the 'ahl al-dhimma'. However, they are obligated to refrain from fighting against the Muslims; these are referred to as 'ahl al-'ahd' (people of the covenant), 'ahl al-sulh' (people of peace), and 'ahl al-hudna' (people of the truce). ¶

As for the 'musta'min': this is one who enters Muslim lands without the intention of establishing permanent residence. There are four categories of such people: envoys, traders, those seeking refuge so that Islam and the Quran may be presented to them (if they wish, they may accept it, and if they wish, they may return to their lands), and those who come for a specific need such as a visit or otherwise. ¶

The ruling regarding them is that they are not to be forced to migrate, they are not to be killed, and the jizya is not to be taken from them. Islam and the Quran are to be presented to those who seek refuge; if they accept, then it is well, and if they prefer to return to their place of safety, they are to be escorted there, and they are not to be molested before they reach it. Once they reach their place of safety, they return to the status of 'harbi' (combatant) as they were before. ¶

This is what Ibn al-Qayyim stated regarding the definitions of the various types of non-Muslims. We have cited his words in their entirety, rather than limiting ourselves to his definition of the 'ahl al-dhimma' alone, because it provides us with a complete picture regarding the ruling for each category of non-Muslims in terms of their relationship with the Muslims. Through this, we realize the distinction between the 'ahl al-dhimma' and others. ¶

Thus, the 'ahl al-dhimma': they are the non-Muslim citizens who reside with Muslims in the 'dar al-islam' (abode of Islam), pay the jizya, and are subject to Islamic law, except in matters where they are permitted to follow their own laws concerning beliefs, acts of worship, marriage, divorce, food, and clothing. They are like the Jews and Christians who live in Muslim lands. ¶

This is how they are distinguished from the 'ahl al-hudna'. These are non-citizens, the disbelievers whose state and the Islamic state have a treaty that necessitates the cessation of a state of war between the two states, regardless of whether other agreements on different matters are attached to it or not. Therefore, these are called 'ahl al-hudna'. ¶

under a truce... whether they are in their own lands, or have entered the lands of the Muslims under the provisions of this truce, if the treaty permits the movement of the people of one state into another. ¶

Through Ibn al-Qayyim’s comprehensive definition, the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected people) can be distinguished from the Ahl al-Aman (those granted security). The latter are individuals from other non-Islamic states who enter Islamic lands under a special security granted to each individual among them, known in these days as an 'entry visa' for any of the purposes mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim. ¶

Now, having defined who the Ahl al-Dhimmah are and how they are distinguished from others—such as the Ahl al-Harb (those at war), Ahl al-Hudnah (those under a truce), or Ahl al-Aman—we proceed to the next point in this issue, which is: ¶

B - What are the duties of the Ahl al-Dhimmah? - Regarding their general duties, Ibn Qudamah enumerated these in 'Al-Mughni', which can be categorized into five sections: 1. That without which the Dhimmah contract is incomplete, consisting of two things: commitment to the Jizyah and the application of the rulings of Islam upon them. 2. Refraining from anything harmful to the Muslims in their persons or properties, such as assaulting Muslims through physical violence or plunder. 3. Avoiding anything that brings indignity to the Muslims, such as speaking inappropriately about Islam, the Quran, or the Messenger (ﷺ). 4. Avoiding the public manifestation of vice, such as consuming alcohol in public places of the Muslims. 5. Distinguishing themselves from Muslims through a special mark by which they are recognized, such as in clothing or otherwise. There are branches and details under each of these points, as well as differences of opinion among the jurists regarding the necessity of these stipulations, which are not the place to be discussed here. This is what is said regarding the duties of the Ahl al-Dhimmah. ¶

C - What are the rights of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim citizens)? ¶

Jurists have discussed these rights extensively, and we present here some excerpts from jurisprudential sources regarding this point: ¶

- Al-Mawardi states in 'Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya', regarding the obligations upon the Imam who has entered into a dhimma (covenant of protection) with them based on the payment of jizya: "Two rights become incumbent upon them in exchange for their payment: First, to refrain from harming them. Second, to provide them with protection, so that they remain safe from aggression and secure through our defense." Nafi' reported from Ibn Umar that the final words of the Prophet (PBUH) were: "Observe my rights regarding those under my protection (dhimma)."(1) ¶

- It is stated in Al-Nawawi's 'Al-Minhaj': "Chapter: It is binding upon us to refrain from harming them, to guarantee compensation for any damage to their lives or property, and to defend them against the belligerents (ahl al-harb)."(2) ¶

- In Ibn Qudamah's 'Al-Mughni', it is stated that it is the duty of the Imam to protect the Ahl al-Dhimma from Muslims, belligerents, and other Ahl al-Dhimma(3). Furthermore, if belligerents overpower our Ahl al-Dhimma and take them captive, and we subsequently regain control over them, it is mandatory to return the Ahl al-Dhimma to their protected status; it is not permissible to enslave them, and it is mandatory to ransom them, whether they are within our fortresses or not(4). Also, if belligerents seize the wealth of our Ahl al-Dhimma and we subsequently regain control over it, it is mandatory to return their wealth to them, because the status of their property regarding sanctity is the same as the property of Muslims. In this regard, the author of 'Al-Mughni' cites the statement of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him): "They only paid the jizya so that their blood would be like our blood, and their wealth like our wealth."(5) ¶

It is also stated in 'Al-Mughni' that if a Dhimmi cultivates dead (unused) land, it belongs to him; there is no difference between him and a Muslim in this regard.(6) ¶

In the book 'Al-Kharaj' by Abu Yusuf, in his letter to the Commander of the Faithful, Harun al-Rashid, it is stated: 'Abu Yusuf said: It is appropriate, O Commander of the Faithful - may Allah support you - that you issue directives for kindness towards the people of dhimma (protected non-Muslim subjects) of your Prophet and your cousin Muhammad ﷺ. Take care of them so that they are not oppressed, harmed, or burdened beyond their capacity. Do not take anything from their wealth except what is legitimately due upon them, for it is narrated from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he said: "Whoever oppresses a mu'ahid (covenant holder) or burdens him beyond his capacity, I shall be his antagonist (on the Day of Judgment)." Among the things Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said at the time of his death: "I enjoin the caliph after me to observe the covenant of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, to fulfill their treaty, to fight for their defense, and not to burden them beyond their capacity." Then Abu Yusuf narrated this account regarding Umar: "Umar ibn Nafi narrated from Abu Bakr that Umar ibn al-Khattab passed by a door where a beggar was asking for charity, an old man who was blind. He tapped his shoulder from behind and asked: 'Which of the People of the Book are you?' He said: 'A Jew.' Umar asked: 'What has brought you to what I see?' He replied: 'The jizya, necessity, and old age.' Umar took his hand, brought him to his house, gave him some items from the house, and then sent word to the treasurer of the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury), saying: 'Look at this man and those like him; by Allah, we have not acted justly if we consume their youth and abandon them in old age.' Allah says: "Alms are for the poor and the needy." The poor are the Muslims, and this man is among the needy of the People of the Book. He then exempted him and those like him from the jizya. Abu Bakr said: 'I witnessed this from Umar, and I saw that old man.'" ¶

And it is stated in the book 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya' regarding Maliki Fiqh: "The second issue: Regarding what is due to them from us, which is to allow their residency in our lands, except for the Arabian Peninsula, which is the Hijaz and Yemen. We must refrain from harming them and guarantee their safety in terms of their lives and wealth. We must not interfere with their churches, nor their wine and swine, as long as they do not display them openly... If they leave (the covenant) - without injustice or violence - they may be enslaved, but if they leave - with injustice or violence - they shall not be enslaved. Ashhab said: 'They shall not be enslaved under any circumstances.'" ¶

This is, in summary, what has been stated in Islamic jurisprudence regarding the obligations towards the people of dhimma. ¶

and their rights. We have referred to this only because these duties and rights have a relationship with the following issue, which is: What causes the covenant of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim subjects) to be broken, and what combat may result from such a breach of covenant? This is the fundamental issue in this research. ¶

Accordingly, we now enter into: The Second Issue: What are the violations that render the Ahl al-Dhimma collective violators of the covenant, and what are the consequences thereof? ¶

Researching this issue requires us to address the following points: 1. Opinions of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the nullifiers of the covenant. 2. What are the consequences of breaking the covenant? 3. Is the breach of the covenant restricted to those who committed it, or does its ruling extend to others? ¶

Furthermore, we believe that in order for this research to address the problems of contemporary reality, we must touch upon two additional points: - What is the ruling on the Ahl al-Dhimma after the decline of the Islamic State? - What is the ruling regarding the Ahl al-Dhimma today departing from what their predecessors had agreed upon during the time of the Islamic conquests? ¶

First Point: Opinions of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the nullifiers of the covenant. We observe three basic trends in Islamic jurisprudence regarding the nullifiers of the covenant: - The trend of expansion (tawassu'), the trend of moderation (tawassut), and the trend of restriction (tadyiq). ¶

- As for the trend of expansion regarding the nullifiers of the covenant, we find it in the books of Hanbali jurisprudence: Ibn al-Qayyim, in 'Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma', listed eight matters that the Ahl al-Dhimma must refrain from because they cause harm to Muslims, whether in life or property. These are: 1. Assisting in fighting against Muslims, 2. Killing a Muslim man or woman, 3. Highway robbery against them, 4. Harboring a spy, 5. Assisting against Muslims by providing information or writing to the disbelievers about Muslim affairs, 6. Committing adultery with a Muslim woman, 7. Harming a Muslim woman under the guise of marriage, 8. Tempting a Muslim away from his religion. ¶

Then, Ibn al-Qayyim quotes from Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Farra' in his book *al-Mujarrad*, which states: "For him (i.e., the dhimmi), refraining from this is a condition, whether it was explicitly stipulated or not; if he violates it, his covenant is broken"(1). Then, Ibn al-Qayyim mentions that four additional matters are appended to the previous eight nullifiers of the covenant, also without requiring prior stipulation: 1. Mentions of Allah (Azzawajal), 2. Mention of His Book, 3. Mention of His Religion, and 4. Mention of His Messenger (ﷺ) in an inappropriate manner. If they—the People of the Dhimmah—refuse any of these, they have violated the security (aman), whether it was stipulated in the covenant or not. ¶

Ibn al-Qayyim also notes that Abu Ya'la al-Farra' has three books in Hanbali jurisprudence: *al-Ta'liq*, *al-Khilaf*, and *al-Mujarrad*, and that he mentioned in all of them that the covenant is broken by these actions and statements. ¶

Finally, Ibn al-Qayyim clarifies that there is a report in Hanbali jurisprudence—though weak—that a covenant is only broken by refusing to pay the jizya or refusing to submit to the application of Islamic rulings(2). This represents the trend of 'expansion' regarding the nullifiers of the covenant. ¶

- There is also the trend of 'moderation' (tawassut), represented by Shafi'i jurisprudence: Al-Nawawi presented in his book *Minhaj al-Talibin* the matters that the People of the Dhimmah are required to refrain from, such as: building new churches, raising the structures of the People of the Dhimmah higher than the adjacent houses of Muslims, riding horses, or riding fine mules... Then Imam al-Nawawi stated: "If these matters were stipulated and they violated them, the covenant is not broken... If they fight us, refuse to pay the jizya, or refuse to allow the enforcement of Islamic rulings, it is broken. If a dhimmi commits adultery with a Muslim woman, marries her, guides the People of War (ahl al-harb) to the vulnerabilities of the Muslims, entices a Muslim away from his religion, insults Islam or the Quran, or mentions the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) with disrespect, then the most correct view is that if the breaking of the covenant was stipulated upon these acts, it is broken; otherwise, it is not"(3). ¶

This is the trend of 'moderation' regarding the nullifiers of the covenant. ¶

There is a perspective that seeks to restrict these 'nawaqid' (nullifiers of the covenant), represented by the position in Hanafi Fiqh. Al-Kasani stated in Bada'i al-Sana'i: 'As for the nature of the contract (the dhimma covenant), it is binding upon us, such that the Muslims do not have the right to break it under any circumstances. However, regarding them, it is not binding; rather, it is susceptible to nullification, but it is only nullified in one of three cases: First: The dhimmi accepts Islam, as it has been established that the dhimma contract was a means towards Islam, and that purpose has been achieved. Second: He flees to Dar al-Harb, because by fleeing to the Abode of War, he attains the status of an apostate. Third: They overpower a location and wage war, because once they act in this manner, they become people of war (ahl al-harb), and the covenant is necessarily nullified. If a dhimmi refuses to pay the jizya, his covenant is not nullified. Similarly, if he insults the Prophet (peace be upon him), his covenant is not nullified, because this is an addition of disbelief upon disbelief, and since the contract remains with the state of disbelief, it remains with the addition. Likewise, if he kills a Muslim or commits adultery with a Muslim woman, these are sins they have committed, and they are less severe in ugliness and prohibition than disbelief. If the dhimma remains despite disbelief, it is all the more reason for it to remain despite sin. And Allah knows best.' This is what is stated in Islamic jurisprudence regarding the matters that lead to the nullification of the dhimma covenant. It is not our intention in this research to weigh these perspectives or adopt one over the others. Rather, the purpose is: if the dhimma covenant is nullified—according to whichever perspective the Islamic state adopts regarding these nullifiers—does this nullification justify launching a war against them? This is the intent, and this is also the subject of the second point, which is: - What are the consequences of violating the covenant? The answer to this question varies according to the specific violations committed that lead to the breach of the covenant. - Sometimes, the breach of the covenant occurs because the people of dhimma take up arms against the Muslims. ¶

The violation of a covenant may also occur for other reasons. As for the violation of a covenant due to bearing arms against Muslims—with the intention of subjugation—the ruling is: these individuals bearing arms are considered 'harbi' (belligerent enemies) who must be countered with combat, just as we counter belligerent enemies if they attack the Muslims. ¶

It is stated in al-Minhaj by al-Nawawi: "Whoever violates their covenant through combat, it is permissible to repel and kill them." ¶

In Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj, there is a note regarding the above statement: "Warning: The use of the term 'permissibility' might imply that it is not obligatory, but this is not the intended meaning; rather, it is obligatory. For it has been established that when a group of the people of war (ahl al-harb) enters the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), jihad becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), and there is no difference between them and those who previously held a covenant (dhimmah) which was then broken. The wording in al-Rawdah (a book by al-Nawawi) states: 'It is inevitable to repel them and strive to eradicate them.'"(1) ¶

Furthermore, the bearing of arms by the people of the covenant (ahl al-dhimmah) against Muslims occurs in several situations where the ruling varies accordingly, as follows: 1 - The people of the covenant may bear arms against Muslims by joining the 'ahl al-baghy' (rebels) who have risen against the Islamic authority. Regarding the ruling of this case, it is stated in al-Minhaj by al-Nawawi: "If the people of the covenant aid them (i.e., the rebels) while knowing the prohibition of fighting us, their covenant is void. If they were coerced, it is not. The same applies if they say: 'We thought it was permissible,' or 'We believed they (the rebels) were in the right.' According to the accepted school of thought, they are fought just like the rebels (without their covenant being fully voided)."(2) ¶

Meaning: The participation of the people of the covenant with Muslim rebels in bearing arms against the just Muslim authorities is considered a violation of the covenant, and they are fought as belligerents (harbis), except in specific cases where they are treated as Muslim rebels—meaning the fighting is for disciplinary purposes rather than the total warfare waged against belligerents. These cases include: A- If the Muslim rebels coerced the people of the covenant to participate with them in the fighting. ¶

(1) Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj by al-Shirbini: 4/259. (2) Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj by al-Shirbini: 4/128-129. ¶

b- If the dhimmi (protected non-Muslims) who are fighting alongside the Muslim rebels believe that fighting with them is permissible under Islamic law, and not forbidden. c- If the dhimmi who are fighting alongside the Muslim rebels believe that the truth lies with the rebels who have revolted against the authority. Furthermore, in 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir' by al-Dardir, there is another scenario regarding the participation of dhimmis in fighting alongside rebels, which does not constitute a breach of their covenant, namely: - If the Imam against whom the rebels have revolted is not just due to wickedness (fisq) or oppression(1), even though the revolt of rebels against such an Imam is not religiously permissible, as previously discussed in an earlier section; rather, the duty of the Muslims regarding him is to object through exhortation, not through rebellion. This pertains to the first category of scenarios where dhimmis bear arms against Muslims: their participation in fighting alongside the rebels. 2- Sometimes, dhimmis may take the initiative to bear arms against Muslim rebels in support of the Islamic authority; in this case, their covenant is not broken by this fighting. It is stated in 'Al-Minhaj' by al-Nawawi: 'If the dhimmis fight the rebels, their covenant is not broken, according to the more correct opinion, because they fought those whom the Imam is obliged to fight'(2). 3- Sometimes, dhimmis may bear arms against Muslims in the act of highway robbery (qata' al-tariq). The majority of jurists do not consider this a breach of the covenant. Rather, they apply the same ruling to them for this crime as they do to Muslims(3). 4- Sometimes, dhimmis may bear arms against Muslims independently; that is, neither by participating with the rebels nor with the people of war (ahl al-harb). In this case, their covenant is broken, and they are fought as combatants (ahl al-harb) according to the majority of jurists(4). ¶

However, it is mentioned in the Maliki school of thought that if they (Ahl al-Dhimmah) rise up—meaning they take up arms—due to an injustice inflicted upon them, this does not constitute a breach of their covenant. It is stated in the book 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyyah': 'If they rise up without injustice or violence, they may be enslaved. If they rise up due to injustice or violence, they shall not be enslaved.' ¶

This mention of enslavement here is not intended solely to cover the specific penalties for breach of covenant according to the Malikis, which are: execution, release as a favor (mann), ransom, enslavement, or the renewal of the dhimma contract. Rather, the mention of enslavement is to indicate that they are considered to have breached their covenant if they rise up without any injustice having been committed against them, and are not considered to have breached it if they rise up due to an injustice inflicted upon them, as understood from Al-Dardir’s 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir'. ¶

5. Sometimes, Ahl al-Dhimmah may take up arms against the Muslims in alliance with the belligerents (Ahl al-Harb). In this case, their covenant is broken, and they are fought just as the belligerents are fought. ¶

In any case, when the fighting carried out by Ahl al-Dhimmah against the Muslims is of a type that breaches their covenant, and the Muslims fight them in a state of war, and some are killed in the ensuing battles, and then the Muslims capture those who remain... what is the ruling concerning these survivors? ¶

Ibn Qudamah states in 'Al-Mughni': 'Regarding whoever we have judged to have broken their covenant, the Imam is given a choice between four things: execution, enslavement, ransom, or release as a favor (mann)—just like a prisoner of war, because he is an infidel whom we have seized in our domain without a covenant or contract, and there is no ambiguity in this; thus, he is akin to a belligerent bandit.' ¶

In the Maliki school of jurisprudence, there is a fifth option added to the previous four: imposing the jizya upon him. That is, renewing the dhimma contract for him and collecting the jizya resulting from that. ¶

Furthermore, any situation in which they refuse [to comply] is also considered a breach of covenant for this same reason, i.e., the reason of combat. ¶

Included in this are the People of the Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects) refusing to submit to Islamic governance. It is stated in Al-Mughni: 'In every instance where we have said that one’s covenant is not broken (i.e., the Dhimmi), if they commit an act for which there is a prescribed penalty (Hadd), that penalty or retaliation (Qisas) shall be applied to them. If the act does not warrant a Hadd, they shall be given a discretionary punishment (Ta'zir), and action shall be taken against them that would deter others like them from doing the same. If any of them intends to commit such an act, they shall be restrained. If they resist with fighting, their covenant is broken.' ¶

All of the above concerns cases where the breach of covenant is due to the People of the Dhimmah fighting against the Muslims. As for when the breach of covenant is due to a reason other than fighting, there are two opinions on this issue: ¶

1. An opinion which states that the Imam is given a choice between four courses of action regarding them, as is mentioned regarding breach of covenant due to fighting. ¶

2. Another opinion which calls for their expulsion from the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam). In Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah by Al-Mawardi, it is written: 'When the People of the Dhimmah break their covenant, it does not make permissible their killing, the seizure of their wealth, or the taking of their progeny as captives as long as they do not fight. It becomes mandatory to expel them from the lands of the Muslims, in safety, until they reach their place of refuge in the nearest land of polytheism. If they do not leave willingly, they are to be expelled by force.' ¶

In modern terminology, this means: revoking their citizenship, subject status, or nationality, and deporting them to the nearest non-Islamic state that will accept them. ¶

This is what we have seen as necessary to state regarding this second point of this issue: What are the consequences of breaching the covenant? ¶

The third point in this issue is: Does the breach of covenant apply only to the one who actually committed the act of breach, or does its ruling extend to others? ¶

The answer is that the fundamental principle is that the ruling of the breach applies only to the one who broke the covenant. Therefore, whoever participates with the belligerents (ahl al-harb) in fighting against the Muslims is considered alone to be the one who has broken the dhimmah, and not their family members. ¶

their clan. If a group from the Ahl al-Dhimmah breaks the staff of obedience and takes up arms against the Islamic authority, the ruling of this violation applies to them alone, not to their families or clans. Yes, if there are others among the Ahl al-Dhimmah who express approval of what their combatant brethren have done, the ruling of violating the covenant applies to everyone who approves of this rebellion and disobedience. It is stated in Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah by al-Farra: “If the Ahl al-Dhimmah and those under covenant openly fight the Muslims, they are considered in a state of war, and their combatants shall be killed.” In the margin of this book, it is stated: “Al-Mawardi said: The status of those other than the combatants is determined by their approval or disapproval.” (1) That is, if those other than the combatants approve of the breach of covenant, they are joined with the combatants in their ruling. If they denounce the combatants for what they have done, those who did not participate in the fighting retain the status of Ahl al-Dhimmah. It is stated in Al-Sayl al-Jarrar by al-Shawkani: “Their covenant is broken by the violation of all of them, or some of them, if the rest do not disassociate from them in word and deed... This violation of their covenant, if it is by all of them, the matter is clear. But if it is by some of them, there is nothing upon the others except to disassociate from them... If they do not do so, mere association is not a breach of the covenant of those who did not violate it, unless there appears from them approval of that violation and agreement with the violators.” (2) All of this applies to adult men who violate the covenant. As for the wives and children of the violators, al-Nawawi favored the view that the nullification of protection for men does not extend to women and offspring. He says in Al-Minhaj: “If the safety of the men is nullified, the safety of their women and children is not nullified according to the most correct opinion.” (3) Furthermore, two points remain in our subject of discussion regarding the status of the Ahl al-Dhimmah in this era we live in, i.e., after the decline of the Islamic State, and they are: 1. What is the ruling on the Ahl al-Dhimmah in our current era? ¶

2 - What is the ruling regarding the departure of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected people) today from the conditions of the dhimma pact that were imposed upon their predecessors? Does their pact become void with this departure or not? Regarding the first point: What is the status of the Ahl al-Dhimma in the era we live in today, after the disappearance of the Islamic state? The answer is: They still maintain their status as Ahl al-Dhimma, even if the Islamic state has ceased to exist and there is no longer an Imam for the Muslims. This is because the dhimma contract concluded with their predecessors is a perpetual contract that applies to them and their descendants, for as long as any dhimma status remains among them, no matter how much time passes. It is stated in Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya by Al-Mawardi: "When the Imam exercises his ijtihad to conclude a jizya contract with them based on the consent of their leaders, it becomes binding upon all of them, and upon their descendants, generation after generation"(1). The term 'jizya contract' refers to the 'dhimma contract'. Imam al-Shafi’i used the expression 'jizya contract' to mean 'dhimma contract' in many instances in his book, 'Al-Umm'(2). It has already been mentioned in Ibn al-Qayyim's definition of the Ahl al-Dhimma that: "These people have a perpetual dhimma"(3). It is self-evident that whoever concludes the dhimma is not eternal in this life, whether it be the Imam or his deputy from the Muslim side, or the leaders from the non-Muslim side. Therefore, the meaning of the perpetuity of the dhimma for the Ahl al-Dhimma is the continuity of the dhimma for those who were present at the time the dhimma was concluded, and for their descendants who come after them. Accordingly, the non-Muslim citizens in Islamic countries today are the descendants of those for whom the Imam of the Muslims or his deputy concluded the dhimma pact. As long as the dhimma contract is a perpetual one, the implication is that these descendants, today, in the era of the dissolution of the Islamic state and the absence of an Imam, continue to enjoy the status of Ahl al-Dhimma and the rulings pertaining to them, just as the situation was for their fathers during the time of the Islamic state and the presence of an Imam. This is what relates to the first point concerning the status of the Ahl al-Dhimma today. ¶

As for the second point: What is the ruling concerning the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim subjects) of today departing from the conditions stipulated upon their predecessors in the past? Does their breaking these conditions nullify their covenant, or not? Before answering this question, it is necessary to recall that the consequences resulting from some hasty answers lead to dangerous complications. These cause problems for the Muslims that they are not currently prepared to face, due to the inherent potential for these situations to explode and transcend the local sphere to the international arena. I state that the potential dangers resulting from some hasty answers impose upon those who issue Shariah rulings concerning the Ahl al-Dhimmah today—even regarding those who have taken up arms against Muslims—the duty to think long and hard about the current reality, and to think long and hard about the texts that relate to the current reality, and to what extent these texts apply to the situation we are suffering from. Only after that should a fatwa be issued and a judgment passed. ¶

The reason for the stern warning against the danger of rushing to issue Shariah rulings in the matter we are addressing is that it concerns blood, honor, and wealth that Allah has rendered inviolable through the 'dhimmah' contract (covenant of protection). Any answer that advocates for making them permissible under the claim of breach of covenant—without a strong Shariah basis that cancels that inviolability—is an act of boldness against the religion of Allah. As it is reported from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said: 'The boldest of you in issuing fatwas is the boldest of you for the Fire.' This is in addition to the dangerous consequences resulting from such a declaration of permissibility, as previously indicated. Therefore, we approach the answer to the question under consideration with extreme caution and a great sense of responsibility. Let us place before our answer the Shariah texts and the statements of the jurists derived from the Shariah evidence that govern the issue we have put on the table for discussion. Allah the Almighty says: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what...' ¶