Chapter 73

Following this, the book mentions that the statement of a Christian or a Jew saying 'I am a Muslim' or 'I have embraced Islam' is not proof of their entry into Islam. This is because 'Islam' in its general linguistic sense means 'submission' (inqiyad), and both the Christian and the Jew claim to be 'Muslim' (submitted) to the truth they believe in. The text then states: 'However, if a Magian (Zoroastrian) says: 'I have embraced Islam,' or 'I am a Muslim,' he is judged to be a Muslim, because they do not claim this attribute for themselves. In fact, they consider it an insult among themselves, to the point that one might insult his son with it. Thus, it serves as evidence of his Islam.' This is what is stated in 'Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir'. ¶

Accordingly, what is relevant to our research here from this issue is that a clear declaration by the people of war (ahl al-harb) of their entry into Islam ends the war with them. If there is any ambiguity as to whether what they announced is sufficient to consider them Muslims, then, in such a case, one should cease fighting and clarify the matter. If what they announced brings them into the fold of Islam, then that is sufficient. Otherwise, the path to entering the fold of the Muslims should be explained to them; if they respond, that is the objective. If not, then war with them remains legitimate. ¶

Now, we move on to the next issue. Second Issue: Encouraging the people of war to enter Islam and refraining from fighting. The Prophet ﷺ adopted several methods to encourage the people of war to enter Islam, which naturally leads to the sparing of blood and the halting of the machinery of war. ¶

Among the methods the Prophet ﷺ pursued to achieve this was his pledge to keep the leaders of the warring territories in power if they embraced Islam and declared their allegiance to the Islamic State. This is evident in some of the letters of the Prophet ﷺ to kings and leaders regarding this matter, such as his letter to the King of Oman, 'Jayfar', and his brother, 'Abd', the text of which is as follows: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...' ¶

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaifar and Abd, the sons of Al-Julanda: Peace be upon those who follow guidance. Furthermore, I invite you to the call of Islam. Accept Islam and you shall be safe; for I am the Messenger of Allah to all mankind, to warn those who are alive, and that the word may be justified against the disbelievers. If you acknowledge Islam, I shall keep you in authority; but if you refuse to acknowledge Islam, your kingdom shall vanish from you, my cavalry shall encamp in your territory, and my prophethood shall prevail over your kingdom. ¶

It is also mentioned in the letter that the Prophet (PBUH) sent to the ruler of Al-Yamama, 'Hawdha bin Ali', the text of which is: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hawdha bin Ali: Peace be upon those who follow guidance. Know that my religion shall reach as far as the camel and the horse travel. Therefore, accept Islam and you shall be safe, and I shall leave under your control what is currently in your hands.' ¶

- Among the methods the Prophet (PBUH) utilized to incline those at war toward entering Islam was his commitment to preserving the status of those among them who possessed special abilities and talents, giving them precedence over others in matters where they excelled, and making them understand that Islam elevates their status and grants them the position they deserve. This was exemplified in the Prophet's (PBUH) efforts to attract Khalid bin Al-Walid to enter Islam. ¶

Some books of Seerah narrate from Khalid bin Al-Walid that he said: 'When the Prophet (PBUH) came for the 'Umrat al-Qadiyyah, I stayed away and was not present for his entry. My brother, Al-Walid bin Al-Walid, entered with him (PBUH). He looked for me but did not find me, so he wrote a letter to me, which stated: "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Furthermore, I have seen nothing more astonishing than your turning away from Islam and the deficiency of your intellect! How could anyone be ignorant of Islam? The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) asked me about you, saying: Where is Khalid? I replied: Allah will bring him! He then said: A man like him cannot be ignorant of Islam. Had he directed his prowess with the Muslims against the polytheists, it would have been better for him, and we would have given him precedence over others! Therefore, rectify this..."' ¶

O brother! What you have missed, you have missed virtuous stations. Khalid (RA) says: When his letter reached me, I became eager to depart, and it increased my desire for Islam, and the words of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gladdened me. ¶

- Then Khalid (RA) recounts the story of his migration to Medina and his declaration of Islam before the Prophet (ﷺ). He says: I said: I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. He (ﷺ) replied: Praise be to Allah who has guided you; I used to see in you an intellect that I hoped would lead you only to good! The biographer says: From the time Khalid (RA) embraced Islam, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) consistently entrusted him with the command of the cavalry, and he would always be at their forefront. ¶

- Furthermore, among the methods the Prophet (ﷺ) employed to incline the people of war toward Islam was the generous giving of wealth when it served as a means for them to declare their joining of this religion. ¶

It is stated in Sahih Muslim: On the authority of Anas (RA), who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was never asked for anything for the sake of Islam but he gave it! A man came to him, and he gave him a flock of sheep occupying the space between two mountains. He returned to his people and said: 'O my people! Embrace Islam! For Muhammad (ﷺ) gives with a generosity that fears no poverty!' Anas added: A man would embrace Islam desiring nothing but the world! Yet, he would not remain in Islam until it became more beloved to him than the world and everything in it. ¶

Also in Sahih Muslim: On the authority of Ibn Shihab, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) fought the Battle of the Conquest, the conquest of Mecca, then he departed with the Muslims who were with him, and they fought at Hunayn, where Allah granted victory to His religion and the Muslims. On that day, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gave Safwan bin Umayya one hundred camels! Then one hundred! Then one hundred! Ibn Shihab said: Sa'id bin al-Musayyib told me that Safwan said: 'By Allah! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gave me what he gave me, and at that time, he was the most detested of all people to me! But he continued to give to me until he became the most beloved of all people to me.' ¶

In this context, it is noted that the Prophet (peace be upon him) employed this method with the leaders of warring lands to encourage them toward Islam and to remove from their minds the idea of fighting against the Muslims. This is what he did with the leader of the polytheists in the Battle of Hawazin, Malik bin Awf, after the defeat of the disbelievers, when this leader fled to Taif and fortified himself there, followed by the arrival of the Hawazin delegation announcing their conversion to Islam. ¶

In the Sirah of Ibn Hisham, it is stated in this regard: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked the Hawazin delegation about Malik bin Awf, asking what he had done. They replied: 'He is in Taif with the Thaqif.' The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then said: 'Inform Malik that if he comes to me as a Muslim, I will return his family and property to him, and I will give him one hundred camels!' The message reached Malik, and he departed from Taif at night, fearing that the Thaqif would learn of what the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had said to him and detain him. He reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), who returned his family and property and gave him one hundred camels. He embraced Islam, and his Islam was sincere. Upon becoming a Muslim, Malik bin Awf remarked: 'I have never seen, nor heard of, anyone like Muhammad among all people!'" ¶

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then appointed him as a leader over those from his tribe who had embraced Islam—specifically the tribes of Thumala, Salama, and Fahm—and he would fight the Thaqif alongside them. ¶

Furthermore, in order to encourage people to enter Islam, which would lead to the cessation of fighting and the end of the state of war with them, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would accept from the people of war certain conditions for their conversion if they viewed those conditions as a guarantee for their interests. These matters related to the administration of their affairs and the region in which they lived—matters which, in Islam, are left to the discretion and ijtihad (legal reasoning) of the ruler, without being bound to a specific form of administration. However, in cases where the conversion of the people of war depended on accepting such conditions, the Prophet (peace be upon him)—out of his desire for their Islam and the cessation of combat—would accept these conditions as long as they fell within the realm of permissible acts and caused no harm, just as was the case with the conditions of the people of Thaqif. ¶

The people of Ta'if requested that for them to enter into Islam, the leader (Amir) appointed over them must be a man from their own tribe, not from another tribe... among other conditions they enumerated. Regarding this, the document written by the Prophet (PBUH) to the tribe of Thaqif states: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a document from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) to Thaqif... they are a part of the Muslims, and they may enter among the Muslims wherever they wish... The Messenger shall support them against those who oppress them, and the believers shall not enter upon them against their will. Their markets and sales shall be conducted in the courtyards of their homes, and no one shall be appointed over them except from among their own people... etc.' Commenting on this document and the conditions therein, Imam Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam says: 'It contains the fact that he (the Prophet) granted them specific conditions upon their conversion to Islam that were for them exclusively, not for others. Examples include: declaring their valley a sanctuary, not pardoning their wayfarers, prohibiting any outsider from entering who might dominate them, and stipulating that only one of their own may lead them. This confirms what I have told you: that the Imam acts as the guardian of Islam and its people. If he fears the dominance of an enemy and cannot repel them except by offering something to turn them away, he may do so, just as the Prophet (PBUH) acted toward the Confederates (al-Ahzab) on the day of the Trench. Similarly, if they refuse to embrace Islam unless he grants them certain terms, and there is honor for Islam in their conversion—and he fears their mischief and strength—he may grant them that to reconcile their hearts (ta'lif al-qulub), just as the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did, until they develop a desire for Islam and their intentions improve. Such concessions are only permissible provided they do not involve violating the Qur'an or the Sunnah. This is evidenced by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did not legalize usury for them in what he granted them; do you not see that he stipulated they would only receive their principal capital (ras al-mal)? ¶

Its origin lies in the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era). Thus, if its inception occurs within Islam, it is even more strictly prohibited and even less permissible. It is narrated in some traditions that they (the delegation of Taif) had previously asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to accept their conversion on the condition of legalizing adultery, usury, and alcohol! He refused this, and they returned to their lands, only to return later desiring Islam, upon which he wrote this treaty for them (1). ¶

I say: It appears from the conditions the Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted and those he rejected during the negotiations with the delegation of Taif regarding their entry into Islam, that the conditions which are permissible to accept and commit to—if the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) embrace Islam based upon them—are those that pertain to what is termed today as 'administrative regulations' and the like. These are matters that should, for the most part, be left outside of administrative centralization. That is, their management should be left to the local administration in each province (wilayah) of the state, without the state imposing specific requirements on them in these matters. Examples include the prohibition of hunting or cutting down trees (2) in certain regions to preserve the climate and natural environment, as well as determining building standards, regulating working hours, transportation affairs, and the forms of dress worn by the people of each province, and similar matters that fall under administrative affairs, provided they remain within the framework of what is lawful (mashru'). ¶

As for the conditions that relate to the system of governance (nizam al-hukm), in which no one has a choice—and which do not fall under the category of regulating permissible (mubah) matters—it is not permissible to accept any of them if they contradict this system. Furthermore, it is not permissible to be lenient in agreeing to them out of greed to see the people of war enter Islam, to annex their lands to the Islamic state on that basis, and to cease fighting with them as a consequence. ¶

Thus, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not accept from the people of Taif that they enter Islam on the condition that they or their city have a special law allowing the freedom to deal in usury, or the legalization of adultery, or the consumption of prohibited beverages, as previously indicated. ¶

To summarize this issue, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was keen to end the state of war with the disbelievers by bringing them into Islam and encouraging them toward it through all possible, permissible means. ¶

Now let us move to the final issue in this chapter. The Third Issue: The effect of the acceptance of Islam by the Ahl al-Harb (people of war) on the preservation of their blood and other consequences in a general overview. ¶

The announcement by the people of war of their entry into Islam occurs by responding to the choice of Islam from among the three options offered to them by the Islamic State. These are: Islam, Jizya, or war, as previously detailed. ¶

- This response to Islam may occur at the outset, as soon as the three options are presented to the warring countries, without any war breaking out between them and the Islamic army. ¶

- It is also possible for this response to occur after the leaders of the other countries have chosen the path of war. Then, during the fighting and before victory is firmly established for the Muslims and control is gained over the warring countries, the disbelievers may see it in their interest to accept the choice of Islam, thus announcing their Islam and their joining the Islamic State. ¶

- It is also possible for this response to occur after the Islamic army has laid siege to the warring countries for a period that may be long or short. The leaders of the combatants may then see fit, after that siege, to announce their entry into Islam and their joining the Islamic State to break the siege imposed upon their countries. In all these cases where the people of war announce their Islam, fighting must cease if there is any, and the siege must be lifted if there is one. Similarly, the state of war must be annulled if there is neither fighting nor a siege. ¶

The most important consequences resulting from the conversion of combatants to Islam in this situation—which concerns us in our study—is the preservation of their blood and the immunity of their honor and wealth. This is the same status as the blood, honor, and wealth of Muslims, because they have effectively become part of the Muslims. Therefore, it is not permissible to subject them to any harm, just as it is not permissible to subject any Muslim to harm, in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): 'The blood, wealth, and honor of a Muslim are sacred to another Muslim.' ¶

This, and the preceding Hadiths contain clear texts regarding this sanctity (isma) and inviolability (hurmah). ¶

Among this is what is narrated in Sunan Abu Dawud, which illustrates the impact of Islam on the sanctity of blood and wealth and their inviolability. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Ali (ibn Sahl) and Ibn al-Musaffa said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent us on a military expedition (sariyah). When we reached the valley (al-mughar), I spurred my horse and outpaced my companions. The tribe met me with loud cries. I said to them: Say 'La ilaha illa Allah' and you will be protected! They said it. My companions blamed me and said: You have deprived us of the spoils of war! When we came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), they told him what I had done. He called me and commended my action! He said: Know that Allah has recorded for you such and such reward for every one of them. Abd al-Rahman (ibn Hassan) said: I forgot the amount of the reward.' ¶

Here, I hasten to state that one should not understand from the above story that the dominant spirit driving Muslims to jihad was the pursuit of spoils, as the blame from those who criticized the noble companion might suggest. This should not be misunderstood because the factor that renews the spirit driving towards jihad is the leadership. This leadership expressed its pleasure with the action of that noble and chivalrous companion and praised his guidance to the people of the hostile territory toward the path by which they could protect their blood, wealth, and honor. ¶

As for the regret of those among the fighters who mourned the loss of the spoils, it may have been due to their belief that this Islam was merely to protect the people of the hostile land from killing and their wealth from being plundered, rather than being out of sincere conviction and firm faith, as it outwardly appeared. Hence, this... ¶

The regret over the loss of booty is for something they are not certain is a genuine entry into Islam. ¶

Furthermore, even if the aforementioned regret means that some fighters—few or many—were greedy for booty and missed it because of the people’s conversion to Islam—I say: even if such regret implies this, it is a matter that might occur. In such a case, those who possess this desire for material gain and prioritize it over the Islam of the belligerents—even if that Islam is only apparent at first—are in need of further training and guidance to develop their Islamic psyche in the required manner. Evidence for this is the saying of Allah (SWT): "...and do not say to anyone who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the fleeting gains of this worldly life..." (Surah An-Nisa: 94). ¶

Al-Tabari says regarding this verse: "Do not say to those who surrender to you, refrain from fighting you, and manifest to you your own creed and call, 'You are not a believer,' in order to kill them for the sake of the gains of worldly life." ¶

Al-Zamakhshari also says regarding this verse: "Do not say that this declaration—meaning, his proclamation of the word of Islam: 'La ilaha illa Allah'—is merely to avoid being killed, not out of sincerity of heart, so that you do not make it a pretext for rendering his blood and wealth lawful, which Allah has forbidden." ¶

Ibn Hajar stated: "The verse is evidence that whoever displays any of the signs of Islam, his blood is not lawful until his status is examined; for 'Salam' (the greeting of peace) is the greeting of Muslims, whereas their greeting during the Pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) was different." ¶

I say: This verse indicates that some Muslims in war—as mentioned in the account of its revelation—may act impulsively and kill those from among the disbelievers who have declared their Islam, or those who have manifested signs indicating their entry into Islam, at the moment when weapons are raised against them and they fear being killed. ¶

Some Muslims might be tempted to kill such a person out of greed for his wealth, and this is exactly what the verse warns against. ¶

In summary, our position on this matter is that when people of war (ahl al-harb) declare their Islam, or provide evidence of their acceptance of it, the necessary consequence is the immediate termination of the state of war with them. Their blood, wealth, and honor become inviolable, and they are to be treated like other Muslims, with the same rights and obligations. This implies their transition into Islamic citizenship (ra'awiyyah) and the incorporation of their lands into the Islamic State. Consequently, this necessitates governing them by Islam and abolishing any systems or legislations that contradict the Islamic order. ¶

It is narrated in Sunan al-Tirmidhi: 'Abu al-Bukhtari reported that a Muslim army, commanded by Salman al-Farisi, besieged a fortress in Persia. They asked: "O Abu Abdullah, shall we assault them?" He replied: "Leave me to invite them as I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) invite them." Salman approached them and said: "I am a Persian man like you. You see that the Arabs obey me! If you embrace Islam, you will have the same rights as we do and the same obligations as we have. If you refuse and insist on your religion, we will leave you to it, provided you pay the jizyah willingly with your hands while you are in a state of submission (saghiran)..."' ¶

It is not our purpose in this discourse on Jihad to detail all the consequences resulting from the declaration of Islam by the people of war, as our primary concern here is the fact that Islam acts as a cause for ending the war with the disbelievers. We have merely pointed out the most significant effects of their conversion, which serve as proof that the state of war with them has ended. ¶

With this, we conclude this issue and the end of this chapter. We now proceed, with the help of Allah, to a new chapter. ¶

Chapter Two: Payment of Jizya and the Submission of Non-Muslims from the People of War to the Rulings of Islam. The matter that concerns us in this chapter is that the payment of Jizya by the people of war (ahl al-harb) and their commitment to submit to Islamic rule is considered one of the causes for cessation of hostilities in Islam. Therefore, the issues we address in this chapter are viewed specifically from this angle: the angle of cessation of hostilities upon the conclusion of a dhimma contract with the people of war. This requires them to pay the Jizya and submit to the rulings of Islam, which implies their integration into the Islamic subjects and their acquisition of the citizenship or nationality of the Islamic State. ¶

It should be noted that we will not delve into many issues related to the study of Jizya in this chapter, because doing so would require an independent thesis on one hand, and it would divert us from the purpose for which this chapter was written on the other, which is to highlight one of the reasons for the cessation of hostilities in Islam. ¶

Yes, our subject matter may necessitate addressing a number of issues related to the study of Jizya, given their importance in clarifying this cause for the cessation of hostilities in Islam, such as: With whom among the people of war is it permissible to cease hostilities, and with whom is it not, if they offer the Jizya and announce their acceptance of the dhimma contract? What are the conditions for the obligation of Jizya? And what can take its place? ¶

Accordingly, the issues that this chapter will address are: ¶

Issue One: What is meant by Jizyah? And what are the Shariah evidences for the obligation to cease fighting against the people of war (ahl al-harb) if they offer Jizyah and the covenant of protection (aqd al-dhimmah) is concluded for them? Issue Two: Who among the people of war is accepted to pay Jizyah and enter into the protection (dhimmah) of the Muslims? Issue Three: The conditions for the obligation of Jizyah. Issue Four: The alternative to Jizyah. ¶

Issue One: What is meant by Jizyah? And what are the Shariah evidences for the obligation to cease fighting against the people of war if they offer Jizyah and the covenant of protection is concluded for them? First: What is meant by Jizyah? It is stated in Mukhtar al-Sihah: 'Jizyah: That which is taken from the people of dhimmah. Its plural is jiza, like lihyah (beard) and liha.' (1). It is stated in al-Mughni: 'It is the assessment (wazifah) taken from the disbeliever for his residence in the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) every year.' (3). Furthermore, the term Jizyah is applied to the covenant of protection (aqd al-dhimmah) as well, just as it is applied to the tax (daribah) (4), or the wealth that the people of dhimmah are committed to paying to the Islamic State every year. It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj, while defining the term Jizyah: 'It applies to the contract itself, and to the wealth committed to.' (5). Just as Imam al-Nawawi explained in al-Minhaj - how the Imam of the Muslims conducts [it]... ¶

Whoever acts as a deputy for the ruler regarding the dhimma contract or the jizya contract with the people of war (ahl al-harb), states the following text: 'The form of its contract is: I permit you to remain in the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), or I grant you leave to reside therein, provided that you pay the jizya and submit to the laws of Islam.' (1) ¶

This is a brief summary regarding the intended meaning of the term (jizya). It is hoped that this glimpse of definition suffices for what is necessary here, and there is no need to expand the discussion further than what we have mentioned. ¶

Secondly: The legal evidences for the obligation to cease combat against the people of war if they offer the jizya and the dhimma contract is concluded for them. The basis for the obligation to cease combat against the people of war once they agree to pay the jizya and accept the laws of Islam is the saying of the Almighty: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor do they forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor do they embrace the religion of truth, from those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the jizya with a willing hand, while they are in a state of submission.' (2) ¶

This verse stipulates that the threshold at which combat against the disbelievers must cease is their payment of the jizya and their commitment to 'soghar' (submission/humility). This means: submission to the rule of Islam, in matters other than those they are permitted to retain, such as acts of worship, foods, drinks, attire, marriage affairs, and the like. ¶

It is stated in Tafsir al-Qurtubi: 'A goal (ghayah) has been set for combat, which is the payment of jizya in lieu of killing.' (1) Ibn Qudamah says: 'The payment of jizya has been set as the goal for fighting them; thus, when they offer it, fighting them is no longer permissible.' (2) Furthermore, among the Shariah-based proofs relevant to our subject is what is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari—that al-Mughira ibn Shu’bah said to the governor of Kisra before the Battle of Nahavand (3) in the land of Persia, the text of which is: 'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord (ﷺ), commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah alone or pay the jizya. Our Prophet informed us from the message of our Lord that whoever among us is killed will go to Paradise to enjoy delights the likes of which he has never seen, and whoever among us remains will become the master of your necks.' (4) ¶

This hadith explicitly dictates the command to fight the disbelievers until they arrive at one of two outcomes: either worship of Allah alone—that is, entering Islam—or paying the jizya. This signifies that it is mandatory to cease fighting and terminate the state of war with the disbelievers if they respond with the jizya while refusing to enter Islam. The 'jizya' intended here is the jizya obligated upon the ahl al-dhimma (protected subjects) who submit to Islamic rule and become part of the Islamic citizenry. It does not refer to the tribute paid by the ahl al-harb (people of war) based on a muwaada'a (non-aggression pact). That is to say, an external peace treaty with them that necessitates stopping the fighting against them while they remain independent in their lands, not subject to Islamic rule. This is in accordance with what Ibn Hajar established: 'Jizya is with the ahl al-dhimma, and muwaada'a is with the ahl al-harb.' (5) ¶

Moreover, among the Shariah-based evidence that the acceptance of paying jizya by the ahl al-harb is a cause for ceasing combat and ending the state of war with them is the hadith of Buraydah in Sahih Muslim. It concerns the Prophet’s (ﷺ) will to the commander of every army or expedition, directing him regarding the rules of engagement when fighting the ahl al-harb, the demands he must present to them before launching the war, and the necessity of abstaining from fighting them if they comply with those demands. ¶

It is stated in this hadith: 'If they refuse [- i.e., to enter into Islam -] then demand the jizya from them'(1). 'If they respond to you (i.e., agree), then accept it from them, and refrain from them'(2). This hadith is an explicit textual evidence (nass) regarding the obligation to refrain from fighting the harbis (those at war with Muslims) if they agree to commit to paying the jizya. This entails their entering into dhimma (protection) and accepting Islamic governance, as previously discussed regarding the verse of jizya. Based on these evidences from the aforementioned Shariah texts, the rulings of the jurists (fuqaha) affirm the obligation to end hostilities with the disbelievers if they respond by agreeing to pay the jizya. The author of 'al-Muhadhdhab' says: 'A dhimma contract is only valid if performed by the Imam, or by one whom the Imam has authorized; because it is among the major public interests (masalih), thus it belongs to the Imam. Whoever requests a dhimma contract, and is among those permitted to be maintained in their state of disbelief in exchange for jizya—the contract is mandatory for them'(3). Imam al-Nawawi excludes from this obligation certain situations where there is fear of harm to the Muslims resulting from the jizya or dhimma contract, stating: 'Except for a spy whom we fear'(4). Ibn Qudamah says: 'If they offer the jizya, it is binding to accept it, and it is haram (forbidden) to fight them'(5). It is worth noting here that the acceptance of the option of jizya or the dhimma contract by the people of war may occur before the Islamic state deploys its forces to confront them; meaning, this acceptance may occur simply upon the offer. ¶

They have three options before them, and they may incline toward the option of jizya from the beginning. It is also possible that their willingness to pay jizya occurs after war has broken out with them, but before their total defeat and before victory is firmly established for the Muslims; they may initiate the declaration of their acceptance of jizya and the covenant of protection (dhimma). It is also permissible for their response to pay jizya to occur after a siege has been imposed upon them for a period, whether long or short, in which case they see it as wise to submit to the ruling of jizya and enter into the dhimma in order to lift the siege from them and their lands. I say: In all these cases, the declaration by the people of war (ahl al-harb) of their consent to enter into the dhimma of the Muslims is considered one of the grounds for cessation of hostilities in Islam. With this, we conclude this issue and turn to the one that follows. Second Issue: Who are the people of war (ahl al-harb) from whom the payment of jizya may be accepted—meaning, with whom a dhimma covenant may be concluded and the state of war against them terminated as a result? The views of the jurists (fuqaha) regarding which of the disbelievers may be granted the dhimma covenant vary. We summarize the most important of these views as follows: 1. The Hanafi School: It is stated in 'Tuhfat al-Fuqaha': "Indeed, taking jizya and concluding the dhimma is legitimate regarding all disbelievers, except for the polytheists of the Arabs and the apostates (murtaddun), for jizya shall not be accepted from them"(1). 2. The School of Malik, Al-Awza'i, and the Jurists of the Levant (Sham): Al-Qurtubi says: "Al-Awza'i said: Jizya shall be taken from every worshiper of idols, fire, or any denier or rejecter, and this is also the school of Malik; for he held that jizya is to be taken from all categories of shirk (polytheism) and denial, whether Arab or non-Arab (Ajam), Taghlibi or Qurayshi, whoever they may be, except for the apostate"(2). ¶

3 - The Shafi'i School: Imam al-Nawawi defines for whom the dhimma (covenant of protection) may be contracted and from whom jizya (poll tax) may be accepted, stating: 'Al-Shafi'i said: It is not accepted except from the People of the Book and the Magians, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs.' ¶

4 - The Hanbali School: It is stated in Al-Mughni: 'Except for the Jews, Christians, and Magians, jizya is not accepted from others, nor are they maintained under it; only Islam is accepted from them. If they do not embrace Islam, they are to be fought. This is the apparent view of Ahmad’s school. It was also narrated from him (by Al-Hasan ibn Thawab) that it is accepted from all disbelievers except the idolaters of the Arabs.' ¶

This is a summary of what has been stated in the jurisprudence of the schools regarding those among the belligerent disbelievers for whom the dhimma may be contracted and from whom jizya may be taken, and those for whom it may not. ¶

Summarizing the above, while explaining how these jurisprudential opinions can be linked to the reality of non-Muslim groups in modern times, regardless of their ethnicities and beliefs, we state: - There is the opinion of the Hanafis and a narration from Imam Ahmad that for all disbelievers, it is permissible to contract the dhimma, except for the polytheists of the Arabs. By this, it is meant: everyone who belongs to the Arab race and does not follow Judaism, Christianity, or Magianism, because the Shariah texts specify these latter groups as permitted for the dhimma contract. ¶

Based on this view, in our current era, it is permissible for the Islamic state to contract the dhimma with non-Muslims from all non-Arab peoples, regardless of their religions and beliefs, even with communists and atheists. As for the Arabs who are not Muslims: if they are Jews, Christians, or Magians, the dhimma is contracted with them. But if they are otherwise—such as if they believe in communism or atheism, for example, or any ideas that contradict Islamic beliefs, even if they claim to be Muslims—then it is not (contracted). ¶

It is permissible to conclude a dhimma contract with them. Consequently, war against them remains legitimate. This is the first opinion. - The second opinion states: It is permissible to conclude a dhimma contract with all disbelievers, regardless of their religions and beliefs, such as Jews and Christians, and even those who subscribe to communism or atheism, and so on. Regardless of their lineage, whether they are Arabs or belong to other non-Arab nations and races. This is what is stated in the school of Malik, and it was also held by al-Awza'i and others. Therefore, in our present era, it is permissible for a state that adopts Islam to conclude a dhimma contract with non-Muslims from the dar al-harb (abode of war), regardless of their religion, even with those who believe in communism or atheism, even if they are of Arab descent. - The third opinion on this matter is the view of the Shafi'is and the apparent position of the school of Ahmad. - Its summary is: There is no room in the Islamic state for subjects from among non-Muslims except for those who follow heavenly religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, or those who have a resemblance to a heavenly religion, such as Magianism (Zoroastrianism); it is permissible to conclude a dhimma contract with these. As for others among those who follow different religions and beliefs, such as paganism, communism, or atheism, it is not permissible to conclude a dhimma contract with them, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs. Therefore, war remains legitimate against them. It is appropriate here to briefly present the Sharia texts upon which the previous opinions were based, then to prefer the opinion that seems to us more in line with the implications of those texts. ¶

First: Arguments for the previous opinions: - The argument that non-Muslims, if they are Arabs—and are neither Jews, Christians, nor Magians—must either accept Islam or face death is based, in terms of Sharia texts, on the words of the Almighty: "You will be called against a people of great military might; you shall fight them, or they will submit (to Islam)" (Surah Al-Fath: 16), based on the consideration that 'a people of great military might' refers to the Arabs among the polytheists and apostates, rather than... ¶

other than them. The verse has explicitly stated that they have two options: Islam or combat.(1) Thus, it is not permissible to enter into a contract of dhimma (protection) with them. ¶

Regarding this, Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani says: 'As for the polytheists of the Arabs, neither peace nor dhimma is accepted from them; rather, they are to be invited to Islam. If they accept Islam, they are left alone; otherwise, they are fought. Allah the Almighty says: {You will be called to a people of great might; you shall fight them or they will submit to Islam}. The verse concerns those whom the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to fight, who were the idol-worshippers of the Arabs. This indicates that they are to be fought if they do not embrace Islam.'(2) ¶

Furthermore, the author of 'Fath al-Qadir' cites a hadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him) narrated by Ibn Abbas, stating: 'Nothing shall be accepted from the polytheists of the Arabs except Islam or the sword.'(3) ¶

Moreover, those who apostatize from Islam after entering it, regardless of the race to which they belong, are not to be accepted—according to all jurists—except upon their return to Islam. Otherwise, war against them remains legitimate until they repent or are finished. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said regarding the apostate: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'(4) ¶

The opinion regarding the permissibility of contracting dhimma with the People of the Book is based on the aforementioned verse of Jizya, which encompasses both Arabs and non-Arabs. Likewise, the opinion regarding the permissibility of contracting dhimma with the Magians (Zoroastrians) is based on what is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf: 'That the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) took it—meaning the Jizya—from the Magians of Hajar.'(5)(6) The Magians of Hajar were Arabs. The evidence for accepting Jizya and dhimma from non-Arab Magians was mentioned in the previous issue, in the hadith of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba when he met the governor of Khosrow. ¶

It is stated in 'al-Durr al-Mukhtar 'ala Matn Tanwir al-Absar', while discussing the subject of Jizya: ¶

"And it [jizya] is imposed upon the Kitabi (People of the Scripture) and the Majusi (Zoroastrian), even if he is an Arab; for the Prophet (peace be upon him) imposed it upon the Majus of Hajar." (1) ¶

Based on this, regarding those other than the ones for whom specific evidence for accepting jizya has come, the war against them remains legitimate under the general evidence in the saying of the Almighty: "Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them." (2). The position that it is permissible to contract a dhimma (covenant of protection) with all disbelievers of all creeds and religions, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs, relies on the generality of the aforementioned hadith of Buraydah in Sahih Muslim, which states: "If you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, invite them to three things... then he said: If they refuse (i.e., to embrace Islam), then demand jizya from them; if they agree, accept it from them and withhold from them..." (3). This hadith indicates that the enemy among the polytheists is to be offered jizya, and a dhimma is contracted for them accordingly if they accept it and refuse to enter Islam. ¶

Furthermore, the expression "enemy from among the polytheists" in the hadith encompasses all races, Arab and non-Arab, just as it covers all religions and creeds outside of Islam. This view is the preponderant (rajih) one in the Maliki school. It is the position held by Al-Awza'i, the jurists of Al-Sham, and others. ¶

Imam Al-Nawawi says in the commentary on the hadith of Buraydah, which is under discussion: "This is among the proofs used by Malik, Al-Awza'i, and those who agree with them regarding the taking of jizya from every disbeliever, whether he is an Arab or a non-Arab, a Kitabi, a Majusi, or otherwise..." (3). ¶

Al-San'ani states: "In the hadith is evidence that jizya is taken from every disbeliever, whether Kitabi or non-Kitabi, Arab or non-Arab, because his saying 'your enemy' is general. Then he said: What appears to be the case is the general application of taking jizya from every disbeliever due to the generality of the hadith of Buraydah. As for the verses—meaning the verse of jizya which commands fighting the People of the Scripture until they give jizya willingly while they are humbled—they established the taking of jizya from the People of the Scripture and did not address taking it from others, nor did they prohibit it. The hadith, however, clarifies its taking from others." ¶