Chapter 74

Other than them. And to interpret 'your enemy' as referring specifically to the People of the Book is extremely far-fetched... until he stated: As for the reason jizya was not taken from the Arabs, it is because it was not legislated until after the Conquest (of Makkah), by which time the Arabs had entered Islam. No combatants remained among them; thus, after the Conquest, there was no one left among them to be taken captive, nor was there anyone upon whom jizya could be levied. Rather, whoever apostatized from Islam after that faced only the sword or return to Islam, just as this is the ruling regarding the people of apostasy (ridda). He then says: This ruling continued after the era of the Prophet (ﷺ). The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) conquered the lands of Persia and Rome, and their subjects included Arabs, especially in the Levant (Sham) and Iraq, and they did not distinguish between an Arab and a non-Arab (Ajam). Rather, they applied the rulings of captivity and jizya to everyone they overcame. From this, it is known that the hadith of Buraydah was after the obligation of jizya was revealed. Its obligation came after the Conquest, so it was mandated in the eighth year (AH) upon the revelation of Surah Bara'ah. ¶

- Furthermore, al-Shawkani says in 'Nayl al-Awtar', regarding the hadith of Buraydah as well: 'His saying: "Then ask them for jizya," implies that there is no distinction between a non-Arab disbeliever, an Arab disbeliever, and a non-scriptural disbeliever...' ¶

- Al-Shawkani also says in his book 'al-Sayl al-Jarrar', the text of which is: 'The apparent meaning of the evidence dictates that the offering of jizya by any disbeliever necessitates refraining from fighting him... as in the hadith of Buraydah: (The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), when he appointed a commander over an army or a detachment—then he mentioned in it—if they refuse, ask them for jizya. If they respond, accept it from them and refrain from fighting them). His statement (The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to...) indicates that this was his standard practice for every army he dispatched. This does not contradict the saying of the Almighty regarding the People of the Book: "...until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued" (Surah At-Tawbah: 29), for the People of the Book are a category of disbelievers from whom fighting must be withheld if they pay the jizya. Nor does this contradict what is mentioned regarding the command to fight the polytheists in the 'Sword Verse' (Surah At-Tawbah: 5) and others, for fighting them is mandatory unless they pay jizya, in which case refraining from them becomes mandatory just as it is mandatory to...' ¶

Refraining from them once they embrace Islam. This generalization does not conflict with the incident in which the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered the expulsion of the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (1), because its objective is that it is not permissible to reconcile with them through Jizyah within the Arabian Peninsula. This does not contradict the permissibility of reconciling with them by imposing Jizyah if they are outside the Arabian Peninsula. In summary, whoever claims that a certain group of disbelievers cannot be made to pay Jizyah, but rather must be given a choice between Islam and the sword, must provide evidence; and there is no evidence that constitutes a binding proof except that which pertains to the apostate (2). ¶

Furthermore, Ibn al-Qayyim favors the permissibility of accepting Jizyah and establishing a dhimmah (covenant) for all disbelievers, regardless of their origin or religion. This is based on the permissibility of collecting it from the Magians (Zoroastrians), who are not People of the Scripture, and thus all other disbelievers are compared to them (3). In this regard, he states: ¶

'A group of scholars said: Regarding all nations, if they offer Jizyah, it is accepted from them. [It is accepted from] the two People of the Scripture based on the Quran, and from the Magians based on the Sunnah. Others are treated analogously to them; because the Magians are polytheists without a scripture, so taking it from them is evidence for taking it from all polytheists. The reason the Prophet (ﷺ) did not take it from the idolaters of the Arabs is that they had all embraced Islam before the verse of Jizyah was revealed, as it was revealed after the Battle of Tabuk. By then, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had finished fighting the Arabs, and they were all secure in Islam. This is also why he did not take it from the Jews who fought him, because the verse had not yet been revealed. Once it was revealed, he took it from the Christians of the Arabs and from the Magians. If anyone among the idolaters had remained at that time and offered it, he would have accepted it from them, just as he accepted it from the worshippers of crosses and fire.' ¶

There is no distinction, nor any effect, regarding the intensity of disbelief (kufr) between one group and another. Moreover, the disbelief of the idolaters is not more severe than the disbelief of the Magians. What is the difference between those who worship idols and those who worship fire? In fact, the disbelief of the Magians is more severe. The idolaters used to acknowledge the oneness of Lordship (Tawhid al-Rububiyyah)—that there is no creator except Allah—and that they only worshipped their idols to bring them closer to Allah Almighty. They did not profess belief in two creators for the world: one for good and one for evil, as the Magians do. Furthermore, they did not consider marriage to mothers, daughters, or sisters to be lawful, and they remained upon remnants of the religion of Ibrahim (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the Magians, they were not people of any scripture at all, nor did they follow the religion of any prophet, neither in their doctrines nor in their laws. The narration suggesting that they once had a scripture which was subsequently removed, and their law abrogated when their king committed incest with his daughter, is completely unauthentic. Even if it were authentic, they would not be considered 'People of the Book' (Ahl al-Kitab) because their book was removed and their law rendered void; they retained nothing of it. It is known that the Arabs were upon the religion of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), which had scriptures and a law. The deviation of the idolaters from the religion and law of Ibrahim is no greater than the deviation of the Magians from the religion and book of their supposed prophet, had it been authentic; for there is no evidence of them adhering to any of the laws of the prophets (peace be upon them), unlike the Arabs! How then can the Magians—whose religion is the most abominable of all—be considered in a better state than the polytheists of the Arabs? Thereafter, Ibn al-Qayyim expresses his preference for the opinion that jizya may be taken from all disbelievers, even from the Arabs who are neither Jews, nor Christians, nor Magians, stating: 'And this view is stronger in terms of evidence, as you can see.' This is what Ibn al-Qayyim said. ¶

Second: The opinion that we prefer: I say: After all that has preceded in supporting the opinion that it is permissible for the Islamic State to establish a 'dhimma' (covenant of protection) contract for all disbelievers, regardless of their race, religion, or creed (1), it must be noted that those residing in the Arabian Peninsula—within the borders adopted by the State—must be ordered to leave and not reside there except temporarily or as travelers. A 'dhimma' contract may be concluded with them on the condition that their permanent place of residence is outside the concerned borders. When groups among them within the Arabian Peninsula refuse, through their own power, to leave beyond the Peninsula, then fighting them becomes legitimate until they enter Islam or depart from it. Likewise, whoever is proven to have been Muslim, or to have entered Islam, and then apostatized, fighting them must continue until they return to Islam or their matter is concluded. In this way, reconciliation is achieved between all the texts reported on this issue. Therefore, it is permissible for the State in Islam to establish 'dhimma' for all groups and races, even those belonging to Arab origins, even if they do not profess a revealed religion, such as communists and atheists, with the exception of apostates—in light of what has preceded. Thus, the 'dhimma' contract and the payment of 'jizya' by the people of war become a general cause for cessation of hostilities in Islam. We now come to the third issue. Third Issue: The conditions for the obligation of 'jizya'. Discussion regarding the conditions for the obligation of 'jizya', in a financial sense, upon the individuals for whom 'dhimma' is established, is not among the issues directly related to the subject for which this chapter was established, which is the fact that the offering of 'jizya' and submission to the rulings of Islam is one of the causes for the cessation of hostilities in Islam. (1) Our professor, Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, also preferred this opinion: the permissibility of establishing 'dhimma' for all disbelievers, without regard to race or religion. See: (Athar al-Harb) pp. 701-702. ¶

Therefore, we will address this issue by providing a brief overview of these conditions as they appear in certain fiqh sources, without pausing to cite evidence, engage in debate, or delve into the various jurisprudential opinions on the matter. This is done to fulfill the requirements of the thesis outline on one hand, and to avoid digressing from our subject matter into areas where detailed discussion is unnecessary, on the other. ¶

In 'Bada'i' al-Sana'i', regarding the conditions for the obligation of jizya and those upon whom the dhimma contract is concluded, it is stated: 'As for the conditions of obligation, they include several types: sanity, puberty, being male, and health—thus, it is not obligatory upon a patient if they remain ill for the entire year. Others include being free from permanent disability (zamana), blindness, and old age. Similarly, a poor person who cannot work is exempt. As for those in hermitages (monks), jizya is obligatory upon them if they are capable of work, because they are considered among those capable of combat; therefore, refraining from work despite the capacity to perform it does not negate the obligation. Among these conditions is also freedom, so it is not obligatory upon a slave, because a slave is not qualified to own property.' (1) ¶

It should be noted that there are diverse viewpoints among the jurists of the various madhahib regarding some of these aforementioned conditions. These may be sought in their respective locations within fiqh references, and as previously indicated, we do not see a necessity to address them here. ¶

We now come to the final issue in this chapter. ¶

Issue Four: The Alternative to Jizya. ¶

We have dedicated this issue to presenting the viewpoint of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding the application of zakat to non-Muslims in the same manner as it is imposed upon Muslims, as a substitute for the jizya obligatory upon them. ¶

(1) Bada'i' al-Sana'i': 7/111. See also: Fath al-Qadir: 6/50 et seq. (in Hanafi Fiqh). Regarding Maliki Fiqh, see: Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya, p. 175; Al-Sharh al-Kabir ma' Hashiyat al-Dasuqi: 2/201; and Manh al-Jalil: 3/214. In Shafi'i Fiqh: Al-Muhadhdhab by al-Shirazi: 2/252; and Mughni al-Muhtaj: 4/245. In Hanbali Fiqh: Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 10/581 et seq.; and Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Maqdisi: 10/595 et seq. ¶

Sheikh Abu Zahra, in the context of the Zakat bill submitted to the Egyptian Parliament in 1367 AH - 1947 AD, states the following: "Zakat, in its original obligatory nature, is binding only upon Muslims and is not binding on non-Muslims, except according to some Shia scholars. However, Islamic states are obligated to fulfill the needs of the destitute among the non-Muslims. Islamic social solidarity is universal and is not restricted to one group over another; for it is the mercy of Allah, and mercy is universal. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to spend on non-Muslims from the wealth of the Jizya. Now, the Jizya is not imposed, so nothing remains except that Zakat be imposed upon them in observance of the law of equality. Whatever is taken from them returns to them. Moreover, Zakat is a general law in all heavenly religions, and our non-Muslim neighbors are people of a heavenly religion."(1) I say: Regardless of the arguments mentioned by Sheikh Abu Zahra to support his proposal regarding the general imposition of Zakat on non-Muslims from the Islamic citizenry, the question that concerns us here is: Is it permissible for the Islamic state, if it perceives a benefit, to contract a dhimma (covenant) with a non-Muslim people based on imposing Zakat on them, to equalize them with Muslims, considering that this takes the place of the obligatory Jizya, even if its name is changed from Jizya to Zakat or Sadaqah? The answer to this question is that the majority of jurists permitted this for the Imam (ruler) when the interest (maslaha) calls for it, despite differences in the details of this issue which we do not intend to delve into here. It is stated in (Fath al-Qadir), a work of Hanafi fiqh, regarding the Jizya imposed on the Ahl al-Dhimma through peace and agreement: "It is a Jizya imposed by mutual consent and peace. It is estimated according to the agreement, and nothing is added to it to guard against treachery. Its origin [this type of Jizya] is the peace treaty of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) with the people of Najran. They were a Christian people near Yemen, with whom he made peace for two thousand garments (hulla) per year, as is in (Abu Dawud) from Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), who said: (The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made peace with the people of Najran for two thousand garments. Half in Safar, and half in Rajab)."(2) End quote. (1) 'Aqd al-Dhimma, fi al-Tashri' al-Islami: by Muhammad Abd al-Hadi al-Matrudi, p. 230. (2) The hadith is in Sunan Abi Dawud, No. (3041), Vol. 3/227. See also: Jami' al-Usul: 2/636-637. ¶

And Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made a peace treaty with the Christians of Banu Taghlib (1) on the condition that from each of them, double the amount of wealth obligatory upon a Muslim shall be taken, and this became binding... (2). ¶

I say: Based on this, when an agreement is reached that those with whom a dhimma (covenant) is concluded shall pay exactly what is taken from Muslims as Zakat—neither more nor less—it is permissible, based on the principle that for the type of Jizya which is completed through mutual consent and treaty, one must observe the terms agreed upon. ¶

Ibn Rushd speaks about this type of Jizya, saying: 'It is that which they offer voluntarily so that they may be spared. There is no fixed time or limitation in this, neither in the mandatory amount, nor in who is obligated to pay it, nor when it is due. All of this refers back to the agreement reached between the Muslims and the people of the treaty...' (3). ¶

I say: This 'treaty-based Jizya', based on this statement as well, if it is agreed upon that it shall be conducted on the basis of the Sharia-compliant Zakat rulings that apply to Muslims, then it is a legitimate matter. ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Muhadhdhab', in Shafi'i fiqh: 'If a group refuses to pay Jizya under the name of Jizya and says: "We will pay under the name of Sadaqah (meaning Zakat)," and the Imam (leader) deems it appropriate to accept it under the name of Sadaqah, it is permissible. This is because the Arab Christians said to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): "We will not pay what the non-Arabs (Ajam) pay; rather, take from us under the name of Sadaqah just as you take from the Arabs!" Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused and said: "I will not acknowledge you..."' ¶

Except through jizya. They said: 'Take from us double what you take from the Muslims,' but he refused. When they intended to join the Dar al-Harb (land of war), Zur'ah ibn al-Nu'man, or al-Nu'man ibn Zur'ah, said to 'Umar: 'The Banu Taghlib are Arabs, and they possess strength. Take from them what they have offered, and do not let them join your enemy.' So he made a peace treaty with them on the condition that he would double the sadaqah (zakat) on them.”(1) ¶

In this regard, it is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj: “He shall take it as jizya under the name of sadaqah. None of the Sahabah opposed him [i.e., 'Umar ibn al-Khattab], so it became an ijma' (consensus), and he established a permanent dhimma contract for them... The most correct view is that there is no difference in this regard between Arabs and non-Arabs... - he then said -: And it is not strictly determined to be doubled...”(2) ¶

And it was mentioned in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, in Hanbali fiqh: “The Banu Taghlib ibn Wa'il were Arabs from Rabi'ah ibn Nizar. They converted to Christianity during the Jahiliyyah. 'Umar invited them to pay the jizya, but they refused and felt insulted! They said: 'We are Arabs! Take from us as you take from one another, under the name of sadaqah.' 'Umar said: 'I will not take sadaqah from a mushrik (polytheist).' So some of them fled to the Romans. Al-Nu'man ibn Zur'ah said: 'O Leader of the Faithful! This people possesses might and strength. They are Arabs who disdain the jizya! Do not aid your enemy against yourself; take the jizya from them under the name of sadaqah.' 'Umar sent for them, brought them back, and doubled [the amount] upon them... This became established by the words of 'Umar, and no Sahabi opposed him, so it became an ijma'. Jurists after the Sahabah also held this view, among them: Ibn Abi Layla, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and al-Shafi'i...”(3) This is what was mentioned in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah. ¶

Ultimately, perhaps in what has been presented, there is that which enables the state to observe various circumstances and sensitivities while it carries the message of Islam, inviting other peoples to enter it or to come under its governance, so that they may witness the virtues of Islam... which will, in time, make them desire it and embrace it. ¶

It is evident that it is not among the legitimate Shariah objectives to harm the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim subjects), neither by word nor by deed. Indeed, the jurists have explicitly stated that backbiting a Dhimmi is as prohibited as backbiting a Muslim; for by the covenant of dhimmah, they are entitled to the same rights as us. If the backbiting of a Muslim is prohibited, then backbiting them is also prohibited. Furthermore, they stated that oppressing a Dhimmi is an even graver offense. ¶

They also mentioned that it is forbidden for a Muslim to say to a Dhimmi, 'O infidel' or 'O enemy of Allah,' because such expressions cause them harm, and the Muslim deserves ta'zir (discretionary punishment) for doing so. ¶

In reality, the warning against mistreating the Ahl al-Dhimmah generally falls under the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prohibition of oppressing them or diminishing their rights, as in his statement: 'Beware, whoever oppresses a mu'ahid (covenanted person), or diminishes his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent, I will be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.' ¶

Accordingly, when the Islamic State perceives that people from other non-Muslim nations might desire to enter into the protection of the Muslims, but are deterred by the term 'jizya'—in which they find, and in the money committed based upon it, a source of indignity and humiliating disparagement—I say: when the Islamic State sees this, there is no harm, according to public interest (maslahah), in replacing the term 'jizya' with 'zakat' based on the desire of the non-Muslims themselves, and to equate them with Muslims in the application of zakat regulations, even if the underlying intent for the obligation differs. For Muslims, it is committed to as an indispensable act of worship, while for non-Muslims, it is committed to as a mandatory tax that must be paid. ¶

This, and the consensus (ijma) of the Sahaba regarding the replacement of Zakat with Jizya in the case of the Banu Taghlib, is the best evidence for the legitimacy of such a measure. . . And now, we conclude this issue here, and with it, we finish this chapter, and move on to another chapter - with the help and guidance of Allah. (1) It is also mentioned here that in the year 89 AH, during the time of (Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik), a dhimma treaty was concluded with a group of non-Arabs (Ajam) called the (Al-Jarajima), upon certain conditions. Among them, relevant to our discussion here, is the text: '. . . and that there shall be taken from their trade and the wealth of their affluent exactly what is taken from the Muslims.' Among their other conditions were: '. . . that they may settle wherever they wish in the Levant (al-Sham). . . and that they shall wear the clothing of the Muslims!' (Futuh al-Buldan by al-Baladhuri: pp. 165-166). Note that the 'Jarajima' are the people of the city of 'Al-Jarjuma'. It is stated in (Marasid al-Ittila'): 1/324: 'It was located on Mount al-Lukam, in the Syrian frontier region. . . near Antioch.' Al-Tha'alibi said in (Thimar al-Qulub): 'Mount al-Lukam: It is in the Levant, connected to Homs and Damascus, and it is called there: (Lebanon). Then it extends to connect with the mountains of (Antioch) and (Al-Massisa), and it is called there: al-Lukam.' p. 232. ¶

Chapter Three: Treaties and Safe-Conduct (Aman) ¶

This is the third reason for cessation of hostilities in Islam against the people of war (ahl al-harb). As previously indicated, we have intended to limit the discussion in the chapters of this section to the most important issues and rulings that we deem necessary to address, in order to clarify the meaning of each cause for the cessation of hostilities, and how it serves as a path to achieving the interests of the Muslims—and indeed all people—in working to spread the Islamic call (Da'wah) and establish peace. ¶

Accordingly, we will address the following issues in this chapter: ¶

1. First Issue: Definition of a treaty, its legitimacy, the ruling on adhering to it, along with mentioning the reasons and purposes that necessitate its conclusion. 2. Second Issue: Treaty with non-Islamic states on the condition of paying Jizyah to the Muslims. 3. Third Issue: Treaty involving the payment of wealth by Muslims to other states in exchange for halting hostilities against the Muslims. 4. Fourth Issue: Other types of treaties according to circumstances. 5. Fifth Issue: Safe-conduct (Aman) – What is it? What is the evidence for its legitimacy? And what is its role in halting hostilities with the people of war? ¶

The First Issue: The definition of a treaty (mu‘ahadah), its legitimacy, the ruling on adhering to it, and the reasons and purposes for concluding it. ¶

First: The Definition of a Treaty The term 'mu‘ahadah' (treaty) is a reciprocal action (mufa‘alah) between two parties; meaning, it is a commitment by two parties to a pact that binds them to its requirements. ¶

In the Arabic language, the term '‘ahd' (covenant/pact) has many meanings. It is stated in al-Nihayah: 'The mention of al-‘ahd recurs in the Hadith. It comes in the sense of an oath, security (aman), responsibility (dhimmah), protection, observance of sanctity, and testament. The Hadith narrated regarding it do not deviate from any of these meanings.' ¶

Furthermore, the appropriate meaning for our subject here is that '‘ahd' refers to the security (aman) that has been contracted upon. It may be reinforced by oaths to confirm it and to demonstrate the resolve to fulfill it. ¶

It is stated in al-Misbah al-Munir: '‘Ahd: security, a firm pact (mawthiq), and obligation (dhimmah). From this, it is said of a harbi (an enemy combatant) who enters with a guarantee of safety: he is a dhu ‘ahd or a mu‘ahid. This applies to both the active and passive forms because the act involves two parties. Each acts toward the other as the other acts toward him. Thus, each one is, in meaning, both an agent (fa‘il) and a recipient (maf‘ul).' ¶

Regarding the root 'w-th-q', it states: 'The mawthiq and the mithaq are the ‘ahd.' Regarding the root 'dh-m-m', it states: 'Dhimmah is interpreted as ‘ahd and as aman (security).' ¶

This is what has been stated in the language... As for the 'mu‘ahadah' in Islamic legal terminology, it has been defined as: 'A peace treaty with those at war (ahl al-harb) to cease hostilities for a specified period, with or without compensation.' ¶

Thus, in books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), the term 'mu'ahada' (treaty/covenant) has been given several names besides the word itself. It has been referred to as: al-hudna (truce), al-muhadana, al-muwada'a, al-sulh (reconciliation), al-'ahd (covenant), and al-aman (safe conduct). Among the sources mentioning this is Bada'i' al-Sana'i', which lists the terms that can be used for it and upon which a contract can be based, stating: 'al-muwada'a, or al-musalama, or al-musalaha, or al-mu'ahada, or any term that conveys the meaning of these expressions.' ¶

Second: The legitimacy of the treaty and the ruling on adhering to it. The legitimacy of the treaty is established in the Quran and the Sunnah. - Among the texts found in the Holy Quran regarding its legitimacy is the ruling concerning a situation where a Muslim from the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) kills a person from the Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) while there is a treaty or covenant between the Muslims of the Dar al-Islam and them. In this context, the Almighty says: 'But if he was from a people between whom and you is a treaty, then a payment of blood money must be delivered to his people and the freeing of a believing slave.' (Quran 4:92). This verse acknowledges the existence of treaties or covenants between Muslims and the people of war (ahl al-harb). Ibn al-'Arabi says in his commentary on this verse: 'The mithaq (covenant) is the confirmed treaty that has been bound and established... Ibn Abbas says: This is the disbeliever who has a covenant for himself and his people. The killer owes blood money to his people and an expiation to Allah the Almighty. A group of the Tabi'in and al-Shafi'i held this view.' ¶

- Also among these is what was mentioned regarding the granting of 'aman (safe conduct) to the people of war from the enemy when they enter other hostile territories that have a peaceful treaty with the Muslims. In this regard, Allah the Almighty says, while urging the Muslims against their enemy: 'So seize them and kill them wherever you find them...' ¶

"And do not take from among them any allies or helpers, except for those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty." This verse contains explicit evidence for the legitimacy of entering into peaceful treaties with the people of war (ahl al-harb) among the disbelievers. Al-Qurtubi states: "In this verse is evidence for establishing peace treaties (muwada'a) between the people of war and the people of Islam, provided that there is a benefit (maslaha) for the Muslims in such a treaty." ¶

Furthermore, among the texts regarding the legitimacy of treaties is that which concerns the support of Muslims for the subjects of the people of war if they are oppressed by their own countrymen or the state to which they belong, and they request the Muslims of the Dar al-Islam to come to their aid. Regarding this, Allah Almighty says: "And if they seek help from you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between whom and you is a treaty." This verse acknowledges the existence of treaties and covenants between Muslims and the people of war. Al-Qurtubi says in his tafsir regarding this verse: "Unless they seek your help against a disbelieving people between whom and them there is a treaty; then do not help them against them, and do not break the covenant until its term is completed." ¶

Also among these is the saying of the Almighty: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and rely upon Allah." ¶

Ibn Hajar says: "This verse indicates the legitimacy of reconciliation (musalaha) with the polytheists... Abu Ubayd said: al-silm and al-salm are one and the same, meaning peace (sulh)." Then Ibn Hajar concludes: "The command for peace is restricted to situations where the greatest benefit for Islam lies in reconciliation. However, if Islam is dominant over disbelief and no benefit is seen in reconciliation, then it is not required." ¶

Ibn Kathir says in his interpretation of this verse: "(And if they incline) meaning, they lean. (to peace) meaning, incline to it, and accept that from them." ¶

In the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, the polytheists requested a truce and for war to be laid aside between them and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ for nine years. He accepted this, along with the other conditions they stipulated. Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Zayd bin Aslam, 'Ata al-Khurasani, 'Ikrimah, al-Hasan, and Qatadah stated that this verse was abrogated by the 'Verse of the Sword' in Surah Bara'ah: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day.' However, there is room for scrutiny in this, because the verse in Bara'ah commands fighting them when it is feasible. As for when the enemy is numerous, it is permissible to make a truce with them, as the noble verse indicates and as the Prophet ﷺ did on the day of Al-Hudaybiyyah. Therefore, there is no contradiction, abrogation, or specification. And Allah knows best. ¶

I (the author) say: Similarly, there is no contradiction between this verse under discussion and the verse in Surah Muhammad: 'So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior.' This verse forbids Muslims from stopping the fight against the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) and inclining toward peace treaties with them if the Muslims are in a stronger position and there is no interest served in resorting to peace; for resorting to peace when there is no interest, while they are in the stronger position, is merely falling into the embrace of weakness and frailty. This is what the verse came to forbid. Hence, in this mentioned state, it is not permissible for Muslims to adopt a policy of truce with the enemy without resolving the situation—either by their entering Islam or by their submission to Islamic rule. ¶

Imam al-Jassas, in reconciling the verses calling for combat with those calling for peace, states: 'What has been mentioned regarding the command for peace, if the Muslims are inclined toward it, is also a fixed ruling. The rulings of the two verses differ only due to the difference in circumstances. The situation in which peace was commanded is the situation of few numbers...' ¶

The condition of the Muslims and the multitude of their enemy—and the state in which the command to kill the polytheists and fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizya was given—is the state where the Muslims are numerous and possess the strength to overcome their enemy. The Almighty said: 'So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior, and Allah is with you.' Thus, He forbade seeking peace when one possesses the power to subdue and kill the enemy. Likewise, our scholars have stated: if those in the borderlands are capable of fighting the enemy and resisting them, then making peace with them is not permissible, nor is it permissible to allow them to remain in their disbelief except through the jizya. However, if they are too weak to fight them, then making peace with them is permissible, just as the Prophet (peace be upon him) made peace with many groups of disbelievers and established truces with them to halt the war between them without taking any jizya from them. ¶

Furthermore, the aforementioned verses, along with the opinions of the exegetes regarding them, are sufficient to demonstrate the legitimacy of concluding peace treaties with the enemy when the public interest (maslaha) demands such treaties. There is no need for us to recount the various and conflicting opinions on this issue, only to conclude in the end what has already been established with absolute clarity. ¶

Moreover, the practical Sunnah of the Prophet has also demonstrated the legitimacy of these peace treaties, as previously indicated regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. ¶

Among the narrations of this treaty is that of Sahl ibn Hunayf, who said: 'We were with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and had we seen fighting, we would have fought! This was during the peace treaty that took place between the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the polytheists. Then Umar ibn al-Khattab came and approached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah, are we not on the truth and they on falsehood? He replied: Yes. He asked: Are our slain not in Paradise and theirs in the Fire? He replied: Yes. He said: Then why should we accept this humiliation (daniyya) regarding our religion, and return while Allah has not yet judged between us and them? He replied: O son of Khattab! I am the Messenger of Allah...' ¶

Allah, and Allah will never abandon me. He said: 'So Umar departed, unable to contain his frustration, and came to Abu Bakr...' (1) [The remainder of the] hadith. ¶

Imam al-Nawawi comments on the hadith of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, stating: 'It contains the principle that the Imam may conclude a treaty based on what he perceives as a benefit (maslaha) for the Muslims, even if this is not apparent to some people at first glance. It also contains the principle of tolerating a minor harm to repel a greater one, or to achieve a greater benefit, if that [benefit] can only be attained through that means.' (2). ¶

This pertains to the legitimacy of the treaty. As for the ruling on fulfilling it, the answer is summarized as follows: ¶

1. The obligation to cease hostilities against the enemy and to fulfill the treaties concluded with them, as long as they are legitimate and their term has not expired, provided that there is no breach by the enemy, or no repudiation (nabdh). That is, the termination of these treaties before their expiration—either by both parties by mutual agreement, or by one of them (3). There is a disagreement among the jurists regarding the permissibility of terminating or repudiating such a treaty by the Muslims, based on public interest (maslaha), provided there is no fear of treachery or betrayal of the covenant by the enemy (4). ¶

Furthermore, there are numerous evidences regarding the obligation to fulfill legitimate treaties with the disbelievers until the end of their specified duration. Among these is the saying of the Almighty, concerning the obligation of fulfillment for those among the disbelievers who have upheld their treaty with the Muslims: ¶

'So fulfill for them their treaty until their term.' ¶

Ibn al-Arabi stated: 'He commanded fulfillment for those who remained committed to their treaty until its duration.' ¶

Ibn Kathir said regarding this verse: 'Whoever has a temporary treaty, its term ends at the specified time for which it was agreed... and this is on the condition that the covenantor does not break their treaty and does not support anyone against the Muslims; that is, they do not collude against them with others. This is the one whose protection and treaty must be honored until its duration. For this reason, the Almighty encouraged the fulfillment of this, saying: 'Indeed, Allah loves the righteous (Muttaqin).' ¶

It is stated in (Al-Mughni) by Ibn Qudamah: 'And if the Imam concludes a truce, he is obligated to fulfill it, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: 'O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts.' And He said: 'So fulfill for them their treaty until their term.' And because if he were not to fulfill it, his pact would not be trusted, and there may be a necessity to conclude one.' ¶

2 - Furthermore, to fully understand the ruling on the obligation to adhere to treaties, one must know when the obligation to abide by them ends. This is summarized in the following cases: A - When the term of the treaty with the enemy expires. This is due to the saying of the Almighty: 'So fulfill for them their treaty until their term...' ¶

Upon the expiration of their term: It is understood from this text that after the expiry of the period of the covenant or treaty, the state of war between the Muslims and their enemies returns to what it was before the conclusion of that treaty. ¶

B - If the enemy violates the treaty concluded between them and the Muslims, even if the violation pertains to a single condition of the treaty. This is because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) commanded the fulfillment of covenants with those who have treaties in the aforementioned text, provided they remain committed to upholding the treaty between themselves and the Muslims and do not breach any part of it. As stated in His saying: '...except for those of the polytheists with whom you have made a treaty and who have not failed you in anything, nor supported anyone against you; so fulfill their treaty to them until their term.' ¶

C - It is also understood from the aforementioned text, in His saying: 'nor supported anyone against you,' a third condition under which fighting the covenanted disbelievers is legislated. This occurs when the Muslims are engaged in a war with others, and a state that has a treaty with the Muslims provides assistance to those warring enemies, whether that assistance is by supplying them with fighters, military equipment, or anything similar that strengthens the enemy. In this case, that covenanted state is considered to have violated the covenant from its side with the Muslims, and fighting it becomes lawful. ¶

D - Fighting the covenanted ones is also legislated, but after giving them 'nabdh' (notice). That is, warning them that the treaty is considered void. This is when signs appear indicating that those covenanted ones are plotting conspiracies and designing plans for betrayal and the violation of the treaty concluded with the Muslims. Regarding this, Allah (Exalted be He) says: 'And if you fear from a people betrayal, throw back to them [their treaty] on equal terms. Indeed, Allah does not like the traitors.' ¶

Al-Qurtubi says: 'Al-nabdh' means to throw away and reject... The meaning is: If you fear betrayal from a people with whom you have a covenant, then throw back their covenant to them. Meaning: Say to them, 'I have cast back your covenant to you, and I am going to fight you,' so that they may know it, and you will both be equal in knowledge [of the state of war]. Do not fight them while you have a covenant with them, and they trust you, for that would be betrayal and deceit. Then He explained this by His saying: 'Indeed, Allah does not like the traitors.' ¶

Ibn Kathir, in the context of mentioning treachery, states: 'Meaning, even regarding the rights of the disbelievers, He [Allah] does not love it [treachery]' (1). ¶

This means that if those in a state of war (harbi) who have entered into a treaty do not explicitly manifest a breach of the covenant, but there are merely suspicious indicators suggesting their lack of sincerity in upholding that treaty, then in this situation, it is not permissible for the Muslims to take them by surprise with war based on those indicators without prior warning that the treaty has become void. This is because launching a war by surprise without prior warning is considered treachery, and Allah does not love treachery, even if it is against disbelievers about whom there is doubt regarding their adherence to a treaty with the Muslims (2). ¶

Moving now to the final point of this issue: ¶

Third: The causes and purposes for concluding peace treaties with the enemy. ¶

In what has preceded regarding this issue, and in previous researches as well, some of these causes and purposes have been mentioned. It is appropriate here, as we specifically discuss this topic, to reiterate the most important of these causes and purposes. ¶

Imam al-Shafi'i stated in this regard: 'If the Muslims are unable to fight the polytheists, or a faction of them, due to the distance of their territory, the abundance of the enemy, or a weakness (khalla) (3) among the Muslims or those who are with them, it is permissible for them to refrain from fighting them and to conclude a truce with them without taking anything from the polytheists. However, if the polytheists give them something, whether it be small or large, it is permissible for them to accept it.' ¶

He then adds: 'Thus, it is most preferred for the Imam, if a calamity befalls the Muslims—and I hope that Allah the Almighty does not bring such upon them, God willing—to arrange a truce in which there is benefit for them. The truce should only be for a specified period, and...' ¶