The Islamic Rules of Warfare: Protecting the People of the Covenant, Women, and Children
Islam strictly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, a ruling established through mutawatir hadith narrations, unanimous scholarly consensus, and the explicit exegesis of the Quran’s leading commentators. This note presents the evidence in three sections: first, the authentic hadiths prohibiting the fighting of People of the Covenant, those with a covenant, women, and children; second, the classical juristic division of disbelievers into four categories — only one of which is subject to warfare; and third, an exposure of the deceptive truncations used by those who misrepresent the scholars on this question.
Section One: Authentic Hadiths Prohibiting the Killing of the People of the Covenant, Women, and Children
The Hadith of Buraydah — The Prophet’s Standing Order to Every Army Commander
When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed a leader over an army or a military expedition, he would advise him in private to fear Allah, and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. Then he said:
“Fight in the name of God, in the way of God. Fight those who disbelieve in God. Fight, but do not steal, do not betray, do not mutilate, and do not kill a child.”
“And when you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, then call them to three characteristics — or traits — whichever of them they respond to, accept from them and refrain from them. Call them to Islam; if they respond, accept from them and refrain from them. Call them to move from their home to the home of the emigrants, and inform them that if they do so, they will have what the emigrants have and will be subject to what the emigrants are subject to. But if they refuse to move, tell them they will be like the Muslim Arabs, and the ruling of Allah that applies to the believers will apply to them, and they will have no share in spoils and booty unless they fight with the Muslims. But if they refuse, then ask them for the jizya. If they respond, accept it from them and refrain from attacking them. If they refuse, then seek help from Allah and fight them.”
“And if you besiege the people of a fortress and they want you to grant them the protection of Allah and the protection of His Prophet, then do not grant them the protection of Allah or the protection of His Prophet — grant them your own protection and the protection of your companions, for you breaching your own protection and the protection of your companions is easier than breaking the protection of Allah and His Messenger.”
“And if you besiege the people of a fortress and they want you to bring them down according to the judgment of Allah, then do not bring them down according to the judgment of Allah — bring them down according to your own judgment, for you do not know whether you will achieve the judgment of Allah regarding them or not.”
Grade: Sahih · Muslim
Abd al-Rahman added: “this or something similar.” Ishaq further added in his narration on the authority of Yahya ibn Adam, that Alqamah said to Muqatil ibn Hayyan, who replied: Muslim ibn Haysam told me, on the authority of al-Nu’man ibn Muqarrin, on the authority of the Prophet ﷺ, something similar to it. This hadith constitutes a standing instruction — the Prophet ﷺ issued this counsel to every commander sent with every army. Ibn al-Qayyim confirms in Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah that this was the Prophet’s consistent practice with all the peoples of the earth.
The Prohibition on Killing Women and Children
Grade: Sahih · Muslim & Bukhari (agreed upon)
The Quranic Foundation
“And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors. (190) And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from where they expelled you — and persecution is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them — such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (192) And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then there is no aggression except against the wrongdoers. (193)”
Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, explained this verse and pointed out that it includes the prohibition of killing women, children, the elderly, and the monks of the People of the Book and the disbelievers absolutely in all circumstances, whether in peace or war.
Abu Ja’far al-Razi said, on the authority of al-Rabi’ ibn Anas, on the authority of Abu al-‘Aliyah: This is the first verse revealed about fighting in Medina. When it was revealed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would fight whoever fought him and refrain from whoever refrained from him, until Surat Bara’ah was revealed. Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam said the same, adding that it was abrogated by His statement: {Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them} [At-Tawbah: 5]. However, there is a consideration in this — because His statement “those who fight you” is only an incitement and enticement against the enemies whose concern is to fight Islam and its people: just as they fight you, so fight them. As He said: {And fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together} [At-Tawbah: 36]. That is why He said in this verse: {And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from where they expelled you} — that is, let your concern be directed towards fighting them, just as their concern is directed towards fighting you. It was narrated on the authority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that the first verse revealed about fighting after the migration was: {Permission to fight is given to those who are being fought against because they have been wronged} [Al-Hajj: 39], which is the most famous and the hadith was narrated with it.
Ibn Kathir’s commentary on “And do not transgress” makes the prohibition explicit:
He further cites multiple textual supports:
Grade: Narrated by Imam Ahmad
Grade: Narrated by Abu Dawud
Grade: Agreed upon · Bukhari & Muslim
Imam Ahmad also narrated on the authority of Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave the example of a people who were weak and poor, fought by people of tyranny and hostility, upon whom Allah granted victory — but when they gained power over the strong, they transgressed against them and used them in a way that was not appropriate, and so they incurred Allah’s wrath upon them because of this transgression until the Day they meet Him. This is a hadith with a good chain of narration. Its meaning is that transgression in warfare is a cause of Divine wrath — not Divine sanction. The hadiths and reports on this are very many.
The Prohibition on Killing Those with a Covenant
“Whoever kills a person with whom he has a covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance can be detected from a distance of forty years.”
Grade: Sahih · Bukhari
“Whoever kills a person with whom he has a covenant — and the covenant of Allah and His Messenger — will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance can be detected from a distance of seventy years.”
Grade: Sahih · authenticated by Imam al-Albani in Al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, no. 2356
“And I advise him with the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger ﷺ — to fulfill their covenant with them, to fight on their behalf, and not to burden them beyond their capacity.”
Grade: Sahih · Bukhari
Imam Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Fath al-Bari — a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari — regarding this chapter heading “He fights on behalf of the People of the Covenant and they are not enslaved”: meaning, even if they break the covenant. He included in it part of the story of the killing of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and this is his statement: “And I advise him with the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger.” Ibn al-Teen commented on it by saying there is nothing in the hadith that indicates the chapter heading regarding not enslaving them, and Ibn al-Munir responded by saying that he took from his statement “and I advise him with the covenant of Allah” that the requirement of the advice of compassion is that they not enter into slavery — and that the position of Ibn al-Qasim that dhimmis are enslaved if they break the covenant was opposed by Ashab and the majority.
The people of knowledge agreed upon this — that the dhimmi, the protected person, children, and women are not to be fought or killed. Imam al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, established in his tafsir of “There is no compulsion in religion” [Al-Baqarah: 256] that this verse is not abrogated, citing the saying of al-Sha’bi, Qatadah, al-Hasan, and al-Dahhak — that it was revealed specifically for the People of the Book, who are not forced to Islam if they pay the jizya. The evidence for this, as he states, is what Zaid ibn Aslam narrated from his father:
Section Two: The Four Categories of Disbelievers — Only One Is Subject to Warfare
The foundational rule of Islamic jurisprudence is that fighting is prescribed only against the combatant disbeliever — not against all disbelievers.
[1] People of the covenant (dhimmi). [2] People of a truce. [3] People of security.
The jurists have devoted a chapter to each category: the chapter of the truce, the chapter of security, and the chapter of the contract of protection. The word ‘protection’ and ‘covenant’ originally includes all of these. Likewise the word ‘peace,’ because protection is of the same type as the word ‘covenant’ and ‘contract.’ Their saying ‘This is in the protection of so-and-so’ originally comes from this — meaning he obligated him with the contract and pledge. Then it came to be used for everything from which the right can be taken, whether it was due by his contract or without his contract, such as a replacement for something lost.
In the terminology of many jurists, ‘People of the Covenant’ became an expression for those who pay the jizya — these have an eternal covenant, and they have made a covenant with the Muslims that the rule of Allah and His Messenger will apply to them, since they reside in the land in which the rule of Allah and His Messenger applies. Unlike the people of the truce, who made peace with the Muslims on the condition that they would remain in their own land — the rules of Islam do not apply to them, but they must refrain from fighting the Muslims. These are called the People of the Covenant, the People of Peace, and the People of the Truce.”
He explains the person granted security as follows:
The prohibition against fighting thus encompasses the protected person, the dhimmi, women, and children. Ibn al-Qayyim makes the jurisprudential basis of this ruling fully explicit:
As for the interest of the people of Islam: it is what they take from the money that strengthens Islam while diminishing and humiliating disbelief. As for the interest of the polytheists: if they see the signs of Islam and its proofs, or its news reaches them, some of them will inevitably enter Islam — and this is more beloved to Allah than killing them.
The intended meaning is that the word of Allah is supreme and the religion is all for Allah. There is nothing in keeping them alive with the jizya that contradicts this — just as keeping the People of the Book alive among the Muslims does not contradict the word of Allah being supreme. For part of the religion being all for Allah is the humiliation of disbelief, its people, and its lowliness, and the imposition of the jizya on the heads of its people. This is from the religion of Allah, and nothing contradicts this except leaving the disbelievers with their glory and establishing their religion as they like, so that they will have the power and the word. And Allah knows best.”
Imam al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, established the same principle in his tafsir of “There is no compulsion in religion”:
We have demonstrated that the abrogating is not abrogating except what negates the ruling of the abrogated — it is not permissible for them to come together. As for what appears general in command and prohibition but whose inner meaning is specific, that is separate from the abrogating and abrogated.
And since it is not impossible to say ‘There is no compulsion for anyone from whom the jizya is taken in religion,’ and there is no evidence in the verse that its interpretation is otherwise — and the Muslims have all narrated from their Prophet ﷺ that he forced certain people to convert, refusing to accept from them except Islam, ruling they be killed if they refused, such as the idolaters among the polytheists of the Arabs and the apostate — and that he left forcing others to convert by accepting the jizya and approving their religion, such as the People of the Book — it was clear from this that the meaning of ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ is that there is no compulsion for anyone from whom it is permissible to accept the jizya by paying the jizya and accepting the rule of Islam.
And the verse may have been revealed for a specific matter, and then its ruling is general for everything similar in meaning — for those about whom it was revealed were only a people who followed the religion of the People of the Torah before the contract of Islam was established for them, so Allah forbade forcing them to Islam. The ruling includes everyone who is in the same category, from whose religion it is permissible to take the jizya and to approve of it. And this is the rule in dividing the infidels in terms of fighting them or not.”
The Question of Jizya from Polytheists
The scholars of all four madhabs engaged in detail on whether jizya is accepted from non-Arab polytheists, with the majority position being that it is accepted:
The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence records that the Hanafis, Malik in a narration from Ibn al-Qasim, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in a narration from al-Hasan ibn Thawab held that the jizya is accepted from all polytheists except the polytheists of the Arabs. Their evidence was the words of Allah: {Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them} — which they held specific to the polytheists of the Arabs based on {Then when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists} [At-Tawbah: 5], i.e., the four months in which the Arabs forbade fighting. They also adduced that the Prophet ﷺ did not take jizya from the polytheists of the Arabs. Abd al-Razzaq narrated from the hadith of al-Zuhri that “the Prophet ﷺ made peace with the idol worshippers on the jizya except for those of them who were Arabs.” Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said: “They agreed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ refused to take the jizya from the idol worshippers among the Arabs and would not accept from them anything but Islam or the sword.” They further argued from reason that their disbelief had become severe, since the Prophet ﷺ grew up among them and the Quran was revealed in their language, making the miracle more evident in their case.
Malik and al-Awza’i held in one opinion — described as the most correct among the Malikis — that the jizya is accepted from all disbelievers without exception, whether Arab or non-Arab, Qurayshi or otherwise. Their evidence was the hadith of Buraydah: “Fight in the name of Allah… if you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, call them to three qualities. Whichever of them they respond to, accept it from them and refrain from them” — mentioning jizya among these qualities. His statement “your enemy from the polytheists” is either specific to idol worshippers and others from among the non-People of the Book, or general for all infidels — in either case the intended purpose is achieved, establishing that jizya is accepted from idol worshippers. They also used analogy with the People of the Book and Magians. It was narrated from Malik that the jizya is accepted from all disbelievers except the polytheists of Quraysh — a narration adopted by Ibn Rushd and Ibn al-Jahm from the Malikis, who explained the exception either as an honour to them due to their status with the Prophet ﷺ, or because all of Quraysh had converted to Islam before the jizya was legislated, leaving none of them as polytheists thereafter. This opinion was also preferred by Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him.
Al-Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in Al-Sayl al-Jarrar:
His statement that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would send a commander over an army or a detachment indicates that this was his practice in every army he sent. This does not contradict the saying of Allah about the People of the Book: {Until they pay the jizya willingly and are humbled} [At-Tawbah: 29] — the People of the Book are a type of infidels from whom one must refrain if they pay the jizya. This also does not contradict the command to fight the polytheists in the verse of the sword and others — for fighting them is obligatory unless they pay the jizya, in which case one must refrain from fighting them, just as one must refrain if they convert to Islam.
The bottom line is that whoever claims it is not permissible to impose the jizya on a group of infidels — rather they are given the choice between Islam and the sword — must provide evidence, and there is no evidence that can establish proof except what was reported regarding the apostate.”
Imam al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in Al-Umm in the chapter on the disagreement over who the jizya is taken from:
Section Three: Exposing the Deception of Those Who Misquote the Scholars
Those who seek to justify the killing of non-combatants have resorted to deliberate truncation of classical texts, presenting partial quotations stripped of their context. Each case is examined below.
1. Ibn Qudamah — The Apostasy Ruling, Not a General License
The text of Ibn Qudamah’s words was cut off. His words were about the apostate who joins the land of the people of disbelief — not being given the opportunity to repent in that case because he is considered one of the people of war. The full text from Al-Mughni, Book of the Apostate, Chapter: It is not ruled that the apostate’s property is removed merely because of his apostasy:
What was amputated — and deliberately hidden — was the qualifying clause: “because he has become a combatant, his ruling is the ruling of the people of war.” The ruling applies exclusively to the apostate-combatant.
The same Ibn Qudamah ruled comprehensively on non-combatants in the Book of Jihad:
He cites: “Do not kill an old man who is dying, nor a child, nor a woman” — narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan.
And on the authority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), his advice to Yazid when he sent him to Syria: “Do not kill a child, a woman, or an old man.”
And on the authority of Umar, who advised Salamah ibn Qays: “Do not kill a woman, a child, or an old man” — narrated by Sa’id.
“Because he is not one of those who fight, he is not killed — like a woman. The Prophet ﷺ hinted at this reason regarding the woman, saying: ‘Why was she killed, even though she did not fight?’ The verse is specific to what we have narrated, and because women and old men are excluded from its general meaning, we make an analogy with it. As for the hadith cited for killing the elderly, it meant the elders who have the strength to fight, or assistance in it with opinion or management — to combine the hadiths. And because our hadiths are specific to the old, and their hadith is general to all elders, the specific is given precedence over the general. Their analogy is invalidated by the old woman who is of no benefit.”
So look at how Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, exempted from killing: women, children, elderly infidels from the people of war who are unable to fight, monks, the blind, the lame, and the peasant who does not fight.
We also read in the Book of Blood Money from the same source:
“The blood of a Muslim man who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not permissible except in one of three cases: a life for a life, a married man who commits adultery, and one who abandons the religion and leaves the community.”
Grade: Sahih · Bukhari
2. Al-Sarakhsi — Apostates in the Land of War, Not All Disbelievers
What was amputated from Al-Sarakhsi‘s Al-Mabsut, Book of Biographies, Chapter on Apostates, was this phrase: “the apostates in the right of the Muslims are like the people of war, for they are in the land of war — and the people of war, if they convert to Islam and join the army, do not participate with them in what they have afflicted before that.” The full passage concerns a scenario where Muslims and apostates both take booty in the land of war, and the question of whether they share in each other’s spoils. The context throughout is the apostate-combatant joining the enemy army; this passage has no bearing whatsoever on ordinary non-Muslim civilians.
And nothing is due on the one who kills the apostates before calling them to Islam, because they are like disbelievers who have received the call — so if they renew it, that is good, and if he fights them before he calls them, that is good.”
The apostate is in the ruling of the disbelieving combatant; as for the issue of killing him, this is the punishment of the apostate whether he is in the land of war or not, and the right of this alone refers to the Imam only — except that the context of the speech here is about the apostate joining the land of war, so the ruling is related to the army that confronts the apostate in the land of war.
3. Ibn Taymiyyah — The Apostate’s Ruling, Not the Dhimmi’s
The words of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, were transmitted from Al-Sarim al-Maslul about not giving the apostate who joins the land of war the opportunity to repent — an issue already discussed. The full text:
This is also indicated by the fact that the Prophet ﷺ declared the blood of Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, Muqays ibn Hababa, and Abdullah ibn Khatal — who were apostates — on the day of the conquest of Mecca, and he did not give them repentance. Rather, those two men were killed. The Prophet ﷺ hesitated to pledge allegiance to Ibn Abi Sarh in case some Muslims would kill him, as he knew that killing an apostate is permissible as long as he does not convert to Islam, and that he is not given repentance. Also, the Prophet ﷺ punished the two Arabs who were in the valley and then apostatized from Islam in a way that necessitated their death and he did not give them repentance.
And because if the apostate refuses by joining the land of war, or because the apostates have power that prevents them from the rule of Islam, then he is killed before being given repentance without hesitation. So it is the same if he is in our hands.”
This passage is exclusively about the apostate and his legal status. It does not address the dhimmi, the person with a covenant, or any non-combatant disbeliever.
4. Al-Shawkani — Highway Robbery, Not a General License
The passage cited from Al-Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, in Al-Sayl al-Jarrar, Book of Limits, Chapter on the Punishment of the Thief, was about the permissibility of applying the hadd punishment of highway robbery to Muslims — establishing that this limit is a general law for the entire nation, not specific to polytheists. The Imam was talking about the permissibility of inflicting the punishment of highway robbery on Muslims and that it is not specific to the polytheist — and that the polytheist is killed whether he is a warrior or not, where what is meant by “the polytheist” here are the people of war, specifically the adult man able to carry a weapon.
The condition is that those who were the reason for the revelation had spoken the word of Islam — as in the two Sahihs and others — and this mere fact from them does not constitute apostasy. Even if we assume that they became disbelieving polytheists as a result, Allah revealed in His Noble Book the command to kill the polytheists wherever they are found, so this general ruling was sufficient to include them in what He legislated for them. So the polytheist, whether he fought or not, his blood is permissible as long as he is a polytheist — so there is nothing in applying the verse to the polytheists and specifying the limit of fighting to them except the nullification of its benefit and the opposition to what the truth requires.”
Al-Shawkani himself, in the same work under the Book of Biographies, stated that the payment of the jizya by any infidel necessitates refraining from fighting him — a ruling encompassing all non-combatant disbelievers who have a covenant or treaty.
5. Al-Kasani — The Exact Opposite of What Was Claimed
The one who raised the doubt committed a filthy distortion and mutilation of Al-Kasani‘s words — presenting them as though they support the killing of all disbelievers, when Al-Kasani explicitly excluded from killing: the woman, the child, the old man, the crippled, the dry-ribbed, the blind, those whose hands and feet were cut off, the insane, the monk, the traveler in the mountains, and people in a church with the door closed upon them.
As for the woman and the child — it is because of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Do not kill a woman or a child.’ It was narrated that he ﷺ saw a woman killed in one of his battles, so he denounced that and said: ‘Why was she killed?’ He forbade the killing of women and children. Because these are not people who fight, they are not to be killed — even if one of them fights, he is to be killed then. The same applies if he incites people to fight, or points out the faults of Muslims, or if the infidels benefit from his opinion, or if he is obeyed — even if he is a woman or a child. Because of the existence of fighting in terms of meaning.
It was narrated that Rabi’ah ibn Rafi’ al-Sulami (may Allah be pleased with him) caught up with Duraid ibn al-Simmah on the day of Hunayn and killed him while he was an old man like a basket — and nothing was of any use from him except his opinion. This reached the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he did not denounce him. The basic principle is that it is permissible to kill anyone who is among those capable of fighting, whether he fought or not — and whoever is not among the people of fighting, it is not permissible to kill him unless he fights in reality or in meaning, with opinion, obedience, incitement, and the like.
So the priest is killed, and the traveler who mixes with people, and the one who goes insane and regains consciousness, and the deaf and the mute, and the one whose left hand is cut off, and the one whose one foot is cut off — even if they did not fight, because they are among the people of fighting. If one of those we mentioned is killed and it was not permissible to kill him, then there is nothing in it of blood money or expiation — except repentance and seeking forgiveness — because the blood of the infidel is not valid except with security, and it does not exist.
As for the situation after the end of fighting — after capture and taking — everyone whose killing is not permissible in the case of fighting, it is not permissible to kill him after the end of fighting. And everyone whose killing is permissible in the case of fighting — if he fights in reality or in meaning — it is permissible to kill him after the capture and the taking. Except for the child and the insane person: it is permissible to kill them during the fighting if they fight in reality and in meaning, and it is not permissible to kill them after the fighting is over if they are taken prisoner — even if they killed a group of Muslims in the fighting. Because killing after capture is by way of punishment, and they are not among those who deserve punishment. As for killing in the case of fighting, it is to repel the evil of fighting — and evil has been found from them, so killing them is permitted to repel evil. But evil has been eliminated by capture, so killing after that is by way of punishment, and they are not among those who deserve it. And Allah — Glory be to Him — knows best.”
So look at how the one who made the doubt wanted to make people believe that the people of fighting include all the infidels — their great and small, their male and female!
6. Imam al-Nawawi — Idol Worshippers Without a Book, Not the Dhimmi
The one who raised the doubt blatantly deceived Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him. The Imam was talking about killing the apostate and the idol worshipper who was not from the People of the Book or from the Magians and to whom the call of Islam had not reached — he excluded the Magians and the People of the Book from that. The context of his speech was, of course, talking about men who have the ability to fight.
The Imam said: If a group of apostates formed a party and there was a need to hear their message, and their messenger came — it was said: They should not be interfered with, but if he was killed, then there is no guarantee. Sheikh Abu Muhammad hesitated to classify the Zindiq as an apostate, but the correct view is to classify him as a pagan. As for someone who has no covenant or security from the infidels, there is no guarantee for killing him, regardless of his religion.
All that we have mentioned is about a disbeliever who has received our call and the news of our Prophet ﷺ. As for the one who has not received our call, it is not permissible to kill him before informing him and calling him to Islam. And if he was killed, he would be guaranteed for certain.”
On the separate scholarly disagreement about whether jizya may be taken from non-People of the Book and non-Magians — a disagreement Imam al-Nawawi engaged with — Ibn al-Qayyim’s position that jizya is accepted from all disbelievers without exception represents the stronger view, supported by the explicit wording of the Buraydah hadith.
7. Ibn Muflih — The Combatant Harbi Specifically, Not All Disbelievers
The one who made the doubt committed another deception by cutting the words of Ibn Muflih, may Allah have mercy on him — making people believe that Ibn Muflih was talking about all infidels, while Ibn Muflih was talking about the infidel war criminal.
May Allah curse lying!
8. Imam al-Qurtubi — Combatants in the Sanctuary, Not the Dhimmi
We have previously quoted al-Qurtubi’s opinion regarding not killing someone from whom the jizya is taken, in his tafsir of “There is no compulsion in religion” — and that it is not abrogated. The one who raised the doubt committed a dirty deception against Imam al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, as the Imam mentioned the statement cited against him in the midst of his tafsir of the verse: {O you who have believed, when you go forth in the cause of Allah, investigate and do not say to one who offers you peace, ‘You are not a believer’…} [Al-Nisa: 94]. This is specific to a Muslim meeting an infidel combatant with whom he has no covenant. Therefore Imam al-Qurtubi says in his tafsir of this verse:
When this was mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ, he was upset and the verse was revealed. Al-Bukhari narrated it on the authority of Ata’ on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: There was a man with some spoils of war, and the Muslims caught up with him. He said: ‘Peace be upon you.’ They killed him and took his spoils. Then Allah the Most High revealed {seeking the goods of worldly life} — that is, the spoils.
And in Sunan Ibn Majah on the authority of Imran ibn Husayn: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent an army of Muslims to the polytheists, and they fought them fiercely. A man of them attacked a polytheist with a spear. When he came upon him, he said: ‘I bear witness that there is no god but Allah — I am a Muslim.’ So he stabbed him and killed him. Then he came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I am doomed!’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘Why did you not split open his belly so you could know what was in his heart?’ He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, if I split open his belly would I know what was in his heart?’ He said: ‘No — you did not accept what he said, nor do you know what was in his heart.’ So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not speak about him. He did not live long until he died — so we buried him, and he came to the surface of the ground. We said: ‘Perhaps an enemy dug him up.’ So we buried him and ordered our servants to guard him — and he came to the surface of the ground. We said: ‘Perhaps the boys have fallen asleep.’ So we buried him and guarded him ourselves. He came to the surface of the earth in the morning, so we threw him into one of those valleys.
It was said: The killer was Usamah ibn Zayd and the one killed was Mirdas ibn Nahik al-Ghatafani, then al-Fazari from Banu Murrah from the people of Fadak. Ibn al-Qasim said the same on the authority of Malik. It was said: This Mirdas had converted to Islam that night and informed his family about it. When the Prophet ﷺ made the matter difficult for Usamah, he swore at that time that he would not fight a man who said ‘There is no god but Allah.’ It was also said the killer was Abu Qatada; and also said Abu Darda. Perhaps these circumstances occurred at a close time, so the verse was revealed about all of them. It has been narrated that the Prophet ﷺ returned the sheep and camel to the family of the Muslim and carried out his blood money. And Allah knows best.”
9 and 10. Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari — Fighting in the Sanctuary, Not the People of the Covenant
We have previously presented the statement of Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the impermissibility of killing a boy, a woman, a dying old man, monks, and those from whom the jizyah is taken. The deception committed was that Ibn Kathir was speaking about fighting the people of war from the polytheists of Quraysh inside the sanctuary — was it abrogated or not? — and not about the People of the Covenant or those with whom a treaty has been made. This was in his tafsir of the statement of Allah: {O you who have believed, do not violate the symbols of Allah or the sacred month or the offerings or the garlands or those coming to the Sacred House, seeking bounty from their Lord and approval. And when you are in ihram, do not hunt…} [Al-Ma’idah: 5:2].
Mujahid, Ata’, Abu al-‘Aliyah, Mutraf ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Ubayd ibn Umair, al-Rabi’ ibn Anas, Muqatil ibn Hayyan, Qatadah and others said regarding His statement ‘seeking bounty from their Lord’ — he meant trade. And his saying ‘and approval’ — Ibn Abbas said: they seek to please Allah with their love.
Ikrimah, al-Suddi, and Ibn Jarir mentioned that this verse was revealed about al-Hutam ibn Hind al-Bakri, who had raided the herds of Madinah. When it was the next year, he performed Umrah to the House, and some of the Companions wanted to intercept him on his way to the House — so Allah revealed ‘and do not let the hatred of a people… those coming to the Sacred House.’
Ibn Jarir narrated the consensus that it is permissible to kill a polytheist if he is not safe, even if he visits the Sacred House or the Holy House, and that this ruling has been abrogated in their case. As for the one who intends to commit heresy, polytheism, and disbelief in it — then this is forbidden. Allah the Most High said: {O you who have believed, the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs} [At-Tawbah: 28]. And for this reason the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Ali in the year nine, when he appointed Abu Bakr as the leader of the pilgrims, and ordered him to proclaim on behalf of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ the declaration of innocence — that no polytheist should perform Hajj after this year, and that no one should circumambulate the House naked.
Ibn Abi Talha said on the authority of Ibn Abbas: So the believers and the polytheists were performing Hajj, so Allah forbade the believers from preventing anyone — whether a believer or a disbeliever. Then Allah revealed after that: {The polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after their year} — and He said: {It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah} [At-Tawbah: 17].
Abd al-Razzaq narrated: Ma’mar narrated to us from Qatada regarding ‘nor the necklaces, nor those coming to the Sacred House’ — he said: It is abrogated. In the days of ignorance, when a man left his house intending to perform Hajj, he would wear a necklace of trees, and no one would interfere with him. When he returned, he would wear a necklace of hair, and no one would interfere with him. And the polytheist at that time was not prevented from entering the House — so they were commanded not to fight in the sacred month, nor at the House. This was abrogated by His statement: {Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them} [At-Tawbah: 5].“
11. Imam al-Shafi’i — His Words Prove the Opposite
The one who raised the doubt quoted al-Shafi’i’s words about killing a disbeliever who did not have a jizya or a guarantee of safety. This is against him and not for him — because the disbeliever who does not pay the jizya and does not have a guarantee is a disbeliever at war. Here he quoted what proves our argument.
We have previously quoted the words of Al-Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, on the issue, where he stated the permissibility of taking the jizya from all religions.
...524425e4a1b8efbb7265e7ec52e.r2.dev/attachments/IslamophobesNightmarepdf_270-3efb58eda8a48ee9.jpg)