A clear response in defense of the righteous predecessors in the issue of jihad and fighting, REsponse to Christan server

 

The response:
It will consist of three sections:
1. Clarification of the authentic hadiths prohibiting fighting the People of the Covenant, those with a covenant, women and children
2. Clarification that the people of disbelief are divided into four categories: the dhimmi, those with a covenant, those who have been granted security, and those who are fighting
3. Clarification of the deception of the people of knowledge

First: Clarification of the authentic hadiths prohibiting fighting the People of the Covenant, those with a covenant, women and children
We read from Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Military Expeditions
3364 Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated to us, Waki’ ibn al-Jarrah narrated to us, on the authority of Sufyan, H and Ishaq ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, Yahya ibn Adam informed us, Sufyan narrated to us, He said: He dictated it to us. And Abdullah bin Hashim told me, and the wording is his, Abdul Rahman told me, meaning Ibn Mahdi, Sufyan told us, on the authority of Alqamah bin Marthad, on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah, on the authority of his father, who said: When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, appointed a leader over an army or a military expedition, he would advise him in private to fear Allah. And whoever is with him from the Muslims is good. Then he said: Fight in the name of God in the way of God. Fight whoever disbelieves in God. Fight and 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 - and whichever of them they respond to you, accept from them and refrain from them, then call them to Islam, and if they respond to you, then accept from them and refrain from them, then 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 they will be subject to what the emigrants are subject to. But if they refuse to move from it, then tell them that 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 the spoils and the booty unless they fight with the Muslims. But if they refuse, then ask them. The jizya. If they respond to you, then 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, but grant them your protection and the protection of your companions, for you will be betraying Your responsibility and the responsibility of your companions is easier than breaking the responsibility of Allah and the responsibility of 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, but bring them down according to your judgment, for you do not know whether you will achieve the judgment of Allah regarding them or not. Abd al-Rahman said this or something similar, and Ishaq added in His last hadith, on the authority of Yahya ibn Adam, he said: So I mentioned this hadith to Muqatil ibn Hayyan - Yahya said: He means that Alqamah was saying it to Ibn Hayyan - and he said: Muslim ibn Haysam told me, on the authority of An-Nu'man ibn Muqarrin, on the authority of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, something similar to it, and Hajjaj ibn Ash-Sha'ir told me, Abd Al-Samad ibn Abd Al-Warith: Shu`bah narrated to us, Alqamah ibn Marthad narrated to me, that Sulayman ibn Buraydah narrated to him on the authority of his father, who said: Whenever the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent an emir or a military expedition, he would call him and give him advice, and he narrated the hadith with the same meaning as the hadith of Sufyan. Ibrahim narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Farra’ narrated to us, on the authority of al-Husayn ibn al-Walid, on the authority of Shu’bah, with this.

We read from Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Military Expeditions
3382: Yahya ibn Yahya and Muhammad ibn Rumh narrated to us, they said: al-Layth informed us, and Qutaybah ibn Sa’id narrated to us, Layth narrated to us, on the authority of Nafi’, on the authority of Abdullah, that a woman was found in some of the The campaigns of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, were killed. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, denounced the killing of women and children.

God Almighty said: ((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 he, may Allah have mercy on him, pointed out that it includes the prohibition of killing women, children, the elderly, and the monasteries of the People of the Book and the disbelievers absolutely in all circumstances, whether that is 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, regarding the words of Allah the Almighty: (And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you) he said: This is the first verse revealed about fighting in Medina, so when it was revealed The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to 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, until he said: This was abrogated by His statement: {Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them} [At-Tawbah: 5]. There is a consideration in this, because His statement: {those who fight you} is only an incitement and enticement to the enemies whose concern is to fight Islam and its people, that is: 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, and towards expelling them from their country from which they expelled you, in retaliation.
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. And
His statement: {And do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors} means : Fight in the cause of Allah and do not transgress in that. This includes committing forbidden acts, as al-Hasan al-Basri said, such as mutilation, theft, killing women, children, and old people who have no opinion and are not allowed to fight, monks and monasteries, burning trees, and killing animals for no good, as Ibn Abbas, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Muqatil ibn Hayyan, and others said. This is why it was narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Buraydah, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to say: “Fight in the cause of Allah, fight those who disbelieve in Allah, fight but do not commit transgression, do not betray, do not mutilate, do not kill a child, or the monasteries.” Narrated by Imam Ahmad.
On the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said: When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent out his armies, he would say: “Go out in the name of Allah, fight in the cause of Allah against those who disbelieve in Allah, do not betray, do not steal, do not mutilate, and do not kill children or the owners of monasteries .” Narrated by Imam Ahmad.
Abu Dawud narrated on the authority of Anas, with a chain of transmission traceable to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, similarly. In the two Sahihs, on the authority of Ibn Umar, he said: A woman was found killed in one of the battles of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, denounced the killing of women and children.
Imam Ahmad said: Mus`ab ibn Salam told us, Al-Ajlah told us, on the authority of Qays ibn Abi Muslim, on the authority of Rib`i ibn Harash, who said: I heard Hudhayfah say: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave us examples of one, three, five, seven, nine, and eleven. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave us examples of them and left out the rest. He said:“A people who were weak and poor, fought by people of tyranny and hostility, so Allah gave victory to the weak over them, so they went to their enemy and used them and empowered them, so they incurred Allah’s wrath upon them until the Day they meet Him.”
This is a hadith with a good chain of narration. Its meaning is that when these weak people gained power over the strong, so they transgressed against them and used them in a way that was not appropriate for them, they incurred Allah’s wrath upon them because of this transgression. The hadiths and reports on this are very many.

As for the prohibition of killing those with whom a covenant is binding and the People of the Covenant,
we read from Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Jizya, Chapter on the sin of whoever kills a covenant holder without a crime
3021 Qais ibn Hafs narrated to us, Abd al-Wahid narrated to us, al-Hasan ibn Amr narrated to us, Mujahid narrated to us, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with them both, on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who said: 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.

We read from Sunan Ibn Majah, Part Six
, 2687: Muhammad ibn Bashar told us, Ma’di ibn Sulayman told us, Ibn Ajlan told us, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who said: 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.
Imam Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, authenticated it in As-Silsilah As-Saheehah, Hadith No. 2356.

We read from Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of Jihad and Military Expeditions
, 2887: Musa bin Ismail narrated to us, Abu Awana narrated to us, on the authority of Hisayn, on the authority of Amr bin Maymun, on the authority of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: “ And I advise him with the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to fulfill their covenant with them and to fight on their behalf and not to burden them beyond their capacity.

” Imam Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Saheeh Al-Bukhari : “His
statement: (Chapter: 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 bin Al-Khattab, which is his statement: “And I advise him with the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger” The hadith will come in detail in Al-Manaqib. Ibn At-Teen commented on him by saying that there is nothing in the hadith that indicates what he translated as not enslaving, 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 which He said that they are enslaved if they break the covenant, Ibn Al-Qasim, and Ashab and the majority disagreed with him, and the place of that is if the enemy takes the dhimmi captive and then the Muslims take the dhimmi captive. Ibn Qudamah was strange and narrated the consensus, and it is as if he did not know the disagreement of Ibn Al-Qasim, and it is as if Al-Bukhari knew it and that is why he translated it with it.

The people of knowledge have agreed on this that the dhimmi, the protected, the children and the women are not to be fought or killed,
as stated in the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, for the Almighty said ((There is no compulsion in religion)):
(( It is not abrogated, but rather it was revealed specifically for the People of the Book, and that they are not forced to Islam if they pay the jizyah, and those who compel the people of idols, nothing will be accepted from them except Islam, they are those about whom it was revealed, O Prophet, fight the disbelievers and the hypocrites. This is the saying of Al-Sha’bi, Qatadah, Al-Hasan and Al-Dahhak. The evidence for this saying is what Zaid bin Aslam narrated from his father, who said: I heard Omar bin Al-Khattab say to an old Christian woman: Convert to Islam, O old woman, and you will be safe, for God sent Muhammad with the truth. She said: I am an old woman and death is near! Omar said: O God, bear witness, and he recited: There is no compulsion in religion .))

Second: A statement that the people of disbelief are divided into four categories: the dhimmi, the one with whom a covenant is made, the one who is granted security, and the warrior. And the one who fights is only the warrior.
We read from the rulings of the people of the covenant by Ibn al-Qayyim, may God have mercy on him, the second part, the section on the categories of the people of the covenant among the disbelievers:
(( The disbelievers are either people of war or people of a covenant. The people of the covenant are three categories:
[1 -] People of the covenant.
[2 -] People of a truce.
[3 -] People of security.
The jurists have devoted a chapter to each category, so they said: The chapter of the truce, the chapter of security, Chapter on 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 in his covenant and contract, meaning he obligated him with the contract and pledge . Then it came to be used for everything that… The right can be taken from him, whether it was due by his contract or without his contract, such as a replacement for something lost, for it is said: it is in his possession, and whether it was due by his action, or by the action of his guardian or his agent, such as the guardian of a child, or the insane, or the guardian of the treasury and the endowment, for the treasury and the endowment establish a right for him and a right against him, just as the guardian establishes a right for the treasury and the endowment. For the boy and the insane, and his guardian who has the right to collect for him, and collect what is due from him, and thus the word “peace” is general in every peace, and it includes the peace of Muslims with each other, and their peace with the infidels, but it became - in the terminology of many jurists - “People of the Covenant” an expression for those who pay the jizyah, and these They have an eternal covenant, and these have made a covenant with the Muslims that the rule of Allah and His Messenger will apply to them, since they are residing in the land in which the rule of Allah and His Messenger applies, unlike the people of the truce, for they made peace with the Muslims on the condition that they would be in their land, whether the peace was for money or something else, and it does not apply to them. The rules of Islam apply to the People of the Covenant, 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.
As for the one who is granted protection, he is the one who comes to the lands of the Muslims without settling there. These are of four types: messengers, merchants, and those seeking protection until Islam and the Qur’an are presented to them. If they wish, they may enter it, and if they wish, they may return to their lands and seek a need such as a visit or something else. The ruling on these is that they should not… They should emigrate, not be killed, and the jizya should not be taken from them. Islam and the Qur’an should be offered to those who seek refuge among them. If they accept it, then that is good. But if they prefer to join their place of safety, they should join them, and they should not be offered it to them before they reach it. When they reach their place of safety, they return to being at war as they were before. Thus, the

prohibition against fighting includes the protected person, the dhimmi, women, and children.
We read from Ibn al-Qayyim’s book, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, the mention of the jizya, the chapter on those who… The Jizya is taken, its wisdom and reason:
((They said: Because killing is only obligatory in response to wars, not in response to disbelief, and for this reason women, children, the blind, and monks who do not fight are not killed. Rather, we fight whoever fights us.
This was the conduct of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - with the people of the earth; He would fight whoever fought him until he entered his religion or made peace with him or came under his subjugation by paying the jizya. This is what he would order his troops and armies to do when they fought their enemies, as mentioned in the hadith of Buraydah. So if the infidels stopped fighting the people of Islam and made peace with them and paid them the jizya willingly while they were humiliated, then this was… In the interest of the people of Islam and the polytheists.
As for the interest of the people of Islam, it is what they take from the money that will be a strength for Islam with the smallness and humiliation of disbelief, and that is more beneficial for them than leaving the disbelievers without paying the jizya.
As for the interest of the polytheists, there is no hope of their remaining in Islam if they see the signs of Islam and its proofs, or if its news reaches them, then 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 God is supreme, and the religion is all for God. There is nothing in keeping them alive with the jizya that contradicts this meaning, just as keeping the People of the Book alive with the jizya among the Muslims does not contradict the word of God being supreme, and the religion being all for God. For part of the religion being All of this belongs to Allah, the humiliation of disbelief, its people, and its lowliness, and the imposition of the jizya on the heads of its people, and slavery on their necks. 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. ))

And we read from the interpretation of al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, in the words of God Almighty: ((There is no compulsion in religion))
((Abu Ja`far said: The most correct of these sayings is the saying of the one who said: This verse was revealed regarding a specific group of people - and he said: He meant by His words - may He be exalted -: “There is no compulsion in religion” the People of the Book, the Magians, and everyone whose confession of his religion that is contrary to the religion of truth came, and the jizyah was taken from him, and they denied that any of it was abrogated.
And we said that this saying is the most correct of the sayings in that; because we have demonstrated in our book (The Book of Al-Latif from the Explanation of the Principles of Rulings): that the abrogating is not abrogating except what negates the ruling of the abrogated, so it is not permissible for them to come together. As for what appears to be general in the command and prohibition, and its inner meaning is specific, then it is separate from the abrogating and abrogated.
And since that is the case - and it is not impossible to say: There is no compulsion for anyone from whom the jizyah is taken in religion, and there is no evidence in the verse that its interpretation is otherwise, and the Muslims were all They have narrated from their Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - that he forced a people to convert to Islam, but they refused to accept anything from them except Islam, and he ruled that they should be killed if they refused, such as the idolaters among the polytheists of the Arabs, and the one who apostatized from his true religion to disbelief and those like them, and that he left forcing others to convert to Islam by accepting the jizya from him and approving of his false religion, such as the People of the Book and those like them - it was clear from this that the meaning of his saying: “There is no compulsion in religion” is that there is no compulsion in religion for anyone from whom it is permissible to accept the jizya by paying the jizya and accepting the rule of Islam.
There is no meaning to the statement of the one who claimed that the verse abrogated the ruling by permitting warfare.
If someone says: What do you say about what was narrated from Ibn Abbas and those narrated from him that it was revealed about a group of the Ansar who wanted to force their children to convert to Islam?
We said: This is not proven to be true, but the verse may have been revealed for a specific matter, and then its ruling is general for everything that is similar in meaning to the one it was revealed for. So those about whom this verse was revealed - according to what Ibn Abbas and others mentioned - 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 - the Most High - forbade forcing them to Islam, and revealed in forbidding that a verse whose ruling includes everyone who is in the same category as them, who is of a religion from whose people it is permissible to take the jizyah and to approve of it, in the manner we have said about that. And this

is the rule in dividing the infidels in terms of fighting them or not.

Third: Clarification of the deception of the people of knowledge:
1. Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him:
The text of Ibn Qudamah’s words was cut off, as Ibn Qudamah’s words were about the apostate who joins the land of the people of disbelief not being given the opportunity to repent in this case because he is considered one of the people of war, i.e. an infidel at war.
The full text that was cut off is from Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, Book of the Apostate, Chapter: It is not ruled that the apostate’s property is removed merely because of his apostasy
((Al-Sharif Abu Ja`far said: This is the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s words. And from Al-Shafi`i there are three sayings, like these three. And for us, it is a reason that makes his blood permissible, so his property is not removed, like fornication. The chaste person, and the killing of the one who is equivalent to him intentionally, and the loss of infallibility does not necessarily result in the loss of ownership, as evidenced by the chaste adulterer, the killer in warfare, and the people of war, for their ownership is established with their infallibility, and if the apostate reaches the land of war, his ownership does not disappear, but it is permissible to kill him - for everyone without a chance to repent -, And taking his money - for whoever is able to do so - because he has become a combatant, his ruling is the ruling of the people of war , and likewise if a group of people apostatized and refused in their home to obey the leader of the Muslims, their inviolability in themselves and their money would be removed; Because the original infidels have no protection in their home, so the apostate is more deserving.))

It has been amputated why he is killed without being given a chance to repent:
((Because he has become a combatant, his ruling is the ruling of the people of war, and likewise if a group apostatizes and refuses to obey the leader of the Muslims in their home))

and the apostate is considered a combatant whether he is joined or not, and the difference is that if he is not joined to the people of war, then he is given a chance to repent.
We read from Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Blood Money
((6878 - Umar ibn Hafs narrated to us, My father told us, Al-A’mash told us, on the authority of Abdullah bin Murrah, on the authority of Masruq, on the authority of Abdullah, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “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.”

And we read from the same book : Ibn Qudamah, Part Nine, Book of Jihad:
(([The issue of the imam, if he defeats the infidels, it is not permissible for him to kill a child who has not reached puberty]
(7610) Issue; he said: And if a fortress is conquered, it is not permissible to kill someone who has not reached puberty, or sprouted, or reached fifteen years of age. The gist of this is that if the imam defeats the infidels, it is not permissible for him to kill a child who has not reached puberty, without any difference of opinion. Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) “forbade the killing of women and children.” Agreed upon....
And because the boy becomes a slave by the very fact of his capture, killing him is a loss of property, and if he is captured alone he becomes a Muslim, so his loss is the loss of someone who can be made a Muslim, ....
Chapter: Neither a woman nor an old man shall be killed in the land of war]
(7611) Chapter: Neither a woman nor an old man shall be killed. And this is what Malik and the people of opinion said. This was narrated on the authority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Mujahid.
It was narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas regarding the words of Allah the Most High: {And do not transgress} [Al-Baqarah: 190]. He said: Do not kill women, children, and the elderly . Al-Shafi’i said, in one of his two opinions, and Ibn al-Mundhir: It is permissible to kill the elderly; Because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Kill the elders of the polytheists and spare their young men.” Narrated by Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi, who said: A good and authentic hadith. And because Allah the Most High said: {Then kill the polytheists} [At-Tawbah: 5]. This is general and includes the elders in its generality.
Ibn al-Mundhir said: I do not know of any argument for not killing the elderly that can be used as an exception to the generality of His statement: {Then kill the polytheists} [At-Tawbah: 5]. Because he is a disbeliever and there is no benefit in his life, he is killed like a young man. And we have that the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - said: “ Do not kill an old man who is dying, nor a child, nor a woman.” Narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan. It was narrated on the authority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he advised Yazid when he sent him to Syria, saying: Do not kill a child, a woman, or an old man.
And on the authority of Umar, that he advised Salamah ibn Qays, saying: Do not kill a woman, a child, or an old man. Saeed narrated both of them. Because he is not one of those who fight, he is not killed, like a woman. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, hinted at this reason in 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 their hadith, he meant by it 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, and the specific is given precedence over the general, and their analogy is invalidated by the old woman who is of no benefit.
[Chapter: No one, no blind person, and no monk shall be killed in the land of war]
(7612) Chapter:Neither a blind person nor a monk shall be killed. The disagreement over them is like the disagreement over the Sheikh, and their argument here is their argument over him. And for us, in the time and the blind man, that they are not from the people of fighting, so he is more like a woman, and in the monk, what was narrated in the hadith of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him, that he said: “And you will pass by people in monasteries, who have confined themselves in them, so leave them until God causes them to die in their misguidance.” And because they do not fight out of religious commitment, they are similar to those who are not able to fight ...
[Chapter: Fighting the farmer in battle]
(7617) Chapter: As for the farmer who does not fight, he should not be killed, because of what was narrated on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattab - may God be pleased with him - that he said: Fear God with regard to the farmers, who do not wage war against you. And al-Awza’i said: Do not... The farmer is to be killed if it is known that he is not a fighter. Ash-Shafi’i said that he is to be killed unless he pays the jizyah, because he is included in the general category of polytheists. We have the statement of ‘Umar, and that the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not kill them when they conquered the lands, and because they do not fight, so they resemble the elderly and monks .

So look at how Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, exempted the killing of women, children, and elderly infidels . From the people of war who are unable to fight, and he also excluded the killing of monks, the blind, the lame, and the peasant who does not fight

We read what was cut from Al-Mabsut by Al-Sarakhsi, Book of Biographies, Chapter on Apostates:
((A people invaded the land of war, and a group of them apostatized, and they withdrew from their army, and fought, and opposed them, so the Muslims seized booty, and those apostates seized booty from the people of polytheism, then they repented before they left the land of war, and neither party participated with the other in what they seized; Because some of them were not a support for others, so the Muslims do not support the apostates, nor do they seek support from the apostates if they are upset by a matter, and the affliction of the apostates is not booty if their intention when afflicted was not to strengthen the religion, and 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 suffered before that, and likewise the apostates, unless they encounter fighting, then they fight before they go out to the land of Islam, then at that time some of them participate with others; Because they fought to defend that money, it is as if they had acquired it through this fighting, and they participated in securing it in the house, so some of them share with others in that. Then this is in what the Muslims acquired without any problem, in the same position as someone who converted to Islam from the people of war, and joined the army if they encountered fighting, so some of them fought, and what the apostates acquired, even if… He does not have the ruling of spoils, because he takes the ruling of spoils by this fighting, like a thief who seizes wealth and then the Muslim army catches up with him, because his slanderer takes the ruling of spoils until he pays the fifth, 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 they fight them before he calls them, that is good. ))

And this is what was amputated:
((And 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, they do not participate with them in what they have afflicted before that,))
So the apostate is in the ruling of the disbelieving combatant, and as for the issue of killing him, this is the punishment of the apostate, whether he was 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. Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him:
The words of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, were transmitted about not giving the apostate who joins In the land of war, we have already discussed the issue.
We read from Al-Sarim Al-Maslul, the third issue: He is to be killed and not given the opportunity to repent:
((The secret of that is that we do not permit the killing of an infidel until we give him the opportunity to repent, that the call of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, to Islam has reached him. For killing someone to whom the call has not reached is not permissible, and the call has reached the apostate, so it is permissible to kill him like the original infidel to whom the call has reached.This is the reason for those who consider repentance desirable, as it is desirable to call the infidels to Islam in every war, even if the call has reached them, and the same applies to the apostate, and this is not obligatory in
either case. Yes, if the apostate is assumed to be someone who is unaware of the permissibility of returning to Islam, then repentance is necessary here.
This is also indicated by the fact that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, declared the blood of Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, Muqays bin Hababa, and Abdullah bin 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, may God bless him and grant him peace, hesitated to pledge allegiance to Ibn Abi Sarh in case some Muslims would kill him. 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, may God bless him and grant him peace, 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 he did something that makes blood permissible, he was killed before being given repentance, like the original infidel, the adulterer, the highway robber, and the like. All of these people’s repentance is accepted, and whoever is not accepted is killed before being given 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.))

 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, and what is meant by the polytheist here are the people of war, including (the adult man who is able to carry a weapon) .
We read what Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, said in the book Al-Sayl Al-Jarrar, the book of the limits, the chapter on the punishment of the thief:
((His saying: “Chapter: And the warrior is the one who fears the path.” etc.
I say: This limit is among the limits that God has legislated between His servants, and it came in His words in the form of calling out to the generality in the loudest voice and the clearest meaning, so from this perspective it is a general law for the entire nation, the first and the last of them, their blacks and whites, and the fact that the reason for its revelation was regarding the polytheists who took the camels’ milk from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, when they complained to him about the epidemic of Medina, so he ordered them to go out to where his camels were to drink from their milk and urine until they recovered, so they killed their shepherd and drove them away does not indicate that this is specific to them. The limit for them, because the consideration is based on the generality of the wording and not on the specificity of the reason as is established in the principles, and none of the eminent imams disagreed with this, on the condition that those who were the reason for the revelation had spoken the word of Islam as in the two Sahihs [Bukhari “683”, Muslim “1671”], and others [Abu Dawud “4364”, At-Tirmidhi “72”, An-Nasa’i “4029”, Ibn Majah “2578”], and this mere fact from them does not constitute apostasy, even if we assume that they became disbelieving polytheists as a result, because God revealed in His Noble Book the command to kill the polytheists wherever they are found and wherever they stand, so this general ruling was sufficient to include them in the group of Islam in what He legislated for them of rulings, 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 and what fairness leads to, and this limit was established on the fighters of the Companions and those who came after them to this end.
As for what Al-Jalal, may God have mercy on him, showed of the benefits and harms of what he chose to specify the punishment for fighting with polytheists, those benefits and the prevention of harms cannot be patched up by tearing them apart, as they are false and refuted, arising from the whispering about the distortion of God’s rulings and the change of what He has legislated. ))

And what indicates my words is that we also read from the same source the Book of Biographies:
((His saying: “Chapter: It is valid to perpetuate the peace treaty between the non-Arab and the People of the Book with the jizya.”
I say: The apparent evidence requires that the payment of the jizya by any infidel necessitates refraining from fighting him. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to send commanders from among his companions with the army to the different groups, and he would mention among what he advised them that if they paid the jizya, that would be accepted from them, as in the hadith of Buraydah in Muslim and others. He said: When the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, passed by as a commander over an army or a detachment, then he mentioned in it: “If they refuse, then ask them for the jizya. If they respond, then accept it from them and refrain from fighting them.” His saying that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, would send a commander over an army or a detachment indicates that this was his practice in every army he sent, and this does not contradict the saying of God Almighty about the People of the Book: {Until they pay the jizya willingly and are humbled} [At-Tawbah: 9]29] The People of the Book are a type of infidels whom one must refrain from fighting if they pay the jizya. This also does not contradict what was mentioned about 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 from fighting them if they convert to Islam.This generalization does not contradict what he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did in terms of ordering the Jews and Christians to be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula, because his ultimate aim was that it is not permissible to reconcile with them by paying the jizya in the Arabian Peninsula, and that does not contradict the permissibility of reconciling with them by imposing the jizya on them if they are not in the Arabian Peninsula.
The bottom line is that whoever claims that it is not permissible to impose the jizya on a group of infidels, but rather they are given the choice between Islam and the sword, then he must provide evidence, and there is no evidence that can establish proof except what was reported regarding the apostate, as we have stated previously and as will come, God willing .))

5. Al-Kasani, may God have mercy on him:
The one who raised the doubt committed a filthy distortion and mutilation of Al-Kasani’s words, as he excluded from this statement the woman, the child, the old man, the crippled, the dry, the blind, the one whose hands and feet were cut off, the insane, the monk, the traveler in the mountains, the people in the church and the monastery.

We read from the book Bada’i’ Al-Sana’i’, the book of biographies:
(([A chapter explaining who among the infidels is permissible to kill and who is not permissible]
(Chapter):
As for explaining who among the infidels is permissible to kill and who is not, we say: The situation is either the situation of fighting, or the situation of what… After the completion of the fighting, which is after taking and capturing, as for the state of fighting, it is not permissible to kill a woman, a child, a dying old man, a crippled person, a person with a dry rib, a blind person, a person whose hand and foot have been cut off from opposite sides, a person whose right hand has been cut off, a lunatic, a monk in a monastery, or a traveler in the mountains. He mixes with people, and some people in a house or church have become monks and the door has closed on them. As for the woman and the child, it is because of the saying of the Prophet - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - “Do not kill a woman or a child.” It was narrated that he - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - saw a woman killed in one of his battles, so he denounced that and said - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - “Hey, I do not think she fought.” 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. 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’ as-Sulami - may Allah be pleased with him - caught up with Duraid ibn as-Simmah on the day of Hunayn, and killed him while he was an old man like a basket, and nothing was of any use except his opinion. This reached the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and he did not denounce him.” The basic principle is that it is permissible to kill anyone who is among those who are capable of fighting, whether he fought or not. He fights, 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, according to what we mentioned. 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 I cut off the left hand, and I cut off one of the feet, even if he did not They fight, because they are among the people of fighting. If one of those we mentioned is killed and it is 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 the fighting, which is after the capture and the taking, then everyone whose killing is not permissible in the case of fighting, it is not permissible to kill him after the end of the 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 who does not have reason, it is permissible to kill them during the fighting if they fight in reality and meaning, and it is not permissible to kill them after the fighting is over if they are taken prisoner, even if they kill 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, and 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 God - Glory be to Him and Most High - I know .))

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, may Allah have mercy on him:
The one who raised the doubt blatantly deceived Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, as 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 the call of Islam had not reached him, so he excluded the Magians and the People of the Book from that, and the context of his speech, of course, was talking about men who have the ability to fight.

We read from the book Rawdat al-Talibin, the ninth part, the book on blood money:
((The third category: A disbeliever who has no book, nor a semblance of a book, such as the worshipper of idols, the sun, the moon, the heretic, and the apostate. These people cannot be imagined to have a covenant of protection; however, they may have security. Because some of them entered as a messenger and he was killed; then there is the blood money of a Zoroastrian, except for the apostate, for there is nothing in it, because he is killed in any case, and he is not among the people of security.
The Imam said: If a group of apostates formed a party and there was a need to hear their message, and their messenger came, then 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 Nadiq 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.
I said: There has been a previous disagreement about the dhimmi and the apostate, if they kill an apostate, is blood money obligatory? If we require it, then it is the blood money of a Magian, as mentioned by Al-Baghawi. And Allah knows best.
All that we have mentioned is about a disbeliever who has received our call and the news of our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. 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 sure, and how would he be guaranteed?))

This statement, which is the statement that the jizya should not be taken from someone who is not from the People of the Book or a Zoroastrian, has been opposed by the people of knowledge. We have previously quoted the opinion of Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, and we will also quote the opinion of Ibn Al-Qayyim.

Ibn Al-Qayyim said in the book Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimmah, Part One, Chapter on Whom the jizya is taken from
((And from it: That the jizya is taken from every infidel. This is the apparent meaning of this hadith, and he did not exclude from it one infidel from another.
And it should not be said: This is specific to the People of the Book in particular, because the wording rejects their being specific to the People of the Book. Also, the raids and armies of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, most of them fought idol worshippers from the Arabs .))

We read from the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence
(( And the Hanafis and Malik went in a narration narrated from him by Ibn Al-Qasim, and he and Ashab and Sahnun took it, as did Ahmad ibn Hanbal in a narration narrated from him by Al-Hasan ibn Thawaab, they went to That the jizya is accepted from all polytheists except the polytheists of the Arabs. They provided evidence for this with the words of God Almighty: {Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them}. It is specific to the polytheists of the Arabs, because it is based on the words of God Almighty: {Then when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists}. These are the four months in which the Arabs forbade fighting. And because the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not take the jizya from the polytheists of the Arabs.
Abdul Razzaq narrated from the hadith of Az-Zuhri that “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, made peace with the idol worshippers on the jizya except for those of them who were Arabs .”
Ibn Jarir At-Tabari said: “They agreed that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, refused to take the jizya from the idol worshippers among the Arabs, and he would not accept from them anything but Islam or the sword.”
They inferred from reason that their disbelief had become severe, because the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, grew up among them, and the Qur’an was revealed in their language, so the miracle was more evident in their case, because they were more knowledgeable about its meanings and the aspects of eloquence in it. And whoever’s disbelief became severe, nothing would be accepted from him except Islam or the sword, because God Almighty said: {Say to those of the desert Arabs who stayed behind, ‘You will be called to fight a people of great strength. You will fight them or they will submit.’} meaning you will fight them until they submit. Malik and Al-Awza’i said in one opinion, which is the most correct among the Malikis, that the jizya is accepted from all infidels, including polytheists and idol worshippers, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs, and whether they are Quraysh or not.
They provided evidence for that with the hadith of Buraydah, who said: “When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) appointed a commander over an army or a detachment, he would personally advise him to fear Allah... and he would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah. And if you meet your enemy from the polytheists, call them to three qualities or characteristics. Whichever of them they respond to, accept it from them and refrain from them.’” He mentioned the jizya from these qualities. So his statement (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Your enemy from the polytheists” is either specific to idol worshippers and others like them from among the non-People of the Book, or it is general for all infidels from among the People of the Book and idol worshippers. In either case, the intended purpose is achieved, which is accepting the jizya from idol worshippers, because if it were specific to idol worshippers from among the non-People of the Book,
The hadith indicates that the jizya is accepted from idol worshippers, and if it is general, then it also indicates that the jizya is accepted from idol worshippers and the People of the Book. They used analogy with the People of the Book and the Magians as evidence for accepting the jizya from idol worshippers. It was narrated from Malik that the jizya is accepted from all the disbelievers except the polytheists of Quraysh.
This narration was adopted by both Ibn Rushd, the author of Al-Muqaddimat, and Ibn al-Jahm from the Malikis.
The Malikis differed in their reasoning for not taking the jizya from the polytheists of Quraysh. Ibn al-Jahm explained it by saying that it was an honor to them, because of their status with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
The Qaraawis explained it by saying that all of Quraysh had converted to Islam before the jizya was legislated, so none of them remained polytheists. Whoever is found to be polytheists after that is an apostate, so the jizya is not taken from him.
http://islamport.com/d/2/fqh/1/35/803.html

This opinion was also preferred by Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him.


And we read in the book Al-Umm by Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, the fourth part, the chapter on the disagreement over who the jizyah is taken from and who it is not taken from:
(([The disagreement over who the jizyah is taken from and who it is not taken from]
(Al-Shafi’i - may God Almighty have mercy on him - said): The Magians, the Sabians, and the Samarians are People of the Book, but some people disagreed with us and said: As for the Sabians and the Samarians, I know that they are two types of Jews and Christians, but as for the Magians, I do not know that they are People of the Book. In the hadith there is evidence that they are not People of the Book, based on the words of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Treat them according to the way of the People of the Book,” and that Muslims do not marry their women or eat their slaughtered animals. If he claims that if it is permitted to take the jizya from them, then every polytheist, whether he worships an idol or otherwise, is forbidden if he gives The jizya is not to be accepted from him, and their situation is the same as that of the People of the Book, in that the jizya is taken from them and their blood is spared by it, except for the Arabs in particular, so nothing is accepted from them except Islam or the sword .

We have previously quoted the words of Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, on the issue, where he stated the permissibility of taking the jizya from all religions.

Ibn Muflih, may God have mercy on him:
The one who made the doubt committed another deception and cut out the words of Ibn Muflih, may God have mercy on him, where he made people believe that Ibn Muflih was talking about all infidels, while Ibn Muflih was talking about the infidel war criminal.
We read from Al-Mubdi’ in his explanation of Al-Muqni’, the book of crimes, the chapter on the conditions of retaliation
(([The second condition is that the one killed be infallible]
Section (The second: that the one killed be infallible) meaning: his blood is infallible; because retaliation was only legislated to preserve infallible blood and to deter from destroying the required structure. Its survival, and that is non-existent in the case of someone who is not infallible (so retaliation is not obligatory for killing a harbi ), we do not know of any difference of opinion on this, and no blood money or expiation is obligatory for killing him, because his blood is permissible in general, like the pig, and because Allah the Most High commanded his killing, saying: {Then kill the polytheists} [At-Tawbah: 5], and it does not matter whether the killer is a Muslim or a dhimmi (and there is no (Apostate) because his blood is permissible, similar to a combatant. May

God curse lying!!!

8. Imam Al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him:
We have previously quoted Al-Qurtubi’s opinion, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding not killing someone from whom the jizya is taken, in his interpretation of the Almighty’s saying: ((I do not compel 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 Imam Al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned this statement in the midst of his interpretation of the Almighty’s saying: ((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,” seeking the goods of worldly life. But with Allah are many spoils. Thus were you among the (94)
This is specific to a Muslim meeting an infidel combatant with whom he has no covenant. Therefore, Imam Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, says in his interpretation of this verse:
((There are eleven issues in it: The first - the Most High’s saying: (O you who have believed, when you go forth in the cause of God, then investigate) This is connected to the mention of killing and jihad. Striking means traveling on the earth. The Arabs say: “I set out on the ground” when you travel for trade, a raid, or something else, combined with “fi .” They also say: “I set out on the ground,” without “fi,” when you intend to relieve yourself. From this is the saying of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Two men should not go out to defecate and talk while exposing their private parts, because God hates that.”This verse was revealed about a group of Muslims who passed by a man on their journey who had a camel and some spoils to sell. He greeted the people and said: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. One of them attacked him and killed him. When this was mentioned to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, 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: Ibn Abbas said: There was a man with some spoils of war that he had, 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 that up to His saying: (The goods of worldly life) that is the spoils.... And in Sunan Ibn Majah on the authority of Imran bin Husayn, who said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent an army of Muslims to the polytheists, and they fought them fiercely. They gave them their shoulders. Then a man of my flesh attacked a polytheist with a spear. When he came upon him, he said: I bear witness that there is no god but God, I am a Muslim. So he stabbed him and killed him. Then he came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said: O Messenger of Allah, I am doomed! He said: (What did you do?) Once or twice. So he told him what he had done. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him: (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, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not speak about him. He did not live long until he died, so we buried him, and he became on the surface of the ground. We said: Perhaps an enemy dug him up, so we buried him and then ordered our servants to guard him, and he became on the surface of the ground. We said: Perhaps the boys have fallen asleep. So we buried him and then 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 who was 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, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, 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. This has been discussed previously. It was said: The killer was Abu Qatada. It was also said: Abu Darda. There is no disagreement that the one whom the earth threw up when he died was the one we mentioned who was a dreamer. Perhaps these circumstances occurred at a close time, so the verse was revealed about all of them. It has been narrated that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, returned the sheep and camel to the family of the Muslim and carried out his blood money through a unified agreement. And Allah knows best.))

 and 10: Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on them:
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.
As for the deception that the author of the doubt committed, it is that Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, was talking about fighting the people of war from the polytheists of Quraysh inside the sanctuary. Was it abrogated or not? And not the People of the Covenant and those with whom a treaty has been
made. This was in his interpretation of the statement of Allah, the Most High: ((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, So hunt, and let not the hatred of a people because they prevented you from Al-Masjid Al-Haram prevent you from transgressing. And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

We read from the interpretation of Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, of Surat Al-Ma’idah:
((And the words of Allah the Most High: {And do not seek bounty from their Lord and approval } meaning, and do not consider it permissible to fight Those who intend to go to the Sacred House of God, whoever enters it will be safe, and likewise whoever intends to go there seeking the bounty of God and desiring His pleasure - do not turn them away, do not prevent them, and do not incite them. Mujahid, Ata’, Abu Al-Aaliyah, Mutraf ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Ubayd ibn Umair, Ar-Rabi’ ibn Anas, Muqatil ibn Hayyan, Qatadah and others said that regarding His statement, “seek bounty from their Lord,” he meant trade. This is as was mentioned previously in His statement, “There is no blame upon you for seeking bounty from your Lord” [Al-Baqarah: 20]. 198] And his saying, “And contentment.” Ibn Abbas said:
They seek to please Allah with their love. Ikrimah, As-Suddi, and Ibn Jarir mentioned that this verse was revealed about Al-Hutam bin 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, the Almighty, revealed, “And do not be afraid of the Sacred House.” They seek bounty from their Lord and approval.
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, and Allah knows best. 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 God, may God bless him and grant him peace, 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 God, may God bless him and grant him peace, the declaration of innocence, and 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, his statement, “nor those who face the Sacred House,” means those who face the
Sacred House. 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,” this verse. And Allah the Most High said, “It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah” [At-Tawbah: 17] and He said, “Only those who are not polytheists shall maintain.” The mosques of God, whoever believes in God and the Last Day [At-Tawbah: 18], so he banished the polytheists from the Sacred Mosque.
And Abd al-Razzaq said: Ma`mar narrated to us from Qatada regarding his statement, “nor the necklaces, nor those who guard 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]. Ibn Jarir chose that what was meant by His statement, “nor the necklaces,” means that if they wear a necklace from the sanctuary, then grant them security. He said, and the Arabs have always reproached whoever violated that. The poet said: [Long meter]
Did you not kill the two Harajs when they were blind to you… passing by the braided bark with their hands?

Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him:
The one who raised the doubt quoted Al-Shafi’i’s words about killing a disbeliever who did not have a jizyah or a guarantee of safety for a period of time. I say that this is against him and not for him, because the disbeliever who does not pay the jizyah and does not have a guarantee is a disbeliever at war. Here he quoted what proves our argument.

We read from the book Al-Umm by Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, the chapter on the disagreement over who the jizyah is taken from and who it is not taken from:
(([The disagreement over who the jizyah is taken from and who it is not taken from]
(Al-Shafi’i - may God Almighty have mercy on him - said): The Magians, the Sabians, and the Samarians are People of the Book. Some people disagreed with us and said: As for the Sabians, As for the Samaritans, I have learned that they are two types of Jews and Christians. As for the Magians, I do not know that they are People of the Book. In the hadith there is what indicates that they are not People of the Book, due to the saying of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Treat them according to the way of the People of the Book,” and that Muslims do not marry their women nor eat their slaughtered animals. If he claims that if it is permissible for them to… The jizya is taken from them , so every polytheist, whether he worships an idol or otherwise, it is forbidden if he pays the jizya, and it is not accepted from him. Their situation is the situation of the People of the Book in that the jizya is taken from them and their blood is spared by it, except for the Arabs in particular, so nothing is accepted from them except Islam or the sword .