Two further points remain in this issue which are related to the situation of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time i.e. the time since the absence of the Islamic State.
These points are:
1) What is the Hukm of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time?
2) What is the Hukm in regards to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah going outside of the conditions of the ‘Ahd of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah that was agreed upon by their predecessors? Is their ‘Ahd breached and invalidated by this or not?
1. What is the Hukm of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time that we are living in after the disappearance of the Islamic State?
In answer to this they remain upon the status of being Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah even if the Islamic State is no longer present and there is no Imaam for the Muslims in existence. This is because the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah that was contracted with their predecessors is a permanent contract that applies upon them and those that came after them as long as a Dhimmi remains and however much time passes.
It was mentioned in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyyah of Al-Maawardi: “And if he makes Ijtihaad (i.e. the Imaam) his opinion in relation to the contract of Jizyah with them upon the basis of the consent and acceptance of their leaders, it becomes binding upon all of them and the generations that follow them century after century.” (Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyyah, Al-Maawardi 144).
What is meant by the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Jizyah is the ‘Aqd (contract) of Dhimmah. Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy in his book ‘Al-Umm’ used the expression ‘Aqd Al-Jizyah with the meaning of the ‘Aqd Ad-Dhimmah in many places (Refer to ‘Sabeel Al-Mithaal 182, 183, 186, 210/4 from his book ‘Al-Umm’).
We have previously stated in relation to the definition of Ibn ul-Qayyim of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah that he said: “That they have a permanent (forever) Dhimmah.” (Ahkaam Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah, Ibn –ul-Qayyim 475/2).
It is obvious that those who initially made the contract whether it was the Imaam, his deputy from the Muslim side and the leaders of the non-Muslims on the other side do not live forever. As such the meaning of the permanence or foreverness of the Dhimmah of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah can only mean that the Dhimmah applies to those who were living at the time of the Dhimmah’s contraction in addition to the generations that come after them.
Therefore, the non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic lands today are the sons of those who contracted the Dhimmah with the Imaam of the Muslims or his deputy. As long as the contract of Dhimmah is permanent then this dictates that those sons today in the age where the Islamic State is not present and the Imaam of the Muslims is absent, still enjoy the status of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah and the Ahkaam (rulings) related to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah are the same as what they were with their forefathers in the time when the Islamic State and the Imaam of the Muslims were present.
The above relates to the first point concerning the situation and reality of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time.
2. What is the Hukm in regards to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah going outside the conditions of the ‘Ahd of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah that was agreed upon by their predecessors? Is their ‘Ahd breached (and invalidated) by this or not?
Before I respond to this question it is necessary to mention the consequences of some hasty answers to this subject. These answers can lead to dangerous or serious ramifications that cause Muslims problems that they are not ready to face at the present time. I say: Those who give Shar’iyah Fatawaa (verdicts) in relation to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah today and even those who take up arms towards the Muslims, are obliged to the think on the consequences of giving hasty answers. They must think long and hard about the present reality and think long and hard about the Nusoos (texts) that relate to our current time and the compatibility of these texts upon the reality that we are suffering. The Fatwaa (verdict) follows this process and then the issuing of the Hukm.
The reason for this severe warning in regards to the hasty issuing of Shar’iyah verdicts is because this issue is one that relates to blood, honour and property (wealth) that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has made inviolable (i.e. protected) by the contraction of the Dhimmah. Any answer that seeks to make these permissible with the claim that the ‘Ahd (covenant/contract) has been invalidated, without a strong Shar’i basis cancels out this protection and inviolability and it is taking a risk with the Deen of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and it has been narrated that the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
“Your taking of a risk with a Fatwaa is like taking the risk with the hellfire.”
(Musnad of Ad-Daarami 69/1, Kanz ul-‘Amaal 28961. Al-Haafizh said that the Musnad of Ad-Daarami is not of a lesser level than the books of the Sunan and if it was included with the five (books) then it would be preferred to the Sunan of Ibn Maajah).
This is in addition to what can result from seeking to make Halaal (i.e. the rights of the Dhimmi) in terms of dangerous and serious effects as has been previously indicated. Upon this basis we introduce the answer to our question that we are discussing by presenting a severe warning and mention the great responsibility involved in addressing it. We present our answer with the Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) and the opinions of the Fuqahaa that have been extracted from the Adillah Shar’iyah (evidences) that govern the issue that we have put forward in its entirety.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
“Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor In the Last day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger and those who acknowledge not the Religion of Truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah related that he said to a soldier of Kisraa (Persia) on the day of Nahaawand: “We have been commanded to fight you until you worship Allah alone or that you pay the Jizyah.” (Extracted by Al-Bukhaari, Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah: 567/10, refer to Fat’h-ul-Baari 258/6 Hadeeth Number 3159)
It is related from Buraidah that he said: “The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when sending out a leader on a military expedition or in command of an army would exhort him (the leader) with the Taqwaa of Allah Ta’Aalaa within himself self specifically and for good treatment to those that went out with him from amongst the Muslims. He صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him: If you meet your enemy from amongst the Mushrikeen then call them to one of three matters: Call them to Islaam and if they respond positively then accept that from them and desist from them, if they refuse then call them to give the Jizyah and if they respond positively then accept that from them and desist from them, if they refuse then seek help relying upon Allah and fight them.” (Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah: 567/10, Hadeeth related by Muslim 1731, 1356/3)
It was mentioned in Al-Mughni: “And the reality of the giving is not considered nor is the application of the Ahkaam because the giving of the Jizyah is at the end of the year and the desisting from them is at the beginning of it at the time of the spending (giving). And the meaning of His سبحانه وتعالى statement: ‘Until they give’ is: They are bound to giving and they respond to spending (paying) it.” (Al-Mughni Ibn Qudaamah 572/10).
It was mentioned in the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “The end point at which the fighting ends is the commitment to the Jizyah, not its giving whilst the commitment remains, so the Imaam collects it from him (i.e. the Dhimmi) by force.” (Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen 428-429/3)
In ‘Al-Umm’ of Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy in regards to the meaning of As-Saghaar (subduing/making small) it was stated:
“Ash-Shaafi’iy said: I heard a number of the people of knowledge saying: As-Saghaar means that the rule of Islaam is applied upon them.” (Kitaab Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy 176/4)
In Al-Muhadh’dhab: “If the Dhimmi refrains from the commitment of the Jizyah or if he abstains from commitment to the Ahkaam of the Muslims his ‘Ahd is invalidated because the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah is not contracted except by it and does not remain without it. And if he (the Dhimmi) fights the Muslims then his ‘Ahd is invalidated and it is the same whether this was stipulated as a condition in the ‘Aqd of Dhimmah or not because the ‘Aqd dictates Amaan (security) between the two sides and fighting negates the Amaan and as such the ‘Ahd is negated by it. If he does other than that…. like he commits Zinaa with a Muslim woman, or he afflicts her in the name of marriage…” The book mentions here a number of matters that invalidate (breach) the ‘Aqd that are differed upon that has been mentioned earlier in this study. He then mentions: “Then if refraining is not stipulated from that in the ‘Aqd then his ‘Ahd is not invalidated due to the remaining of what the contract necessitates in terms of giving the Jizyah, abiding by the Ahkaam of the Muslims and abstaining from fighting them. And if refraining from that was stipulated in the ‘Aqd then there are two points of view:
Firstly, that he does not invalidate his ‘Ahd by it because the ‘Ahd is not invalidated with it without the condition (Shart) and as such is not invalidated by it with the condition. This is like displaying alcohol, pigs and leaving Ghiyaar.
Secondly, that he invalidates the ‘Ahd by it.” (Al-Muhadh’dhab of Abu Ishaq Ash-Sheeraazi 257/2)
In a discussion about the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah and their refraining from giving the Jizyah it was mentioned in the ‘Haashiyah’ of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “If they were a group that dominated over an area (place) which was their country or other than it, and they openly displayed disobedience and made war, then at that time it is not possible to take it from them except by fighting.” (Haashiyah, Ibn ‘Aabideen 429/3)
This means if the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah fight in the cause of refraining from paying the Jizyah then they have invalidated the ‘Ahd and due to this it was mentioned in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah:
“And Abu Haneefah said: The ‘Ahd is not invalidated (breached) except in abstaining from the Imaam upon the basis that he is unable to take the Jizyah from them.” (Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah 608/10)
In the book ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’ in relation to the Hukm of the rebelling of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah against the Islamic authority: “And if they rebel for other than the reason of Zhulm (oppression) or violence (against them) then they are enslaved and if they rebel due to oppression or violence then they are not enslaved.” (Qawaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, 176)
We mentioned earlier that Istirqaaq (enslaving) stated here is a Kinaayah (metaphor) referring to the Hukm of breaching the ‘Ahd due to this Khurooj (rebelling against the authority).
It was stated in ‘Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer Wa Haashiyah’ of Ad-Dusooqiy in relation to the participating of the Dhimmi with the Baghi (rebelling) Muslim in the fighting against the Imaam (i.e. against the legitimate authority) that:
“And the Dhimmi with him is in breach of the ‘Ahd… And all this applies in the case of the Khurooj (rebellion) against the just Imaam whilst other than this and the one who goes out in resistance then the Dhimmi who rebels against the Imaam with him (i.e. the Muslim rebel) does not breach his covenant (‘Ahd).” (Haashiyah, Ad-Dusooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer, 300/4)
These are some of the texts and statements that we have seen to be related to the situation of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah today and it is possible to apply them and issue a Hukm in this issue through them.
We summarize these texts and statements to that which the Fuqahaa have agreed upon irrespective of their Madhaahib. The matters that invalidate the ‘Ahd of the Dhimmah are restricted to a single issue: Taking up arms against the Islamic authority and those who support it from amongst the Muslims.
That is because abstaining from the Jizyah or refraining from submitting to the Islamic rule which are legitimate justifications for the Muslims to fight the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah as was understood from the Aayah of Al-Jizyah mentioned earlier, does not lead to the breaching of the ‘Ahd if the abstaining was not accompanied by taking up of arms or rebelling against the authority. This is because the Islamic authority by way of force can compel them to fulfil what their contract of Dhimmah committed them to just as it can compel Muslims by force to abide by what they are have been committed to perform or pay.
However, in the case where the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah take up arms whilst abstaining from that which they have committed to, then the issue has become the Qitaal (fighting) of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah against the Muslims and the Islamic authority. In regards to this the Fuqahaa have agreed that their ‘Ahd is breached in this circumstance and case in which they possess Quwwah (power) and Man’ah (prevention) due to their taking up of arms and their fighting against the Sultah (authority).
In other than this issue of Al-Qitaal from amongst the matters that have been called Nawaaqid (invalidators) of the ‘Ahd then this has been differed upon and is a disputed issue: Do they breach and invalidate the ‘Ahd of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah or do they not? And every issue has been differed in regards to it or disputed upon. Indeed Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has commanded that the Hukm (judgement) be returned to the Shar’a when He سبحانه وتعالى said:
وَمَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ فِيهِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَحُكْمُهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ
“And in whatsoever you differ, the judgement thereof is with Allah.”
Returning to Allah in regards to the judgement means returning back to the Kitaab and the Sunnah i.e. returning to the Shar’a. Returning back to the Kitaab and the Sunnah or the Shar’a means returning for judgement to the one who has the ruling authority and this is the Khaleefah or the Imaam, or the one delegated by the Imaam or the Khaleefah in terms of rulers and judges. This is because the ruling or judging over the people falls under the Wilaayah or Sultah (authority) and there is no Wilaayah for the one who has not taken it by way of the Bai’ah (pledge) to act upon the Kitaab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, as has been mentioned previously.
Ash-Shawkaani said: “The one who has not been given the Bai’ah by the Muslims does not possess Wilaayah (authority) and he has no right to take hold of the affairs that the Imaam manages (is responsible for) whether in full or partially because the Sabab (cause/reason) for the Wilaayah is the Bai’ah.” (As-Sabeel Al-Jarraar Ash-Shawkaani 277/4)
He also stated: “What is intended by the appointing of the Imaam is the implementation of the Ahkaam of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.” (As-Sabeel Al-Jarraar Ash-Shawkaani 507/4)
As such it is essential for there to be an Imaam for the Muslims who will have the say in the matters in which there is difference or that other than him is delegated from amongst the rulers (Hukkaam) and Qudaa (Judges) to do this and we have previously mentioned the acceptance upon the principle establishing that the ‘Order of the Imaam raises (i.e. removes) the dispute/difference’ (Amru-l-Imaam Yarfa’u-l-Khilaaf) (Majaalah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah page 10).
As such any party seeking to make judgement in this matter who is not the Imaam or delegated to do so by the Imaam is considered only as giving Fatawaa (verdicts) infringing upon the legitimate authority (As-Sultah Ash-Shar’iyah) and going outside of the obedience to the leaders that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has commanded us to obey. In relation to this Ash-Shawkaani stated: “And from the obligatory obedience is that none assumes Wilaayah (authority) unless it is by their permission (i.e. the Khulafaa of the Muslims) otherwise it would be considered as a contesting of the command and the prohibition (Tahreem) of that has been firmly established.” (As-Sabeel Al-Jarraar Ash-Shawkaani 276/4).
Ash-Shawkaani indicates in these words to the Hadeeth of ‘Ubaadah Ibn As-Saamit (ra) in which he relates: “We gave the Bai’ah to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم upon hearing and obeying, in hardship and ease, what we like and dislike and when precedence is given over us. And that we should not dispute with the one in authority (Al-Amr Ahlihi)…” (Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Maalik and An-Nasaa’i: Jaami’u-l-Usool 253/1. Hadeeth number 44).
What is meant here by Al-Amr is the Sultah or the Wilaayah (i.e. the authority) and any act that is specific the acts of authority if performed by any direction that has not been delegated by the one who possesses the legitimate authority is considered to be disputing with the Amr Ahlihi (i.e. the legitimate authority) and this is a matter that has been established firmly to be prohibited as noted by Ash-Shawkaani.
Built upon this understanding, then as long as there is no Imaam for the Muslims like today after the removal of the Islamic State from the international community, the matter of who has the final arbitrary say in regards to the different forms of breaching the covenant and in regards to what the citizens from amongst the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah have perpetrated, I say: The direction (i.e. authority) that possesses the right to adjudicate in this matter does not exist and therefore it is not permitted to issue a ruling upon the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah today – from other than those fighting – in terms of them having broken the ‘Ahd (covenant). In addition: It is not permitted to make their blood permissible or their wealth (property) or honour permissible and this is because this protection accorded to them is firmly established in the contract of the Dhimmah and there has not been issued a legal ruling from the legitimate authority that has invalidated this protection based on them having committed this or that act from amongst the different matters which breach the covenant, and this is whilst knowing that their contraventions are no less than the contravening of a great number of the Muslims in regards to the rulings of their Deen and their legislation. So how are we able to pass a verdict against the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah and demand from them to abide by the Shar’a of Allah whilst not demanding this from the Muslims?
This is in regards to the exiting of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah from the Shuroot (conditions) that were taken upon their predecessors in relation to that which we have named as matters that breach the ‘Ahd (covenant).
As for the issue of Al-Qitaal (fighting) i.e. the taking up of arms and weapons by the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah against the Muslims, then the texts that we presented at the beginning of the examination of this point dictate that the fighting that breaches the ‘Ahd is restricted to the fighting that results from rebellion against the Islamic rule. As long as the Islamic rule is not present like in our current time in the absence of the Islamic State in the international community, then the fighting of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah against the existing authority in the Muslim lands does not have the rule applied to it in terms of the fighting that breaches the covenant. Rather its reality is only like the Qitaal of the Bughaa or the fighting of Fitnah which the Muslims face with arms in order to deter the aggressors and defend themselves.
Based upon this it is our opinion that the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah who fight the Muslims these days remain with their station as being Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah preserved. In addition: The sanctity of their blood, property and honour is preserved in addition to their right to settle in the lands and to be provided with continual security. Their blood is only permitted in the case of fighting alone in the necessity of defending against their aggression and rebelliousness (Baghi) just as the blood of Muslims is permitted in the same situation if it is necessary. It is not allowed to aggress against their property and their honour.
In addition to this is what has reached us from the Madh’hab of Maalik Al-Qaadi where it was stated that the Khurooj (rebellion) of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah because of oppression that befell them is not considered to be the type of Khurooj that breaches the ‘Ahd as was mentioned in the book: ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’ (p176).
In the case where the subjects of the Islamic lands today whether Muslims of Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah do not live under the shade of the rule by that which Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed and as such all of them are living under the authority of regimes that practise a great deal of Zhulm (oppression) and removing of rights and this is because every ruling that is not in accordance to what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed is a ruling of Zhulm (oppression) as Allah سبحانه وتعالى states:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zhaalimoon (oppressors).”
So from this angle there is no room to judge that the fighting of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah against the ruling authority in the Muslim lands is considered to be that which breaks the covenant of Dhimmah.
Additionally, we find that it is rare for the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah today to raise arms against the authority in the Muslim lands whilst the Muslims support these authorities. I say: It is rare that we find the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah alone in raising arms but rather we find them participating with a section from amongst the Muslims whether a small or large number in revolting against these authorities and are therefore in the position of being participants with the Bughaat (those Muslims revolting against the authority). We have stated previously at the beginning of the study of this issue that the resisting Bughaat (rebels) who revolt against an unjust Imaam are considered as the Baghi (revolt) springing from an interpretation (Ta’weel) (Haashiyah Ad-Dusooqiy ‘Alaa As-Sharh Al-Kabeer 300/4). Meaning that those involved are not guaranteed in relation to damage that may befall them in terms of blood or property during the fighting and their (Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah) fighting with them is not considered to invalidate their ‘Ahd (covenant). I say: This Hukm (ruling) is only accorded to those who go out (in revolt) against the Shar’i (legitimate) Imaam who has however deviated to commit oppression or acts of Fisq (open disobedience) and as such become unjust. Therefore by greater reason this Hukm should be applied upon those who rebel against the one who is worse than the unjust Imaam.
We sum all that has preceded by saying that the Qitaal (fighting) of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time against the ruling authorities in the Muslim lands does not invalidate their ‘Ahd even though it is the right of the Muslims who are being afflicted by the evil of this fighting to face and oppose the raising of weapons by raising weapons themselves in defence against the harm and to defend the rights and sanctities which are obligatory to defend.
This is what can be stated in regards to this Mas’alah (issue) in this study, the Mas’alah of the Khurooj (going out) of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah in our current time from the conditions that their predecessors agreed to (in their ‘Ahd) and in regards to the Qitaal (fighting) that takes place between them and between the Muslims.
We now move on to the final issue in this study which is:
3. Is the Qitaal of Muslims against the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah from amongst those who have invalidated their ‘Ahd considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?
The answer is yes, it is considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah as long as the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah who are being fought have indeed invalidated the ‘Ahd and by doing so they have become Harbiyeen (enemy warring combatants) and this is in light of the details that have preceded in the discussion of the previous issue. In this case the definition of Al-Jihaad is applied and conforms to the reality which is ‘Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the disbelieving Harbiyeen to raise high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.
However, in the case where the fighting of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah by the Muslims is in the situation of Fitnah or fighting the Bughaat which does not invalidate their ‘Ahd then it has preceded in the past studies that the like of this Qitaal according to what we have found strongest is not considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to its Istilaahiy meaning.
The Fuqahaa have made clear that the fighting of the people of Dhimmah who have invalidated their ‘Ahd is considered to be Al-Jihaad and indeed they considered it to be from the most binding forms of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah because in this situation it takes the Hukm of Fard Al-Aini upon every individual from amongst the Muslim citizens upon whom their citizens from amongst the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah have rebelled and raised arms against them and all of this is in accordance to what was explained in the previous discussed issue. And we transmitted in the study of that issue that which was mentioned by the author of ‘Mughni Al-Muhtaaj’ in regards to this where he stated:
“It has been mentioned that Al-Jihaad when a faction from the people of war enter Daar ul-Islaam (the land of Islaam) is Fard ‘Ain. And there is no difference between them and those (the enemy) who had previously a Dhimmah which they subsequently invalidated.”
And An-Nawawi stated in his book ‘Ar-Rawdah’ in relation to this reality: “It is necessary to repel them and strive to remove them.” (Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj 259/4)
A final remark; what we have intended in this study is that which is related to the fighting of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah as we have indicated and that which we have mentioned in this study which does not relate to the fighting has only been mentioned when we have felt it necessary to present it where it either leads to Al-Qitaal or Al-Qitaal results from it. Due to this we have we restricted ourselves to this necessity upon that which we saw to be necessary to the study. And we did not attempt to go into detail to delve into that which relates to the contract of Adh-Dhimmah from angles other than Al-Qitaal whish has been specified in a specific study of its own in this (Doctoral) paper.
To be continued in Part 4…
The above is a draft translation from the book: ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya’ by Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Khayr Haykal. Chapter: The Ninth Study: Fighting the Ahlu-Dhimmah (non-Muslims living under the Islamic protectorate)