Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > The jizya and the dhimmis: regime, rights and truces > Judging disputes between dhimmis
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Cette partie fait partie de la section complète : Toutes les sections de cette partie.
Beyond the jizya and the covenant, shared life between Muslims and dhimmis was governed by detailed law: justice in their disputes, visits and gifts, greetings, funerals, festivals, then commercial rules: the tithe on trade, the kharaj of lands, guarantees and the breaking of the covenant.
This page sets out the whole, opinion by opinion and school by school, with classical references and exact figures.
The jurists agree: when a dispute involving a Muslim is brought to court, the Muslim judge is bound to judge between the two, by unanimous agreement.
They then diverged on judging the dhimmis, Jews, Christians and Magians, when they bring their disputes to us. The Hanafis hold that if the covenant people bring their dispute to the imam, he may not turn away; they state that Muslims and the covenant people are equal in exchange contracts, transactions and legal penalties, except that they are not stoned since they are not married-and-protected. Al-Jassas writes that the covenant people are brought, in sales, inheritance and the rest of contracts, under the rules of Islam like the Muslims, except the sale of wine and the pig: it remains valid among them, since they have been recognized as owners of those goods; everything else is brought under our rules, by the word of Allah:
Judge among them by what Allah has sent down, and do not follow their desires.
Surah al-Ma'idah 48
The Prophet (peace be upon him) wrote to the people of Najran: "Either abandon usury or face war from Allah and His messenger," placing them, on usury, under the same prohibition as the Muslims; Allah says indeed: "and for their taking usury though forbidden from it" (Surah an-Nisa 161), and: "Do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, except it be a trade by mutual consent among you" (Surah an-Nisa 29). The Hanafis then detailed their marriages among themselves: Abu Hanifa holds they are judged by their own rules, with no interference, unless they accept ours; Muhammad holds that if one spouse agrees, both are brought under our rules, except marriage without witnesses; Abu Yusuf holds they are brought under our rules even if they refuse, except marriage without witnesses, valid if both consent. Al-Jassas also reports that the verse "And judge among them by what Allah has sent down" (Surah al-Ma'idah 49) abrogated the choice left by the verse "If they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them" (Surah al-Ma'idah 42): the condition of their coming, however, is not abrogated (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 4/78, 90; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/311).
The Malikis hold that if the dispute opposes two dhimmis, the judge has the choice: to judge them by the law of Islam in injustices, usurpation, aggression and denial of rights; and, for other disputes, to refer them to the people of their religion, unless they accept Islamic judgment. If the dispute opposes a Muslim and a dhimmi, judging is obligatory for the judge. Proof: the verse of choice (al-Istidhkar 7/459-461, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 6/179-186, adh-Dhakhirah 3/458, Sharh Ibn Batal 8/476, al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah p. 196, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/648).
The Shafi'is hold that if a dhimmi, a treaty-protected person or a temporary protected person has a dispute with a Muslim, judging between the two by our law is absolutely obligatory, whether the Muslim is claimant or defendant: injustice must be lifted from the Muslim, who cannot be sent before a dhimmi judge, and they cannot be left in conflict. Two dhimmis without stipulation in the covenant: on the most apparent view, judging is obligatory, by the verse "And judge among them by what Allah has sent down", the imam having to prevent injustice; on the opposing view, the judge has the choice, by the verse of choice. If the covenant stipulates their commitment to our rules, judging is categorically obligatory. If two dhimmis of different religions, a Jew and a Christian, bring their dispute, judging is likewise obligatory, each refusing the other's religion. All of this applies when they come to us: we do not summon them and we do not interfere in their affairs. Ash-Shirbini excepts the case of a dispute over drinking wine: they undergo no legal penalty even if they accept our judgment, since they do not hold wine forbidden (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/195, al-Muhadhdhab 2/256, al-Hawi al-Kabir 9/306-307, 10/108, Asna al-Matalib 3/167, Mukhtasar al-Khilafiyat 4/414).
The Hanbalis hold that if the covenant people bring their dispute, the judge has the choice between summoning and judging them, or leaving them, whether of the same religion or different religions. Abu al-Khattab reports from Ahmad another narration in which judging is obligatory. Ibn Qudama writes: "This is Ahmad's explicit text, and the view of an-Nakha'i and one of ash-Shafi'i's two positions; the second is ash-Shafi'i's other position and al-Muzani's choice," by the verse "And judge among them by what Allah has sent down", the imam having to repel the aggressor. Their proofs for the choice: the verse "If they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them", revealed about the Jews of Medina, two disbelieving litigants being compared to two treaty-protected persons; the second verse applies to whoever chooses to judge. And if he judges, he may do so only by the law of Islam, his judgment binds them, and the one of the two who refuses is compelled to accept, since they entered the covenant on the condition of obeying the rules of Islam. Ahmad said: their affairs are not inquired into and no questions asked of them so long as they do not come; if they rise to us, we apply the penalty as the Prophet did. He also said: "Our judgment binds them, it is valid over all religions; the judge does not summon them: if they come, they are judged by our law."
On the legal penalties: when a covenant person who commits an act forbidden and punished in his own religion is brought to the judge, such as fornication, theft, slander or murder, the corresponding penalty is applied: for fornication he is flogged if unmarried, with a year of exile, and stoned if married-and-protected. Ibn Umar reports: "Two Jews who had become guilty of fornication after marriage were brought to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he ordered that they be stoned."
Some Jews came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: a man and a woman among us committed fornication. He said to them: "What do you find in the Torah about stoning?" They said: we disgrace them and flog them. Abd Allah ibn Salam said: you lie, stoning is in it. They brought the Torah and spread it out; one of them placed his hand over the stoning verse and read what came before and after it. Abd Allah ibn Salam said: lift your hand. He lifted it: the stoning verse appeared. They said: you have spoken the truth, Muhammad, the stoning verse is in it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered that they be stoned.
narrated by al-Bukhari (3436) and Muslim (1699)
Anas reports that "a Jew killed a girl for her ornaments with a stone, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) had him killed between two stones" (al-Bukhari 6485, Muslim 1672). If he deems the act permitted, like wine, no legal penalty is applied, since he does not hold the act forbidden; if he displays it publicly, he is punished for exposing an evil in the territory of Islam.
Ibn Rushd summarizes the three positions: to judge them by the law of the Muslims when they come, which is Abu Hanifa's school; the choice left to the judge, which is Malik's school and ash-Shafi'i's two positions; and the obligation of judgment even without litigation, whose holders rely on the ummah's consensus on cutting the dhimmi thief's hand (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/648).
Al-Isnawi writes that if the dying person is a disbeliever, the two testimonies of faith are prompted and he is commanded to pronounce them (Asna al-Matalib 1/296, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 2/436, Hashiyat al-Jamal 2/136), by what Anas reports:
A young Jewish boy served the Prophet (peace be upon him). Falling ill, he was visited by the Prophet, who sat at the level of his head and said to him: "Convert." The boy looked at his father, who was present. His father said: obey Abu al-Qasim. The boy converted, and the Prophet went out saying: "Praise be to Allah who saved him from the Fire."
narrated by al-Bukhari (1290)
Prompting the dying disbeliever with the testimony of faith is obligatory if his conversion is hoped for, and recommended otherwise. Al-Jamal states that it is prompted even at the agony and the death rattle: his mind may still be present.
Attending the funerals of the covenant people: the jurists diverged. Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis permit it; the Malikis oppose it. Ibn al-Mundhir reports the detail: Malik held that the Muslim neither washes the deceased disbeliever, nor follows him, nor enters his grave, unless fearing he will be lost, in which case he is covered with earth. Ash-Shafi'i held that there is no harm in a Muslim washing a close relative among the polytheists, following him and burying him: Abu Thawr and the rationalists say the like. Abu Bakr al-Athram holds that no sunna exists in washing one who opposes Islam, and that the hadith ash-Shafi'i relies on is interrupted; he reports from Umar the answer given to Abu Wa'il whose Christian mother had died: "Mount a riding beast and walk before her cortege"; Ibn Abbas held: "He stands for him, follows him and buries him," and this was debated. Al-Hasan al-Basri saw no harm in pushing the cortege or shrouding the deceased. Al-Harith ibn Abi Rabi'a asked Ibn Umar about his Christian mother: "We give you the command from afar, then you walk before the cortege: whoever walks before the cortege is not with it." 'Ata' held: "The Muslim neither carries the disbeliever's cortege nor stands at his grave." Asked about attending the Christian neighbor's funeral, Ahmad answered: "Like al-Harith ibn Abi Rabi'a: he attended his mother's funeral, standing apart and not joining, for he is accursed." Abu Bakr al-Athram adds that the Prophet (peace be upon him) instituted the washing of deceased Muslims and that no sunna exists for one who opposes it; the best narration on this point is the account of Najashiyya ibn Ka'b reported from Ali: when Abu Talib died, Ali came to the Prophet, who said: "Go bury your uncle, then do not come back to me until you wash yourself," after which he prayed for him (al-Awsat 5/342-343).
Al-Mawardi reports that ash-Shafi'i permits washing one's polytheist relatives, following their cortege and not praying over them, the Prophet (peace be upon him) having ordered Ali to wash Abu Talib; Malik disliked that permission (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/19, al-Muhadhdhab 1/136, al-Majmu' 5/237). Al-Kasani specifies: if it is a close relative through kinship barring marriage, there is no harm in washing, shrouding, following and burying him: kindness toward the disbelieving father was not forbidden, Allah having rather commanded: "And accompany them in this world with kindness" (Surah Luqman 15), and conducting his funeral belongs to that (al-Bada'i' 1/303, al-Mabsut 2/55, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/244, al-'Inayah 4/9).
Ibn al-Qayyim reports Ahmad's answers: Muhammad ibn Musa asked whether the Muslim follows a polytheist's cortege: "Yes." Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Harun asked whether he attends his funeral: "Yes," like al-Harith, standing apart. Abu Talib al-Marrudhi asked how the Muslim son of a deceased Jewish father acts: "He mounts his beast and walks before the cortege, not behind; when they move to bury him, he withdraws," in line with Umar's statement. Al-Khalal reports that Qays ibn Chammah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) about his deceased Christian mother: "Mount your beast and walk before the cortege: when you are in front, you are not with it" (ad-Daraqutni 2/75, a hadith weakened, also weakened by Ibn Hajar in at-Talkhis 2/115). Asked about a mother, father or Christian brother whom the Muslim wishes to care for up to burial, Ahmad answered: if close relatives and he attends, there is no harm, the Prophet having ordered Ali to bury Abu Talib; the people of his religion handle him in his presence, then he withdraws. Abd Allah ibn Rabi'a asked Ibn Umar: my mother has died, and you know what she professed of Christianity; he answered: "Take good care of her, shroud her, but do not stand at her grave." Ishaq ibn Mansur asked Ahmad about the Muslim neighbor whose Christian mother dies: he does not follow the cortege, he stands apart. Salih ibn Ahmad reports the same answer from his father. Sa'id ibn Mansur reports from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that he asked Ibn Abbas about a man whose Christian father had died: "He attends and buries him." Al-Khalal concludes that Ahmad first disliked this ruling, then returned to the permission relying on the hadiths (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/158-160).
The jurists of the ummah agree that it is forbidden for the Muslim to attend or congratulate the non-Muslims on the occasion of their festivals specific to the rites of disbelief. They diverged on whether it expels from the faith, and the texts of the four schools explain it.
Among the Hanafis, Majma' al-Anhar holds exit from Islam for whoever goes out to the Magians' Nowruz festival and joins their practices that day, buys that day what he did not buy before to honor Nowruz, or offers the polytheists a gift that day, even an egg, to honor the day. Answering a Magian's invitation held for shaving his son's head does not cause exit from Islam. Wearing the Magians' cap causes exit from Islam on the correct opinion, except to free a captive or repel heat and cold according to some; with the intention of resembling, one exits; likewise the belt (zunnar). Al-Bazzaziyyah rejects those who would claim these fatwas are mere warnings: such speech is false, the guardians of the religion do not toy with the lawful, the unlawful and exit from Islam (Majma' al-Anhar 2/513, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah 2/277). Ibn Najim adds that congratulating the disbelievers and approving their affairs causes exit from Islam by agreement: whoever says "it is good to stop talking while a Magian eats" or "it is good not to sleep with one's wife during her menses, as they do" exits Islam (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/133). Az-Zayla'i holds that gifts made in the name of Nowruz and Mihrjan are not permitted: they are forbidden, or even exit from Islam. Abu Hafs al-Kabir said: a man who had worshiped Allah for fifty years then offered an egg on a Nowruz day to honor that day would exit Islam, and his deeds would be lost. Al-Jami' as-Saghir specifies: giving that day to a Muslim, without the intention of honoring the day but by habit, does not cause exit from Islam, but it is better not to do it that day and to do it before or after, avoiding resemblance, by the Prophet's words (peace be upon him): "Whoever resembles a people is one of them." Buying that day what one did not buy before causes exit from Islam if meant to honor the day as the polytheists do, not if for eating, drinking or comfort.
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar and Ibn Abidin explain that "giving in the name of Nowruz and Mihrjan" means saying "gift of this day"; Nowruz opens spring and Mihrjan autumn, two days that some disbelievers honor by exchanging gifts. The gift offered to a Muslim that day without the intention of honoring the day causes no exit from Islam, but it is better done before or after, and to avoid buying that day what one did not buy before. Ibn Abidin adds, from Jami' al-Fusulayn, that attending a Magian's invitation for the head shaving of his son and offering a gift there causes no exit from Islam. He reports the story of a Magian of Sarbal, rich and generous toward the Muslims, whose invitation was attended by many Muslims who gave him gifts, which troubled their mufti; he wrote to his teacher Ali as-Sa'di, who answered: "Answering the covenant people's invitation is permitted without restriction in the Law; rewarding kindness is generosity; shaving the head is not among the signs of the misguided; judging a Muslim on this is not possible; but it is better for Muslims not to join such occasions where joy is displayed" (Hashiyat Radd al-Muhtar 6/754-755).
Among the Malikis, Ibn al-Hajj reports that Ibn al-Qasim disliked boarding the ships on which the Christians sail for their festivals, fearing Allah's wrath over the disbelief they celebrate there; he also disliked that the Muslim offer the Christian a gift on his feast day, seeing in it homage to his festival and support for his disbelief; it is not permitted to sell the Christians anything useful to their festival, neither meat, nor sauce, nor clothing, nor to lend them a mount, nor to help them in anything of their religion; rulers must forbid the Muslims from doing so: this is Malik's view, with no known disagreement (al-Madkhal 2/47-48).
Among the Shafi'is, ash-Shirbini holds that whoever joins the disbelievers in their festivals, doing what they do that day, which is forbidden, is disciplined; likewise whoever handles the snake and enters the fire, practices of their festivals, whoever says to a dhimmi "O hajji" and whoever congratulates him on his festival (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/194, al-Iqna' 2/526). Ibn Hajar al-Haytami details resemblance in three situations: whoever does it with the intention of resembling the signs of disbelief exits it definitively; in the festival's signs without intent of disbelief, he sins without exiting; with no intention of resemblance at all, nothing is counted against him. He reports from a later imam: "Among the ugliest innovations is that Muslims align with the Christians in their festivals, through food, gifts and accepting their gifts; the most zealous in this are the Egyptians." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever resembles a people is one of them." Ibn al-Hajj adds that selling the Christian anything useful to his festival is not permitted, and that rulers must prevent the Muslims from displaying their festivals (al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubra 4/239). Siraj ad-Din al-Bulqini was asked about the Muslim who says to a dhimmi on his festival: "A blessed feast upon you": if he says it to honor their religion and their festival, he exits Islam; if he does not intend that and the words slip from him, he does not exit (Mawahib al-Jalil 6/289).
Among the Hanbalis, al-Bahuti holds it forbidden to congratulate them, condole them and visit them in illness, for it is an homage resembling the greeting. Visiting the sick dhimmi is permitted if his conversion is hoped, by presenting Islam to him, as al-Shaykh and others chose. Attending the festivals of the Jews and Christians, selling them anything for it that day, facilitating their festival, selling or renting them what they build such as a church, a statue or a cross is forbidden: it is support for their disbelief, Allah having said: "And do not help one another in sin and aggression" (Surah al-Ma'idah 2). Everything specific to their festival is forbidden, for it belongs to resembling them, forbidden by consensus, and the discipline of its doer is due (Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/131, al-Mubdi' 7/190, al-Furu' 5/235).
Ibn Taymiyyah writes that the festivals of the polytheists combine falsehood and passion, with no religious benefit: attending them is witnessing falsehood, which Allah praised avoiding, even by mere seeing or hearing, all the more by practicing it. The danger in the festivals of the two People of the Book is greater still than in the festivals of the age of ignorance, the ummah having been warned against resembling the Jews and Christians. Three considerations: festivals are part of the legislation, like the qiblah, the prayer and the fast: "For each of you We appointed a law and a way" (Surah al-Ma'idah 48) and "For every community We appointed a rite they follow" (Surah al-Hajj 67); conforming to their festival is conforming to disbelief, and festivals are the most specific marker of religions: its minimum is disobedience, "every people has its festival, and this is our festival," which is uglier than wearing the belt, a mere distinguishing sign. What they practice in their festivals is disobedience, innovation or abrogated, and all that follows it of food, clothing, play and rest depends on it: conforming to those misguidances is a greater harm. They are left on their innovated or abrogated religion on condition of practicing it in secret; the Muslim is affirmed on no innovated religion, in secret or in public: resembling the disbelievers is worse than resembling the people of innovation. Finally, permitting the little leads to the much: custom settles in, the people adopt it, and one ends up rivaling Allah's festival, verging on the death of Islam and the life of disbelief, as Ibn Taymiyyah observed in Damascus and Syria (Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim 1/183-209). The Muslim need not seek out or know their festivals: it suffices to know that an act, a day or a place without foundation in the religion of Islam is at minimum an innovation, whether invented or borrowed. This covers what many do around the twenty-fourth of the month of Kanun al-Awwal, which they present as the birth of 'Issa (peace be upon him): lighting fires, prepared dishes, candle making; the Christians also claim that eleven days later Yahya baptized 'Issa, and many ignorant women bathe their children at that date believing it beneficial: all of that belongs to the Christians' religion and ranks among the ugliest innovations; likewise the Persians' festivals, Nowruz and Mihrjan, and the Jews' festivals: the rule is the same for all. Whoever organizes an unusual invitation during these festivals need not be answered; the unusual gift offered to the Muslims during these festivals is refused, especially if it serves resemblance, like candles, or the eggs, milk and sheep of the little Thursday that closes their fast; and the Muslim does not sell what serves that resemblance. Asked about the festivals of Syria such as Tur Yabur or Dayr Ayyub, where the Muslims frequent the markets bringing sheep, cattle, flour and wheat without entering their temples, Ahmad answered: "If they do not enter their temples and only frequent the market, there is no harm" (Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim 1/225, 228). It is forbidden to resemble them in anything specific to their festivals: food, clothing, ablutions, lighting fires, abandoning a habit of life or worship, festival meals, gifts, selling what aids it, children's games and displayed adornment; the day of their festival remains for the Muslim like all days. Abd Allah ibn 'Amr said: "Whoever passes through the lands of the non-Arabs, celebrates their Nowruz and their Mihrjan and imitates them until dying so will be gathered with them on the Day of Judgment" (al-Bayhaqi 9234). Abu Dawud reports from Thabit ibn ad-Dahhak that a man had vowed to slaughter camels at Buwanah: the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked whether an idol was worshiped there, or one of their festivals; on their negative answer he said: "Fulfill your vow: no vow is fulfilled in disobedience to Allah, nor in what the son of Adam does not possess" (Abu Dawud 3313; Buwanah is a place behind Yanbu', and another place of the same name lies below Mecca, which is not the one meant). Umar ibn al-Khattab and the Companions had stipulated to the covenant people not to display their festivals in the lands of the Muslims and to practice them only in secret, at home. Umar said: "Do not learn the gibberish of the non-Arabs, and do not enter the polytheists' churches on their festival day: wrath descends upon them" (al-Bayhaqi 9234). Several early scholars read into the verse "those who do not witness falsehood" (Surah al-Furqan 72) the festivals of the disbelievers: if this holds for mere attendance, what of the acts belonging to it? The majority of the imams, whether by prohibition or disapproval, disliked eating what they slaughter for their festivals and their offerings, what is slaughtered for other than Allah or on altars; and they are prevented from supporting them with gifts or sales: selling the Christians anything useful to their festival is forbidden, rulers having to prevent it (Majmu' al-Fatawa 25/329-332).
Ibn al-Qayyim adds that congratulating on a wife, a child, a traveler's return or recovery is debated in Ahmad's narrations, permitted once and prevented another; the matter is that of condolences and visits, while avoiding formulas implying approval of the religion, such as "may Allah keep you in your religion" or "may He honor you", save saying: "may Allah honor you with Islam". Congratulation tied to the rites of disbelief specific to them is forbidden by agreement, as congratulating on their festivals or their fast, saying: "A blessed feast upon you": should its author escape it, it ranks among the forbidden acts, comparable to congratulating someone on his prostration before the cross, with a sin greater still than congratulating wine drinking, killing or fornication. Many without religious weight fall into it without measuring the ugliness of their act. The God-fearing among the scholars avoided congratulating tyrants on their offices or the ignorant on their posts of judge, teacher or mufti; should a man be compelled to go to repel an expected harm, he goes, says only good and prays for their success, and there is no harm in that (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/161-162). Elsewhere he reports that joining them, aiding them or attending their festivals is not permitted, by agreement of the qualified scholars, explicitly among the successors of the four imams. Hiba Allah ibn al-Hasan at-Tabari writes that one must not attend: they are upon falsehood, and mixing good people with the people of wrong without disapproval amounts to approving it, with fear that Allah's wrath strike the community at large. The exegesis of the verse "those who do not witness falsehood" also reads: not approving the polytheists in their idolatry nor mixing with them. Ibn Umar reports: the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Do not enter upon these accursed ones except weeping; if you do not weep, do not enter, or you will be struck as they were struck" (al-Bukhari 4158; Muslim 2980: "these chastised people"). Al-Bayhaqi reports by an authentic chain the chapter on the disapproval of entering the covenant people's churches and resembling them on the day of their Nowruz and Mihrjan, with Umar's words quoted above (al-Bayhaqi 9234), as well as the words of Abd Allah ibn 'Amr. Al-Amidi writes that attending the Christians' and Jews' festivals is not permitted, Ahmad having said so explicitly in Muhanna's narration, relying on the verse of falsehood. Al-Khalal devotes in al-Jami' a chapter to the disapproval of the Muslims going out in the polytheists' festivals, with Muhanna's question already cited (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/163).
We are commanded to be firm toward them in the sense intended by the hadith, and forbidden their affection, which we do not display (al-Adhkar 200). The Prophet (peace be upon him) nevertheless accepted the gifts of his non-Muslim opponents: he accepted the gift of Zaynab bint al-Harith, a Jewess, wife of Salam ibn Mishkam, at Khaybar: a roasted ewe into which she had introduced poison. The jurists established the rule: accepting gifts from the disbelievers of every category, up to the people of war. Ibn Qudama writes in al-Mughni that accepting the gift of the people of war is permitted, the Prophet (peace be upon him) having accepted that of Muqawqis, governor of Egypt (al-Mughni 12/641).
Visiting the sick among the covenant people: Anas reports the hadith of the Jewish boy quoted above (al-Bukhari 1290). Al-Ayni draws from it the permission to visit the covenant people, especially if they are neighbors: it shows the merits of Islam and increases their attachment, so that they desire Islam (Umdat al-Qari 8/175). An-Nawawi writes that his companions diverged on visiting the sick dhimmi: one group recommends it, one forbids it. Ash-Shashi specifies that visiting the disbeliever is permitted in general, closeness depending on neighborliness or kinship. An-Nawawi approves: the visit is reported in the Sahih of al-Bukhari from Anas, and in the two Sahihs from al-Musayyib ibn Hazn, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to Abu Talib at his death agony saying: "O uncle, say: there is no god but Allah." The visitor should therefore encourage the dhimmi toward Islam, show him its merits and press him before he reaches a state where repentance no longer avails; if he supplicates for him, he supplicates for guidance (al-Adhkar 201, al-Majmu' 5/102).
Ahmad's answers were reported in number: al-Marrudhi asks whether one visits a Christian relative: "Yes." Al-Athram asks him again: "Yes, I hope the visiting will not be narrowed." Asked about the Jews and Christians: "The Prophet visited the Jew and called him to Islam." Abu Mas'ud al-Isbahani asks about the Christian relative and neighbor: "Yes." Al-Fadl ibn Ziyad reports: Ahmad said that if the Muslim thinks the disbeliever will accept Islam on his visit, he should visit him, as the Prophet visited the Jewish boy. Ishaq ibn Ibrahim reports that regarding the sick Christian neighbor, Yahya said: he stands at the door and excuses himself to him. Muhanna asked Ahmad about visiting the disbeliever: "If he hopes for something from it, there is no harm; he presents Islam to him." Abu Dawud reports: Ahmad said that if he intends to call him to Islam, the visit is good. Ja'far ibn Muhammad reports, by contrast, that asked about visiting a Jewish or Christian partner, Ahmad answered: "No, nor honors." Ibn al-Qayyim summarizes: three explicit narrations from Ahmad, the prevention, the permission and the detail: if he can call him to Islam and hopes for something, he visits him (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/158). Ash-Shawkani concludes that the hadith establishes the permission to visit the covenant people if the visitor hopes for a religious benefit, such as the sick man's conversion. Al-Mundhiri writes that the disbeliever is visited to be invited to Islam if his acceptance is hoped, like the Jewish boy who converted when Islam was presented to him; without hope, the visit is not good. Ibn Batal holds the disbeliever's visit instituted only in hope of his conversion. Ibn Hajar concludes that it varies with the aims: other benefits may also be realized through the visit (Nayl al-Awtar 8/228, Fath al-Bari 10/119).
Al-Mawardi reports that they are answered: "and upon you be peace," without adding "and the mercy of Allah"; this narration is weak and contradicts the hadiths (Sharh Muslim 14/144). Al-Ayni writes that initiating the greeting with the disbeliever has been forbidden, and this is ash-Shafi'i's school and that of most scholars; one group permitted it in general, another for hope of his conversion or out of need, the prohibition being reported in authentic hadiths (Umdat al-Qari 1/99). Al-Manawi explains: "Do not initiate the greeting with the Jews and the Christians": the greeting is an homage, and honoring them is not permitted; initiating it toward them is therefore forbidden on the soundest view among the Shafi'is. The hadith also specifies: "If you meet one of them in a narrow road, force him to its narrowest side," that is, do not leave him the front of the road (at-Taysir 2/498).
How to answer when one is certain he said "peace be upon you"? Ibn al-Qayyim writes: all of this applies when it is confirmed he said "death be upon you", or when one doubts his words. If the listener is certain the dhimmi said "peace be upon you", without any doubt, must he say "and upon you be peace", or be content with "and upon you"? What the proofs and the rules of the Law require is answering "and upon you be peace": this belongs to justice, Allah commanding justice and kindness:
When you are greeted with a greeting, greet with better than it, or return it at least equal.
Surah an-Nisa 86
The verse recommends the surplus and commands equity; it contradicts nothing of the hadiths of the chapter: the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered limiting oneself to "and upon you" only on account of the mentioned cause, namely their greeting verging on the curse. Aisha reports that he said: "Do you not see that I said: and upon you," when they said "death be upon you," then: "When the People of the Book greet you, say: and upon you". The generality of the wording applies to the like case, not to what contradicts it: if the cause disappears, when the People of the Book says "peace and the mercy of Allah be upon you", justice in the greeting requires returning his like (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/157).
An-Nawawi reports that Abu Sa'd said: whoever wishes to greet a dhimmi does so without the greeting of peace, saying: "may Allah guide you" or "may Allah grant you a good morning". An-Nawawi approves if the need exists: "may Allah give you a morning of joy", "of happiness", "of good"; if there is no need, the choice is to say nothing: boldness, kindness and the display of affection are forbidden to us toward them, we being commanded to be firm toward them in the sense of the hadith, and prevented from their affection without displaying it (al-Adhkar 200).