Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > The jizya and the dhimmis: regime, rights and truces > The places of worship of the dhimmis: churches and synagogues
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Jurists classify conquered lands into three categories: towns founded by the Muslims after the coming of Islam, ancient lands conquered by force, and lands conquered by treaty. From this classification flows the entire regime of the places of worship of the people of the covenant: whether building churches and synagogues is forbidden or allowed, and whether pre-existing buildings are kept, repaired or demolished.
This page restores, opinion by opinion, the doctrine of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools, with the classical references and the hadith criticism as the hadith verifiers established it.
These are the towns created by the Muslims after the coming of Islam, such as Basra, Kufa, Wasit, Baghdad and Cairo. Ibn al-Qayyim explains that these lands are the full property of the imam: if he allows the dhimmis to dwell there in return for the payment of the jizya, that is lawful; but if he concludes with them a covenant allowing them to build a synagogue or a church there, or to display wine, pork or a bell there, that covenant and that clause are invalid, and this is a consensus of the community over which no disagreement is known (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/118). The consensus was also reported by as-Subki and at-Turtushi (Fatawa as-Subki 2/388).
Ibn Taymiyya writes that the Muslims agree that in the towns they founded, the dhimmis may not create a church (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/634). Ibn al-Humam is precise: what the Muslims founded, such as Kufa, Basra, Baghdad and Wasit, admits no building of a synagogue, a church, a gathering place for their prayer or a monastery, by unanimous agreement of the scholars, nor may they drink wine there, raise pigs there or ring a bell there (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/58, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/121, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/203). Ibn Hubayra reports the same agreement for every town and centre of dar al-islam (al-Ifsah 2/337).
The scholars rely on the report transmitted by Ahmad and others, from Ikrima: Ibn Abbas was asked about the towns of the Arabs, may the non-Arabs create anything there? He answered: “Any town the Arabs founded, the non-Arabs have no right to build a synagogue in it, to ring a bell in it, to drink wine in it or to raise pigs in it; and any town the non-Arabs had founded and Allah opened to the Arabs: those who dwell in it keep their covenant, and the Arabs must honour it without burdening them beyond their capacity” (reported by Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf 12/342, no. 33653, Abu Ubayd 126 and al-Bayhaqi 9/202, from Ikrima; very weak chain).
No church is built in Islam, and what is destroyed of them is not renewed.
reported by Kathir ibn Murra, from Umar; judged a very weak report
His words are also quoted: “No church in Islam, and no castration” (reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal 260; weak chain), as well as the report of Salim, from his father, that Umar ordered the demolition of every church older than Islam, forbade building new ones and prevented a cross from leaving a church except broken on the head of its carrier (reported by Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq 2/181; very weak chain). Ibn al-Qayyim comments on one of these reports: “were it authentic, it would be like an explicit text on the issue, but this chain does not stand” (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/139).
The foundation of all this, Ibn al-Qayyim explains, is that creating these places establishes symbols of disbelief, which is graver than establishing taverns and dens of vice: the latter are symbols of sin, the former symbols of unbelief. The imam may not conclude a peace inside dar al-islam authorising symbols of disobedience, still less places of disbelief and associating partners with Allah (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/122).
There remains the case of churches pre-existing in these towns. Ibn al-Qayyim distinguishes two types: those created after the Muslims urbanised the area, which are removed by unanimous agreement; and those that existed in open desert before the Muslims built the town around them, which are not removed (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/122). Ibn al-Humam adds: the old churches and synagogues of the Sawad are not demolished according to all the transmitted positions. As for the founded towns, the statements of Muhammad diverge: in the chapter on the kharaj he mentions demolishing the old ones, in the chapter on hire he says they are not demolished, and the people have acted so, generation after generation, since the Companions, no imam having ordered their demolition. If open land containing a monastery is urbanised so that the wall encloses it, it must not be demolished, because it deserved protection before the town was founded: this is how the churches of Cairo must be understood, which stood in suburbs before the wall enclosed them, and it is inconceivable that an imam allowed the disbelievers to create them openly in the middle of the towns of Islam. A town conquered by force: we judge that the Muslims kept these buildings as dwellings and not as places of worship, so they are not demolished, but worship gatherings there are forbidden. A town conquered by treaty: we judge that they were accepted as places of worship, so the gathering is allowed there and only public display is forbidden (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/59, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/122, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/206).
Ibn al-Qasim, of the Malikis, says: the old churches of the people of the covenant are left in a town conquered by force whose inhabitants accepted capitulation, as in what the Muslims laid out and settled together with them, and building new ones there is not allowed unless it is granted to them. Abdul-Malik ibn al-Majishun goes further: building is forbidden absolutely, and no church is left to them (Mawahib al-Jalil 3/384, Tuhfat al-Hukkam 2/202).
The Shafi'is teach the same. an-Nawawi writes: lands under the dominion of the Muslims are of two types; what the Muslims founded, such as Baghdad, Kufa and Basra, does not admit that the dhimmis build a synagogue, a church or a monastery there, even if they make a treaty with them for that: the pact is invalid. What exists in these lands of synagogues, churches and fire temples is explained by the assumption that they stood in a village or open land before Muslim building reached them; if their creation is proven to be later than the founding, they are removed (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/323, Fatawa as-Subki 2/405). Ibn Qudama transmits for the Hanbalis: what the Muslims founded, such as Basra, Kufa, Baghdad and Wasit, admits no building of a church, synagogue or prayer place, and no peace is concluded over it; the proof is the report of Ibn Abbas that Ahmad transmitted and used as evidence, and the fact that the land became the property of the Muslims (al-Mughni 12/696-697).
One must distinguish the church that collapsed on its own from the church demolished by someone. The collapsed one is rebuilt according to the divergence examined below. The one the imam or someone else demolished, even wrongfully, is not rebuilt: as-Subki reported the consensus on this.
as-Suyuti confirms it: “as-Subki reported the consensus that the church, once demolished, even without justification, may not be rebuilt” (Hasan al-Muhadara 2/23). Ibn an-Nujaym draws two consequences: just as it may be demolished without justification and not reopened, it may be closed without justification and not reopened, as happened in his own time in Cairo, in a church in the quarter of Zwila, which the chief judge Muhammad ibn Iljas closed and which never reopened, even when the sultan's order to open it arrived, no governor daring to do so. He notes that this consensus does not exclude the Hanafi position that the collapsed church is rebuilt: the discussion concerns what the imam demolished, not what fell down on its own (al-Ashbah wan-Nazair p. 386). Ibn Abidin comments: the statements reported from as-Subki are general, covering demolition by the imam or by anyone else; the general statement appears the weightier, because rebuilding after a demolition by the Muslims involves contempt towards them and towards Islam, their humiliation and the breaking of their strength, support for disbelief and its people, to the point of being an act of insolence against the imam: the offender incurs the disciplinary punishment (ta'zir), like the one who brings an enemy at war into a place of safety without permission. If the Christians demolished it themselves, it is rebuilt, as the Shafi'i scholars state explicitly (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/203).
If a dispute arises between the Muslims and the Christians over whether the town was conquered by treaty or by force, Ibn Abidin reports the rule: if a written trace is found, it is followed; otherwise they are left in possession of their churches. A ruler ignorant of the status of a church after a long time consults the jurists and the transmitters: if he finds a trace, he acts on it; if he finds nothing or the traces diverge, he treats the country as land of treaty and gives the word to its inhabitants, because the building is in their hands and they cling to the original grant (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/203).
The Hanafis, the Malikis within the madhhab, the Shafi'is according to the soundest position and the Hanbalis according to a transmission teach that if the church accepted from the inhabitants collapses, the dhimmis may rebuild it as it was (Badai' as-Sanai 7/114, al-Bunaya Sharh al-Hidaya 7/256, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/58, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/204 and 206, Munh al-Jalil 3/223, at-Taj wal-Iklil 4/599, Fatawa as-Subki 2/415, Rawdat at-Talibin 10/324, al-Muhadhdhab 2/255, al-Ifsah 2/338, al-Mughni 12/699-700, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/137 and 140, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/133, al-Furu' 6/249). al-Kasani explains: a collapsed building keeps the status of a standing building, and they may rebuild it as it was, but they may not move it from one site to another, because moving it amounts to creating another church. al-Ayni notes in al-Bunaya: the old one means the one that existed before the imam conquered their country and made the treaty with them, without any need to go back to the era of the Companions; buildings do not last forever, and the imam who accepted them granted them the rebuilding; Muhammad writes in Nawadir Hisham: if one of their churches, synagogues or fire temples collapses, they rebuild it as it was, without moving it within the town; “as it was” means according to the measure of the first building: any enlargement is excluded, for it would amount to building a synagogue in the town (al-Bunaya Sharh al-Hidaya 7/256).
an-Nawawi writes: if the maintained church collapses, they rebuild it according to the soundest position; al-Istakhri and Ibn Abi Hurayra forbid it; and if we allow it, they may not enlarge its ground plan according to the sound position (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/324). ash-Shirazi raises the question in al-Muhadhdhab: what is left to them in dar al-islam once it collapses, is rebuilding it allowed? Two positions: the first, that of Abu Sa'id al-Istakhri and Abu Ali Ibn Abi Hurayra, forbids it, relying on what Kathir ibn Murra reported from Umar: “No church is built in Islam, and what is destroyed of them is not renewed” (judged a very weak report), and on the clause of Umar's letter to the Christians of Syria transmitted by Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghanm: “what is destroyed of our churches is not renewed” (a hasan hadith), and because rebuilding amounts to building a church in dar al-islam, which is forbidden as if it were built elsewhere; the second position allows it: since propping up what has become dilapidated is allowed, rebuilding what collapsed is allowed too; and if the covenant is concluded in a land of their own, they are not prevented from building churches, synagogues and monasteries nor from rebuilding what was destroyed there (al-Muhadhdhab 2/255).
Ibn Qudama adds: every place where we say their establishment is accepted, its demolition is forbidden, and they may prop up what has become dilapidated and repair it, for forbidding that would lead to its ruin and give it the status of the demolished church. If all of it collapses, rebuilding is disputed: forbidding it is the view of some Shafi'is; Ahmad allows it in one transmission, as do Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i, because rebuilding what was destroyed resembles propping up a part that collapsed; al-Khallal reconciles the two transmissions of Ahmad: the permission to rebuild concerns a partial collapse, the prohibition the collapse of the whole (al-Mughni 12/699-700).
The partisans of prohibition argue: renewing the building amounts to creating and founding it, which they are forbidden to do; it is a building its maker could not create, so he cannot renew it, like one who builds on another's land without permission. The answer: one who builds on another's property has no right to keep it standing; but the dhimmis have the right to keep their building standing, so they would own the renewal. Rebuttal: that does not follow; if someone lends his wall so a beam may rest on it, the borrower may keep it standing; if the wall collapses and the owner rebuilds it, the borrower may not renew the benefit. Likewise a dhimmi who owns a tall house may keep it standing; if it collapses, he does not rebuild it to its former height, but levels it with the houses of his Muslim neighbours or demolishes it. Likewise, if the imam conquers a country containing ruined temples, he may not rebuild them after the conquest; the same applies here. And if the whole collapses, the name of church disappears: like one who swears not to enter a house, the whole of which collapses, and then enters its bare site, without breaking his oath. Allowing the rebuild would amount to creating a synagogue in dar al-islam, which is forbidden as if no synagogue existed there (al-Mughni 12/699-700).
The partisans of permission, namely the companions of Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i, many of the companions of Malik and some of the companions of Ahmad, answer: by accepting them over these buildings, our acceptance implies permission to repair them and to renew what is destroyed of them; otherwise the acceptance would be void from the start, since a building never lasts. Those who forbid answer: we accept them for the lifetime of the building, as we accept the protected person for the duration of his safety; the secret of the issue is that our acceptance operates by way of tolerance, not of transfer of ownership: we took possession of their necks by the conquest, the land does not belong to them. Ibn Qudama, author of al-Mughni, chooses the permission to prop up what has become dilapidated and the prohibition of rebuilding the whole collapsed building, citing the clause of Umar's letter: “what is destroyed of our churches is not renewed”, and the report of Kathir ibn Murra, reconciling the two transmissions of Ahmad as al-Khallal did (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/137, 140).
Ibn Abidin adds a clarification: the meaning of “rebuilding the collapsed one is not forbidden” is not that we may order them to do it; the meaning is: we leave them to what they practise. ash-Shurunbulali reports the same clarification from as-Subki: not preventing them from restoration does not mean the authority to order them to do it, but leaving them to what they practise; it belongs to the acts of disobedience tolerated from them (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/204).
Ibn Taymiyya writes: whoever believes that the churches are the houses of Allah, or that Allah is worshipped in them, or that what the Jews and Christians do is worship of Allah, of His messenger, or who loves that and approves of it, is a disbeliever, because his belief implies the validity of their religion, and that is disbelief. Likewise, whoever helps them open their churches and establish their religion, believing that to be obedience or drawing near to Allah, is a disbeliever. Whoever believes that visiting their churches draws one near to Allah is an apostate; if he was unaware of the prohibition, he is informed, and if he persists he becomes an apostate, for his belief denies the word of Allah: the religion with Allah is Islam (Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/170, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/281).
Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam.
Surah Al Imran 19
The majority of jurists forbid the Muslim to sell land or a house so that it be made into a church. The Hanafis specify: if they buy houses to live in and then want to turn one into a church, a synagogue or a fire temple where they gather to pray, they are prevented, because of the opposition this sets up against the Muslims who build mosques for congregations, and it involves contempt for the religion and humiliation of the Muslims. Nor may any Muslim rent them a house for that, nor help them in any of it (Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabir 4/1537-1538, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 2/252, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/205, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/29, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 6/392; this is the position of the two companions, contrary to Abu Hanifa).
The Malikis teach the same rule for hire and sale: the contract is annulled if it occurred. If the tenant has consumed part of the benefit, the well-known position is that he gives the whole rent to the poor as charity, as an obligation; in the sale, he gives away the surplus over the fair price: one asks what the house would be worth to someone turning it into a church or a tavern, say fifteen, then what it would be worth for another use, say ten, and he gives the surplus as charity, according to what Ibn Yunus favoured (Sharh mukhtasar Khalil 7/22, ash-Sharh al-Kabir 4/21, al-Furuq 4/10, Mawahib al-Jalil 5/424).
al-Khallal opens the chapter of the man who rents or sells his house to a dhimmi, and reports from al-Marwazi that Abu Abdillah (Sahnun) was asked about a man who sold his house to a dhimmi although it contained prayer niches: he was dismayed and said: he is a Christian, it is not sold; the bell is rung in it and crosses are raised in it. He also said: it is not sold to a disbeliever, and he was severe on this. Abu al-Harith reports that Abu Abdillah was asked about a man to whom came a Christian who tempted him by raising the price: should he sell to him? He answered: I do not advise it; let him sell his house to a disbeliever who disbelieves in it rather than to him, and better still to a Muslim: an explicit text of the prohibition (Iqtida' as-sirat al-mustaqim 1/236, al-Fatawa al-kubra 4/494, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/215, al-Furu' 2/335, al-Adab ash-Shar'iyya 3/254).
Ibn Taymiyya writes: renting or selling for the sale of wine or to make it a church or a synagogue is forbidden by unanimous position, as ash-Shafi'i and others said, just as he may not hire out his slave for vice. Ibn Qudama says: no one may rent his house to someone who turns it into a church or a synagogue, or into a place for selling wine or playing maysir; that is the position of the majority. Abu Hanifa alone holds: if your house is in the Sawad, you may rent it for that; his two companions contradict him, and his companions differ over the interpretation of his statement. The proof of the others: it is a forbidden act, so the hire is invalid, like hiring out a slave for vice; and if a dhimmi rents the house of a Muslim to sell wine in it, the owner may prevent him, as Sufyan ath-Thawri said; the rationalists answer: in the Sawad and the mountains, he may do as he wishes (al-Mughni 7/433, Iqtida' as-sirat al-mustaqim 1/236).
The caliphh al-Mutawakkil bound the People of the Book to the conditions of Umar and asked the scholars of his time about demolishing the churches and synagogues of the Sawad, land of the conquest by force: Ahmad answered with the demolition of the churches of the Sawad of Iraq (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/130, 132).
The Hanafis keep a third position for these lands: they are not demolished, but remain in the hands of the inhabitants as dwellings, with worship gatherings forbidden there. al-Kasani writes: every town of the associators over which the imam prevails by force and which he brings into the covenant: the old churches found in it, he forbids them as places of prayer, because the town conquered by force became the property of the Muslims; he orders them to make dwellings of them, and it is not fitting that he demolish them (Badai' as-Sanai 7/114). Ibn al-Humam summarises: if the town was conquered by force, we judge that they were accepted as dwellings, not as places of worship, so they are not demolished, but gathering for worship there is forbidden; if it is known that it was conquered by treaty, we judge that they were accepted as places of worship, so the gathering is allowed and only public display is forbidden (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/59).
Lands opened by treaty are of three types. The first: the imam makes a treaty on condition that the land belong to the Muslims and that they pay the jizya. The regime of synagogues and churches follows what the treaty stipulates, by agreement of the four schools. Ibn al-Humam: if one treats with them stipulating that they build, one does not prevent them, but it is preferable to treat only as Umar's treaty stipulated, namely the absence of any building. al-Kharshi comments on Malik: the tributary may build a church outside the towns of the Muslims and repair what collapsed of the old churches, whether he stipulated it when the jizya was levied or not, according to the madhhab (Sharh mukhtasar Khalil 3/148, ash-Sharh al-Kabir 2/204, Mawahib al-Jalil 3/384, Bilghat as-Salik 2/202). an-Nawawi: if they stipulate the maintenance of the synagogues and churches, it is allowed, as if they made a treaty that the churches belong to them and the rest to the Muslims; if they also stipulate building them, it is allowed, as ar-Ruyani reported (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/323). ash-Shirbini: if we conquer a country by treaty, like Bayt al-Maqdis, on condition the land be ours, that they dwell in it for kharaj, and that the churches be kept or built, it is allowed; since a treaty over the whole country is lawful, one over part of it is all the more so (al-Iqna' 2/573, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/253). Ibn Qudama and Ibn al-Qayyim teach that it is preferable, where possible, to treat as Umar stipulated, with the conditions written in the letter of Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghanm: no synagogue, church, monk's monastery or fire tower (al-Mughni 12/697, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/132).
The second type: the imam treats on condition that the land belong to them and that they pay the kharaj, or for a payment they hand over, which is the hudna. Then they are not prevented from building whatever they choose, in the four schools. Ibn al-Humam: if one treats on condition that the land be theirs and the kharaj ours, building is allowed to them (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/58). an-Nawawi: the country opened on condition of being theirs, they pay its kharaj: their churches are maintained and building is not prevented according to the soundest position, because ownership and dwelling are theirs; they may display wine, pork and the cross and show what is theirs (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/323). ash-Shirbini: their churches are maintained because they belong to them, and building is allowed to them according to the soundest position, for they dispose of their dwelling as they wish; they are not prevented from displaying their symbols, such as wine and pork, nor their festivals, such as ringing their bell; they are, however, prevented from sheltering a spy, passing on information and everything that harms us (al-Iqna' 2/573, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/253). Ibn al-Qayyim cites the example of Najran: the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made a treaty with its people without forbidding them to build a church or a monastery (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/132). Ibn Qudama teaches the same: the land is theirs, so they build what they need (al-Mughni 12/697).
The third type: the treaty is concluded without condition. The Hanafis: no building is allowed, and the old ones are not touched either (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/58). The Malikis: building is allowed absolutely, stipulated or not, as al-Kharshi transmits. The Shafi'is: an-Nawawi writes that if the treaty is absolute, the churches are not maintained according to the soundest position. ash-Shirbini explains: the absolute treaty requires that the whole country be ours, so the churches are demolished according to the soundest position; the second position excepts them by the established state of affairs, because of their need of them for worship (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/323, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/253). The Hanbalis: Ibn Qudama writes that if the treaty is absolute, without the condition of following Umar's covenant and its clauses, those whom Umar treated with are bound by all his clauses, and whatever exists in dar al-islam of churches and synagogues remains as it was in the time of its conquerors and of those who came after (al-Mughni 12/698).
In these lands no synagogue or church may be built, by unanimous agreement of the scholars, and no peace may be concluded to restore one. Ibn al-Humam: what the Muslims conquered by force admits no building of anything, by agreement (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/58, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/321). as-Subki confirms that it is unanimous (Fatawa as-Subki 2/405). The jurists differ, however, over what existed before the conquest: is it kept, or is demolition obligatory? Three positions.
The first position: demolition is not obligatory. It is the view of the Malikis, of the Shafi'is according to the sound position, as al-Mawardi says, and of the Hanbalis within the madhhab. ad-Dardir: the one submitted by force may not build a church in a town conquered by force. ad-Dasuqi explains: that is, in the one where they accepted him on that condition, whether Muslims live there or not; as for the old churches existing before the conquest, they remain, even without a stipulation, according to the position of Ibn al-Qasim (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi ma'a ash-Sharh al-Kabir 2/203, Bilghat as-Salik 2/202, Sharh mukhtasar Khalil 3/148, at-Taj wal-Iklil 3/384). al-Mawardi details: what lay in ruin at the time of the conquest may not be raised again, for its ruin made it like dead land; what stood, keeping it for the inhabitants once the treaty is concluded carries two positions: the first, the sound one, keeping it is allowed because it leaves their confiscated property, and thus the synagogues and churches of the lands of force were kept; the second position: the Muslims own it over them, the status of place of worship disappears and it becomes confiscated property with no right for the dhimmis; if it is sold back to them so it remains a synagogue or church, its validity carries two positions: by the persistence of its state, or by their losing ownership to the Muslims, which makes it like a new creation (al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/321-322). ash-Shirazi raises the same question: if the country was conquered by treaty with the churches and synagogues excepted, keeping them is allowed; if it was conquered by force, or by treaty without exception, two positions: prohibition, like building after the conquest; or permission, since their disbelief was accepted, what is built for disbelief may be accepted too (al-Muhadhdhab 2/255).
Ibn Qudama reports the two positions among the Hanbalis: the first, demolition is obligatory and keeping it forbidden, because the land became the property of the Muslims and may not contain a synagogue, like the lands laid out by the Muslims; the second, keeping is allowed, relying on the report of Ibn Abbas: “Any town the Arabs founded, the non-Arabs have no right to build a synagogue in it...”, on the fact that the Companions conquered many lands by force without demolishing anything of the churches, on the very existence of the churches in these lands, which were clearly not built after the conquest, and on the letter of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz to his governors: “Do not demolish any synagogue, church or fire temple”; a tacit consensus formed, for they exist in the lands of the Muslims without any denunciation (al-Mughni 12/696, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/122). Ibn Muflih notes that the obligation to demolish carries two positions, and the majority decides by the inhabitants' acceptance (al-Mubdi' 3/421). al-Mirdawi summarises: demolishing what exists in a land conquered by force carries two positions; the madhhab, authenticated in an-Nazm and preferred in al-Kafi, favoured in al-Mughni and ash-Sharh, is that it is not obligatory; the second position requires it; Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiyya chooses the permission to demolish without harm to the Muslims; others say he is prevented, which is the more widespread according to ar-Ri'aya al-kubra (al-Insaf 4/236).
The second position: demolition of the pre-existing buildings is obligatory. It is the Hanbali way, the sound position among the Shafi'is according to an-Nawawi, and the choice of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. an-Nawawi classifies: the land its inhabitants did not found and which came under their dominion; if its people convert, like Medina and Yemen, its status is that of the first category; otherwise it is conquered by force or by treaty. Conquered by force: if there was no church, or it had collapsed, or the Muslims demolished it during or after the conquest, the inhabitants may not rebuild it; and keeping the standing church: the sounder of the two positions is prohibition, and many have decided it so (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/323).
Ibn al-Qayyim sets out the two positions in the madhhab of Ahmad, which are also the two ways of the Shafi'is and the rest. The first: removal is obligatory and keeping it forbidden, because the land became the property of the Muslims, so the establishment of the symbols of disbelief is not accepted there, as in the lands founded by the Muslims; the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Two religions cannot share one land” (reported by Abu Dawud (2636), at-Tirmidhi (633) and Ahmad; weak hadith); just as the places of sin such as taverns are not kept; and jihad was commanded so that the religion be wholly Allah's: allowing the display of the symbols of disbelief there divides the religion. It is the sound position in his view. The second: rebuilding is allowed, on the report of Ibn Abbas already cited (weak report), on the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) conquered Khaybar by force and accepted them over their places of worship without demolishing them, on the Companions who conquered many lands by force without demolishing their churches, on the existence of the churches and synagogues in the lands conquered by force, which were certainly not built after the conquest, and on the letter of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz to his governors: “Do not demolish any church, synagogue or fire temple”. This does not contradict what Ahmad ordered demolished: those were churches created in the lands of Islam; and a tacit consensus formed, for they exist without denunciation (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/122, 130).
Ibn al-Qayyim concludes with an overall rule: the imam does in this what is most beneficial to the Muslims. If taking the churches from them or removing them is the interest, because of their large number, the Muslims' need for some of them or the small number of the dhimmis, he takes or removes them according to the interest; if leaving them is better, because of their number, their need and the Muslims' independence, he leaves them. This leaving is a permission to benefit from them, not a transfer of ownership: the land became the property of the Muslims, how could he make it the property of the disbelievers? It is an abstention according to the interest, and the imam may remove them as soon as he sees the interest in it. The proof: Umar ibn al-Khattab and the Companions expelled the people of Khaybar from their houses and places of worship after the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had accepted them there; had the acceptance been a transfer of ownership, the expulsion would only have been valid by their consent or against compensation. Likewise, when the Muslims wanted to take the churches of the outskirts of Damascus in the time of al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, the Christians negotiated: they left them in return for compensation by the church added to the mosque; had they owned those churches by acceptance, they would have protested against the forcible seizure of their property; they accepted the compensation knowing that the Muslims may take them. By this rule all the proofs agree: it is the choice of his teacher Ibn Taymiyya, and the deeds of the rightly guided caliphs lead to it; Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz demolished what he saw demolition profitable for and kept what he saw keeping profitable for (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/122, 130).
When the covenant of the dhimmis is broken, taking their churches and places of worship becomes lawful, whether they were accepted by treaty or found in a conquest by force: this is what the four schools do not differ over.
Ibn Taymiyya writes: as soon as their covenant is broken, taking the churches of the treaty becomes lawful, still more those of the force, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) took what belonged to Qurayza and an-Nadir when they broke the covenant; the covenant breaker is in a worse state than the original enemy at war, as the apostate is worse than the original disbeliever. If the inhabitants of a town disappear with no one left who concluded their covenant, all their real estate and property, places of worship included, becomes spoils for the Muslims; if the covenant is later concluded with others, it is like an initial covenant, and the one who concludes it may accept them over their places of worship or not, as in an initial conquest where the imam may demolish everything by the agreement of the Muslims. This is the madhhab of the four imams in the towns and of their majority in the villages, and it never ceased to be carried out by the governors, such as Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, over whom the Muslims agree that he was an imam of guidance: Ahmad reports that he wrote to his governor of Yemen to demolish the churches of the towns of the Muslims, and he demolished them in Sanaa and elsewhere. Ahmad also reports from al-Hasan al-Basri that he said: “It belongs to the sunna to demolish the churches of the ancient and the recent towns”. Harun ar-Rashid likewise ordered the demolition of what stood in the Sawad of Baghdad. al-Mutawakkil, after binding the People of the Book to the conditions of Umar, asked the scholars of his time, who answered; he sent their answer to Ahmad, who decided on the demolition of the churches of the Sawad of Iraq while citing the reports of the Companions and the successors, among them that of Ibn Abbas: any town founded by the Arabs admits no building of a church nor ringing of a bell by the non-Arabs, and any town founded by the non-Arabs then opened by Allah to the Arabs: those who dwell in it keep their covenant, and the Arabs must honour it without burdening them beyond their capacity (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/127-128).
Ibn al-Qayyim, quoted by his son after this passage, summarises: every church in a town founded by the Muslims by force, such as Cairo, Kufa, Basra, Wasit and Baghdad, must be removed, by demolition or otherwise, so that no place of worship remains in a town conquered by force, whether ancient or recent: the ancient one may be taken and must be taken in case of harm, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade that two qiblas share a land; the Muslims may not allow two qiblas in their towns except out of necessity, all the more so since these urban churches are recent, and everything recent is demolished by the agreement of the imams. The churches of the Egyptian countryside and the countryside of Syria: what is recent there must be demolished, and if the recent blends with the ancient, both are demolished, for demolishing the recent is obligatory and demolishing the ancient allowed, and whatever the obligation cannot be completed without becomes obligatory itself. What is ancient: its demolition is allowed and keeping it is allowed; the imam examines the interest. If the dhimmis are few and the churches many, most of them are taken from them, likewise what harms the Muslims and what the Muslims need. If they are numerous in a village with an old church whose taking has neither necessity nor interest, it should be left, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his successors left them what they needed before it was taken from them. What was given to them by treaty before the conquest, like the interior of Damascus, is not taken as long as they honour the covenant, except against exchange or by their own consent, as the Muslims did with the mosque of Damascus when they built it (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/127-128).
The imam must then do what Allah commands him and what is most beneficial to the Muslims: exalt the religion of Allah, crush His enemies, complete the work of the Companions by imposing the conditions and forbidding them the offices throughout the land of Islam, without listening to the whisperer who says that mosques and captives are in their hands and are feared for, for Allah supports those who support Him:
Indeed, Allah will support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is surely Strong and Mighty.
Surah Al Hajj 40
Ibn al-Qayyim recalls that Nawruz, in the kingdom of the Tatars, demolished most of the churches despite the opposition of the enemies of Allah; the army of Allah given victory, its soldiers promised support, are worthier of that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) announced that the Muslims would remain victorious until the Day of Resurrection, and that Allah would send to this community, at the head of every century, one who renews its religion (reported by Abu Dawud); those through whom Allah fulfils this promise are people of the Quran and the hadith, through them Allah establishes His religion, as He sent down iron with its mighty strength and benefits for the people (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/127-128, Al Hadid 25).
The texts of the jurists of the four schools and the rest agree on the prohibition of giving the dhimmis offices in the Islamic state.
Among the Hanafis, al-Hasqafi writes: “by this one knows the prohibition of appointing the Jews to offices” (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/309). Ibn Abidin comments: “he must not be a slave, for lack of authority, nor a disbeliever, for he has no authority over the Muslim, by the verse”, that is the word of Allah: “and Allah will never give the disbelievers a way over the believers” (Surah An-Nisa 141). The condition of Islam grounds this prohibition, and al-Bahr adds: no doubt about its prohibition, for it involves the exaltation of disbelief (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/309). The same work reports that Umar wrote to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas: “Take no associator as scribe of the Muslims, for they take bribes in their religion, and there is no bribe in the religion of Allah”. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan draws the rule from it: the governor may not take a scribe from among the non-Muslims, according to the word of Allah: “O you who believe, take not for confidants those outside yourselves” (Surah Al Imran 118, Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabir 3/1043). Ibn Nujaym confirms: by this one knows the ruling on appointing a disbeliever to some offices in our time, and no doubt about its prohibition (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/248).
Among the Malikis, Ibn al-Arabi writes on the word of Allah: “Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers...”: a general statement forbidding the believer to take a disbeliever as support against his enemy, as trustee or as confidant; and Umar ibn al-Khattab forbade Abu Musa al-Ash'ari the dhimmi he had taken as scribe in Yemen and ordered him to dismiss him. Some scholars allowed the associator to fight in the camp of the Muslims against their enemy, and the Malikis differ: the sound position is prohibition, according to his words: “We seek no help from an associator” (reported by Muslim); Ibn al-Arabi concludes: if there is a proven benefit in it, there is no harm (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/351). al-Qurtubi writes: Allah forbids the believers to take from the disbelievers, the Jews and the people of whims intimates and confidants with whom to deliberate and to whom to entrust their affairs; and he says that anyone on a path other than yours should not be admitted to your secrets, then laments that affairs changed in those times through taking the People of the Book as scribes and secretaries, by which they rose among the ignorant among the governors (al-Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an 4/179). Ibn al-Azraq classifies the prohibition on two levels: the generality of people, kings and governors included, according to Al Imran 28 and Al Ma'ida 51, Ibn Atiyya noting that the prohibition aims at the alliance leading to mingling and mutual aid, and that the ruling of the verse remains; and the particular situation of the governors relying on them: first jihad, the Mudawwana forbidding the support of the associators in fighting except as auxiliaries or servants, while Iyad reported its permission with some imams, bringing the prohibition back to a specific time; then the conduct of affairs and administration, Ibn al-Arabi saying no governor should take a dhimmi as steward, for Allah forbade it and they give no sincere counsel nor keep the trust. Two reports illustrate the practice of the early generations. The first, reported by at-Turtushi: when Umar summoned Abu Musa al-Ash'ari from Basra, the latter came to Umar while he was in the mosque and asked permission for his scribe, a Christian; Umar struck his thigh and said: “May Allah fight you! You appointed a dhimmi over the Muslims? Have you not heard the word of Allah about the Jews and the Christians? Could you not take a sincere Muslim?” Abu Musa answered: I need his writing, and he has his religion. Umar said: “I honour them not, Allah having humiliated them; I raise them not, Allah having abased them; I draw them near not, Allah having estranged them”. The second: Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to one of his governors about a man of his administration, named, who was not of the religion of Islam: “Call so-and-so to Islam; if he converts, he is one of us; if he refuses, rely neither on him nor on any non-Muslim in the affairs of the Muslims”. The letter was read to him and he converted (Bada'i' as-silk fi tabai' al-mulk 2/26-28).
Among the Shafi'is, ash-Shafi'i writes: it is not fitting, in my view, for a judge or any governor of the Muslims to take a dhimmi as scribe, nor to place a dhimmi in a post by which he grants a favour over a Muslim; and the Muslims should be taught to have no need of the people of a religion other than theirs (al-Umm 6/210, al-Hawi al-Kabir 16/200, Sunan al-Bayhaqi 10/126). al-Mawardi adds: a dhimmi may not be taken as scribe even if competent, for their perversity in religion excludes accepting their word in this matter; Allah says: “O you who believe, take not My enemy and your enemy as allies...” and “take not the Jews and the Christians as allies...” (al-Hawi al-Kabir 16/200). Ibn Kathir comments on the report of Umar together with the verse of Al Imran 118: it yields the proof that the dhimmis may not be employed in writing that extends their hold over the Muslims and gives them access to intimate affairs, which they risk revealing to the enemies at war (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/399). an-Nawawi was asked: a Jew or a Christian was appointed money changer of the treasury of the Muslims to weigh the dirhams exchanged and spent, and reliance is placed on his word: is the appointment lawful, is the ruler rewarded for dismissing him and replacing him with a trustworthy Muslim, and is the one who assists in his dismissal rewarded? He answered: appointing the Jew or the Christian to that is unlawful, keeping him is forbidden, relying on his word is unlawful; the ruler is rewarded for dismissing him and replacing him with a trustworthy Muslim, and the one who assists in his dismissal is rewarded (reported by Ibn Taymiyya in his epistle on the church, Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/643, al-Adab ash-Shar'iyya 2/434).
Among the Hanbalis, Ibn Taymiyya writes: the Muslims have no need of them, praise to Allah. Khalid ibn al-Walid wrote to Umar: there is in Syria a Christian scribe without whom the kharaj of Syria cannot stand. Umar wrote: do not employ him. Khalid answered: we cannot dispense with him. Umar wrote: “The Christian has died, and peace”. That is: count him as dead; whoever leaves something for Allah, Allah replaces it with better. It is established in the Sahih that the Prophet (peace be upon him) refused that an associator fight with him: “We seek no help from an associator” (reported by Muslim). As the employment of the fighting soldiers is only valid if they are believing Muslims, so the assistance of the auxiliaries in their wealth and affairs is only valid if they are believing Muslims; and the Muslims suffice for all their beneficial affairs, praise to Allah. Abu Musa al-Ash'ari presented to Umar the accounts of Iraq, which pleased him; he said: “Call your scribe to read them to me”. Abu Musa answered that he did not enter the mosque; asked why, he said: because he is a Christian. Umar struck him with his staff, then said: “Honour them no more, Allah having humiliated them; trust them no more, Allah having shown them treacherous; believe them no more, Allah having declared them liars”. The Muslims of east and west have united hearts, loyal to Allah, to His messenger and to the believers, hostile to the enemies of Allah; their sincere hearts are the undefeated army, the troop promised support until the Day of Resurrection (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/643 ff., al-Adab ash-Shar'iyya 2/434).
O you who believe, take not for confidants those outside yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you; they love what distresses you. Hatred has appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is greater still. We have made clear to you the signs, if you understand.
Surah Al Imran 118
O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians as allies: they are allies of one another. Whoever of you takes them as allies is one of them. Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. You see those in whose hearts is disease hastening to them, saying: we fear a turn of fortune may strike us. It may be that Allah will bring victory or a command from Him, and they will wake regretful over what they hid within themselves. And the believers will say: are these the ones who swore by Allah their strongest oaths that they were with you? Their deeds are lost and they are losers. O you who believe, whoever of you apostatises from his religion, Allah will bring a people He loves and who love Him, humble towards the believers, mighty against the disbelievers, striving in the path of Allah and fearing not the blame of any blamer: that is the bounty of Allah which He gives to whom He wills. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. Your ally is Allah, His messenger and the believers who establish prayer and give zakat while bowing.
Surah Al Ma'ida 51-55
These verses, Ibn Taymiyya explains, were revealed because at Medina there were dhimmis of power in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Muslims of wavering faith mingled with them, and the hypocrites, at their head Abdullah ibn Ubayy, fearing a dominance of the disbelievers, secretly supported them; “those in whose hearts is disease” designates hypocrisy and weak faith. The meaning of the verse: take not as intimates of your affairs people outside yourselves, that is outside your community; “they will not fail to corrupt you”: they omit no harm they can inflict on you; “they love what distresses you”: every hardship, ruin and loss; “hatred has appeared from their mouths”: by insulting the Muslims or revealing secrets; “what their breasts conceal is greater still”. The men of experience knew that the Jewish and Christian dhimmis and the hypocrites passed on to their coreligionists the news and secrets of the Muslims, to the point that Muslims were taken captive in the lands of the Tatars. A famous verse says: “Every enmity may hope for reconciliation, except the enmity of one who is hostile to you in religion”. That is why they are barred from every office: employing even someone less competent than the Muslims is more useful to their religion and their world; the little that is lawful carries blessing, the abundant unlawful vanishes (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/643 ff.).
Ibn Muflih adds the argument of the harms: supporting them in these offices normally entails their precedence in the assemblies, rising for them, their sitting above the Muslims, greeting them first or returning their greeting without legal cause, their eating of the wealth of the Muslims while deeming it lawful; yet they are already barred from aiding the jihad despite their presumed good opinion: all the more so what leads to those forbidden things. Allah forbade taking the disbelievers as intimates; the qadi Abu Ya'la, one of the imams of our companions, sees in it the proof that no reliance is placed on the dhimmis in the offices and the writings, and Ahmad used to say the imam does not rely on the dhimmis against the people of war; Muwaffaq ad-Din made Islam a condition for the collector of the zakat. Ahmad answered Abu Talib, who asked whether the Jew and the Christian may be employed in the affairs of the Muslims such as the kharaj: “They are not to be relied upon in anything”. The means and the pathways count: if the lawgiver commanded constraining them on the shared road, all the more these directions; the office is not entrusted to the sinner at all, or then with a trustworthy man alongside, as in the testament; if it is not entrusted to a sinner, to a disbeliever all the more, according to the verse of An-Nisa 141. Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiyya decides that the ruler must bar them from the offices throughout the land of Islam: authority is honour and trust, and they deserve humiliation and treachery; Allah enriches the Muslims without them, and no greater calamity befalls Islam than placing a Jew, a samiri or a Christian in the registers of the Muslims. Employed, they raise their heads over the Muslims, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade greeting them first and commanded forcing them to the narrowest of the paths; they were even prevented from raising their buildings above those of the Muslims: how then could they be governors of what is collected from the Muslims and paid to them? Abu Musa, Khalid, Mu'awiya's letter to Umar, the answer “the Christian has died, and peace”: all the reports converge. He adds: Salah ad-Din and his household humiliated the Christians and employed none of them, and that is why they were given victory despite the smallness of their means; the strength of the Christians and the Tatars grew after his death, when kings gave them towns of the Muslims. No one advises the ruler to display their symbols in dar al-islam or strengthen their hands, except a hypocrite, a man with a corrupt purpose, or one wholly ignorant of the legal policy that gives the authority of the Muslims victory over its enemies; let the discerning man ponder the biography of Nur ad-Din and Salah ad-Din, then the biography of those who appointed Christians and were abased (al-Adab ash-Shar'iyya 2/433 ff.). Ibn al-Qayyim devotes a chapter to the prohibition of employing the Jews and the Christians in the offices of the Muslims: Ahmad answered Abu Talib: “They are not to be relied upon in anything”; Umar wrote to his governors: whoever has an associator as scribe must not keep his company, support him, sit with him or rely on his opinion, for the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) never ordered their employment, nor his successor after him. Mu'awiya's letter and Umar's answer record the same exchange about Syria. Umar had a Christian slave; he said to him: “Convert, so that we may use you in some affairs of the Muslims, for it does not befit us to be helped in their affairs by one who is not of them”; he refused, Umar freed him and said: “Go where you wish” (al-Adab ash-Shar'iyya 2/433 ff., Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/643 ff.).
Ibn al-Qayyim draws from it the following rule: if the treaty is concluded without condition, the inhabitants are bound by what the treaty of Umar stipulated and its clauses, for they have become like the law itself: the absolute treaties of the imams after him apply to them (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/132).
The text of the covenant reached us through Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghanm, who said: I wrote for Umar ibn al-Khattab when he treated with the people of Syria: “In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. This is a letter from Umar, servant of Allah and commander of the believers, to the Christians of such and such a town. When you came upon us, we asked you for safety for ourselves, our children, our property and the people of our community, and we bound ourselves not to build in our town or its surroundings any monastery, church, fire tower or monk's hermitage, not to renew anything destroyed of them, not to revive what existed of them in the lots of the Muslims, not to prevent the Muslims from lodging in our churches night or day, to open their doors to the passer-by and the traveller, to lodge three days every Muslim passing by and feed him, not to shelter a spy in our churches or our houses, not to hide any plot against the Muslims, not to teach the Quran to our children, not to display associating partners with Allah nor call anyone to it, not to prevent a kinsman from entering Islam should he wish it, to respect the Muslims, to rise from our assemblies should they wish to sit, not to resemble them in dress, neither helmet, turban, sandals nor parting of the hair, not to speak their tongue, not to take their surnames, not to ride with saddles, not to carry the sword, not to hold any weapon, not to engrave our seals in Arabic, not to sell wine, to shave the front of our heads, to wear our garb wherever we are, to tighten the belt around the waist, not to display our crosses and our books on the roads of the Muslims or in their markets, not to raise the cross on our churches, not to ring the bell in the presence of the Muslims, not to chant in public nor raise our voices in funerals, not to show fire with them on their road, not to bury our dead beside them, not to take a slave over whom the arrows of the Muslims have passed, to guide the Muslims and not to watch them in their houses. When I brought the letter to Umar, he added to it: to strike no Muslim. We bound ourselves to this for ourselves and the people of our community, and we accepted their protection; if we violate any of the clauses, it falls due upon us and we have no protection left, and it becomes lawful for you what is lawful against the people of hostility”.
The transmission of these conditions: al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-kubra (9/202), Ibn al-A'rabi (357) and Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (2/175-177) report it through ways passing by Yahya ibn Uqba, from Sufyan ath-Thawri, al-Walid ibn Nuh and as-Sari ibn Murr, from Talha ibn Murr, from Masruq, from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghanm. Yahya ibn Uqba is very weak: al-Bukhari said his hadiths are severely rejected, Ibn Ma'in called him a liar, an-Nasa'i said he is not trustworthy, Abu Hatim that he fabricates hadiths. He has a corroborant, Abd al-Malik ibn Humayd ibn Abi Ghaniya, trustworthy, through whom Ibn Asakir reports the text (2/178), and another way through Shah ibn Hawshab, weak (2/147). Ibn Taymiyya reports in as-Sarim al-Maslul (2/393) that Harb transmitted from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghanm with an authentic chain that Umar wrote these conditions when treating with the Christians of Syria. Ibn al-Qayyim concludes: the fame of these conditions dispenses from their isnad, for the imams accepted them, mentioned them in their books, used them as evidence, and the caliphs after Umar carried them out (Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 2/115).
The majority of the jurists state explicitly that it is not permitted to the Muslim to work for the dhimmis in a church, as carpenter, builder or otherwise: it involves aiding disobedience and belongs to the particular features of their false religion, and this hire implies exalting their religion and their rites.
al-Hattab writes: the reverse is that the Muslim hires out his person to sweep a church or the like, or to herd pigs or press wine for them: that is forbidden and the Muslim is disciplined, unless excused by ignorance. Must the wage received from the disbeliever be given as charity? Ibn al-Qasim answers: giving it as charity is preferable to us (Mawahib al-Jalil 5/424, Munh al-Jalil 7/498).
Ibn al-Qayyim summarises the madhhab of Ahmad as three types of hiring out oneself: hire for work among the dhimmis is allowed; hire for personal service carries two explicit transmissions, the sounder being the prohibition; hiring out one's person to a third party for other than service is allowed: Ali hired himself to a Jew to draw water for a date per bucket, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) ate of those dates. All this if the work involves no exalting of their religion and their rites; if it does, it is forbidden, as Ahmad transmitted: a builder was asked whether he builds a tomb for the Magians; he answered: build none for them. ash-Shafi'i writes in the book of the jizya of al-Umm: I disapprove of the Muslim working as builder or carpenter in their places of prayer. al-Amidi transmits one way: he may not hire himself out to dig a tomb or the like, for the benefit contracted is forbidden; the same applies to hire for building a church, synagogue or monastery, or for copying their falsified books (Iqtida' as-sirat al-mustaqim 1/244, al-Umm 4/213, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/253, 257, Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma 1/208-209).
The Hanafis differ: if he hires himself to work in the church and maintain it, there is no harm in that, for there is no act of disobedience in the act itself (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 8/231, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/391).
This chapter describes a historical jurisprudence of conquest whose machinery no contemporary state applies. The constant principles to retain: absolute fidelity to signed covenants and the prohibition of treachery, protection of the places of worship covered by a treaty, the prohibition of aiding or financing what one's religion forbids, and the refusal to believe or do anything amounting to approving another worship as a path to Allah.