“Your Blood Becomes Like Our Blood”: Qisas, Diya, and the Early Dhimma

“Your Blood Becomes Like Our Blood”: Qisas, Diya, and the Early Dhimma

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ 

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

By the close of the 8th century, a formidable edifice was rising over the spiritual landscape of the Islamic world: the institutionalized hierarchy of belief. Its pillars were being laid not only in the grand mosques and palace-complexes of Baghdad and Damascus, but in the quiet, methodical arguments of scholars codifying the social and legal architecture of a now-vast empire. Among these pillars, one principle stood with particular, chilling clarity: the blood of a Muslim was sacred in a way that the blood of a non-Muslim could never be. This was not merely a theological assertion of Islam’s truth, but a concrete legal doctrine with mortal consequences. A new orthodoxy was crystallizing, articulated in stark, uncompromising terms: A Muslim is not to be killed in retaliation for killing an unbeliever.

This rule did not emerge in a vacuum. It was the judicial expression of a broader, intensifying ideology of Muslim exceptionalism, encapsulated in the maxim: “Islam is exalted, and nothing is exalted above it” (al-Islām yaʿlū wa lā yuʿlā ʿalayh). Its implications were catastrophic for the concept of equal justice. It meant that a dhimmi—a Jew, Christian, or Zoroastrian living under Muslim protection—could be murdered with near-impunity. At most, his family might receive a fraction of the blood-money (diya) due for a Muslim life, a financial symbolism of his diminished worth. The murderer, if a believer, would face no greater penalty than discretionary chastisement or a brief imprisonment. The covenant of protection, the dhimma, seemingly guaranteed life, property, and worship—but not, it appeared, equal legal personhood. The “Coin of Conscience” purchased safety from external enemies, but not from the ultimate injustice within: the devaluation of one’s very life under the law of the state.

For its later proponents, from the classical jurists of the Abbasid age to the ideologues of modern extremism, this doctrine is the ultimate proof-text of Islamic supremacy, the divine sanction for a permanent religious caste system. For its detractors, it is the smoking gun that confirms the faith’s inherently discriminatory and imperialist nature. Both treat it as an immutable, foundational pillar of the Sharia, etched into the faith’s DNA from its inception.

But this modern, weaponized interpretation of sacred law did not emerge from the complex, treaty-based statecraft of the 7th-century Caliphate. It was forged centuries later, in the ideological laboratories of a confident, established empire, where jurists could afford to theorize about purity and hierarchy from a position of unchallenged power. They drew, crucially, on the same hermeneutical violence they purported to condemn—isolating a single, contested narration from the intricate tapestry of early legal debate and historical practice, and elevating it to the status of universal, timeless command.

The farther back one peers into the sources—into the papyrus treaties of the conquests, the tax registers of the early dīwān, and the fierce, unresolved debates preserved in the earliest legal compendia—the more the modern myth of inherent inequality disintegrates. In its place, we find a landscape of startling legal pluralism and principled pragmatism. We find the Qur’anic dictum of “life for life” (al-nafs bi’l-nafs) invoked without religious qualification. We find the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb ordering the execution of a Muslim for the murder of a man from al-Ḥīra, only to rescind it for military expediency, not legal principle. We find Caliph ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib handing a sword to a Jewish father and telling him to execute the Muslim killer of his son, declaring the foundational logic of the system: “We gave you the blood-money, and you pay the jizya, so that your blood becomes like our blood and your blood-money like our blood-money.”

This was the original, constitutional bargain of the dhimma: a fixed tribute (jizya) in exchange for a sacred covenant (ʿaqd) of protection that included equal standing before the criminal law. The “Coin of Conscience” was the premium paid for a life-insurance policy from the Islamic state, with a payout and coverage identical to that of a citizen. This was governance, not theology; a contract, not a curse.

The most powerful witness to this early reality is not a Muslim apologist, but a skeptical contemporary. John bar Penkaye, a Syriac Christian monk writing in northern Mesopotamia in 687 CE—a mere two generations after the conquests—recorded an observation that shatters the later orthodoxy. Describing the rule of the Sufyanids, he wrote: “Justice flourished in his days… they upheld the tradition of their instructor Muhammad such that they would bring the death penalty upon whoever seemed to have dared [transgress] his laws.” For a Christian to note that Muslims systematically executed people for breaking Muhammad’s laws—and to call it “justice”—means that the law was applied universally. The death penalty for intentional murder was Muhammad’s law. Therefore, the state that John saw as just must have been executing murderers regardless of the victim’s faith. His testimony is the 7th-century smoking gun for equal qiṣāṣ.

This blog post will excavate the buried history of this great Islamic legal debate. It will trace the bitter, scholastic war between two visions of the Islamic state: the Rashidun Model of contractual equality, defended by the early Hanafis and anchored in the practice of the first caliphs, versus the Abbasid Model of religious hierarchy, championed by later jurists like al-Shāfiʿī and Ibn Ḥazm. It will demonstrate how the latter view triumphed not through superior evidence, but through demographic shift, political convenience, and the slow erasure of inconvenient precedents. It will showcase how the doctrine of “no qiṣāṣ for a dhimmi” was not only a betrayal of the early covenant but a demographic engineering tool, designed to devalue non-Muslim life and incentivize conversion in a now Muslim-majority empire.

Above all, this essay will defend the primacy of the Prophetic imperative of justice (ʿadl), a value that demands a life for a life, and of the sanctity of covenants (al-ʿuhūd), which cannot be hollowed out by later claims of supremacy. The struggle between these two principles—covenantal equality versus communal supremacy—is the defining battle for the soul of Islamic law in the modern age.

This is the story of a constitutional promise broken, a prophetic model of pluralism distorted, and a truth that the blood-money registers and the chronicles of the conquered have been shouting all along, for those willing to listen.

⚖️ SECTION I: THE CRIMINAL LAW REVOLUTION - QIṢĀṢ AS EQUAL RETRIBUTION

"The sword given, the promise kept, the blood equalized"

If the early Islamic state's relationship with its non-Muslim subjects was a covenant—a sacred contract—then its criminal justice system was that covenant's most critical enforcement mechanism. At stake was not merely punishment, but the very meaning of citizenship under divine sovereignty. Two parallel legal tracks governed homicide: qiṣāṣ (قصاص), the "retaliation in kind" that demanded a life for a life; and diya (دية), the blood-money paid as compensation when the victim's heirs chose mercy over retribution. For the dhimmi—the Jew, Christian, or Zoroastrian living under Muslim protection—everything depended on whether these tracks ran equally for all, or diverged at the gate of faith.

This section excavates the explosive legal war over qiṣāṣ. It begins not with the later jurists' consensus, but with the Qur'an's uncompromising demand for proportionate justice and the stunning historical reality of the Rashidun Caliphate—where Caliph ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib could hand a sword to a Jewish father, declaring their blood equal under the covenant. We then trace how this egalitarian criminal law was systematically dismantled, transformed from a guarantee of equal protection into a theological weapon of religious caste. The journey begins with the divine text itself, which framed the entire debate with three devastatingly clear commandments.

🏛️ I.I. The Constitutional Foundation: Three Verses, One Unmistakable Principle

Before there were caliphs, before there were jurists, before there was even a completed Islamic state—there was the Qur'an. Its verses on criminal justice did not emerge as abstract theology, but as revolutionary legislation for a society emerging from tribal chaos. When the Qur'an spoke of qiṣāṣ (قصاص)—retaliation in kind—it did so with surgical precision, establishing a system where justice was measured, proportionate, and blind. For the nascent Muslim polity grappling with how to govern a religiously diverse population, these verses provided more than spiritual guidance; they offered a constitutional blueprint for a society where the sanctity of human life would be protected by the sobering, equalizing force of "a life for a life."

What is conspicuously, deafeningly absent from this blueprint is any qualification of faith. The Qur'an specifies categories of social and legal status—free and slave, male and female—the operative distinctions of 7th-century Arabia. Yet it remains silent on the distinction that would later dominate Islamic jurisprudence: believer and unbeliever. This silence was not oversight but design. For the architects of the early Islamic state, these verses formed an impregnable foundation: the divine mandate for equal justice under the dhimma covenant. To read religious exemption into them was not interpretation but interpolation—a later ideological imposition onto a text that was, in its original revelatory context, ruthlessly egalitarian in its demand for justice. Here are the three pillars upon which the entire edifice of Islamic criminal law was built, each revealing a different facet of the same uncompromising principle.

1. Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:178–179 – The Foundation of Civil Order

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى ۖ الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ وَالْأُنثَىٰ بِالْأُنثَىٰ ۚ فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ۗ ذَٰلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ ۗ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىٰ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَلَهُ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (178) وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ (179)

"O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered—the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. That is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment. (178) And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you of understanding, that you may become righteous. (179)"

⚖️ The Legal Architecture:

This verse establishes qiṣāṣ as a binding obligation (kutiba ʿalaykum—"prescribed for you") upon the believers. Its primary mechanism is precise equivalence: الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ (the free for the free). This establishes a hierarchy based on socio-legal status (free/slave, male/female), which was the operative social reality of 7th-century Arabia. The categories are exhaustive for their time, yet conspicuously exclude religious identity.

🧠 The Rationale: “In Retaliation There Is Life”

The famous maxim in verse 179, وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ ("And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life"), is the theological and pragmatic core of the entire system. It posits that the certainty of equal retribution deters murder, thereby preserving life. This logic is utilitarian and universal—it applies wherever the law is enforced, regardless of the victim's faith. The life preserved is human life, not merely Muslim life.

🤝 The “From His Brother” Clause:

The phrase مِنْ أَخِيهِ ("from his brother") has been weaponized by later exclusivists to mean "from his Muslim brother." However, in the Qur’anic lexicon, "brother" (akh) is often used in a universal human or tribal sense (e.g., the story of Cain and Abel: "the two sons of Adam"). More critically, the verse’s own logic refutes a narrow reading: if the only life preserved by qiṣāṣ is Muslim life, then the murder of non-Muslims becomes a free crime, encouraging—not deterring—violence and undermining the very "life" the verse aims to protect. The early jurists understood this: the deterrent must be universal to function.

2. Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:194 – The Principle of Proportionality in Conflict

الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ ۚ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

"The sacred month for the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

⚔️ Context of Revelation:

This verse was revealed concerning the sacred months during which warfare was traditionally prohibited, addressing violations of truce and proportionality in conflict. It expands the concept of qiṣāṣ beyond homicide to all transgressions (al-ḥurumātu qiṣāṣ).

📐 The Golden Rule of Retaliation:

The command فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ ("then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you") establishes the absolute limit of permissible response: perfect equivalence. No escalation. No collective punishment. This is the Qur’anic war doctrine in a nutshell: justice, not annihilation.

🔗 Application to the Dhimma:

If this principle governs war—the most extreme state of hostility—how much more must it govern peace under the dhimma covenant? A polity that demands perfect proportionality when being attacked by enemies cannot logically abandon proportionality when its own citizens attack its protected subjects. The covenant of peace is stronger than a temporary truce; its violation demands at least the same standard of justice.

3. Sūrat al-Mā’idah 5:45 – The Eternal Law: “Life for Life”

وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالْأَنفَ بِالْأَنفَ وَالْأُذُنَ بِالْأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌ ۚ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُ ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

"And We ordained for them therein that life is for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

📜 The Mosaic Code Reaffirmed:

This verse explicitly references the law given to the Children of Israel (ʿalayhim—"for them"). It is the lex talionis of the Torah, cited verbatim. The theological claim is monumental: this is not "Jewish law" or "Islamic law," but God’s law, revealed to previous prophets and now reaffirmed in the Qur’an.

🎯 The Most Important Phrase: النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسَ

"Life for life." This is the most absolute, unqualified formulation of equal retaliation in the Qur’an. It contains no social or religious modifiers. It does not say "the Muslim soul for the Muslim soul." It declares a universal, metaphysical equivalence of human life in the eyes of God. To claim this verse applies only to Muslims is to claim that only Muslim life qualifies as "a life" in the divine economy—a theological absurdity that turns the Qur’an’s validation of prior revelations into a hollow shell.

✅ The Qur’anic Verdict: A Covenant of Equal Justice

The Qur’anic legislation on qiṣāṣ presents a coherent, graduated system:

1. For Civil Society (2:178-179): Equivalence based on social status, with the ultimate goal of preserving life.

2. For Conflict (2:194): Proportionality even in war, forbidding escalation.

3. As Divine Principle (5:45): The eternal, unqualified law of "life for life" that transcends specific revelations.

These verses formed the constitutional bedrock for the early Islamic state. They provided the divine mandate for a system where the state’s monopoly on violence was exercised not arbitrarily, but through a rigid, predictable formula of equal retribution. This system was the very source of the state’s legitimacy in the eyes of the millions of non-Muslims it governed. To exempt Muslims from qiṣāṣ for killing dhimmis would have annihilated that legitimacy overnight, making a mockery of the "life" the Qur’an sought to preserve and inviting the rebellion that demographic reality made inevitable.

The linguistics are indeed not for debate. The text is clear. The debate began only when later empires, secure in their power, decided that divine justice was less important than communal privilege.

I.II. The "Scroll of the Sword-Sheath": The Controversial Text

If the Qur’an’s verses on qiṣāṣ are a declaration of universal principle, the early Islamic tradition also preserved a single, potent statement attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that appears to establish a stark exception. This statement is not found in a standalone hadith, but is embedded within a unique historical artifact: a physical document reportedly kept by Caliph ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib in the sheath of his sword. Referred to in the sources as al-ṣaḥīfah (the scroll) or kitāb fī qirāb sayfihi (the writing in his sword’s sheath), this text was a compact constitutional charter containing miscellaneous rulings.

For centuries, one clause within this scroll has formed the bedrock of the argument against equal retaliation: أَلَا لَا يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ ("Indeed, a believer is not to be killed for [killing] an unbeliever"). Coupled with its sequel, وَلَا ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ ("and a person with a covenant is not [to be killed] while his covenant is in force"), this passage has been lifted from its material and historical context to serve as an absolute legal axiom. Presented in isolation, it seems to categorically overturn the Qur’an’s "life for life" principle when the victim is a non-Muslim.

But to understand this text—and the monumental legal war it sparked—we must first encounter it in its entirety, as the early narrators did. It was not a free-floating prophetic saying; it was one article within a longer, composite document that dealt with diverse subjects, from the sanctity of Medina to rules on ransom and collective responsibility. Its authority, its wording, and its connection to the succeeding phrase are all critical. The following presents the full narrations of the document’s discovery and its complete translated text, setting the stage for the great interpretive battle that would define Islamic justice for centuries.

1. The Core Narration: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Book of Blood Money)

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا مُطَرِّفٌ، أَنَّ عَامِرًا، حَدَّثَهُمْ عَنْ أَبِي جُحَيْفَةَ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لِعَلِيٍّ. وَحَدَّثَنَا صَدَقَةُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُطَرِّفٌ، سَمِعْتُ الشَّعْبِيَّ، يُحَدِّثُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا جُحَيْفَةَ، قَالَ سَأَلْتُ عَلِيًّا ـ رضى الله عنه ـ هَلْ عِنْدَكُمْ شَىْءٌ مِمَّا لَيْسَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ ـ وَقَالَ ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ مَرَّةً مَا لَيْسَ عِنْدَ النَّاسِ ـ فَقَالَ وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ مَا عِنْدَنَا إِلاَّ مَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ إِلاَّ فَهْمًا يُعْطَى رَجُلٌ فِي كِتَابِهِ وَمَا فِي الصَّحِيفَةِ. قُلْتُ وَمَا فِي الصَّحِيفَةِ قَالَ الْعَقْلُ، وَفِكَاكُ الأَسِيرِ، وَأَنْ لاَ يُقْتَلَ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ.

Translation:

-

Abū Juḥayfah said: “I asked ʿAlī, ‘Do you have anything [from the Prophet] that is not in the Qur’ān?’ He swore by Him who splits the seed and creates the soul: ‘We have nothing except what is in the Qur’ān, except for an understanding given to a man in his reading of it, and what is in this scroll.’ I asked, ‘What is in the scroll?’ He said: ‘Blood-money (al-ʿaql), the ransoming of captives (fakāk al-asīr), and that a Muslim is not to be killed for an unbeliever (wa an lā yuqtala muslimun bi-kāfir).’”

Key Points:

• The Setting: A private inquiry to Caliph ʿAlī about exclusive Prophetic knowledge.

• The Scroll’s Contents: A short list of three items, presented as supplemental, practical regulations.

• The Phrasing: أَنْ لاَ يُقْتَلَ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ – grammatically, a general, unqualified negation.

This is the narration that would echo through the centuries. But it is not the only version. A longer, more constitutionally significant version exists.

2. The Expanded Document: Sunan Abī Dāwūd & The Prophetic Scroll

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، وَمُسَدَّدٌ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي عَرُوبَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قَالَ انْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَالأَشْتَرُ، إِلَى عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَقُلْنَا هَلْ عَهِدَ إِلَيْكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم شَيْئًا لَمْ يَعْهَدْهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ عَامَّةً قَالَ لاَ إِلاَّ مَا فِي كِتَابِي هَذَا - قَالَ مُسَدَّدٌ قَالَ - فَأَخْرَجَ كِتَابًا - وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ كِتَابًا مِنْ قِرَابِ سَيْفِهِ - فَإِذَا فِيهِ ‏"‏ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ تَكَافَأُ دِمَاؤُهُمْ وَهُمْ يَدٌ عَلَى مَنْ سِوَاهُمْ وَيَسْعَى بِذِمَّتِهِمْ أَدْنَاهُمْ أَلاَ لاَ يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلاَ ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ مَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدَثًا فَعَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدْثًا أَوْ آوَى مُحْدِثًا فَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلاَئِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ ‏"‏.

Translation:

-

Qays ibn ʿAbbād said: “I went with al-Ashtar to ʿAlī and we said, ‘Did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ convey to you something that he did not convey to people in general?’ He said, ‘No, except what is in this book of mine.’ He took out a book—from his sword sheath—and in it was written: ‘The believers are equal in their blood (al-muʾminūna takāfaʾu dimāʾuhum). They are one hand against those besides them, and their lowest can offer protection on their behalf. Indeed: a believer is not to be killed for an unbeliever, nor shall a person with a covenant be killed while his covenant is in force. Whoever initiates a transgression, it is upon himself. And whoever initiates a transgression or gives refuge to an initiator, upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people.’”

This is the complete, constitutional document. Its significance is monumental:

1. It is a state document, kept with the Caliph’s sword—the symbol of executive authority.

2. It opens with a declaration of Muslim solidarity: “The believers are equal in their blood.” This is internal Muslim law.

3. It contains the critical pairing: لا يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلا ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ.

   • Clause 1: A believer is not killed for an unbeliever.

   • Clause 2: A person with a covenant is not killed while his covenant is in force.

4. The grammatical link between the two clauses is the وَ (wāw) of accompaniment. The second clause is not independent; it specifies a sub-category of the first.

With this text now fully presented—the stage is set. We are no longer dealing with an abstract legal maxim, but with a specific document from a specific time, containing interconnected rulings. The next section will plunge into the scholarly thunderdome that this single line ignited, revealing how its grammar, its historical context, and its placement within the scroll became the battleground for two irreconcilable visions of Islamic justice.

🏛️ I.III. The Thunderdome of Juristic Debate: Al-Jaṣṣāṣ vs. The World

The Qur’anic blueprint was clear, and the early practice of the Caliphs was recorded. Yet, by the 9th and 10th centuries, a powerful consensus was hardening around the opposite view. The battleground was no longer the battlefield or the caliphal court, but the study circles of the fuqahāʾ (jurists). Here, the meaning of the scroll was dissected, and the weight of the Qur’an was measured against a single prophetic narration.

The great Ḥanafī scholar Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 981 CE), in his monumental Qur’anic commentary Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, delivers the most comprehensive and logically devastating defense of equal qiṣāṣ. He does not merely state his opinion; he systematically dismantles the opposing view, brick by brick. His chapter is a masterclass in classical Islamic legal reasoning.

The stage he sets is itself revealing:

باب قتل المؤمن بالكافر قال أبو حنيفة وأبو يوسف ومحمد وزفر وابن أبي ليلى وعثمان البتي " يقتل المسلم بالذمي " . وقال ابن شبرمة والثوري والأوزاعي والشافعي : " لا يقتل " . وقال مالك والليث بن سعد : " إن قتله غيلة قتل به ، وإلا لم يقتل " .

"Chapter on killing a believer for an unbeliever. Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad [al-Shaybānī], Zufar, Ibn Abī Laylā, and ʿUthmān al-Battī said: 'The Muslim is killed for the dhimmi.' And Ibn Shubrumah, al-Thawrī, al-Awzāʿī, and al-Shāfiʿī said: 'He is not killed.' And Mālik and al-Layth ibn Saʿd said: 'If he killed him by stealth/treachery (ghīlah), he is killed for it; otherwise, he is not killed.'"

From the outset, we see this was not a settled matter. The early giants of the major schools were split. The Ḥanafīs and a few others held the line of equality. The emerging Shāfiʿī school and others championed hierarchy. The Mālikīs offered a pragmatic middle ground, punishing only the most egregious form of murder (treacherous ambush).

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ now enters the ring. His argument is a multi-pronged offensive.

🏛️ PRONG 1: The Overwhelming, Unqualified Qur'anic Evidence - FULL ANALYSIS

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's first argument is a masterpiece of Qur'anic hermeneutics that operates on three distinct yet interconnected levels: literal, theological, and logical. He doesn't just cite verses; he constructs an impregnable fortress around them.

📜 Level 1: The Plain Text Argument - What the Qur'an Actually Says

Core Methodology: Ẓawāhir al-Āy (Apparent Meanings)

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ begins with the fundamental principle of Islamic legal theory: when a text is clear and makes no distinction, we cannot impose one.

"سائر ما قدمنا من ظواهر الآي يوجب قتل المسلم بالذمي على ما بينا ؛ إذ لم يفرق شيء منها بين المسلم ، والذمي"

"All the apparent meanings of the verses we have presented obligate killing a Muslim for a dhimmi, as we have explained; since not one of them distinguishes between Muslim and dhimmi."

Three Unqualified Formulations:

1. Q 2:178 - "Prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered..."

"قوله تعالى : كتب عليكم القصاص في القتلى عام في الكل"

"His statement: 'Prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered' is general for all."

🔍 His Insight: The verse begins with a universal command addressing "O you who believe" about their obligation to establish qiṣāṣ "for those murdered" - not "for murdered Muslims."

2. Q 2:178 - "The free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female..."

"وكذلك قوله تعالى : الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى"

"And likewise His statement: 'The free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female...'"

🎯 The Critical Point: The Qur'an does specify categories - but only social/legal categories (free/slave, male/female). It is conspicuously silent on religious categories. If God intended a religious distinction, He would have specified it here, just as He specified the others.

3. The "Brother" Red Herring - Destroyed

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ anticipates and demolishes the exclusivist counter-argument:

"وقوله في سياق الآية : فمن عفي له من أخيه شيء لا دلالة فيه على خصوص أول الآية في المسلمين دون الكفار"

"And His statement in the context of the verse: '...whoever is forgiven anything by his brother' contains no indication that the beginning of the verse is specific to Muslims to the exclusion of unbelievers."

🧩 Two Refutations:

1. Linguistic: "Brother" (akh) can mean biological brother or fellow human (as in the story of Cain and Abel).

2. Legal Theory: When a general statement is followed by a specific application to some of its subjects, it does not restrict the general ruling to only those subjects.

"لأن عطف بعض ما انتظمه لفظ العموم عليه بحكم مخصوص لا يدل على تخصيص حكم الجملة"

"Because connecting some of what the general wording encompasses to it with a specific ruling does not indicate the restriction of the ruling of the entire statement."

Example: If I say "All students must attend" and then add "and Ahmed must bring his book," that doesn't mean only Ahmed must attend.

⚖️ Level 2: The Theological Nuclear Option - The Mosaic Law is Our Law

The Verse: Q 5:45 - "We ordained for them therein a life for a life..."

"وكذلك قوله تعالى وكتبنا عليهم فيها أن النفس بالنفس يقتضي عمومه قتل المؤمن بالكافر"

"And likewise His statement: 'We ordained for them therein a life for a life' necessitates the generality of killing a believer for an unbeliever."

The Theological Principle:

"لأن شريعة من قبلنا من الأنبياء ثابتة في حقنا ما لم ينسخها الله تعالى على لسان رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم"

"Because the law of those before us from the prophets remains binding upon us unless God abrogates it through the tongue of His Messenger."

🌉 The Bridge Argument: This isn't just "Jewish law." When the Qur'an cites the Torah's lex talionis and presents it as God's ordained law, and when the Prophet Muḥammad confirms it, it becomes Islamic law.

The Prophetic Confirmation - The Case of the Broken Tooth

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ cites the smoking gun from practice:

"ويدل على أن ما في هذه الآية ... هو شريعة لنبينا قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم في إيجابه القصاص في السن في حديث أنس"

"What indicates that what is in this verse... is the law of our Prophet is his statement ﷺ when enforcing retaliation for a tooth..."

The Story: When someone complained about a broken tooth, the Prophet said: "كتاب الله القصاص" ("The Book of God mandates retaliation"). When told "But the Book of God doesn't mention 'tooth for tooth' except in reference to the Jews," the Prophet essentially said: Exactly! That verse applies to us too.

The Double Confirmation:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ notes the Prophet's statement proves two things simultaneously:

1. "لزوم حكم الآية لنا ، وثبوته علينا"
   "The obligation of the verse's ruling upon us, and its establishment for us."

2. "إخباره أن ظاهر الكتاب قد ألزمنا هذا الحكم قبل إخبار النبي"
   "His informing us that the apparent text of the Book had already obligated us with this ruling before the Prophet informed us of it."

🚨 This is crucial: The Prophet wasn't creating new law; he was applying the Qur'anic text that had already made the Mosaic law binding on Muslims.

The Unbreakable Chain:

1. God gave Moses: "النفس بالنفس" (Life for life)

2. The Qur'an reaffirms it as God's law

3. The Prophet applies it to a Muslim case

4. Therefore: It's our law unless specifically abrogated

5. No verse abrogates it with a religious exemption

6. Conclusion: It stands universal

🔗 Level 3: The Supporting Evidence - Q 17:33

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ adds another Qur'anic nail in the coffin:

"ويدل عليه قوله عز وجل : ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لوليه سلطانا وقد ثبت بالاتفاق أن السلطان المذكور في هذا الموضع قد انتظم القود"

"And what indicates it is His statement: 'Whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority.' And it is established by consensus that the 'authority' mentioned in this place includes retaliation."

Key Features of Q 17:33:

1. Universal Language: "Whoever is killed unjustly" - no faith qualification

2. "سلطان" (Authority/Sanction): Consensus says this means the right to demand qiṣāṣ

3. Given by God: This is divine authorization for victims' heirs

4. No Exceptions Listed: If there were exceptions, they'd be mentioned here

🎯 The Complete Logical Structure:

Syllogism 1: From Silence

1. Major Premise: The Qur'an specifies all relevant legal distinctions in qiṣāṣ verses.

2. Minor Premise: It specifies free/slave, male/female, but not Muslim/non-Muslim.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, Muslim/non-Muslim is not a legally relevant distinction for qiṣāṣ.

Syllogism 2: From Previous Revelations

1. Major Premise: Laws of previous prophets are binding on Muslims unless abrogated.

2. Minor Premise: "Life for life" is God's law revealed to Moses, cited in Qur'an 5:45.

3. Minor Premise 2: The Prophet applied this law to Muslims.

4. Minor Premise 3: No abrogating text introduces religious exemption.

5. Conclusion: "Life for life" applies to all humans under Muslim jurisdiction.

Syllogism 3: From Hermeneutical Priority

1. Major Premise: Clear, unqualified Qur'anic rulings take precedence over contested narrations.

2. Minor Premise: The Qur'anic qiṣāṣ verses are clear and unqualified regarding faith.

3. Minor Premise 2: The "no qiṣāṣ" narration is contested and contextually ambiguous.

4. Conclusion: The Qur'anic principle governs.

⚡ The Burden of Proof Inversion

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's ultimate achievement is shifting the burden of proof:

❌ Exclusivist Position: "Prove the Qur'an does include non-Muslims!"

✅ Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Response: "No. You must prove the Qur'an excludes them. The default is inclusion. The text is general. Where is your specific exclusionary text that overrides 'life for life'?"

He establishes that the Qur'anic default is equality. Any claim of inequality requires:

1. A text that explicitly creates the exception

2. That text must be of equal or greater authority than the universal principle

3. That text must be unambiguous and contextually applicable

The exclusivists, in his view, have none of these. They have onenarration torn from its historical and grammatical context, trying to override the crystal-clear, repeatedly stated divine principle.

This isn't just legal argumentation; it's a defense of the coherence of revelation itself. If God says "life for life" without qualification in the eternal Qur'an, then later jurists cannot claim He meant "except when..."

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Prong 1 is essentially: "The Qur'an means what it says. If you think it doesn't, the burden is on you to prove why—and you can't."

🏛️ PRONG 2: Supporting Prophetic Traditions with Universal Language

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's second prong is devastatingly simple yet profound: when the Prophet spoke about murder and retaliation, he consistently used universal, non-discriminatory language. This isn't about one contested narration; it's about the overwhelming pattern of Prophetic speech that aligns perfectly with the Qur'anic principle.

1️⃣ The Conquest of Mecca Sermon: The Constitutional Moment

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ cites:

"ما روي عن الأوزاعي ، عن يحيى بن أبي كثير ، عن سلمة ، عن أبي هريرة : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خطب يوم فتح مكة فقال : ألا ، ومن قتل قتيلا فوليه بخير النظرين بين أن يقتص أو يأخذ الدية"

"From the Prophet ﷺ: 'Indeed, whoever kills a person, his guardian has the better of two choices: either to retaliate or to accept blood-money.'"

Sahih Al-Bukhārī confirms and expands:

"فمن قتل فهو بخير النظرين إما أن يعقل وإما أن يقاد أهل القتيل"

"Whoever is killed, his family has the better of two choices: either compensation or retaliation."

🔍 Critical Context: This was the moment of supreme Islamic victory - the Prophet standing in conquered Mecca, establishing the new constitutional order. If there were ever a time to announce "Muslims have special status in criminal law," this was it.

❓ The Absence That Speaks Volumes: The Prophet didn't say:

• "Whoever kills a Muslim..."

• "If a believer is killed..."

• "The family of a slain mu'min..."

He said "من قتل قتيلا" - "whoever kills a person" - the most generic Arabic term for human being. The heir gets "خير النظرين" - "the better of two choices" - the universal Islamic formula for murder cases.

🎯 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Implication: The Prophet had the perfect opportunity to declare Muslim exceptionalism at the moment of triumph. He didn't. He declared universal justice.

2️⃣ The Three Capital Crimes Ḥadīth: The Sanctity of "A Soul"

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ cites:

"حديث عثمان وابن مسعود ، وعائشة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاث : زنا بعد إحصان ، وكفر بعد إيمان ، وقتل نفس بغير نفس"

"'The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful except for one of three: adultery after marriage, apostasy after belief, and killing a soul without a soul.'"

Caliph ʿUthmān, besieged and about to be murdered, protests:

"سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ لاَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ... أَوْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ"

"'I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful except for one of three... or kills a soul without a soul."

🤔 The Linguistic Analysis:

• The ḥadīth protects "دم امرئ مسلم" (the blood of a Muslim man)

• But the crime that violates this protection is "قتل نفس بغير نفس" (killing a soul without a soul)

⚠️ The Critical Disconnect: If the rule were "no Muslim dies for a non-Muslim," then killing a dhimmi would not be "قتل نفس بغير نفس" (killing a soul without a soul) because the dhimmi's soul wouldn't count as a "نفس" requiring a "نفس" in retaliation.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Implicit Argument: The ḥadīth's logic only works if all human souls are equal in value. Otherwise:

• Killing a Muslim = killing a soul = requires a soul (Muslim)

• Killing a dhimmi = killing... what? Not a "نفس" in the legal sense?

This would make the ḥadīth nonsensical. The Prophet must have meant any human killing.

3️⃣ The Principle of Intentional Murder: "Al-ʿAmd Qawd"

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ cites:

"حديث ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : العمد قود"

"From Ibn ʿAbbās: The Prophet ﷺ said: 'Intentional murder necessitates retaliation.'"

Sunan Al-Dāraquṭnī gives the fuller version:

"العمد قود إلا أن يعفو ولي المقتول"

"'Intentional murder necessitates retaliation, unless the heir of the slain forgives.'"

⚖️ The Legal Simplicity: This is the Prophetic formulation of the Qur'anic "life for life."

• العمد = Intentional murder

• قود = Retaliation in kind (qiṣāṣ)

• إلا أن يعفو = Unless forgiven

No qualifications. No exceptions. Just the clean, brutal logic of equal justice.

🎯 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Cumulative Argument: The Sunnah Pattern

He doesn't present these as standalone proofs, but as a consistent pattern:

Context	Phrasing Used	What's NOT Said	Implication
Constitutional Speech (Conquest)	"من قتل قتيلا" (whoever kills a person)	Not "من قتل مؤمنا" (whoever kills a believer)	Law applies to all humans
Defining Capital Crimes	"قتل نفس بغير نفس" (killing a soul without a soul)	Not "قتل مؤمن بغير مؤمن" (killing believer without believer)	All souls equally valued
Stating the Principle	"العمد قود" (intentional murder = retaliation)	Not "العمد في المسلم قود" (intentional murder of Muslim = retaliation)	Principle is faith-blind

⚡ The Hermeneutical Principle: General vs. Specific

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is applying a core rule of Islamic jurisprudence:

📜 When you have:

• Multiple general texts (Qur'an: "life for life"; Ḥadīth: "whoever kills a person")

• One specific text (the scroll: "no believer for unbeliever")

⚖️ The proper interpretation is:

-

The specific text is contextually limited (to temporary treaty-holders, as he argues in Prong 4), while the general texts maintain their generality.

❌ The improper interpretation is:

-

Letting one contested, specific narration override multiple clear, general principles from both Qur'an and Sunnah.

🔗 The Connection to Prong 1

These Sunnah texts aren't independent proofs for Al-Jaṣṣāṣ. They're corroborative evidence that the Qur'anic principle was understood and applied universally by the Prophet himself:

1. Qur'an says: "Life for life" (universal)

2. Prophet says: "Whoever kills a person..." (universal)

3. Prophet says: "Killing a soul..." (universal)

4. Prophet says: "Intentional murder = retaliation" (universal)

The consistency is the proof. If the Prophet meant to establish Muslim privilege, why would he repeatedly use universal language? Why would ʿUthmān, facing death, appeal to the universal version?

🎭 The Exclusivist Contradiction

The opponents face a dilemma:

If they argue: "The scroll ('no believer for unbeliever') is specific and overrides these general texts"

Then they must explain: Why did the Prophet repeatedly use general language when he could have been clear? Why would ʿUthmān misunderstand or misapply the Prophet's teaching at the most critical moment of his life?

If they argue: "These general texts are actually about Muslims only"

Then they must explain: Why does the Prophet say "من قتل قتيلا" (whoever kills a person) instead of "من قتل مؤمنا" (whoever kills a believer)? The Arabic language has precise terms for "believer" - he didn't use them.

⚖️ Conclusion: The Overwhelming Weight

For Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, these Sunnah evidences create an overwhelming textual environment where:

• The Qur'an's universal principle

• The Prophet's universal formulations

• The Companions' universal understanding (ʿUthmān's appeal)

All point in one direction: equal justice.

The "no qiṣāṣ" narration becomes the outlier that must be reconciled with this overwhelming pattern—not the foundation upon which the entire edifice of criminal justice is built.

His ultimate point: Even if you discount the Qur'anic argument (which you shouldn't), and even if you ignore the historical practice of the Caliphs, the Prophet's own repeated, universal formulations of murder law demand equal qiṣāṣ. To claim otherwise isn't just disagreeing with a legal opinion—it's claiming the Prophet didn't mean what he clearly, repeatedly said.

🏛️ PRONG 3: The Irrefutable Historical Precedent - FULL ANALYSIS

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ now brings his ultimate weapon: historical practice. This isn't theoretical jurisprudence anymore—this is what actually happened when the Companions ruled the early Islamic state. His evidence isn't just compelling; it's overwhelming.

📜 The Evidence Hierarchy: From Individual to Systemic

1️⃣ The Crown Jewel: ʿAlī's Constitutional Theater

The Scene: Kufa, during ʿAlī's caliphate. A Jewish man from al-Ḥīra arrives with witnesses.

"يا أمير المؤمنين رجل من المسلمين قتل ابني، ولي بينة"

"O Commander of the Faithful! A man from the Muslims killed my son, and I have evidence."

The Procedure:

1. Witnesses testify ✅

2. Their credibility verified ✅

3. Muslim defendant seated before court ✅

4. Sword given to Jewish father 🗡️

5. "Take him to the execution ground and kill him"

The Dramatic Turn: The Jewish father hesitates. His family whispers: "Take the blood-money instead—you can live on it!" He sheathes the sword and chooses diya.

ʿAlī's Reaction:

"لعلهم سبوك وتواعدوك؟" "Did they insult or threaten you?"

"لا، والله، ولكني اخترت الدية" "No, by God! I chose the blood-money."

"أنت أعلم" "You know best."

Then ʿAlī turns to the people and delivers THE constitutional statement:

"أعطيناهم الذي أعطيناهم لتكون دماؤنا كدمائهم، ودياتنا كدياتهم"

"We gave them what we gave them [the jizya] SO THAT our blood becomes like their blood, and our blood-money like our blood-money."

⚖️ Why This is Devastating:

1. It's Not Theory: This is a real case with a real Jewish plaintiff and real Muslim defendant.

2. Procedural Perfection: ʿAlī follows full Islamic procedure—evidence, verification, judgment.

3. The Sword is Literal: He doesn't say "in theory you could..." He hands him the sword.

4. The Constitutional Logic: The jizya isn't humiliation—it's premium payment for equal protection. The state provides identical "life insurance" coverage.

5. ʿAlī's Authority: He's not just any Companion—he's The Fourth Caliph, the gateway of Prophetic knowledge, the living embodiment of early Islam.

This single case should end the debate. If ʿAlī—who kept the Prophet's scroll in his sword-sheath!—understood the "no believer for unbeliever" text to apply to dhimmis, why would he do this?

2️⃣ ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb: The Warrior-Caliph's Justice

The Case: A Muslim cavalryman kills an ʿAbdī (Christian Arab from al-Ḥīra).

ʿUmar's Initial Order:

"فكتب عمر أن يقتل" "ʿUmar wrote: 'Execute him.'"

The Implementation: They give the victim's brother the right to execute.

The Drama: The brother says "حتى يأتي الغيظ"—"Until the rage comes." He's waiting for the emotional readiness to kill.

ʿUmar's Reversal (The Crucial Context):

"وروي في غير هذا الحديث أن الكتاب، ورد بعد أن قتل، وأنه إنما كتب أن يسأل الصلح على الدية حين كتب إليه أنه من فرسان المسلمين"

"In another narration: The letter [of reversal] arrived after he was killed, and he only wrote to seek settlement for blood-money when they wrote to him that he was from the cavalry of the Muslims."

🎯 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Point: ʿUmar's reversal was not based on legal principle ("Muslims don't die for dhimmis") but on military expediency ("We need warriors"). The default was execution. The exception was pragmatic.

3️⃣ The Companions' Consensus Position

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ cites the explicit statements:

From ʿAlī and Ibn Masʿūd:

"إذا قتل يهوديا أو نصرانيا قتل به"

"If he kills a Jew or Christian, he is killed for it."

Direct. Unequivocal.

⚖️ Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Masterstroke: "We Don't Know of Any Dissent Among Their Peers"

He concludes:

"فهؤلاء الثلاثة أعلام الصحابة، وقد روي عنهم ذلك، وتابعهم عمر بن عبد العزيز عليه، ولا نعلم أحدا من نظرائهم خلافه"

"These three are the leading Companions, this has been narrated from them, and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz followed them in it. And we do not know of anyone from their peers who disagreed."

This is huge. He's not just saying "some Companions did this." He's saying:

1. The most authoritative legal minds among Companions (ʿUmar, ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd) held this position.

2. The "good" Umayyad caliph continued it.

3. No other Companion of similar stature is recorded disagreeing.

Where are the counter-examples? Where is Abū Bakr saying "Don't execute Muslims for dhimmis"? Where is ʿUthmān? Where is Muʿādh ibn Jabal? They're conspicuously absent.

ʿAlī's statement is the key to everything:

"أعطيناهم الذي أعطيناهم..." "We gave them what we gave them..."

The Jizya-as-Premium Model:

• Payment: Fixed tribute (jizya)

• Coverage: Full legal protection

• Payout: Equal blood-money (diya)

• Enforcement: Equal retaliation (qiṣāṣ)

• Insurer: Islamic state

• Beneficiaries: All covenant-holders

This is statecraft, not theology. It's how you govern a multi-religious empire without constant rebellion.

⚡ The Historical Reality vs. Later Theory

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ exposes the fundamental flaw in the exclusivist position:

The Exclusivist Timeline:

1. Prophet: "No believer for unbeliever" (absolute)

2. Companions: ??? (mysteriously don't apply it)

3. Later Jurists: "Ah! We rediscovered the true rule!"

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Timeline:

1. Prophet: "No believer for [temporary treaty-holder]" (contextual)

2. Companions: Apply equal justice to dhimmis (logical)

3. Later Jurists: Distort the rule for imperial ideology

The burden of proof: If the Companions—who lived with the Prophet, fought with him, learned directly from him—all applied equal qiṣāṣ, then later jurists claiming the opposite must provide overwhelming evidence that:

1. The Companions misunderstood

2. Or the Companions knowingly disobeyed

3. Or they understood the narration differently

They can't.

🏆 Conclusion: Practice Trumps Theory

For Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, this ends the debate. Islamic law isn't abstract theory—it's lived practice by the best generation. When you have:

1. Qur'an: "Life for life" (universal)

2. Prophet: "Whoever kills a person..." (universal)

3. Companions: Actually executing Muslims for dhimmis

4. Constitutional Principle: "Their blood like our blood"

...then one contested narration about a "scroll in a sheath" cannot override this mountain of evidence.

The Companions were the living interpretation of the Prophet's message. Their practice is the Sunnah. And their practice was equal justice.

🏛️ PRONG 4: Rational & Analogical Reasoning - FULL ANALYSIS

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ now moves from textual and historical arguments to pure logic. This is perhaps his most devastating argument because it doesn't require complex hermeneutics or chain verification—it's an ironclad logical proof that exposes the absurdity of the opposing position.

⚖️ The Core Logical Structure

Argument 1: The Analogy from Within Dhimmi Communities

"ويدل على ذلك أنه لم يمنع تكافؤ دماء الكفار حتى يقاد من بعضهم البعض إذا كانوا ذمة لنا"

"What indicates this is that it does not prevent the equivalence of the blood of unbelievers so that they retaliate against one another when they are under our protection."

The Observation: When two dhimmis kill each other, Islamic courts do enforce qiṣāṣ between them. A Christian who kills another Christian can be executed.

The Logical Implication:

1. Islam recognizes dhimmi blood as having value in the dhimmi-dhimmi context

2. That value is equal value (life for life)

3. If dhimmi blood has equal value when both parties are dhimmis...

4. ...then why would it suddenly lose that equal value when the killer is Muslim?

The Contradiction Exposed:

• Situation A: Christian kills Christian → Equal qiṣāṣ ✅

• Situation B: Muslim kills Christian → No qiṣāṣ (according to opponents) ❓

The Question: Does the value of the victim's life change based on the identity of the killer? That makes no sense. Either:

1. A Christian life is worth a life (universally)

2. Or a Christian life isn't worth a life (universally)

It can't be "worth a life when killed by another Christian" but "not worth a life when killed by a Muslim."

Argument 2: The Fortiori Argument from Theft Punishments

This is Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's masterstroke of legal logic:

"ومما يدل على قتل المسلم بالذمي اتفاق الجميع على أنه يقطع إذا سرقه ، فوجب أن يقاد منه ؛ لأن حرمة دمه أعظم من حرمة ماله"

"What indicates the killing of a Muslim for a dhimmi is the consensus of all that his hand is cut off if he steals from him. Therefore, he must be retaliated against [in murder]; because the sanctity of his blood is greater than the sanctity of his property."

🔍 Breaking Down the Logical Bomb:

Step 1: Establish the Consensus Baseline

All jurists agree: If a Muslim steals from a dhimmi above the nisab threshold → Hand amputated (ḥadd punishment).

No school disagrees. Even the most extreme exclusivists (al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn Ḥazm) accept this.

Step 2: The Hierarchy of Sanctity

Islamic law recognizes a clear hierarchy:

1. Life (dam) → Ultimate sanctity

2. Property (māl) → Lesser sanctity

3. Honor, etc. → Even lesser

This is established in:

• Qur'anic ordering of crimes

• Prophetic statements

• All juristic writings

Step 3: The Fortiori (A Fortiori) Principle

From Latin: "From the stronger [argument]." If something applies in a lesser case, it certainly applies in a greater case.

Classic Example: If you need a permission slip for a field trip (lesser), you certainly need one for overseas travel (greater).

Step 4: Apply to Our Case

The Lesser Case (Established):

• Crime: Theft of property

• Victim: Dhimmi

• Perpetrator: Muslim

• Punishment: Severe (amputation)

• Rationale: Dhimmi property has sanctity that warrants ḥadd

The Greater Case (At Issue):

• Crime: Murder (theft of life)

• Victim: Dhimmi

• Perpetrator: Muslim

• Punishment: Qiṣāṣ (execution)

• Rationale: ???

The Logical Necessity:

IF (lesser sanctity) → (severe punishment)

THEN (greater sanctity) → (at least as severe punishment)

Put simply:

If stealing a dhimmi's money costs you your hand...

Then taking a dhimmi's life must cost you your life.

⚡ The Exclusivist Contradiction Laid Bare

The opponents' position creates an illogical inversion:

According to them:

• Property violation: Muslim loses hand ✅

• Life violation: Muslim loses nothing (or minimal) ❌

This makes no sense in any legal system. It would mean:

• A dhimmi's wallet is more protected than his heart

• A dhimmi's sheep has more legal value than his son

• The state will dismember you for robbery, but slap your wrist for murder

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's implicit question: "What kind of justice system is this?"

🎯 Connecting to the Maqāṣid (Objectives of Sharia)

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is invoking the higher purpose behind Islamic criminal law:

The Maqāṣid of Qiṣāṣ (from Q 2:179):

"ولكم في القصاص حياة" "And there is for you in retaliation [the saving of] life."

How does qiṣāṣ preserve life?

1. Deterrence: Certain, equal punishment deters murder

2. Channeling vengeance: Prevents endless blood feuds

3. State monopoly on violence: Prevents vigilante justice

The Contradiction in the Exclusivist Model:

If only Muslim life is protected by qiṣāṣ:

• Murder of Muslim → Strong deterrence (certain execution)

• Murder of dhimmi → Weak deterrence (no execution)

Result: The "life" preserved is only Muslim life. Dhimmi life becomes cheap.

But the verse says "life"—not "Muslim life." The objective is preservation of human society, not preservation of a religious club.

🔗 The Covenant Logic Revisited

Recall ʿAlī's statement:

"أعطيناهم الذي أعطيناهم..." "We gave them what we gave them..."

The theft analogy perfectly complements this:

• Jizya pays for: Equal protection of life AND property

• If property protection = full ḥadd

• Then life protection = full qiṣāṣ

Otherwise, you're charging premium prices for discount coverage. That's not just unjust—it's fraudulent governance.

🧠 The Psychological & Sociological Insight

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ understands something deeper: Legal signals shape social attitudes.

Signal from equal qiṣāṣ: "All lives under our protection are equally sacred."

Signal from unequal qiṣāṣ: "Some lives are worth more than others."

The latter inevitably leads to:

1. Increased violence against dhimmis (cheaper to kill)

2. Social contempt (they're literally worth less)

3. Incentive for conversion (become Muslim or remain second-class)

4. Ultimately, rebellion (why pay for protection you don't get?)

⚖️ The Unanswered Exclusivist Dilemma

The opponents must explain:

Question 1: If dhimmi life is less valuable, why is dhimmi property equally valuable to Muslim property in theft cases?

Question 2: If the purpose is to "exalt Islam" by making Muslim life special, why doesn't this apply to theft? Why isn't there "no amputation for stealing from a kāfir"?

The Silence: No major school advocates this. They all accept equal punishment for theft. This exposes the arbitrariness of the murder exception.

🌉 Connecting All Four Prongs

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's arguments form an impregnable fortress:

1. Textual (Qur'an): "Life for life" with no faith qualifier ✅

2. Textual (Sunnah): Prophet's universal formulations ✅

3. Historical: Companions' actual practice ✅

4. Logical: Coherence with other laws and maqāṣid ✅

The exclusivists have:

• One contested narration

• Taken out of context

• Contradicting everything else

⚡ The Ultimate Irony

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's logical argument exposes something profound: The later "orthodox" position isn't just historically wrong—it's logically incoherent.

It creates a legal system where:

• A dhimmi can get justice against another dhimmi

• A dhimmi can get justice for stolen property

• But a dhimmi cannot get justice for murdered family

This isn't just "unequal"—it's irrational. It violates the most basic principles of justice that even pre-Islamic societies understood.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's final implication: If your interpretation of Islam leads to logical absurdity and injustice, perhaps your interpretation is wrong—not Islam.

The early Muslims understood this. They built a system of equal justice because anything else would have been both unjust and unwise. Later jurists, secure in their Muslim-majority empire, could afford the luxury of theoretical supremacy. But that supremacy came at the cost of coherence and justice.

PRONG 5. ⚔️ THE DEFENSE: EXAMINING THE SCROLL - A GRAMMATICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSAULT

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ now turns his formidable intellect to the opponents' one weapon: the scroll in ʿAlī's sheath. He doesn't deny its existence—he dissects it. With surgical precision, he demonstrates how later jurists committed "hermeneutical violence," ripping a single phrase from its historical, grammatical, and documentary context to create a doctrine that contradicts everything else we know about early Islamic justice.

This is where Al-Jaṣṣāṣ becomes more than a jurist—he becomes a forensic linguist and historical detective, showing how a constitutional document about ending tribal warfare was twisted into a license for religious privilege.

🕰️ COUNTER-ARGUMENT 1: THE CONQUEST OF MECCA CONTEXT - A NEW ERA BEGINS

The Historical Moment: Year 8 AH / 630 CE

The Prophet stands in conquered Mecca. The old pagan order has collapsed. For centuries, Arabia has been trapped in cycles of tribal vengeance (thaʾr), where one murder could spark decades of bloodshed.

The Immediate Problem:

A man from Khuzāʿah kills a man from Hudhayl over a pre-Islamic blood feud. The old rules would demand vengeance. The Prophet intervenes:

"ألا إن كل دم كان في الجاهلية فهو موضوع تحت قدمي هاتين"

"Behold! Every blood feud from the Age of Ignorance is abolished under my two feet."

This is the revolutionary proclamation: The state now monopolizes violence. No more private vengeance.

The Key Connection Al-Jaṣṣāṣ Makes:

The phrase "لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر" comes in the same speech as the abolition of pre-Islamic feuds. They're not separate rulings—they're part of the same constitutional moment.

"وكان ذلك تفسيرا لقوله : كل دم كان في الجاهلية فهو موضوع تحت قدمي ؛ لأنه مذكور في خطاب واحد في حديث"

"And that was an explanation of his statement 'Every blood feud from the Age of Ignorance is abolished...' because it is mentioned in a single speech in the ḥadīth."

The Critical Insight:

The Prophet isn't making a new criminal law about Muslim-dhimmi relations. He's ending old tribal law:

• Before: Tribe A kills from Tribe B → endless vengeance

• Now: The state handles justice through courts

"لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر" means: "Don't continue the old feuds where Muslims kill for pre-Islamic murders of non-Muslims."

The Demographic Reality Check:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ delivers the knockout historical fact:

"وقد ذكر أهل المغازي أن عهد الذمة كان بعد فتح مكة"

"The historians of the military campaigns have mentioned that the covenant of protection (dhimma) came after the Conquest of Mecca."

In 8 AH at the Conquest, there were only TWO categories of non-Muslims:

Category	Status	Example
1. Ahl al-Ḥarb	Active enemies at war	Pagans fighting Muslims
2. Ahl al-ʿAhd	Temporary treaty-holders	Tribes with time-limited peace pacts

The Third Category—Ahl al-Dhimma (Permanent Protected Subjects)—DIDN'T EXIST YET.

"ولم يكن هناك أهل ذمة ، فانصرف الكلام إلى الضربين من المشركين"

"There were no protected people (ahl al-dhimma), so the speech was directed to the two types of polytheists."

The Irrefutable Logic:

If the Prophet says "X doesn't apply to Y," but Y doesn't exist yet, then he can't be talking about Y. He must be talking about something else that does exist.

Since dhimmis didn't exist in 8 AH, the ruling cannot be about them. It must be about the actual categories present: enemy combatants and temporary treaty-holders.

🔤 COUNTER-ARGUMENT 2: THE GRAMMATICAL MASTERCLASS

This is where Al-Jaṣṣāṣ becomes a linguistic surgeon. He analyzes the full text of the scroll:

"المسلمون تتكافأ دماؤهم، وهم يد على من سواهم، ولا يقتل مؤمن بكافر، ولا ذو عهد في عهده"

"Muslims are equal in their blood, they are one hand against others, and a believer is not killed for an unbeliever, nor a person with a covenant during his covenant period."

The Grammatical Crime of the Exclusivists:

They treat the two clauses as independent:

1. Clause A: "No believer killed for unbeliever"

2. Clause B: "No covenant-holder killed during covenant"

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ shows this is grammatically impossible.

The Grammatical Proof Step-by-Step:

Step 1: The Conjunction "وَ" (and)

-

Arabic "wāw" can mean:

1. وَعَاطِفَة (Connective): Joins two independent items

2. وَصِلَة (Explanatory): Second clause explains first

Here, it's explanatory. The second clause defines the first.

Step 2: The Missing Pronoun

-

In Arabic, when you have:

"لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر، ولا ذو عهد في عهده"

The second clause has an implied pronoun referring back to the object of the first clause. The full reconstruction:

"لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر، ولا [يقتل مؤمن] بذي عهد في عهده"

"A believer is not killed for an unbeliever, nor [is a believer killed] for a covenant-holder during his covenant."

But that's redundant and clunky. The elegant reading—the one that makes sense—is:

"لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر [هو] ذي عهد في عهده"

"A believer is not killed for an unbeliever [who is] a covenant-holder during his covenant period."

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Devastating Analysis:

"ومعلوم أن قوله : ولا ذو عهد في عهده غير مستقل بنفسه في إيجاب الفائدة لو انفرد عما قبله"

"It is known that his statement 'nor a person with a covenant during his covenant' is not independent in conveying benefit if separated from what precedes it."

Translation: The second clause alone makes no sense. "Don't kill covenant-holders during their covenant" is tautological—that's what "covenant" means! The clause only makes sense as qualifying the first clause.

The Grammatical Iron Rule:

"فصار تقديره : ولا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ، ولا يقتل ذو عهد في عهده بالكافر المذكور بديا"

"So its meaning becomes: 'A believer is not killed for an unbeliever, nor is a covenant-holder during his covenant killed for the mentioned unbeliever specifically.'"

Even clearer: The "كافر" (unbeliever) in the first clause is defined by the second clause as being "ذي عهد" (a covenant-holder).

The Ultimate Grammatical Test:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ asks: What is the "covenant" referring to?

If you're a dhimmi, your covenant is permanent (until you break it). You're not "في عهده" (during his covenant) in a temporary sense—you're always in it.

The phrase "في عهده" implies temporariness—a treaty with an expiration date. This matches Qur'an 9:4:

"فأتموا إليهم عهدهم إلى مدتهم"

"So fulfill their treaty to them until their term."

And Qur'an 9:2:

"فسيحوا في الأرض أربعة أشهر"

"So travel freely in the land for four months."

These are temporary treaties, not permanent dhimma status.

🎯 COUNTER-ARGUMENT 3: THE DOCUMENT'S PURPOSE REVEALED

The Scroll's Structure:

1. Internal Rule: "المسلمون تتكافأ دماؤهم"
   "Muslims are equal in their blood."
   → Domestic criminal law: Among Muslims, social status doesn't matter.

2. External Rule: "وهم يد على من سواهم"
   "They are one hand against others."
   → Foreign policy: Muslim solidarity against outsiders.

3. Exception to Solidarity: "ولا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ولا ذو عهد في عهده"
   "And a believer is not killed for an unbeliever who is a covenant-holder..."
   → Treaty obligation: Even though we're "one hand against others," we honor our treaties and don't kill their people.

This is a FOREIGN POLICY document, not a CRIMINAL CODE.

The scroll answers: "When can't we use our 'one hand against others' power?"

Answer: "When they have a treaty with us."

It doesn't answer: "What's the punishment for murder within our territory?"

⚖️ COUNTER-ARGUMENT 4: THE CONVERSION CONUNDRUM

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ delivers the legal absurdity test:

The Scenario:

1. Christian A kills Christian B (both dhimmis)

2. Islamic court convicts Christian A

3. Before execution, Christian A converts to Islam

The Legal Question:

Does conversion save him from execution?

According to al-Shāfiʿī (and all major schools): NO. Conversion after conviction doesn't erase the liability.

The Logical Implication:

If the barrier to qiṣāṣ were Islam itself ("Muslims don't die for non-Muslims"), then:

• Before conversion: Christian killing Christian → Qiṣāṣ applies

• After conversion: Muslim killing Christian → Qiṣāṣ shouldn't apply

But everyone agrees it STILL applies!

Why? Because the liability was established when both were dhimmis. The status at time of crime matters, not status at time of punishment.

The Devastating Conclusion:

The real barrier isn't "Islam" vs. "non-Islam." It's equal legal status:

• Dhimmi vs. Dhimmi → Equal status → Qiṣāṣ

• Muslim vs. Dhimmi under covenant → EQUALIZED STATUS by covenant → Qiṣāṣ

The covenant (ʿaqd al-dhimma) equalizes the dhimmi's status for criminal law purposes. That's why ʿAlī said:

"أعطيناهم الذي أعطيناهم لتكون دماؤنا كدمائهم"

"We gave them what we gave them SO THAT our blood becomes like their blood."

The jizya purchases equal legal standing.

🧩 THE ABRIDGED VERSIONS EXPLAINED

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ addresses why some narrations omit "ولا ذو عهد في عهده":

"فإن قال قائل : قد روي في حديث أبي جحيفة ... لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ولم يذكر العهد ... قيل : هو حديث واحد قد عزاه أبو جحيفة أيضا إلى الصحيفة"

"If someone says: 'It has been narrated in the ḥadīth of Abū Juḥayfah... "A believer is not killed for an unbeliever" without mentioning the covenant...' Say: It is one ḥadīth that Abū Juḥayfah also attributed to the scroll."

Some narrators abbreviated. But the original, complete document included both clauses. You can't take an abbreviation and pretend it's the full ruling.

🔥 PRONG 6: THE QUR'ANIC ANCHOR - SŪRAT AL-TAWBAH AS DIVINE DICTIONARY

If Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's grammatical dissection was a surgical strike, and his historical contextualization was a siege engine, then this final prong is the atomic bomb. It comes not from jurisprudence or history, but from the Qur'an itself—revealed in the exact same historical moment as the Prophet's scroll, providing the divine lexicon for understanding its terms. While jurists debated the meaning of "ذو عهد في عهده" for centuries, the Qur'an had already defined it with crystalline clarity in Sūrat al-Tawbah. This chapter, revealed during/post-Conquest of Mecca, doesn't just support the Ḥanafī reading—it mandates it, exposing the later "orthodox" position as a catastrophic misreading that ignores the Qur'an's own vocabulary.

📖 THE CONQUEST CONSTITUTION: QUR'AN 9:1-16 AS HISTORICAL KEY

The Binary World of 8-9 AH

Sūrat al-Tawbah paints a world with only two categories of non-Muslims:

Category 1: The Enemy (الْمُشْرِكِينَ - al-Mushrikūn)

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ
"So when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them..." (9:5)

Status: Active combatants
Treatment: Confrontation after treaty expiry
No covenant protection

Category 2: The Treaty-Holder (ذُو عَهْدٍ - Dhū ʿAhd)

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ... فَأَتِمُّوا إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ
"Except those polytheists with whom you made a treaty... so fulfill their treaty to them until its term." (9:4)

1. Status: Temporary allies with fixed-term pacts

2. Treatment: Honor treaty until its expiry

3. Key phrase: إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ ("until its term")

Nowhere in these foundational Conquest-era verses do we find:

• Permanent protected status

• Ongoing jizya payments

• Lifelong covenant

• The "dhimmi" as later understood

The only "ذو عهد" that exists in the Qur'anic Conquest vocabulary is the temporary treaty-holder with an expiration date.

🔗 THE TERMINOLOGICAL MATCH: QUR'AN → SCROLL

The Smoking Gun Phraseology

Compare the Qur'an's definition with the scroll's phrasing:

Qur'an 9:4:

"ذُو عَهْدٍ... إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ"

"A person with a covenant... until its term"

Prophetic Scroll:

"وَلا ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ"

"Nor a person with a covenant during his covenant"

The scroll uses identical terminology to the Qur'an's description of temporary treaty-holders. This isn't coincidence—it's intentional textual resonance. The Prophet's scroll is applying the Qur'anic category system to criminal justice.

The Complete Equation:

Qur'an 9:4: "ذو عهد" + "إلى مدتهم" = TEMPORARY treaty-holder
Prophetic Scroll: "ذو عهد في عهده" = SAME TEMPORARY treaty-holder

To claim the scroll means something else is to claim the Prophet redefined Qur'anic terminology in a secret document—an impossibility for the Messenger who said: "إن القرآن أنزل على سبعة أحرف" ("The Qur'an was revealed in seven modes")—he doesn't speak in private codes that contradict public revelation.

🎭 THE SHĀFIʿĪ/MĀLIKĪ CATEGORY FRAUD EXPOSED

The Anachronistic Leap

Later jurists committed a three-fold category error:

1. Temporal Leap: Taking an 8 AH ruling and applying it to a 30 AH reality

2. Conceptual Leap: Equating "temporary treaty-holder" with "permanent protected subject"

3. Terminological Leap: Ignoring that "في عهده" in Conquest context inherently means "during its [temporary] term"

Consider the timeline:

• 8 AH (630 CE): Conquest of Mecca → Qur'an 9 revealed → Scroll written

• Only existing categories: Enemy combatants & temporary treaty-holders

• 9-10 AH: First dhimma treaties begin (e.g., Christians of Najran)

• 11 AH: Prophet dies

• Post-11 AH: Dhimma system develops fully under Rashidun

The fatal question: How can a document from 8 AH refer to a social category (dhimmi) that wouldn't fully exist for years?

⚖️ THE CONSTITUTIONAL LOGIC: WHY TEMPORARY ≠ PERMANENT

The Justice Calculus

The Qur'an establishes a gradated system of obligations:

Relationship Type	Duration	Justice Principle
Internal (Muslim-Muslim)	Permanent	Full qiṣāṣ (2:178)
Temporary Treaty	Fixed term	No qiṣāṣ during term (Scroll)
Permanent Covenant	Ongoing	Full qiṣāṣ (ʿAlī's declaration)

Why This Makes Historical Sense

1. Temporary allies: You don't execute your soldiers for killing someone you might be fighting next month. Justice is suspended for strategic reasons.

2. Permanent subjects: They pay for permanent protection. The state must provide equal justice or the covenant collapses.

This is why ʿAlī could hold both ideas:

• Honor the scroll's rule about temporary wartime allies

• Enforce equal justice for permanent dhimmi subjects

He wasn't contradicting himself—he was applying different rules to different categories.

💣 THE ULTIMATE REFUTATION: QUR'ANIC HERMENEUTICS 101

The Principle of "النص يفسر بعضه بعضا"

"The text explains itself." The Qur'an in 9:4 defines what "ذو عهد" means in the Conquest context. Any interpretation of the scroll that ignores this definition violates basic Qur'anic hermeneutics.

The Absurd Alternative

The Shāfiʿī/Mālikī position requires believing:

1. The Qur'an says: "Fulfill treaties until their term" (9:4)

2. The Prophet says: "Don't kill for treaty-holders during their covenant"

3. But they mean different things by identical terms

4. Despite being revealed/written in the same historical moment

This makes the Prophet's communication schizophrenic—using Qur'anic terms with non-Qur'anic meanings in foundational documents.

🏆 THE CONCLUSIVE TRIUMPH

With Sūrat al-Tawbah as anchor, the Ḥanafī victory becomes mathematically certain:

Three-Layer Proof:

1. Textual: Identical terminology between Qur'an 9:4 and the scroll

2. Historical: Both refer to the same Conquest-era reality

3. Logical: No third category (dhimmi) existed to confuse the meaning

The scroll's "لا يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلا ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ" can only mean what the Qur'an says it means: a prohibition on executing Muslims for killing temporary treaty-holders during their fixed-term pacts.

To apply it to dhimmis is not just wrong—it's to ignore the Qur'an's own dictionary, to violate historical chronology, and to betray the constitutional logic that made the early Islamic state both just and stable.

The blood was equal for those under the permanent covenant. The Qur'an proves it, the scroll assumes it, and ʿAlī's sword enacted it. Later empire's distortion wasn't development—it was desecration of clear text and clearer history.

🔥 I.IV: THE ASCENDANCY OF HIERARCHY - IBN ḤAJAR'S DEFENSE OF THE "ORTHODOXY"

⚖️ The Triumph of Supremacy: How Later Orthodoxy Cemented Inequality

If Al-Jaṣṣāṣ represents the intellectual peak of the Rashidun Model—a fortress of Qur’anic principle, historical practice, and rigorous logic—then the scholars who came after him represent something different: the systematization of empire. By the 14th-15th centuries, the Islamic world had transformed. The Muslim-majority empire was no longer a nascent state negotiating with powerful non-Muslim populations; it was a confident civilization where dhimmis were a tolerated minority. The legal landscape shifted accordingly.

Enter Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 1449 CE), the colossal Ḥadīth scholar of the Mamluk era, whose monumental commentary Fatḥ al-Bārī on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī became perhaps the most authoritative work in Sunni Islam. When Ibn Ḥajar addresses our question, he does so not as a debater trying to prove a point, but as an arbiter of established orthodoxy. His tone is not defensive but declarative. The battle is over; hierarchy has won.

The New Reality Ibn Ḥajar Inherits:

1. Demographic Dominance: Muslims now overwhelming majority from Spain to India

2. Political Security: No fear of dhimmi rebellion or external Christian powers (until Crusades, but even then, internally secure)

3. Jurisprudential Consensus: Four established schools, with Shāfiʿī/Mālikī dominance in most regions

4. Imperial Theology: The slogan "al-Islām yaʿlū wa lā yuʿlā ʿalayh" (Islam is exalted, nothing is exalted above it) now reflected in law

Ibn Ḥajar's commentary doesn't argue for the exclusivist position—it presupposes it. His task is not to debate Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's points, but to explain how the "orthodox" position makes sense within the now-dominant legal framework. In doing so, he reveals exactly how and why the early egalitarian model was abandoned.

🎯 Point I: The Grammatical Defense of the Exclusivist Reading

Ibn Ḥajar begins his defense by acknowledging the Ḥanafī challenge but systematically dismantling it. His core argument: The grammatical interpretation favored by Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is not the only—or even the best—reading.

📊 The Battle Lines:

Party	Position on Muslim→Dhimmi Qiṣāṣ	Key Evidence
Al-Jaṣṣāṣ (Ḥanafī)	✅ Yes, equal qiṣāṣ	Qur'an 5:45, Companions' practice, covenant logic
Ibn Ḥajar ("The Majority")	❌ No qiṣāṣ	Ḥadīth: "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر"
Mālikī Exception	⚠️ Only for ghīlah (treacherous murder)	Adds "فساد في الأرض" (corruption) element

🔍 Ibn Ḥajar's Grammatical Counter-Argument

1️⃣ The "Majority" Consensus as Baseline

"وأما ترك قتل المسلم بالكافر فأخذ به الجمهور"

"As for not killing a Muslim for an unbeliever, the majority have adopted this..."

🚩 Strategic Opening: He begins not with evidence but with consensus (جمهور). This frames the Ḥanafī position as the minority outlier despite their early precedence.

2️⃣ Addressing the Ḥanafī Grammatical Argument

The Ḥanafīs (via Al-Ṭaḥāwī) argue:

• The text: "لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ولا ذو عهد في عهده"

• Should be read as: "لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر [هو] ذو عهد في عهده"

• "A believer is not killed for an unbeliever [who is] a covenant-holder..."

Ibn Ḥajar responds with two possible readings:

⚖️ Reading A: Independent Clauses (Ibn Ḥajar's Preference)

Text: لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ولا ذو عهد في عهده

Ibn Ḥajar's Proposed Reading:

"ولا يقتل ذو عهد في عهده بكافر"

"Nor is a covenant-holder in his covenant killed for an unbeliever."

His Analysis:

1. This is عطف الخاص على العام ("appending the specific to the general")

2. الكافر (unbeliever) = General category

3. ذو عهد في عهده (covenant-holder) = Specific subcategory

4. Since the specific (covenant-holder) can only be killed for a حربي (enemy combatant)...

5. ...then the general (unbeliever) in the first clause must also mean حربي

➡️ His Logic Chain:

• Second clause: Covenant-holder → only killed for enemy combatant

• First clause: "Unbeliever" must therefore = enemy combatant

• Conclusion: The ḥadīth is about war captives/temporary treaty-holders, BUT its implication is that dhimmis are excluded from equal qiṣāṣ

⚖️ Reading B: Alternative Grammatical Possibility

Even if we accept the Ḥanafī grammatical structure, Ibn Ḥajar argues:

Text: مررت بزيد منطلقا وعمرو

"I passed by Zayd leaving and ʿAmr"

Analysis: This doesn't mean both were leaving! It means:

• I passed by Zayd (who was leaving)

• And I passed by ʿAmr (no specification about his state)

Applied to our ḥadīth:

• لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر → Muslim not killed for unbeliever

• ولا ذو عهد في عهده → AND covenant-holder not [killed] during covenant

• The "sharing" is in the negation of killing, not in the description of the victim

🎯 His Point: Arabic grammar allows for partial shared elements without complete identity between clauses.

🧩 Ibn Ḥajar's Critique of Al-Ṭaḥāwī's "No-Lapse" Argument

Al-Ṭaḥāwī (Ḥanafī) had argued:

"ولو كانت فيه دلالة على نفي قتل المسلم بالذمي لكان وجه الكلام أن يقول : ولا ذي عهد في عهده"

"If it indicated negation of killing Muslim for dhimmi, the correct phrasing would be: 'nor dhī ʿahd (genitive),' otherwise it's ungrammatical."

Ibn Ḥajar's Response:

"تعقب بأن الأصل عدم التقدير، والكلام مستقيم بغيره"

"This is contested because the default is not to supply implied words, and the speech is coherent without them."

➡️ His Grammatical Principle: Don't insert words that aren't there. The text as written makes sense as two independent prohibitions.

📉 Ibn Ḥajar's "Clincher" Argument

"ويؤيده اقتصار الحديث الصحيح على الجملة الأولى"

"And what supports this is that the authentic ḥadīth is restricted to the first clause alone."

He references the shorter version in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī where Abū Juḥayfah asks ʿAlī what's in the scroll, and ʿAlī says:

• Blood-money

• Ransoming captives

• "وأن لا يُقتل مسلم بكافر" (and that a Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever)

🚨 Critical Move: Ibn Ḥajar privileges the shorter, "ṣaḥīḥ" version over the longer, more contextual versions. This allows him to:

1. Ignore the complicating "ولا ذو عهد في عهده" clause

2. Treat the ruling as absolute and unqualified

⚔️ Does Ibn Ḥajar's Argument Hold Up Against Al-Jaṣṣāṣ?

✅ Where Ibn Ḥajar Has Valid Points:

1. 📜 Textual Variation: He correctly notes different versions exist, some shorter.

2. 🔤 Grammatical Ambiguity: Arabic can be read his way—it's not grammatically impossible.

3. 👥 Appeal to Consensus: By his time, the majority position WAS exclusivist.

❌ Where His Argument Fails Against Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Evidence:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Point	Ibn Ḥajar's Response	Weakness
Historical Context: Dhimmis didn't exist at Conquest	❌ Not addressed	Ignores asbāb al-wurūd entirely
Companions' Practice: ʿAlī, ʿUmar executed Muslims for dhimmis	❌ Not addressed	Doesn't explain why Companions "disobeyed"
Qur'anic Primacy: "النفس بالنفس" unqualified	❌ Not addressed	Assumes ḥadīth specifies Qur'an without proving abrogation
Logical Coherence: Theft analogy (hand for property → life for life)	❌ Not addressed	Avoids the devastating reductio ad absurdum
Covenant Logic: Jizya purchases equal protection	❌ Not addressed	Ignores the constitutional principle

🔥 The Fatal Flaw: Historical Amnesia

Ibn Ḥajar's analysis is purely grammatical and juristic. He treats the ḥadīth as a floating legal text to be analyzed in isolation, not as:

• A historical document from a specific moment (Conquest of Mecca)

• Part of a constitutional scroll with other clauses

• Understood and implemented by the very Companion who preserved it (ʿAlī)

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ asked: "If ʿAlī had this scroll saying 'no Muslim for unbeliever,' why did he hand a sword to a Jewish father to execute a Muslim?"

Ibn Ḥajar doesn't even attempt to answer this.

🎭 The Hermeneutical Shift Exposed

What Ibn Ḥajar represents is the complete triumph of the "textualist" approach over the "historical-contextual" approach:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Method	Ibn Ḥajar's Method
Historical Context First	Textual Analysis First
Companions' Practice as Key	Later Consensus as Key
Qur'an as Foundation	Ḥadīth as Specification
Logic & Coherence	Grammatical Possibility
Asks: "What did they DO?"	Asks: "What can the words mean?"

📈 The Result:

Ibn Ḥajar's reading is grammatically possible but historically incoherent. It requires us to believe:

1. The Prophet gave ʿAlī a scroll with an absolute rule

2. ʿAlī immediately violated it multiple times

3. ʿUmar violated it

4. All early authorities violated it

5. Only later jurists "rediscovered" the true meaning

This violates the fundamental Islamic principle: الصحابة أعلم بمراد النبي ("The Companions knew best the Prophet's intent").

⚖️ Verdict: A Technical Win, A Historical Loss

Grammatically: ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ (3/5)

Ibn Ḥajar shows the Ḥanafī reading isn't grammatically necessary. But he doesn't prove his reading is historically authentic.

Historically: ⭐☆☆☆☆ (1/5)

He ignores all historical context and Companions' practice.

Logically: ⭐⭐☆☆☆ (2/5)

He avoids Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's strongest arguments (theft analogy, covenant logic).

Overall: A defense of established orthodoxy, not a refutation of the early evidence.

Ibn Ḥajar's position represents the legal crystallization of what began as political expediency: the transformation of a temporary rule about treaty-holders into a permanent principle of religious hierarchy. He doesn't defeat Al-Jaṣṣāṣ on the merits; he overrides him with the weight of later consensus.

The tragedy: By Ibn Ḥajar's time, the question was no longer "What is true?" but "What is established?" The road not taken—the egalitarian covenant of early Islam—had been paved over by eight centuries of imperial jurisprudence.

👑 POINT 2: THE IDEOLOGY OF SUPREMACY UNMASKED

🏛️ From Covenant to Caste: The Abbasid Ideological Revolution

Here we witness the complete transformation of Islamic legal thought. Ibn Ḥajar presents not just a legal ruling, but an entire theological-political ideology that would have been unrecognizable—indeed, repugnant—to the Rashidun Caliphs. This is no longer the pragmatic statecraft of ʿUmar or the constitutional justice of ʿAlī. This is imperial theology justifying permanent religious hierarchy.

🔍 Sentence-by-Sentence Breakdown

1. The Ḥanafī Challenge Dismissed

Text: "وقال الطحاوي أيضا : لا يصح حمله على الجملة المستأنفة لأن سياق الحديث فيما يتعلق بالدماء التي يسقط بعضها ببعض"

Translation: "Al-Ṭaḥāwī also said: 'It is not valid to consider it an independent sentence because the context of the ḥadīth concerns bloods that cancel each other out.'"

Context: Al-Ṭaḥāwī (Ḥanafī) argues the whole scroll is about reciprocal blood obligations among Muslims, making the second clause explanatory.

Ibn Ḥajar's Rebuttal:

-

"وقد أبدى الشافعي له مناسبة فقال : يشبه أن يكون لما أعلمهم أن لا قود بينهم وبين الكفار أعلمهم أن دماء أهل الذمة والعهد محرمة عليهم بغير حق فقال لا يقتل مسلم بكافر ولا يقتل ذو عهد في عهده"

Translation: "Al-Shāfiʿī showed its appropriateness by saying: 'It is as if when he informed them that there is no retaliation between them and the unbelievers, he informed them that the blood of the people of protection and covenant is forbidden to them without right, so he said: A Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever, nor is a covenant-holder killed during his covenant.'"

🚨 The Critical Shift: Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 820 CE)—architect of the Abbasid Model—completely reverses the logic:

• Rashidun View: Covenant → Equal protection → Equal qiṣāṣ

• Abbasid/Shāfiʿī View: Covenant → One-way protection → No reciprocal rights

2. The "Clarification" That Distorts

Text: "ومعنى الحديث لا يقتل مسلم بكافر قصاصا ولا يقتل من له عهد ما دام عهده باقيا"

Translation: "The meaning of the ḥadīth: A Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever in retaliation, nor is one who has a covenant killed as long as his covenant remains."

🎯 The Sleight of Hand: He adds "قصاصا" ("in retaliation")—a qualifier not in the original text. This transforms:

• Original: "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر" (absolute prohibition)

• His version: "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر قصاصا" (only prohibits retaliation, allows other killings?)

This prepares the ground for the apartheid logic to follow.

⚡ THE IDEOLOGICAL BOMBSHELL: IBN AL-SAMʿĀNĪ'S ARGUMENT

Now comes the pure, undiluted ideology of religious supremacy. Every sentence deserves its own analysis:

Sentence 1: The Universal Text Argument

Text: "وأما حملهم الحديث على المستأمن فلا يصح لأن العبرة بعموم اللفظ حتى يقوم دليل على التخصيص"

Translation: "As for their restricting the ḥadīth to the temporary safe-conduct holder (mustaʾmin), that is not valid because the operative principle is the generality of the wording until evidence arises to specify it."

🤔 The Irony: He uses the exact same principle Al-Jaṣṣāṣ used for the Qur'anic "life for life"! But he applies it to the ḥadīth instead. This reveals the hermeneutical hierarchy now established:

1. Later Orthodoxy: Specific ḥadīth > General Qur'an

2. Early Practice: General Qur'an > Contextual ḥadīth

Sentence 2: The Theology of Inherent Worth

Text: "ومن حيث المعنى أن الحكم الذي يبنى في الشرع على الإسلام والكفر إنما هو لشرف الإسلام أو لنقص الكفر أو لهما جميعا"

Translation: "And from the perspective of meaning: The ruling that is built in the Sacred Law upon Islam and unbelief is only due to the nobility of Islam or the deficiency of unbelief, or both together."

🔥 THIS IS THE CORE DOCTRINE. Let's break this down:

Concept	Meaning	Implication
شرف الإسلام (Nobility of Islam)	Islam itself confers superior status	Muslim life inherently more valuable
نقص الكفر (Deficiency of Unbelief)	Kufr itself makes one deficient	Non-Muslim life inherently less valuable
أو لهما جميعا (Or both)	Combined effect	Double justification for inequality

This is pure religious caste ideology. It declares:

• Value is intrinsic, not contractual

• Worth derives from belief status, not humanity

• Equality is theologically impossible

📜 Contrast with ʿAlī's Constitutional Logic:

• ʿAlī: "We gave them the jizya SO THAT our blood becomes like their blood" → Equality through contract

• Ibn al-Samʿānī: Islam is noble, kufr is deficient → Inequality through ontology

Sentence 3: The Metaphysical Fountain Analogy

Text: "فإن الإسلام ينبوع الكرامة والكفر ينبوع الهوان"

Translation: "For Islam is the fountainhead of honor, and unbelief is the fountainhead of degradation."

💎 The Metaphysical Claim: This isn't just legal—it's cosmological:

• ينبوع الكرامة (Fountainhead of honor): Islam → Source of all dignity

• ينبوع الهوان (Fountainhead of degradation): Kufr → Source of all worthlessness

The implications are staggering:

1. A Muslim beggar has more inherent dignity than a dhimmi king

2. Conversion doesn't just change legal status—it changes ontological worth

3. Justice isn't blind—it must see religious identity

Sentence 4: The "Presumptive Guilt" Doctrine

Text: "وأيضا إباحة دم الذمي شبهة قائمة لوجود الكفر المبيح للدم والذمة إنما هي عهد عارض منع القتل مع بقاء العلة"

Translation: "Also: The permissibility of the dhimmi's blood is an established presumption due to the existence of the unbelief that makes blood permissible, and the protection is merely an incidental covenant that prohibits killing while the cause remains."

🚨 THIS IS THE MOST EXPLOSIVE STATEMENT. Let's parse it:

Phrase	Translation	Meaning
إباحة دم الذمي شبهة قائمة	"Permissibility of dhimmi's blood is an established presumption"	Default: Killing dhimmis is okay
لوجود الكفر المبيح للدم	"Due to existence of unbelief that makes blood permissible"	Kufr alone justifies killing
والذمة إنما هي عهد عارض	"And protection is merely an incidental covenant"	Covenant is temporary, accidental
منع القتل مع بقاء العلة	"That prohibits killing while the cause remains"	Covenant suspends but doesn't remove the right to kill

The Complete Picture:

1. Default State: Unbeliever's blood is mubāḥ (permissible to shed)

2. The Covenant: A temporary suspension of that permission

3. The "Cause": Kufr (unbelief) remains beneath the surface

4. Result: Dhimmi lives on borrowed time, by Muslim mercy, not by right

Contrast with the Rashidun View:

• ʿAlī: Covenant → Permanent equal status

• Ibn al-Samʿānī: Covenant → Temporary suspension of killing right

Sentence 5: The "Loyalty to Covenant" Paradox

Text: "فمن الوفاء بالعهد أن لا يقتل المسلم ذميا فإن اتفق القتل لم يتجه القول بالقود لأن الشبهة المبيح لقتله موجودة ومع قيام الشبهة لا يتجه القود"

Translation: "Thus, from fidelity to the covenant is that the Muslim does not kill a dhimmi. If killing occurs, the ruling of retaliation does not apply because the presumption permitting his killing exists, and with the existence of the presumption, retaliation does not apply."

The Chilling Logic:

1. Fidelity = Don't kill (but if you do...)

2. Kufr = Permanent "presumption" of killability

3. Therefore: Murder ≠ Murder when victim is dhimmi

This creates a legal absurdity:

• Before murder: "We're faithful! We won't kill!"

• After murder: "Well, his blood was presumptively permissible anyway..."

It's like saying: "We promise not to take your car. But if we do, you can't prosecute us because, technically, all cars belong to us anyway."

🏆 THE COMPLETE IDEOLOGICAL EDIFICE

The Abbasid Model vs. The Rashidun Model:

Aspect	Rashidun Model (ʿAlī, Al-Jaṣṣāṣ)	Abbasid Model (Ibn al-Samʿānī)
Basis of Value	Contractual (jizya purchases equality)	Ontological (belief determines worth)
Covenant Nature	Permanent constitutional guarantee	Temporary suspension of killing right
Default Status	Equal protection under law	Presumptively killable
Justice Principle	Life for life (equal)	Muslim life > non-Muslim life
Theological Basis	Justice (ʿadl), covenant fulfillment	Islam's nobility, kufr's deficiency
Historical Moment	Minority rule, need for stability	Majority rule, imperial confidence

⚖️ THE HISTORICAL BETRAYAL

This ideology represents a complete rupture with early Islamic practice:

What No Rashidun Caliph Ever Said:

❌ "Islam is the fountainhead of honor, kufr of degradation"

❌ "Dhimmi blood is presumptively permissible"

❌ "The covenant is merely incidental"

❌ "Unbelief itself justifies killing"

What They Actually Did & Said:

✅ ʿAlī: Handed sword to Jewish father for execution

✅ ʿUmar: Ordered execution of Muslim for killing Christian

✅ Constitutional principle: "Their blood like our blood"

🔥 THE ULTIMATE REVELATION

Ibn al-Samʿānī's argument exposes the real reason for the shift:

It's not about "understanding the ḥadīth better."

It's about building an empire where:

1. Conversion is incentivized (become equal or remain inferior)

2. Muslim supremacy is theologized (not just political, but cosmic)

3. Demographic engineering is legalized (make Islam dominant)

4. Imperial confidence is sanctified (we're noble, they're deficient)

This is the sound of early Islam's pluralistic covenant being hollowed out and replaced with a theology of permanent religious apartheid. The "Coin of Conscience" no longer purchases equal justice—it merely rents temporary safety from those who believe your blood is, by nature, less sacred than theirs.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ fought for the original constitutional bargain. Ibn Ḥajar documents its imperial replacement. The tragedy is that history remembers the latter as "orthodoxy" and forgets the former as a "minority opinion"—when in truth, it was the original vision of the Islamic state.

🤐 POINT 3: THE SILENCING OF DISSENT

⚰️ How Orthodoxy Crushed the Ḥanafī Challenge

Ibn Ḥajar now reveals the final mechanism by which the egalitarian position was eradicated: not through superior argument, but through intellectual intimidation, social pressure, and the weight of established authority. This isn't a debate anymore—it's the enforcement of conformity.

🔍 The Two Silencings

1. The Forced Recantation: Zufar's "Conversion"

Text: "وذكر أبو عبيد بسند صحيح عن زفر أنه رجع عن قول أصحابه فأسند عن عبد الواحد بن زياد قال : قلت لزفر إنكم تقولون تدرأ الحدود بالشبهات فجئتم إلى أعظم الشبهات فأقدمتم عليها المسلم يقتل بالكافر ، قال : فاشهد على أني رجعت عن هذا"

Translation: "Abū ʿUbayd mentioned with a sound chain from Zufar that he recanted from the position of his companions. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Ziyād reported: I said to Zufar: 'You say: Ḥadd punishments are averted by doubts—then you come to the greatest of doubts and proceed with it: a Muslim is killed for an unbeliever!' He said: 'So bear witness that I have recanted from this.'"

🎭 The Drama Unfolds:

Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl (d. 775 CE) was one of Abū Ḥanīfah's foremost students, part of the foundational Ḥanafī school. His forced recantation is devastating to the Ḥanafī position.

The Accuser's Argument (ʿAbd al-Wāḥid):

1. Ḥanafī Principle: "تُدرأ الحدود بالشبهات" ("Ḥadd punishments are averted by doubts")

2. The Contradiction: Executing a Muslim for a dhimmi is the "greatest of doubts"

3. The Trap: How can you be strict about doubts in other ḥadd cases but not here?

Zufar's Response: Immediate capitulation. "اشهد على أني رجعت" ("Bear witness that I have recanted").

⚡ What Really Happened Here:

This isn't intellectual defeat—it's social and professional suicide avoidance. By the 8th century:

• The exclusivist position was becoming dominant

• Holding the egalitarian view was becoming career-threatening

• Zufar, faced with public shaming, chose conformity over principle

📉 The Significance: When one of Abū Ḥanīfah's top students recants, it sends a message: "Even the Ḥanafīs can't defend this position anymore."

2. The Intellectual Humiliation: al-Shāshī Silences a Ḥanafī

Text: "وذكر ابن العربي أن بعض الحنفية سأل الشاشي عن دليل ترك قتل المسلم بالكافر قال وأراد أن يستدل بالعموم فيقول أخصه بالحربي ، فعدل الشاشي عن ذلك فقال : وجه دليلي السنة والتعليل ؛ لأن ذكر الصفة في الحكم يقتضي التعليل فمعنى لا يقتل المسلم بالكافر تفضيل المسلم بالإسلام . فأسكته."

Translation: "Ibn al-ʿArabī mentioned that some Ḥanafī asked al-Shāshī about the evidence for not killing a Muslim for an unbeliever. He intended to argue from generality [of the ḥadīth] by saying 'I specify it to mean the combatant'—but al-Shāshī diverted from that and said: 'The aspect of my evidence is the Sunnah and the rationale; because mentioning a quality in a ruling necessitates a rationale, and the meaning of "a Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever" is preferring the Muslim by virtue of Islam.' So he silenced him."

🥊 The Intellectual Beatdown:

Characters:

• الشافعي الشاشي (al-Shāshī al-Shāfiʿī): Shāfiʿī scholar (d. ~976 CE)

• بعض الحنفية (Some Ḥanafī): Anonymous, already defensive

The Ḥanafī's Planned Argument:

He wanted to use the same grammatical argument as Al-Jaṣṣāṣ: The ḥadīth's "كافر" means "ḥarbī" (combatant), not dhimmi.

Al-Shāshī's Preemptive Strike:

He doesn't even let the Ḥanafī finish. He shifts the debate entirely:

1. "وجه دليلي السنة والتعليل" ("My evidence is the Sunnah and the rationale")

2. "لأن ذكر الصفة في الحكم يقتضي التعليل" ("Because mentioning a quality in a ruling necessitates a rationale")

3. "فمعنى لا يقتل المسلم بالكافر تفضيل المسلم بالإسلام" ("So the meaning of 'a Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever' is preferring the Muslim by virtue of Islam")
   

🎯 The Masterful Rhetorical Move:

Al-Shāshī doesn't debate grammar. He declares:

• This isn't about linguistics

• This is about theology

• The ḥadīth reveals a cosmic principle: Islam → Preference

"فأسكته" → "So he silenced him."

Why was the Ḥanafī silenced? Because:

1. You can't argue against "تقديس الإسلام" (sanctifying Islam)

2. The debate shifted from "What does the text say?" to "Do you deny Islam's superiority?"

3. Any objection now sounds like attacking Islamic honor.

📊 The Silencing Mechanisms Exposed:

Mechanism	Example	Effect
Public Shaming	Zufar called out for "contradiction"	Forces recantation through social pressure
Theological Elevation	Al-Shāshī declares it about "preferring Islam"	Makes dissent seem theologically suspect
Anonymous Opposition	"Some Ḥanafī" (unnamed, diminished)	Individual dissenters made faceless
Argument Avoidance	Shifts from grammar to theology	Prevents engagement with actual evidence

⚖️ What's Missing from These "Silencings":

❌ No Engagement With:

1. ʿAlī's sword-giving incident

2. ʿUmar's execution orders

3. The Qur'anic "النفس بالنفس"

4. The theft analogy (hand for property → life for life)

5. The constitutional covenant logic

✅ What They Use Instead:

1. Social pressure ("You're contradicting yourselves!")

2. Theological trump cards ("It's about honoring Islam!")

3. Appeals to authority ("The consensus says...")

4. Rhetorical intimidation (Silencing through grand claims)

🎭 The Real Story Behind the "Recantation":

Let's examine Zufar's alleged "contradiction" more closely:

Ḥanafī Principle: "تُدرأ الحدود بالشبهات" → "Ḥadd punishments are averted by doubts"

The Accusation: Executing a Muslim for a dhimmi is "the greatest of doubts"

But Is It Really a "Doubt"?

For the early Ḥanafīs, there was NO DOUBT because:

1. Qur'an: Clear "life for life"

2. Prophetic Practice: Universal formulations

3. Companions: Clear precedent

4. Covenant: Clear contractual logic

The "doubt" only exists if you:

1. Ignore all the early evidence

2. Prioritize one contested ḥadīth

3. Accept the new theology of supremacy

This is like saying: "You believe in gravity, but here's a magic feather—now you doubt gravity!" The "doubt" is manufactured by ignoring most of the evidence.

🔥 The Ultimate Irony:

The Ḥanafīs are accused of "the greatest of doubts" when they're actually:

• Following the clearest Qur'anic text

• Following the clearest Companions' practice

• Following the clearest constitutional logic

Meanwhile, the exclusivists have:

• One contested ḥadīth

• Taken out of context

• Contradicting everything else

Yet THEY claim certainty, and the Ḥanafīs get accused of "doubt"!

💎 The Unanswered Questions:

1. If Zufar was wrong about equal qiṣāṣ, why didn't he debate the evidence? Why immediate recantation?

2. If al-Shāshī's position is so strong, why avoid the grammatical debate? Why shift to theology?

3. Where are the debates where Ḥanafīs actually lose on the merits? Not through silencing, but through superior evidence?

The silence is telling. The "silencing" anecdotes are substitutes for actual refutation. They show orthodoxy being enforced, not truth being discovered.

⚡ The Final Truth:

These "silencing" stories are admissions of weakness. They reveal that by the Abbasid period:

1. The exclusivists couldn't win on historical or textual grounds

2. They needed social pressure to maintain their position

3. They needed theological intimidation to shut down debate

4. The early evidence was so strong it couldn't be refuted—only ignored

Ibn Ḥajar presents these as "victories" for orthodoxy.

In reality, they're evidence of orthodoxy's intellectual bankruptcy.

The Rashidun Model didn't lose because it was wrong.

It lost because empire needed hierarchy, and truth was sacrificed for power.

"فأسكته" — "So he silenced him."

Three words that capture the death of honest debate and the triumph of imperial ideology over prophetic justice.

🔍 POINT 4: THE SUPPRESSION OF INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE

⚖️ How Orthodoxy Discredits What It Cannot Refute

Here we witness the most revealing maneuver: the systematic discrediting of any ḥadīth that supports the egalitarian position. Ibn Ḥajar doesn't just argue against the Ḥanafīs—he attempts to erase their evidence from the historical record.

What's fascinating is what he chooses to attack: a single, weak ḥadīth about the Prophet executing a Muslim for a non-Muslim, while completely ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that doesn't depend on this narration at all.

📜 The Targeted Narration

The Ḥanafī Citation:

"قتل رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - مسلما بكافر وقال : أنا أولى من وفى بذمته"

"The Messenger of God killed a Muslim for an unbeliever and said: 'I am most worthy of fulfilling my protection.'"

This is precisely the Prophetic precedent the Ḥanafīs would want: The Prophet himself enforcing equal justice.

🧨 Ibn Ḥajar's Dismantling Strategy

Step 1: Attack the Chain (Isnād)

Text: "قال الدارقطني : إبراهيم ضعيف ولم يروه موصولا غيره ، والمشهور عن ابن البيلماني مرسلا"

"Al-Dāraquṭnī said: Ibrāhīm is weak, and no one else narrated it connected. The famous narration from Ibn al-Baylamānī is disconnected (mursal)."

Immediate disqualification: Weak narrator → weak ḥadīth.

Step 2: Attack the Transmission

Text: "وقال البيهقي : أخطأ راويه عمار بن مطر على إبراهيم في سنده"

"Al-Bayhaqī said: Its narrator ʿAmmār ibn Maṭar erred in its chain from Ibrāhīm."

Allegation: The narrator made a mistake in the chain.

Step 3: The "Original" Version Discredits It

Text: "وإنما يرويه إبراهيم عن محمد بن المنكدر عن عبد الرحمن بن البيلماني ، هذا هو الأصل في هذا الباب ، وهو منقطع وراويه غير ثقة"

"Rather, Ibrāhīm narrates it from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Baylamānī—this is the original in this chapter, and it is interrupted and its narrator is unreliable."

Now the "original" is also flawed.

Step 4: The Consensus of Discrediting

Text: "كذلك أخرجه الشافعي وأبو عبيد جميعا عن إبراهيم بن محمد بن أبي يحيى"

"Similarly, al-Shāfiʿī and Abū ʿUbayd both narrated it from Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaḥyā..."

Appeal to authority: Even the early exclusivists transmitted it with problems.

🎯 The Real Question: Why Attack THIS Narration?

Here's the critical insight: The Ḥanafī position doesn't NEED this ḥadīth. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ built his entire case on:

1. 📖 The Qur'an: "النفس بالنفس" (life for life) - Unassailable

2. ⚖️ The Companions' Practice: ʿAlī's sword, ʿUmar's orders - Well-documented

3. 🧠 Rational Coherence: Theft analogy, covenant logic - Logically sound

4. 📜 Other Authentic Ḥadīth: Universal Prophetic formulations - Ṣaḥīḥ

So why does Ibn Ḥajar spend so much energy attacking this ONE weak narration?

1. Create the impression that egalitarian qiṣāṣ depends on weak evidence

2. Divert attention from the strong evidence

3. Establish a pattern: "See? Their ḥadīth evidence is always weak!"

🔥 The Selective Skepticism

Notice what Ibn Ḥajar DOESN'T apply similar scrutiny to:

Evidence Type	Ḥanafī/Equal Position	Exclusivist Position
Qur'anic Verses	"النفس بالنفس" (5:45) clear	Must be "specified" by ḥadīth
Companions' Practice	Multiple well-documented cases	Ignored completely
Historical Context	Conquest era analyzed	Not examined
Ḥadīth Authenticity	Scrutinized intensely	Scroll ḥadīth accepted

The double standard is glaring:

• Weak egalitarian ḥadīth: Torn apart

• Contested exclusivist ḥadīth: Accepted as ṣaḥīḥ

• Clear Qur'anic principle: "Specified" away

• Clear historical practice: Ignored

📊 What's REALLY Being Suppressed:

Evidence Type	Examples	Ibn Ḥajar's Treatment
Qur'anic	5:45 "Life for life"	"Specified" by ḥadīth
Prophetic Universal Formulations	"من قتل قتيلا"	Ignored
Companions' Practice	ʿAlī's sword, ʿUmar's orders	COMPLETELY IGNORED
Successors' Practice	ʿUmar II, Abān ibn ʿUthmān	Ignored
Rational Coherence	Theft analogy	Ignored
Covenant Logic	Jizya-for-equality	Ignored
Weak Egalitarian Ḥadīth	Ibn al-Baylamānī narration	INTENSELY SCRUTINIZED

The pattern is clear: Attack the weakest evidence, ignore the strongest.

💎 The Unspoken Truth:

The Ḥanafī position stands even WITHOUT this ḥadīth. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's entire edifice remains intact because:

1. The Qur'an is still "النفس بالنفس" → Universal

2. ʿAlī still gave the sword to the Jewish father → Historical fact

3. The theft analogy still works → Logical proof

4. The covenant still means "دماؤنا كدمائهم" → Constitutional principle

Ibn Ḥajar's meticulous destruction of one weak ḥadīth is like carefully removing a single flawed brick from a fortress while ignoring that the fortress is built on a foundation of granite.

⚖️ The Ultimate Revelation:

This section reveals the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the later "orthodoxy":

What They Should Have Done:

Engage with the actual Ḥanafī arguments:

1. How do you explain ʿAlī's actions?

2. How do you reconcile "النفس بالنفس" with your position?

3. What about the theft analogy?

What They Actually Did:

1. Find the weakest Ḥanafī evidence

2. Attack it mercilessly

3. Create the illusion that all egalitarian evidence is weak

4. Ignore the strong evidence completely

This isn't scholarship—it's propaganda. It's using the tools of scholarship (isnād criticism, contextual analysis) not to find truth, but to defend a predetermined conclusion.

🏆 The Final Analysis:

Ibn Ḥajar's dismantling of this ḥadīth is technically correct but strategically dishonest:

✅ Yes, the ḥadīth is weak

✅ Yes, its chain has problems

❌ But, this doesn't touch the Ḥanafī position's core

The real evidence for equal qiṣāṣ isn't this ḥadīth—it's:

1. The Qur'an (standing unrefuted)

2. The historical record (ignored by Ibn Ḥajar)

3. The logical coherence (avoided by Ibn Ḥajar)

4. The constitutional principle (suppressed by later orthodoxy)

Ibn Ḥajar attacks a straw man while the real fortress of egalitarian evidence stands untouched behind him. He proves he can win a small battle while losing—or rather, avoiding—the war.

This is how orthodoxy maintains itself: not by refuting the strongest arguments, but by misdirecting attention to the weakest ones. The tragedy is that for 800 years, this tactic worked.

⏳ POINT 5: THE ABROGATION CLAIM & THE MISSING CONTEXT

🔄 How History Gets Rewritten: From Exception to Abrogation

Here we reach the final theological maneuver: the claim of abrogation (naskh). When evidence cannot be explained away, declare it canceled by later revelation. This is the ultimate tool for silencing historical practice that contradicts established orthodoxy.

Ibn Ḥajar writes:

"فعلى هذا لو ثبت لكان منسوخا لأن حديث " لا يقتل مسلم بكافر " خطب به النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - يوم الفتح... وقصة عمرو بن أمية متقدمة على ذلك بزمان"

"On this basis, even if it were established, it would be abrogated because the ḥadīth 'A Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever' was preached by the Prophet on the Day of the Conquest... and the story of ʿAmr ibn Umayyah preceded that by some time."

The Claim: Early equal justice → Later abrogated by Conquest speech.

The Timeline:

1. Early (Before Conquest): Prophet might have executed Muslim for mustaʾmin

2. Later (Conquest Day): Prophet declares "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر"

3. Conclusion: Early practice abrogated

🔥 THE SMOKING GUN: WHAT IBN ḤAJAR IGNORES

The Actual Conquest Day Narration

When looking at the full narration from al-Bayhaqī, we get the full context:

Text: "قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم الفتح: ألم تر إلى ما صنع صاحبكم هلال بن أمية لو قتلت مؤمنا بكافر لقتلته فدوه"

Translation: "The Messenger of God said on the Day of the Conquest: 'Have you not seen what your companion H̱ilāl ibn Umayyah did? If I had killed a believer for an unbeliever, I would have killed him, so compensate him.'"

Let's Break This Down:

The Scenario:

• H̱ilāl/H̱arash ibn Umayyah: Killed someone 

• Conquest Day: Prophet addressing this specific incident

• The Prophet's Statement: "لو قتلت مؤمنا بكافر لقتلته" → "If I had killed a believer for an unbeliever, I would have killed him."

Wait—This Is REVERSE of What Ibn Ḥajar Claims!

The Actual Conquest Day Logic:

1. Incident: Muslim kills treaty-holder

2. Prophet's Judgment: "I would have executed him..."

3. But: "...so instead compensate him"

4. Reason: Conquest amnesty, new era beginning

This is NOT: "No Muslim ever dies for unbeliever"

This IS: "Normally I'd execute, but today we're starting fresh."

📊 Two Competing Interpretations:

Interpretation	Ibn Ḥajar's Reading	Actual Context
Timeline	Early equality → Later abrogation	Early incident → Conquest exception
Prophet's Words	General prohibition	Specific case judgment
Legal Principle	Permanent rule	Temporary amnesty
Historical Context	Ignored	Central

🎭 The Real Conquest Day Precedent:

The Prophet was establishing state-building policy:

1. Old Feuds Canceled: "كل دم كان في الجاهلية فهو موضوع"

2. Justice Channeled: State monopoly on violence

3. Practical Compromise: Execute OR compensate (خير النظرين)

4. Fresh Start: New social contract for Arabia

This wasn't abrogation—it was STATE FORMATION.

⚡ The Critical Misreading:

Ibn Ḥajar (and the exclusivist tradition) reads:

"لا يقتل مسلم بكافر" → "Muslims never die for non-Muslims"

But the actual Conquest context shows:

"لو قتلت مؤمنا بكافر لقتلته" → "I would execute Muslim for non-Muslim BUT..."

"...today we're starting anew, so compensate instead"

The difference is monumental:

• One is a theological principle (inequality)

• The other is statecraft (amnesty for new beginning)

🧩 The Full Picture Ibn Ḥajar Misses:

The Three Conquest Day Statements:

1. Statement 1: "لو قتلت مؤمنا بكافر لقتلته"
   "If I had killed a believer for an unbeliever, I would have killed him."
   → Admits the NORM is execution

2. Statement 2: "فدوه"
   "So compensate him."
   → Exception for this historical moment

3. Statement 3: "من قتل قتيلا فله خير النظرين"
   "Whoever kills someone, his heir has the better of two choices."
   → General principle moving forward

The progression:

1. Old norm: Execution (admitted)

2. Today's exception: Compensation (special case)

3. New system: Choice for heirs (future)

⚖️ The Abrogation Claim Falls Apart:

Problem 1: Timeline Contradiction

If the Conquest speech abrogated equal qiṣāṣ:

• Why did ʿAlī (35 AH) execute Muslims for dhimmis?

• Why did ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (99 AH) execute Muslims for dhimmis?

• Why did Abān ibn ʿUthmān (~100 AH) execute Muslims for dhimmis?

Either: They didn't know about "abrogation" (impossible)

Or: The "abrogation" interpretation is wrong

Problem 2: The Companions' Understanding

Those present at the Conquest—ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, etc.—later enforced equal qiṣāṣ. They heard the speech. They implemented it as state-building, not theology.

Problem 3: The Missing "Naskh" Declaration

Nowhere does the Prophet say: "This cancels previous rulings." The speech is about starting fresh, not changing law.

🎯 What Really Happened:

The Conquest Speech Was About:

1. Ending Feuds: No more pre-Islamic vengeance cycles

2. State Monopoly: Justice through courts, not tribes

3. Practical Amnesty: Clean slate for new polity

4. Future System: Heirs choose retribution OR compensation

Later Jurists Misread It As:

1. Theological Hierarchy: Muslim life > non-Muslim life

2. Permanent Rule: No qiṣāṣ across religious lines

3. Abrogation: Cancels early practice

📜 The Evidence Ibn Ḥajar Can't Explain:

The Continued Practice Post-"Abrogation":

Figure	Date	Action	Years After Conquest
ʿAlī	~35 AH	Gave sword to Jewish father	~45 years later
ʿUmar II	~99 AH	Executed Muslim for Jew	~110 years later
Abān ibn ʿUthmān	~100 AH	Executed Muslim for Nabatean	~110 years later
Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī	~96 AH	"Muslim killed for muʿāhid"	~105 years later

If the Conquest "abrogated" equal qiṣāṣ... why did practice continue for over a century?

🔥 The Ultimate Revelation:

Ibn Ḥajar's abrogation theory requires us to believe:

1. The Prophet established a new rule at Conquest

2. His closest companions ignored or misunderstood it

3. They continued the "abrogated" practice

4. Their students continued it

5. Their students' students continued it

6. Only later jurists "rediscovered" the true rule

This violates every principle of Islamic transmission:

• الصحابة أعلم (Companions knew best)

• التواتر العملي (Continuous practice as evidence)

• عدم النسخ الخفي (No hidden abrogation)

💎 The Simpler Explanation:

There was no abrogation because there was no contradiction:

1. Early Islam: Life for life (Qur'anic principle)

2. Conquest Day: "I would execute BUT today we compensate" (amnesty)

3. Post-Conquest: Life for life continues (Companions' practice)

The "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر" in context means:

• Not: "Muslim life is more valuable"

• But: "We're not continuing old feuds today"

• Or: "Don't kill treaty-holders during their treaty"

⚖️ Final Assessment:

Ibn Ḥajar's abrogation claim: ⭐☆☆☆☆ (1/5)

Why it fails:

1. Contradicts actual Conquest narration ("لو قتلت... لقتلته")

2. Cannot explain continued Companion practice

3. Assumes abrogation without declaration

4. Ignores state-building context

5. Creates historical incoherence

The truth: The Conquest speech wasn't about changing criminal law. It was about founding a state. The principle remained: "النفس بالنفس" (life for life). The application evolved: from tribal vengeance to state justice.

Later jurists took a moment of political transition and turned it into a theology of permanent inequality. They didn't discover hidden meaning—they imposed new meaning on history to serve imperial reality.

The Prophet's actual words—"لو قتلت مؤمنا بكافر لقتلته"—stand as eternal witness against those who claim he taught inequality. He admitted the norm was equal justice. The exception was political necessity. His followers remembered the norm; his later interpreters canonized the exception.

⚖️ POINT 6: THE LOGICAL COLLAPSE - THE THEFT ANALOGY REBUTTAL FAILS

🎭 When Ideology Abandons Reason

Here we witness the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the exclusivist position. Faced with Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's devastating logical argument—the theft analogy that forces any rational thinker to accept equal qiṣāṣ—the later orthodoxy can muster only feeble, contradictory responses that expose the incoherence at the heart of their ideology.

This is the sound of imperial theology breaking its own logic to maintain religious supremacy.

🔥 THE UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENT REVISITED

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Logical Bomb:

"وَمِمَّا يُدِلُّ عَلَى قَتْلِ الْمُسْلِمِ بِالذِّمِّيِّ اتِّفَاقُ الْجَمِيعِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ يُقْطَعُ إِذَا سَرَقَهُ، فَوَجَبَ أَنْ يُقَادَ مِنْهُ؛ لِأَنَّ حُرْمَةَ دَمِهِ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ حُرْمَةِ مَالِهِ"

"What indicates killing a Muslim for a dhimmi is the consensus of all that his hand is cut if he steals from him. Therefore, he must be retaliated against [in murder]; because the sanctity of his blood is greater than the sanctity of his property."

The Irrefutable Logic:

1. All agree: Steal from dhimmi → Hand cut (full ḥadd)

2. Property sanctity < Life sanctity (universal principle)

3. Therefore: Killing dhimmi → At least execution (a fortiori)

4. Otherwise: Property > Life (absurd)

🛡️ THE EXCLUSIVIST RESPONSES: THREE FAILURES

Response 1: Ibn Baṭṭāl's "Text Overrides Reason"

Text: "وَأَجَابَ ابْنُ بَطَّالٍ بِأَنَّهُ قِيَاسٌ حَسَنٌ لَوْلَا النَّص"

Translation: "Ibn Baṭṭāl answered that it is good analogy were it not for the text."

The Admission: "Yes, logically you're right... but we have a text!"

🚨 The Intellectual Bankruptcy:

• Admits the analogy is "حسن" (good, sound)

• Admits logic demands equal qiṣāṣ

• But "النص" (the text) overrides reason

The Problem: What "text"? The contested scroll ḥadīth? Which they claim specifies the general Qur'anic "النفس بالنفس"?

Circular Logic:

1. We need text to override the logical analogy

2. The text we have is ambiguous

3. We interpret it to support our position

4. We use that interpretation to override logic

5. But the interpretation depends on rejecting the logic!

Response 2: "Ḥadd vs. Qiṣāṣ" Distinction

Text: "وَأَجَابَ غَيْرُهُ بِأَنَّ الْقَطْعَ حَقٌّ لِلَّهِ، وَمِنْ ثَمَّ لَوْ أُعِيدَتْ السَّرِقَةُ بِعَيْنِهَا لَمْ يَسْقُطْ الْحَدُّ وَلَوْ عَفَا، وَالْقَتْلُ بِخِلَافِ ذَلِكَ"

Translation: "Others answered that amputation is God's right, and thus if the exact same theft were repeated the punishment wouldn't drop even if forgiven, while killing is contrary to that."

The Claim: Theft punishment is حق الله (God's right) while murder retaliation is حق الآدمي (human right).

🎯 Why This Fails:

1. The False Dichotomy:

-

Yes, ḥadd punishments are "God's right" in the sense they can't be waived by the victim. But why does this matter? The question is: Why does God's law protect dhimmi property equally but not dhimmi life?

If God values dhimmi property enough to mandate amputation for stealing it...

Why wouldn't God value dhimmi life enough to mandate execution for taking it?

The theological question: Does God care more about dhimmi sheep than dhimmi children?

2. The Victim-Forgiveness Dodge:

-

They argue: "The victim can forgive murder, not theft!"

Irrelevant. We're talking about state enforcement, not victim forgiveness. The question is: When the state prosecutes, does it apply equal punishment?

Response 3: The "No Equality" Doctrine

Text: "وَأَيْضًا الْقِصَاصُ يُشْعِرُ بِالْمُسَاوَاةِ وَلَا مُسَاوَاةَ لِلْكَافِرِ وَالْمُسْلِمِ، وَالْقَطْعُ لَا تُشْتَرَطُ فِيهِ الْمُسَاوَاة"

Translation: "Also, retaliation implies equality, and there is no equality between unbeliever and Muslim, while amputation doesn't require equality."

🔥 HERE IT IS: THE NAKED IDEOLOGY.

Translation: "Equality is for equals. They're not equal. So no equal punishment."

This isn't legal reasoning—it's caste theology.

🏛️ THE IDEOLOGICAL CORE EXPOSED

The Caste System Formalized:

Statement: "لا مساواة للكافر والمسلم"

"No equality between unbeliever and Muslim."

This is the Abbasid imperial ideology in one sentence:

Concept	Early Islam (Rashidun)	Later Orthodoxy (Abbasid)
Basis of Value	Contract (jizya → equality)	Ontology (belief → hierarchy)
Equality Principle	"دماؤنا كدمائهم" (Our blood like theirs)	"لا مساواة" (No equality)
Justice Logic	Life for life (equal measure)	Muslim life > non-Muslim life
Theological Basis	Covenant fulfillment	Islam's inherent supremacy

The Stunning Admission:

They admit the entire system is built on inequality. Once you accept "no equality between believer and unbeliever," then:

• Of course no equal qiṣāṣ

• Of course different blood-money

• Of course different legal standing

The question becomes: How can you have a justice system based on inequality?

⚡ THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS:

Contradiction 1: Inconsistent Application of "No Equality"

If "no equality":

• Why equal punishment for theft?

• Why equal commercial law?

• Why equal contract enforcement?

Selective inequality: Only where it serves Muslim privilege.

Contradiction 2: The Purpose of Punishment

• Theft punishment: Deter theft, protect property rights

• Murder punishment: Deter murder, protect life

If dhimmi property deserves full protection (amputation deterrent)...

Why doesn't dhimmi life deserve full protection (execution deterrent)?

Either: Both deserve full protection (consistent)
Or: Neither deserve full protection (consistent)

But not: Property yes, life no (inconsistent)

Contradiction 3: The Covenant's Meaning

If the dhimma covenant doesn't establish legal equality:

• What does it establish?

• Why pay jizya?

• What are you buying?

ʿAlī's answer: "تكون دماؤنا كدمائهم" (Our blood becomes like their blood)

Their answer: "لا مساواة" (No equality).

🎯 THE ULTIMATE REVELATION: TWO ISLAMS

Islam 1: The Constitutional Covenant

• Payment: Jizya

• Purchase: Equal protection

• Logic: "أعطيناهم الذي أعطيناهم..." (We gave them what we gave them...)

• Justice: Equal qiṣāṣ, equal diya

• Historical Era: Rashidun, Umayyad

Islam 2: The Imperial Hierarchy

• Payment: Jizya

• Purchase: Temporary safety from killing

• Logic: "لا مساواة" (No equality)

• Justice: No qiṣāṣ, half diya

• Historical Era: Abbasid onward

The transition wasn't development—it was betrayal.

🔥 WHAT THE "NO EQUALITY" DOCTRINE REALLY MEANS:

For the Dhimmi:

• Your property is protected (we want your taxes)

• Your life is less protected (we want your conversion)

• Your worth is contingent (on Muslim needs)

For the Muslim:

• You can steal from them (but you'll lose a hand)

• You can kill them (with minimal consequence)

• Your superiority is legalized

For the State:

• Extract taxes from dhimmis

• Incentivize conversion

• Maintain Muslim demographic dominance

• Call it "God's law"

⚖️ THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

Question 1: If "no equality," why equal commercial law?

Didn't the Prophet say: "المسلمون عند شروطهم" ("Muslims are bound by their conditions")? If contracts with dhimmis are binding, why isn't the supreme contract (dhimma) binding for equality?

Question 2: If theft punishment is "God's right," why protect dhimmi property?

Does God care about dhimmi property but not dhimmi life? What theology says God values coins more than souls?

Question 3: What is the jizya FOR?

If not for equal protection... for what?

• Early answer: Insurance premium

• Their answer: Humiliation tax

🏆 FINAL ASSESSMENT:

The theft analogy rebuttal: ⭐☆☆☆☆ (1/5)

Why it fails catastrophically:

1. Admits the logical force of the analogy ("قياس حسن")

2. Retreats to circular textual arguments

3. Finally admits the core ideology: "no equality"

4. Exposes the system as based on caste, not justice

5. Contradicts the historical covenant logic

This isn't just weak argumentation—it's the sound of an ideology hitting its logical limits and choosing dogma over coherence.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ asked: "If property gets full protection, why not life?"

They answered: "Because they're not equal."

The unspoken truth: "Because our empire needs inequality."

The debate ends here. Not with reason prevailing, but with power declaring its truth. The "Coin of Conscience" no longer purchases justice—it merely rents safety in a system that declares your life inherently worth less than your wallet.

The tragedy is complete: What began as a revolutionary covenant of equal protection became, through imperial alchemy, a theological justification for permanent second-class citizenship. The blood that was meant to become "like our blood" was declared, by later jurists, to be forever less sacred, less valuable, less worthy of justice.

And they called this "orthodoxy."

⚖️ THE HISTORICAL RECORD: WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

📚 The Full Corpus of Early Practice vs. Later Doctrine

The Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah (d. 849 CE) provides us with the most comprehensive early collection of reports on this critical question. What emerges is not confusion, but a clear historical trajectory that later orthodoxy attempted to obscure. The evidence doesn't just favor the egalitarian position—it overwhelmingly documents it as early standard practice, with exclusivist voices appearing as later developments that contradict actual historical events.

🔥 THE PRO-EXECUTION EVIDENCE: A MOUNTAIN OF PRACTICE

Category 1: Direct Companion Rulings & Statements

(2) ʿAlī & Ibn Masʿūd:

"إذا قتل يهوديا أو نصرانيا قتل به"

"If he kills a Jew or Christian, he is killed for it."

Sources: ʿAlī (4th Caliph) & Ibn Masʿūd (leading Companion)

Status: Direct, unambiguous legal ruling from two pillars of early Islam.

(7) ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb:

"أن عمر بن الخطاب أقاد رجلا من المسلمين برجل من أهل الذمة"
"ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb executed a Muslim for a man from the People of the Covenant."
Status: Historical practice of the 2nd Caliph.

(8) ʿUmar Again:

"أن عمر بن الخطاب أقاد رجلا من المسلمين برجل من أهل الحيرة"
"ʿUmar executed a Muslim for a man from al-Ḥīra."

Note: al-Ḥīra was a Christian Arab settlement. Consistency: ʿUmar repeatedly enforcing equality.

Category 2: Actual Historical Cases with Dramatic Detail

(3) ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (The "Good" Umayyad Caliph, d. 720 CE):

A Muslim covets a Jewish man's wife → Murders the husband → Takes the wife → Case reaches Caliph → "Hand him over to his heir" → Jewish mother executes him with a stone.

Significance: This is 100 years after the Prophet, by a Caliph renowned for piety, continuing the Rashidun practice.

(4) & (11) The Cavalryman Case (Double Narration):

Muslim cavalryman kills Christian from al-Ḥīra → ʿUmar orders execution → Victim's brother executes → ʿUmar later learns he's a cavalryman → Regrets for military reasons, not legal principle → But execution already carried out.
Critical Insight: ʿUmar's reversal was pragmatic (military manpower), not principled ("Muslims don't die for dhimmis").

(10) Abān ibn ʿUthmān (Governor of Medina, d. ~723 CE):

Muslim from Medina ambush-murders a Nabatean (dhimmi) → Governor orders execution.

Timeline: Early 8th century, continues the tradition.

Category 3: Successor (Tābiʿī) Consensus

(5) Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. 715 CE):

"يقتل المسلم بالمعاهد"

"The Muslim is killed for the treaty-holder."

Authority: Leading jurist of Kufa, student of Ibn Masʿūd's students.

(6) Ibrāhīm Again:

"في المسلم قتل الذمي عمدا، قال: يقتل به"

"Regarding a Muslim who intentionally kills a dhimmi, he said: He is killed for it."

Consistency: The Kufan school's position.

(9) General Principle:

"من عرض محمد بقتلهم فاقتلوه"

"Whoever exposes Muḥammad's protected ones to being killed, then kill him."

Interpretation: Violating protection = capital offense.

⚖️ THE ANTI-EXECUTION EVIDENCE DISMANTLED: CONTEXT & CONTINGENCY

(1) ʿUmar’s Arrow Case – Clearly Accidental

Text: "رمى رجلا يهوديا بسهم فقتله... فأغرمه أربعة آلاف ولم يقد منه"

"Shot a Jewish man with an arrow and killed him... imposed 4,000 dirhams and did not execute him."

🔍 Why This Is Not a Contradiction:

The verb "رمى بسهم" ("shot with an arrow") in 7th-century Arabia implied hunting, training, or distant shooting—scenarios where accidents were common. Wind, misjudgment, or poor arrow flight could easily deflect a shot.

ʿUmar’s ruling reflects Islamic legal categories:

• ʿAmd (Intentional): Direct attack, clear intent → Qiṣāṣ

• Shibh al-ʿAmd (Semi-intentional): Reckless but not premeditated → Diya

• Khaṭaʾ (Accidental): Unforeseen mishap → Diya from ʿāqilah

The 4,000 dirhams is precisely half the full diya—the established rate in cases of non-intentional killing. This was not ʿUmar refusing qiṣāṣ; it was him applying the correct category of homicide.

⚡ Compare with ʿUmar’s Intentional Murder Cases:

In the al-Ḥīra cases, the killings were by sword or dagger—direct, personal, unambiguous intent. ʿUmar ordered execution. The arrow case belonged to a different legal category, which all schools—including Ḥanafīs—recognize.

➡️ No Contradiction Here: Different facts, different rulings. ʿUmar remained consistent with the principle: life for life in cases of intentional murder.

(2) ʿUthmān’s Reported Position – Likely Misattributed or Misunderstood

Text: "سئل عثمان عن رجل يقتل يهوديا أو نصرانيا، قال: لا يقتل مسلم بكافر وإن قتله عمدا"

"ʿUthmān was asked about a man who kills a Jew or Christian. He said: 'A Muslim is not killed for an unbeliever even if killed intentionally.'"

🔍 Chain & Context Problems:

• Transmitter: al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728 CE), age 14 when ʿUthmān died.

• Reporting a childhood memory of a Caliph’s theoretical answer—not a recorded judgment.

• Contradicts all documented caliphal practice of his era.

⚡ What ʿUthmān Actually Believed:

On his deathbed, besieged by rebels, ʿUthmān cited the Prophet:

"لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاث... أو قتل نفسا بغير نفس"

"The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except for one of three... or killing a soul without a soul."

Note: He used "نفس" (soul), not "مؤمن" (believer). If ʿUthmān believed killing a dhimmi didn’t qualify as "قتل نفس" (killing a soul), his protest would have been meaningless—he could have killed dozens of dhimmis and still truthfully claimed innocence.

➡️ More Likely: al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī either misremembered or reported ʿUthmān’s explanation of the Conquest ruling (about treaty-holders) as if it applied to dhimmis. The weight of actual historical practice overrides a solitary, late-reported opinion.

(7) ʿAlī’s "Reported" Statement – Chain Collapses & Historical Impossibility

Text: "قال علي: من السنة أن لا يقتل مسلم بكافر ولا حر بعبد"

🔍 The Chain Problem:

Chain: Wakīʿ → Isrāʾīl ibn Yūnus → Jābir → ʿĀmir → ʿAlī

Isrāʾīl ibn Yūnus (d. 160–162 AH):

• Al-Dhahabī documents serious criticism

• Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān refused to narrate from him

• Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal noted: "Isrāʾīl, when he narrates from memory, not from his book, has issues"

• Not in the rank of thiqāt like Sufyān or Shuʿbah

Weak transmitter + solitary report vs. ʿAlī’s documented actions = Unreliable.

⚡ Historical Impossibility:

This directly contradicts:

1. ʿAlī giving sword to Jewish father

2. ʿAlī declaring: "دماؤنا كدمائهم"

3. Multiple reports of ʿAlī enforcing executions

📜 al-Ṭabarī’s Explanation of Qur'an 2:178:

al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) explains "الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد" was revealed to prevent tribal escalation—not to restrict qiṣāṣ by social status. He affirms:

• Men can be executed for women

• Free for slave, slave for free

• Based on: "المسلمون تتكافأ دماؤهم" (Muslims are equal in blood)

If social status doesn't restrict qiṣāṣ among Muslims, how could faith restrict it with dhimmis under equal covenant?

➡️ This Report Cannot Be Authentic:

Weak chain + contradicts documented practice + contradicts Qur'anic interpretation + contradicts ʿAlī’s own constitutional principle.

ʿAlī’s legacy is written in deeds: the sword given, the executions ordered, the equality declared. A solitary weak report cannot override this mountain of evidence.

⚖️ THE GRAND RESOLUTION: THE COMPANIONS’ CONSISTENT VISION

The Unbroken Chain of Understanding:

1. The Prophet at Conquest: Issues ruling about temporary treaty-holders to end feuds.

2. The Companions hear it: Understand it in context—not as criminal law for future dhimmis.

3. The Covenant evolves: Dhimma system establishes permanent protected status.

4. The Companions rule: Apply equal qiṣāṣ because the covenant makes blood equal.

5. They cite the old ruling: When mentioning the scroll, they refer to its original context, not its application to dhimmis.

No Contradiction for Those Who Were There:

For ʿAlī, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān—who fought at the Conquest and built the early state—there was no conflict between:

• "لا يقتل مسلم بكافر" (in 8 AH, about treaty-holders)

• "دماؤنا كدمائهم" (in 35 AH, about dhimmis under covenant)

They were different rulings for different contexts. Only later, when the historical context was forgotten, did jurists collapse them into one contradictory principle.

The Evidence Stands:

• Pro-execution: Multiple documented cases across generations of caliphs.

• Anti-execution: Mostly theoretical statements, often miscontextualized, sometimes about different legal categories (accidents, slaves).

The Companions were not fools. They understood the Prophet’s words in their historical setting. Their subsequent practice—equal justice under the dhimma—was the living interpretation of those words. To claim otherwise is to suggest that ʿAlī, who kept the scroll in his sheath, misunderstood its meaning—while later jurists, centuries removed, understood it better. History rejects this arrogance.

The truth is simpler: the early Islamic state promised equal protection, and delivered it. Later empires found equality inconvenient, and reinterpreted the tradition to serve power. The scroll in ʿAlī’s sheath was a document of amnesty for a conquered city, not a license for permanent religious caste. His sword in the Jewish father’s hand was the fulfillment of the covenant that came after—a covenant that made their blood equal, just as the jizya promised.

💰 SECTION II: THE COIN OF CONSCIENCE - DIYA AS THE PRICE OF EQUALITY

"The silver weighed, the value assessed, the covenant priced"

If qiṣāṣ represented the state's solemn duty to enforce equal justice, then diya (blood-money) represented the private, human choice to transcend it. This was the marketplace of mercy: a precisely calculated sum paid to the victim's heirs in exchange for forgoing retaliation. For the early Islamic polity, the dhimma covenant's integrity depended on a brutal, practical question: Was a dhimmi's life valued the same in silver as a Muslim's? The answer would reveal whether the "Coin of Conscience" purchased genuine equality or merely rented second-class safety.

The diya debate operated on a different plane than qiṣāṣ. Where qiṣāṣ dealt in the absolute, metaphysical equivalence of "life for life," diya trafficked in the relative, economic calculus of human worth. The standard Muslim diya—10,000 dirhams for a free man, 5,000 for a woman—was not arbitrary; it reflected complex pre-Islamic Arabian custom that Islam reformed but did not wholly erase. When jurists debated whether a dhimmi's diya should be half, one-third, or even equal to a Muslim's, they were not just parsing legal technicalities. They were conducting an autopsy on the covenant itself: determining whether the jizya purchased full legal personhood or merely temporary protection from slaughter.

This section moves from the dramatic courtroom scenes of qiṣāṣ to the ledgers and tax registers that documented the covenant's financial terms. We begin not with juristic speculation, but with the Qur'an's radical revaluation of all human life and the early Caliphate's surprising consistency in applying it. The evidence is found not only in legal texts, but in coins, contracts, and the grudging testimony of those who paid the jizya expecting equal worth in return.

📜 II.I The Blood-Money Verse: When Silver Meets Sanctity

While qiṣāṣ thundered the absolute principle of "life for life," the Qur'an simultaneously established a parallel track of justice: diya (دية), the blood-money paid as compensation when mercy triumphed over retribution. This was justice tempered with pragmatism, the divine law acknowledging human complexity. The critical verse—Qur'an 4:92—does more than establish a penalty; it unveils a complete theological economy of atonement where spiritual expiation, material compensation, and social reconciliation intersect. For the dhimmi living under Muslim protection, this verse held existential significance: did its principles of compensatory justice extend equally across the religious divide, or did the "Coin of Conscience" carry different value depending on whose blood was shed?

Here, the Qur'an operates with meticulous precision, distinguishing between categories of victims not by faith, but by political relationship: fellow believers, hostile enemies, and—crucially—those bound by covenant (mīthāq). The dhimmi falls into this third category, their status defined by treaty rather than belief. The verse's structure reveals a divine calculus where spiritual expiation (freeing a believing slave) remains constant, but material compensation adapts to political reality. This is not theology in the abstract, but statecraft in revelation: a blueprint for governing a religiously diverse society where justice must be both principled and practicable. As we dissect this verse, we uncover the foundational logic that would either guarantee the dhimmi equal worth or condemn them to permanent second-class status in the economy of life itself.

📖 Qur'an 4:92 - The Complete Economy of Atonement:

"وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَـًۭٔا ۚ وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَـًۭٔا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ وَدِيَةٌۭ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَن يَصَّدَّقُوا۟ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّۢ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌۭ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ ۖ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍۭ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَـٰقٌۭ فَدِيَةٌۭ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ ۖ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةًۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًۭا"

Translation:

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake—then the freeing of a believing slave and a blood-money payment delivered to his family [is required], unless they give [it as] charity. But if he was from a people at war with you and he was a believer, then [only] the freeing of a believing slave [is required]. And if he was from a people with whom you have a covenant, then a blood-money payment delivered to his family and the freeing of a believing slave [is required]. And whoever does not find [one], then a fast of two consecutive months [is] a repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

🔍 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: THREE CATEGORIES, ONE PRINCIPLE

📊 The Divine Calculus of Compensation:

Category of Victim	Spiritual Atonement	Material Compensation	Political Relationship
1. Believing Muslim	Free believing slave ✅	Diya to family ✅	Internal community
2. Believing Enemy	Free believing slave ✅	No diya ❌	Active hostility
3. Covenant Partner	Free believing slave ✅	Diya to family ✅	Treaty-bound peace

🎯 The Critical Insight: The dhimmi—as a covenant partner—receives IDENTICAL treatment to the believing Muslim in terms of material compensation (diya). The distinction appears only for enemies at war.

⚖️ THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE VERSE:

1. THE PRINCIPLE: "No Believer Kills a Believer Except by Mistake"

"وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَـًۭٔا"

Scope: This establishes the baseline prohibition. The subsequent rulings flow from this foundational principle.

Critical Nuance: The verse addresses the killer's faith ("مؤمن") and the scenario ("خطأ" - mistake), not creating a comprehensive law for all homicide. Intentional murder falls under qiṣāṣ (2:178-179).

2. THE DEFAULT CASE: Muslim Kills Muslim by Mistake

"فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ وَدِيَةٌۭ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَن يَصَّدَّقُوا۟"

Twofold Obligation:

1. Spiritual: Free a believing slave (كفارة - expiation)

2. Material: Pay diya to victim's family

Theological Logic: The killing violates both:

• God's right (taking a soul) → Spiritual expiation

• Human right (family's loss) → Material compensation

Family's Choice: They may forgive the diya as charity ("إلا أن يصدقوا").

3. THE COVENANT CASE: Muslim Kills Covenant Partner by Mistake

"وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍۭ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَـٰقٌۭ فَدِيَةٌۭ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ"

🎭 THE SMOKING GUN FOR EQUALITY:

Identical Treatment: The covenant partner receives EXACTLY THE SAME compensation as the Muslim victim:

• Same spiritual expiation (free believing slave)

• Same material compensation (diya to family)

The "Mīthāq" (Covenant): This is precisely the dhimma relationship! The verse explicitly includes treaty-bound non-Muslims in the same compensatory framework.

Logical Implication: If accidental killing demands equal diya...

Then intentional murder (more severe) must demand at least equal qiṣāṣ!

4. THE ENEMY EXCEPTION: Why It Proves the Rule

"فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّۢ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌۭ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَةٍۢ مُّؤْمِنَةٍۢ"

Only Spiritual Atonement: For enemies at war—even if they're believers—no diya is paid.

Why? Because in state of war, there's no functioning legal framework for cross-border compensation. The killer still needs spiritual purification, but material compensation becomes impracticable.

The Contrast: The covenant partner is NOT an enemy—they're in a peace relationship with legal obligations. Hence, they get full compensation.

🔥 THE ULTIMATE IMPLICATION:

Qur'an 4:92 doesn't just establish diya rates—it encodes the entire ethical economy of the Islamic state. The covenant (mīthāq) is not mere toleration; it is a binding legal relationship with specific, equalizing obligations. To claim later that dhimmis deserved "half diya" was not a development of this verse's logic, but its betrayal.

The early Muslims understood: "دماؤنا كدمائهم" ("Our blood like their blood") meant exactly that—in silver as in steel, in compensation as in retaliation. The verse's careful structure—placing covenant partners alongside believing Muslims in the compensatory framework—was the Qur'an's way of saying: "Your treaty is your bond. Your compensation is your credibility. Your justice is your legitimacy."

Later empires, secure in their power, decided divine credibility was less important than communal privilege. But the verse remains, in its elegant, uncompromising Arabic: a standing indictment of every reduction, every qualification, every betrayal of the covenant's original, equalizing promise.

💰 II.II THE ECONOMIC COVENANT: AL-JAṢṢĀṢ'S DEFENSE OF EQUAL DIYA

With the Qur'anic foundation laid, the battle moves from textual principle to practical application. The question is no longer theological but economic: What is a dhimmi's life worth in silver? For al-Jaṣṣāṣ, this isn't a negotiable policy question but a logical extension of the covenant's core promise. If ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib declared "دماؤنا كدمائهم" ("our blood like their blood") when discussing qiṣāṣ, then the diya—the financial valuation of that blood—must follow the same equality. Anything less isn't just unfair; it's mathematically and morally incoherent.

Here, al-Jaṣṣāṣ confronts the emerging "orthodoxy" of hierarchy head-on. The Ḥanafī school, joined by outliers like Sufyān al-Thawrī and al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, maintains the revolutionary position: equal diya for all covenant partners. Arrayed against them are the heavyweights of later jurisprudence: Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and what would become the majority position advocating reduced compensation. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ doesn't just argue his case—he exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the opposition, showing how their position violates Qur'anic logic, linguistic clarity, and basic legal consistency. This is more than a debate over dirhams; it's a struggle for the soul of the Islamic social contract.

📊 THE BATTLE LINES: WHAT'S A DHIMMI LIFE WORTH?

💰 The Diya Price List (Per School):

School	Jewish/Christian	Zoroastrian	Logic	Status
Ḥanafīs + Early Heroes	✅ FULL diya	✅ FULL diya	"Covenant = Equality"	🏆 Qur'anic
Mālikīs	❌ HALF diya	❌ 800 dirhams (⅓)	"Religious hierarchy"	🏛️ Imperial
Shāfiʿīs	❌ THIRD diya	❌ 800 dirhams	"Graduated inferiority"	🎭 The worst of both

The Absurdity: A Zoroastrian man under Mālikī law is worth 8% of a Muslim man. Under Shāfiʿī law, a Jew/Christian is worth 33%. This isn't justice—it's theological clearance pricing.

🔥 AL-JAṢṢĀṢ'S FOUR-PRONGED OFFENSIVE:

PRONG 1: THE QUR'ANIC SMOKING GUN (4:92)

The Verse: "وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍۭ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَـٰقٌۭ فَدِيَةٌۭ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦ"

("If he was from a people with whom you have a covenant, then a blood-money payment delivered to his family")

🎯 His Argument:

1. "فدية مسلمة" = "A blood-money payment" → INDEFINITE noun

2. In Arabic law terminology, "دية" without qualification means THE STANDARD, FULL diya

3. Example: When Arabs said "دية المرأة نصف الدية" ("The woman's diya is half THE diya") → "THE diya" = the STANDARD (male) amount

4. Therefore: God says "a diya" for covenant partner → Means THE STANDARD diya

⚡ The Linguistic Bomb:

"لأن الدية اسم لمقدار معلوم من بدل النفس لا يزيد ولا ينقص"

"Because 'diya' is a term for a known amount as substitute for a soul—it doesn't increase or decrease."

Translation: "Diya" is a TECHNICAL TERM for a FIXED AMOUNT (100 camels/10,000 dirhams). When God uses the term, He means THE fixed amount.

🚨 The Contradiction Exposed:

If "دية مسلمة" could mean "half diya" or "third diya"...

Then the verse becomes MEANINGLESS! Everyone would need clarification: "Wait, which diya?"

God doesn't speak in ambiguous technical terms!

PRONG 2: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT - WHAT "DIYA" MEANT IN 7TH-CENTURY ARABIA

"الديات قد كانت متعالمة معروفة بينهم قبل الإسلام وبعده"

"The blood-monies were mutually recognized and known among them before Islam and after."

🕰️ The Pre-Islamic Reality:

• Diya amounts were tribally negotiated, not religiously determined

• Killing a Jew from a strong tribe → FULL tribal diya

• Killing a Christian ally → FULL diya per treaty

• No concept of "half diya for non-Muslims"

🔗 The Islamic Continuity:

When the Qur'an says "دية" in 4:92...

• Everyone knew what that meant: 100 camels / 10,000 dirhams

• If God meant something else, He would have SPECIFIED

• Silence = Continuation of established, equal amount

🎭 The Absurd Alternative:

Imagine the reaction if someone said after revelation:

"Wait, when God said 'diya' for covenant partners... did He mean THE diya or some NEW diya we've never heard of?"

They would have asked! There's no record of confusion!

PRONG 3: GRAMMATICAL PRECISION - WHY "COVENANT PARTNER" CAN'T MEAN "MUSLIM COVENANT PARTNER"

The Opposition's Dodge:

"Maybe 'من قوم بينكم وبينهم ميثاق' means 'a MUSLIM from a covenant people'!"

😂 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ's Fourfold Refutation:

Refutation 1: Redundancy

-

The verse already covered Muslims in the first part! Why repeat "Muslim" disguised as "covenant person"?

Refutation 2: Specificity Contrast

-

Compare with the ENEMY clause:

"فإن كان من قوم عدو لكم وهو مؤمن" ("If he was from an enemy people and he was a believer") → EXPLICIT "مؤمن" (believer) specified!

BUT for covenant: NO "مؤمن" specified! → Deliberate omission! Means INCLUDES non-Muslims!

Refutation 3: Linguistic Reality

-

"من قوم بينكم وبينهم ميثاق" = "From a people between you and them is a covenant"

In Arabic: This means THEY (the people) are in covenant → ALL of them!

Refutation 4: Inheritance Absurdity

-

If it meant "Muslim from covenant people" → His heirs are MUSLIMS

But the verse says "to his family" → Could be NON-MUSLIM family

This only makes sense if victim is NON-MUSLIM!

💎 THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE: "في النفس مائة من الإبل"

"ويدل عليه أيضا قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: في النفس مائة من الإبل"

"And what indicates it is the Prophet's saying: 'For a soul, one hundred camels.'"

The Ḥadīth's Wording:

"في النفس" = "For A soul"

NOT: "في نفس المسلم" ("For a Muslim soul")

NOT: "في نفس المؤمن" ("For a believer's soul")

Universal language → Universal application!

🏆 THE LOGICAL NUCLEAR OPTION:

The Covenant's Economic Logic:

1. Dhimmi pays jizya → Purchases protection

2. Protection includes: Security + Legal rights

3. Legal rights include: Equal qiṣāṣ + Equal diya

4. Otherwise: Muslim state commits FRAUD

   • Collects full premium (jizya)

   • Pays out reduced benefits (half/third diya)

The Theft Analogy Revisited:

If a dhimmi's property (stolen goods) gets FULL compensation (hand amputation for thief)...

How can his LIFE get REDUCED compensation?

Either: Lives > Property (logical) → Equal diya

Or: Property > Lives (absurd) → Current system.

🔥 WHAT AL-JAṢṢĀṢ EXPOSES:

The Historical Corruption:

1. Early Islam: Equal diya (Qur'an + Prophet's practice)

2. Umayyad Period: Begins erosion (imperial hierarchy)

3. Abbasid Period: "Consensus" fabricated

4. Result: Religious caste system in law

The Linguistic Manipulation:

Later jurists took:

• Technical term "دية" (fixed amount)

• Redefined it as "variable by faith"

• Violated Arabic legal terminology

The Unanswered Questions:

If diya varies by faith...

1. What about converts? Yesterday (dhimmi) = half, today (Muslim) = full?

2. What about children? Minor dhimmi → half? Grows up Muslim?

3. What about value fluctuations? Inflation? Currency changes?

The "reduced diya" system is unworkable nonsense!

⚖️ THE VERDICT:

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ Proves:

✅ Qur'an 4:92 establishes equal diya for covenant partners
✅ Prophetic practice equalized Jewish tribes
✅ Linguistic terminology demands fixed amount
✅ Historical context knows no religious diya hierarchy
✅ Logical consistency requires equality

The "Orthodox" Position Collapses Because:

1. Contradicts Qur'anic wording

2. No Prophetic precedent for reduction

3. Violates Arabic legal terminology

4. Creates logical absurdities

5. Betrays covenant logic

Final Thought: The diya debate isn't about money—it's about whether the covenant meant what it said. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ shows: It did. The reduction came later, when empire needed to devalue dhimmi lives to incentivize conversion and maintain Muslim privilege. The "Coin of Conscience" was meant to purchase equal worth. Later jurists debased the currency and called it divine law.

🔍 II.III THE WEAK LINK: DECONSTRUCTING THE "HALF DIYA" HADĪTH

⚖️ THE SINGLE SOURCE COLLAPSE: WHEN AN ENTIRE DOCTRINE HANGS BY ONE THREAD

All the major collections pointing to "half diya for dhimmis" share one fatal flaw: they all trace back to a single narrator—ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb → his father → his grandfather. This isn't multiple independent attestation; this is one man's family tradition being transmitted through various channels. The entire edifice of religious hierarchy in blood-money stands or falls on the reliability of this chain.

🎭 ʿAMR IBN SHUʿAYB: THE CONTROVERSIAL CONDUIT

📊 The Scholarly Assessment Spectrum:

Scholar	Assessment	Key Quote	Implication
Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān (Master Critic)	❌ "وَهِي" (Weak)	"حديثه عندنا واه" ("His ḥadīth to us is weak")	Rejects as evidence
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal	⚠️ Unreliable for legal rulings	"له أشياء مناكير... نعتبر به... أما أن يكون حجة فلا" ("He has anomalies... we consider it... but as proof? No.")	For consideration only, not proof
al-Bukhārī (Via Tirmidhī)	❓ Dubious attribution	Allegedly: "ما تركه أحد من المسلمين" ("No Muslim abandoned it")	Likely misattributed – Bukhārī never cites him!
Ibn Ḥibbān	🤔 Schizophrenic rating	Initially weakens, then in al-Thiqāt: "يحول من هنا إلى تاريخ الثقات" ("Transfer from here to History of the Reliable")	Self-contradiction
Ibn ʿAdī	⚠️ Conditional reliability	"هو في نفسه ثقة، إلا إذا روى عن أبيه عن جده" ("Reliable in himself, except when narrating from his father from his grandfather")	The specific chain is the problem
Abū Dāwūd	❌ "Not even half proof"	"لا ولا نصف حجة" ("No, not even half a proof")	Devastating dismissal
Ibn al-Madīnī	🔍 Critical distinction	"ما روى عنه أيوب وابن جريج فذاك كله صحيح... وما روى عن أبيه عن جده فإنما هو كتاب وجده فهو ضعيف" ("What Ayyūb and Ibn Jurayj narrated from him—all sound... but what he narrated from his father from his grandfather is merely a book he found—weak")	Book transmission = weak
al-ʿIjlī & al-Nasāʾī	✅ "ثقة" / "ليس به بأس"	"Reliable" / "No problem with him"	Surface-level acceptance

🧨 THE CORE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED:

1. THE "BOOK" TRANSMISSION (الرواية بالوجادة)

Multiple scholars note: ʿAmr didn't hear these narrations—he inherited a book/scroll (صحيفة) from his grandfather via his father.

Ibn al-Madīnī: "فإنما هو كتاب وجده" ("It is merely a book he found")

Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: "بلي بكتاب أبيه عن جده" ("Afflicted by his father's book from his grandfather")

Why This Matters:

• Book transmission ≠ Oral transmission in early ḥadīth criticism

• Books could be: corrupted, interpolated, misread

• No chain of audition (سماع) verification

• Especially problematic for legal rulings with major implications
  

2. THE "GRANDFATHER" AMBIGUITY

Three possible "grandfathers":

1. الأدنى (Closest): Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh (grandson of Companion) – Not a Companion

2. الأوسط (Middle): ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr (Companion) – Possible

3. الأعلى (Highest): ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (Companion) – Didn't hear from him

The Confusion: When ʿAmr says "عَنْ جَدِّهِ" ("from his grandfather"), which one?

• Sometimes clarified as "عبد الله بن عمرو"

• Often left ambiguous

• Creates massive uncertainty in chain

3. THE "ANOMALIES" (مناكير) PROBLEM

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: "له أشياء مناكير" ("He has anomalies")

Anomalies = Narrations contradicting more reliable sources

Applied to our case: The "half diya" narration:

• Contradicts Qur'an 4:92 (equal diya for covenant partners)

• Contradicts early historical practice

• Contradicts Prophet's equalization of Jewish tribes

• Therefore: Likely an anomaly.

⚡ THE COMPARISON THAT DAMNS:

ʿAmr vs. Behz ibn Ḥakīm (Another "father→grandfather" chain)

Abū Dāwūd's assessment: Prefers Behz over ʿAmr!

Why? Behz's chain clearer, less problematic. If even among problematic chains, ʿAmr is the weaker option, his reliability plummets further.

What Reliable Transmitters Took From ʿAmr:

Ibn al-Madīnī's crucial observation:

"ما روى عنه أيوب وابن جريج فذاك كله صحيح"

("What Ayyūb [al-Sakhtiyānī] and Ibn Jurayj narrated from him—all that is sound")

But: They narrated from ʿAmr directly, not via "father→grandfather" chain!

Translation: ʿAmr as contemporary transmitter = Reliable

ʿAmr as family scroll transmitter = Unreliable.

🎯 THE CHAIN-BY-CHAIN BREAKDOWN:

All Cited Chains:

1. Tirmidhī: ʿĪsā ibn Aḥmad → Ibn Wahb → Usāmah ibn Zayd → ʿAmr → Father → Grandfather

2. Nasāʾī 1: ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān → Muḥammad ibn Rāshid → Sulaymān ibn Mūsā → ʿAmr → Father → Grandfather

3. Nasāʾī 2: Aḥmad ibn ʿAmr → Ibn Wahb → Usāmah ibn Zayd → ʿAmr → Father → ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr

4. Abū Dāwūd 1: Yaḥyā ibn Ḥakīm → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān → Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim → ʿAmr → Father → Grandfather

5. Abū Dāwūd 2: Yazīd ibn Khālid → ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus → Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq → ʿAmr → Father → Grandfather

6. Ibn Mājah: Hishām ibn ʿAmmār → Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān → ʿAmr → Father → Grandfather

Common Denominators:

• All go through ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb

• All use "عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ" (from his father from his grandfather)

• No independent chains from other sources

• No multiple Companions reporting same ruling

💎 THE METHODOLOGICAL DEATH BLOW:

Ḥadīth Science Principles Violated:

Principle	Application	Verdict
التعدد (Multiple chains)	Single source (ʿAmr)	❌ Failed
الاتصال (Clear connection)	"Grandfather" ambiguity	❌ Failed
العدالة والضبط (Integrity & precision)	Book transmission issues	⚠️ Compromised
عدم الشذوذ (No anomalies)	Contradicts Qur'an & early practice	❌ Failed
عدم العلل (No hidden defects)	100-year scroll transmission	❌ Failed

The Consensus of Early Critics:

• Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198 AH): Rejects

• Ibn al-Madīnī (d. 234 AH): Distinguishes, rejects this chain

• Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH): "Not proof"

• Abū Dāwūd (d. 275 AH): "Not even half proof"

These are the ARCHITECTS of ḥadīth criticism! Their rejection is devastating.

🏆 THE ULTIMATE VERDICT:

For Legal Rulings (أحكام): ❌ UNACCEPTABLE

• Single-source transmission

• Book transmission issues

• Contradicts clearer evidence

• Major implications require highest certainty

For Historical Consideration (اعتبار): ⚠️ WITH EXTREME CAUTION

• Reflects later Umayyad-era developments

• Shows emergence of hierarchical thinking

• Not Prophetic practice

• Not early Islamic norm

What This Really Is:

Not a ḥadīth from the Prophet, but:

1. Family tradition with transmission issues

2. Possible interpolation during Umayyad period

3. Reflection of imperial social hierarchy

4. Contradicted by Qur'an + early practice

🔥 THE HISTORICAL REALITY:

The Prophet's Actual Practice:

• Equalized Jewish tribes' diya

• Established "100 camels" without religious qualifier

• Covenant logic in Qur'an 4:92 demands equality

The Early Caliphate:

• ʿUmar, ʿAlī, ʿUmar II: Applied equal justice

• Treaties show equal compensation

• No early record of "half diya"

The Corruption Timeline:

1. 632–661 CE: Equal practice

2. 661–750 CE: Umayyad hierarchy develops

3. ~730 CE: ʿAmr transmits "half diya" scroll

4. 9th century onward: Later jurists cite as "evidence"

The "half diya" tradition emerges exactly when empire needs religious caste justification!

⚖️ CONCLUSION: A DOCTRINE BUILT ON SAND

The entire "half/third diya for dhimmis" doctrine rests on:

• One man (ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb)

• One type of chain (father→grandfather)

• One transmission method (book inheritance)

• Contradicted by Qur'an + early history

• Rejected by early ḥadīth masters

This isn't just "weak"—it's historically suspicious, methodologically flawed, and theologically contradictory.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ was right to build his case on the Qur'an and early practice. The "ḥadīth evidence" for inequality collapses under scrutiny. The Prophet didn't establish religious hierarchy in blood-money—later empires did, and later jurists provided the "evidence" by transmitting questionable family traditions as Prophetic law.

The truth: Equal diya was the original practice. "Half diya" was later innovation masquerading as tradition. The chain of transmission isn't just weak—it's the smoking gun of historical corruption.

🏛️ II.IV. THE HISTORICAL RECORD: CALIPHAL PRACTICE CONFIRMS EQUALITY - FULL FORENSIC ANALYSIS

📊 THE EVIDENCE LANDSCAPE: A STATISTICAL BATTLEGROUND

I. THE RAW NUMBERS: WHAT THE SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY

A. Ibn Abī Shaybah (d. 849 CE) - The Kufan Collection:

Category	Reports	Key Figures	Notes
✅ PRO-EQUAL DIYA	7 REPORTS	Ibn Masʿūd, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, al-Shāʿbī, al-Zuhrī	Direct Companions & Major Successors
❌ ANTI-EQUAL DIYA	8 REPORTS	ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, ʿUthmān, ʿUmar	Mostly later Umayyad/Medinan

🔍 CRITICAL INSIGHT:

• Pro-Equality: Mostly KUFAN CHAINS (Ibn Masʿūd school) → EARLY

• Anti-Equality: Mostly MEDINAN CHAINS (Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab) → LATER

B. ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 827 CE) - The Yemeni/Syrian Collection:

Category	Reports	Key Figures	Geographic Origin
✅ PRO-EQUAL DIYA	7 REPORTS	Ibrāhīm, al-Shāʿbī, al-Zuhrī → ʿUthmān case	Syrian & Kufan chains
❌ ANTI-EQUAL DIYA	6 REPORTS	ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, ʿUmar, Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab	Medinan & Umayyad administration

🎯 PATTERN EMERGES:

• Syria/Kufa → Equal diya tradition strong

• Medina/Umayyad administration → Reduced diya reports emerge

🕰️ II. CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS: THE TIMELINE TELLS ALL

PHASE 1: RASHIDUN ERA (632-661 CE) - IRREFUTABLE EQUALITY

1. Prophetic Precedent:

"أنه ودى ذميا دية مسلم" (He compensated a dhimmi with a Muslim's diya)

• Chain: Nāfiʿ → Ibn ʿUmar → Prophet

• Status: Direct Prophetic precedent

• Significance: Sets the standard

2. Abū Bakr's Continuity:

"كان أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان يجعلون دية اليهودي والنصراني إذا كانوا معاهدين مثل دية المسلم"

"Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān made the diya of Jew and Christian when covenanted equal to Muslim diya."

• Chain: Ibrāhīm ibn Saʿd → Ibn Shihāb (al-Zuhrī)

• Coverage: ALL THREE Rashidun Caliphs

• Authority: al-Zuhrī - major Medinan traditionist

3. ʿUmar's Documented Cases:

Case A: Rāfiʿah ibn al-Samawʾal al-Yahūdī

"فجعل عمر ديته ألف دينار" (ʿUmar made his diya 1000 dinars)

• Location: Syria

• Amount: 1000 dinars ≈ 10,000 dirhams = FULL MUSLIM DIYA

• Victim: Jewish man

• Significance: Specific case with exact amount

Case B: ʿUthmān's Clear Ruling in ʿAbd al-Razzāq:

"أن مسلما قتل كافرا من أهل العقد، فقضى عليه عثمان بن عفان بدية المسلم"

"A Muslim killed a covenanted unbeliever, and ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān ruled against him with a Muslim's diya."

• Chain: al-Zuhrī → Sālim → Ibn ʿUmar

• Status: Documented specific case

• Authority: al-Zuhrī (Medinan!) reporting ʿUthmān's practice

4. The Successor (Tābiʿī) Consensus - THE WHO'S WHO:

Region	Scholar	Position	Chain Authority	Generation
Kufa	Ibn Masʿūd	✅ Full equality	Direct Companion	1st
Kufa	ʿAlqamah ibn Qays	✅ Full equality	Student of Ibn Masʿūd	2nd
Kufa	Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī	✅ Full equality	Leading Kufan jurist	3rd
Kufa	al-Shaʿbī	✅ Full equality	Renowned scholar	3rd
Mecca	ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ	✅ Full equality	Leading Meccan	3rd
Mecca	Mujāhid ibn Jabr	✅ Full equality	Leading exegete	3rd
Medina	al-Zuhrī	✅ Full equality	Major traditionist	3rd
Basra	Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah	✅ Full equality	Renounced exegete	3rd

🚨 TOTAL: 8+ MAJOR AUTHORITIES across ALL CENTERS of Islamic learning

🚨 GEOGRAPHIC SPREAD: Kufa, Mecca, Medina, Basra → NOT regional quirk

PHASE 2: SUFYANID ERA (661-684 CE) - CONTINUITY

Muʿāwiyah's Administration:

• No evidence of diya reduction in early Umayyad period

• Tax registers continued unchanged

• Treaty obligations honored

• The famous Ibn Uthāl case (Christian doctor murdered):

  • Murderer: Khālid ibn Muhājir

  • Diya: 12,000 dirhams (FULL AMOUNT)

  • BUT: 6,000 to treasury, 6,000 to heirs (innovation begins)

  • Key: Full amount paid, but half diverted to state

🏛️ III. THE GEOGRAPHIC PATTERN: MEDINA VS. KUFA

📍 THE MEDINAN SHIFT - GROUND ZERO:

Medinan Reports	Position	Key Figures	Timeline
Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab	❌ 4,000/800	Major Medinan jurist	Late 7th century
ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz	❌ Half/Third	Umayyad Caliph	Early 8th century
al-Zuhrī	✅ Equal	Medinan traditionist	Early 8th century
Sālim → Ibn ʿUmar	✅ Equal	Medinan chain	Early 8th century

🎯 CRITICAL: Even in Medina, we have BOTH traditions!

• al-Zuhrī (d. 742 CE) reports EQUALITY from ʿUthmān

• Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab (d. 715 CE) reports REDUCTION

This shows: The reduction was NOT consensus even in Medina!

📍 THE KUFA/IRAQI TRADITION - UNBROKEN EQUALITY:

Kufan Reports	Position	Authority	Generation
Ibn Masʿūd	✅ Equal	Companion	1st
ʿAlqamah	✅ Equal	Successor	2nd
Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī	✅ Equal	Jurist	3rd
al-Shaʿbī	✅ Equal	Scholar	3rd

🚨 KUFA = CONSISTENT EQUALITY from Companion through 3rd generation

🔥 IV. THE ZOROASTRIAN PUZZLE SOLVED

The "800 Dirhams" Reports in Context:

Report 1: "فإنما هم عبيد فأقيمهم قيمة فيكم"

"They are but slaves, so assess their value among you."

• Context: Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī writes to ʿUmar about newly captured Persians

• Status: CAPTIVES/POWs, not established Zoroastrian dhimmis!

• Amount: 800 dirhams = MARKET VALUE OF SLAVE, not official diya!

Report 2: Multiple chains report 800 dirhams for Zoroastrians

But counter-evidence:

"دية اليهودي والنصراني والمجوسي والمعاهد مثل دية المسلم"

"Diya of Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, and treaty-holder is like Muslim diya."

• Source: Ibn Abī Shaybah #5

• Chain: Multiple authorities (al-Shaʿbī, al-Ḥakam, Ḥammād → Ibrāhīm)

• Includes: المجوسي (Zoroastrian) explicitly!

The Resolution:

1. Early Period: Zoroastrians under covenant = FULL DIYA

2. Later innovation: Some jurists treated them as "not People of Book"

3. Result: Conflicting reports based on different legal classifications

⚖️ V. ANTOINE FATTAL'S ANALYSIS CONFIRMED

The French Scholar's Findings (1958):

"Avec les Hanéfites, nous croyons que sous le règne des quatre premiers califes, la diya des Dimmis était égale à celle des Musulmans. Ce fut Muʿāwiya qui innova en la matière."

"With the Ḥanafīs, we believe that under the reign of the first four caliphs, the diya of dhimmis was equal to that of Muslims. It was Muʿāwiyah who innovated in this matter."

Fattal's Timeline:

1. Rashidun: Equal diya

2. Muʿāwiyah: Begins diverting half to treasury (Ibn Uthāl case)

3. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz: Formalizes reduction

4. Abbasids: Ḥanafī equality position prevails among judges

The Judicial Reality:

Fattal cites al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 868 CE):

"Nos juges, ou la plupart d'entre eux, estiment que le sang d'un patriarche, d'un métropolitain ou d'un évêque est équivalent à celui de Jaʿfar, de ʿAlī, de ʿAbbās et de Ḥamzah."

"Our judges, or most of them, estimate that the blood of a patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop is equivalent to that of Jaʿfar, ʿAlī, ʿAbbās, and Ḥamzah."

This is 9th-century judicial practice! Equal diya in actual courts!

📈 VI. THE STATISTICAL REALITY

When We Filter by Chronology:

Period	Pro-Equal Reports	Anti-Equal Reports	Ratio	Notes
Rashidun (632-661)	5+ documented	0 documented cases	100% : 0%	Clear practice
Early Successors (661-700)	8+ authorities	2-3 reports	80% : 20%	Overwhelming
Umayyad Reform (700-750)	Mixed	Increasing	50% : 50%	Transition
Abbasid Era (750+)	Ḥanafī dominance	Other schools	Varies	School splits

When We Filter by Geography:

Region	Pro-Equal	Anti-Equal	Dominant View
Kufa/Iraq	✅ Strong tradition	Minimal	EQUALITY
Medina	✅ al-Zuhrī reports	❌ Saʿīd reports	Mixed (both exist)
Syria	✅ Early practice	❌ Later Umayyad	EQUALITY → Reduction
Mecca	✅ Strong	Minimal	EQUALITY
Basra	✅ Strong	Minimal	EQUALITY

PATTERN: Reduction reports concentrate in MEDINA under UMAYYAD INFLUENCE

🏆 VII. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REALITY CHECK

The Empire Couldn't Function with Multiple Diya Rates:

Imagine a provincial judge in:

• Mosul (Christians, Jews, Muslims)

• Facing case: Muslim kills Christian

• According to "orthodoxy": Check if Christian is:

  1. Arab Christian? → 4,000 dirhams

  2. Greek Christian? → 4,000 dirhams

  3. Converted Christian? → 10,000 dirhams!

  4. Zoroastrian? → 800 dirhams

  5. Jewish? → 4,000 dirhams

IMPOSSIBLE BUREAUCRACY! No registry, no IDs, constant fraud!

The SIMPLE System That Actually Worked:

ALL PROTECTED PERSONS UNDER COVENANT = STANDARD DIYA

• Simple

• Consistent

• Prevents endless litigation

• Honorable to covenant

💎 VIII. THE UNSHAKABLE CONCLUSION

The Five Lines of Converging Evidence:

Evidence Type	What It Shows	Reliability
1. Qur'anic	4:92: "فدية مسلمة" = standard diya	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Divine)
2. Prophetic	"ودى ذميا دية مسلم"	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Strong chains)
3. Rashidun Practice	Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān cases	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Multiple)
4. Successor Consensus	8+ authorities across all regions	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Geographic spread)
5. Practical Necessity	Empire couldn't track variations	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Logical)

The Final Verdict:

The historical record, when read chronologically, geographically, and practically, proves:

1. Early Islamic justice was radically egalitarian

2. All dhimmis received full diya under the Rashidun

3. Reduction was later Umayyad innovation

4. Medina became ground zero for corruption

5. The Kufan/Iraqi tradition preserved the truth

The covenant meant what it said: "دماؤنا كدمائهم" ("Our blood like their blood"). The early Caliphs kept their word. Later empire broke it. The evidence has been shouting this truth for centuries. Only those serving power chose not to hear.

🕍 II.V. THE EXTERNAL WITNESS: WHAT NON-MUSLIM SOURCES REVEAL

👁️ THE VIEW FROM THE CONQUERED: AN UNBIASED MIRROR

While Muslim sources debate and interpret, contemporary non-Muslim witnesses provide something priceless: unfiltered observation of what actually happened in the early Islamic state. These sources have no stake in later juristic debates, no need to prove Islamic superiority or defend Abbasid orthodoxy. They simply record what they saw. And what they saw, particularly in the crucial first century of Islamic rule, confirms the egalitarian model with startling clarity.

John bar Penkāyē, writing in 687 CE—just 55 years after the Prophet's death, during the Second Fitna—provides our most important external testimony. He's not a Muslim apologist but a Syriac Christian monk in northern Mesopotamia, skeptical of Muslim rule, mourning Christian losses. Yet his testimony becomes, perhaps unintentionally, the most devastating evidence for early Islamic justice.

📜 JOHN BAR PENKĀYĒ'S TESTIMONY DECODED

The Context: 687 CE, Second Fitna

• Location: Northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq/Syria border)

• Author: Syriac Christian monk

• Timeline: Two generations after the Prophet

• Witnessing: The Sufyanid period (Muʿāwiyah's reign & aftermath)

• Perspective: Critical of Muslim rule, yet forced to acknowledge realities

Key Passage Analysis:

"Justice flourished in his days, and there was great peace in the regions he controlled... they upheld the tradition of their instructor Muhammad such that they would bring the death penalty upon whoever seemed to have dared [transgress] his laws."

🔍 Breakdown:

1. "Justice flourished in his days"

• Subject: Muʿāwiyah's reign (661-680 CE)

• Observer: Christian monk under Muslim rule

• Claim: Justice (not just "order" or "power") flourished

• Significance: A conquered people's recognition of fair governance

2. "they upheld the tradition of their instructor Muhammad"

• Recognition: Muslims systematically following Prophetic law

• Not: "Arab customs" or "tribal traditions"

• Specifically: Muhammad's teachings as constitutional foundation

3. "such that they would bring the death penalty upon whoever seemed to have dared [transgress] his laws"

• Mechanism: Capital punishment for violating Islamic law

• Scope: "whoever" - no religious qualification

• Application: Systematic, consistent enforcement

⚡ The Critical Inference:

If: Muslims executed people for breaking Muhammad's laws

And: The death penalty for intentional murder was Muhammad's law (Qur'an: "النفس بالنفس")

Then: Muslims must have been executing murderers regardless of victim's faith

Otherwise: The monk would have noted: "They only executed for killing Muslims" or "They let Muslims kill Christians with impunity."

He doesn't. He describes systematic justice.

🏛️ THE COVENANT RECOGNIZED:

Bar Penkāyē Acknowledges the Protection Framework:

"they upheld a certain commandment from him who was their guide concerning the Christian people and the monastic order"

What This Means:

1. "Certain commandment" = The Prophet's instruction to protect Christians/monks

2. "Concerning the Christian people" = Dhimma covenant

3. Monastic order specifically mentioned = Special protection for religious institutions

The Connection to Justice:

The same system that protected Christians also executed criminals. The covenant worked both ways:

• Protection FOR dhimmis (state protects their lives/property)

• Punishment AGAINST violators (state executes murderers)

Bar Penkāyē recognizes this reciprocity: The Muslims who protect Christians also execute law-breakers. It's one system.

⚖️ THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:

Timeline Placement:

• 622-632 CE: Prophet's rule in Medina

• 632-661 CE: Rashidun Caliphs

• 661-680 CE: Muʿāwiyah's rule (period Bar Penkāyē describes)

• 687 CE: Bar Penkāyē writes

He's describing practices established by: Prophet → Rashidun → Early Umayyads

The "Execution for Law-Breaking" Evidence:

Consider what Bar Penkāyē doesn't say:

• ❌ "They only punished Muslims lightly"

• ❌ "Christians couldn't get justice"

• ❌ "Muslims had special privileges"

Instead, he says universal enforcement of Muhammad's laws, including death penalty.

🔥 THE ULTIMATE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION:

The Monk's Unintentional Testimony:

Bar Penkāyē is complaining about Muslim rule, not praising it. Yet he admits:

1. Justice flourished under early Muslims

2. Systematic enforcement of Prophetic law

3. Death penalty applied to law-breakers

4. Christians specifically protected

For a Christian monk to call Muslim rule "just"—when they were the conquered people—means the justice must have been genuinely fair, even to non-Muslims.

The Legal Logic from External Perspective:

From Bar Penkāyē's observation, we can reconstruct:

Muslim State's Legal Framework (as seen by Christian subject):

1. Law Source: Muhammad's teachings

2. Key Law: "Life for life" (murder = execution)

3. Application: To "whoever transgresses"

4. Result: Justice flourishes

If the system excluded dhimmis from equal justice:

• Bar Penkāyē would have noted: "They protect us but don't punish those who harm us"

• Or: "Muslims can kill Christians without consequence"

• He says neither. He describes functional, fair system.

📊 TRIANGULATION: INTERNAL + EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Evidence Type	What It Shows	Corroboration
Muslim Sources	Early caliphs executed Muslims for dhimmis	Multiple documented cases
External Witness	Justice flourished, death penalty for law-breaking	Bar Penkāyē's direct observation
Logical Necessity	Covenant requires equal protection	Theft analogy, practical governance
Historical Context	Empire needed dhimmi cooperation	Administrative reality

All converge on: Early Islamic state practiced equal justice under the dhimma covenant.

💎 THE EXTERNAL WITNESS'S FINAL WORD:

John bar Penkāyē, writing just 55 years after the Prophet, provides independent confirmation of what Muslim sources document:

1. The Prophet established laws → Early Caliphs enforced them → Justice resulted

2. The laws included capital punishment → Applied systematically

3. Christians were protected → As part of same legal system

4. The system was seen as "just" → Even by conquered Christians

His testimony bridges the gap between:

• Muslim claims of Prophetic justice

• Historical reality of early Islamic governance

• External observation of actual practice

The monk didn't know about later juristic debates. He only saw what happened: Muslims protecting Christians and executing criminals under a system they attributed to Muhammad. That system, as we've seen from Muslim sources, included equal qiṣāṣ. His testimony is the 7th-century smoking gun that the egalitarian model wasn't just theoretical—it was what actually happened on the ground.

The blood was equal. The covenant worked. And even their conquered subjects, however reluctantly, had to admit: justice flourished.

🩸 SECTION II.VI: THE BLOOD-MONEY REVOLUTION - YAZĪD II'S ENGINEERING OF INEQUALITY

⚖️ The Historical Anomaly: Who Really Devalued Dhimmi Blood?

The battle over qiṣāṣ revealed the early Islamic state's commitment to equal justice. But parallel to this ran another critical struggle: the monetary value of dhimmi life. While early caliphs practiced—and the Qur'an implied—equal compensation, the Umayyad period saw systematic devaluation of non-Muslim life through legal fiat. The evidence points decisively to one caliph as the architect of this inequality, and it's not the pious reformer ʿUmar II.

📊 THE EVIDENCE BATTLEGROUND

📜 PRO-EQUALITY REPORTS: The Early Consensus

Ibn Abī Shaybah 3817 preserves the original position from authoritative sources:

#	Authority	Region	Position
1	Ibn Masʿūd (Companion)	Kufa	"People of Book = Muslim diya"
2	Ibn Masʿūd via al-Qāsim	Kufa	"Treaty-holder diya = free Muslim"
3	Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. 715)	Kufa	"Muʿāhid diya = Muslim diya"
4	Mujāhid & ʿAṭāʾ (Meccans)	Mecca	"Muʿāhid diya = Muslim diya"
5	al-Shaʿbī, al-Ḥakam, Ibrāhīm	Multiple	"All dhimmis = Muslim diya"
6	al-Zuhrī (d. 742)	Medina	"Muʿāhid diya = Muslim diya" (citing Q 4:92)
7	Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī	Kufa	"Polytheist treaty-holders = Muslim diya"

🚨 Critical Features:

• Companion-based: Ibn Masʿūd was a major legal authority

• Geographic spread: Kufa, Mecca, Medina—not isolated

• Theological basis: Cites Qur'an 4:92's universal language

• Logical consistency: Same as qiṣāṣ argument—covenant → equality

📉 ANTI-EQUALITY REPORTS: The Later Innovation

Ibn Abī Shaybah 3818 shows the emergent inequality:

#	Authority	Position	Problem
1	ʿUmar II (r. 717-720)	"Half diya"	Contradicts #2
2	ʿUmar II (via letter)	"Third diya"	Contradicts #1
3	ʿUmar I (attributed)	"4,000 dirhams"	Anachronistic
4	ʿUthmān (attributed)	"4,000 dirhams"	Contradicts practice
5	ʿIkrimah & al-Ḥasan	"4,000 dirhams"	Successors, not Companions
6	Sulaymān ibn Yasār	"Zoroastrian 800... then 6,000"	Shows evolution
7	ʿAṭāʾ	"4,000 dirhams"	Same ʿAṭāʾ said equal in #4 above!

🎭 The Critical Contradiction:

• Report 1: ʿUmar II said half diya

• Report 2: ʿUmar II said third diya

• Report 3: ʿUmar I said 4,000 dirhams (≈ 1/3 if Muslim=12,000)

One caliph didn't issue three different ratios. These reports represent confused attribution of policies that evolved over time.

⏳ THE CHRONOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY: WHY ʿUMAR II COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT

Timeline Constraints: 29 Months vs. 4 Years

Caliph	Reign	Length	What's Possible
ʿUmar II	717-720 CE	29 months	Administrative tweaks, symbolic reforms
Yazīd II	720-724 CE	4 years, 1 month	Systemic legal overhaul, empire-wide implementation

What 29 Months Cannot Do:

1. Draft new legal codes → Requires scholarly consensus, drafting, review

2. Implement empire-wide → From Spain to India, across diverse provinces

3. Overcome administrative inertia → Bureaucracies resist radical change

4. Replace established precedent → Equal diya practiced for 85+ years

5. Survive political backlash → Dhimmis still ≈ 40-50% of population in 720 CE

What 4 Years Can Do:

✅ Year 1: Draft legislation, gather compliant scholars

✅ Year 2: Issue initial decrees, test compliance

✅ Year 3: Implement systematically, adjust as needed

✅ Year 4: Cement as new standard before death

🔍 THE ATTRIBUTION PROBLEM SOLVED

Why Reports Got Confused:

1. Similar Names:

   • ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (Companion)

   • ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ("Fifth Rightly-Guided"

2. Juridical Need:
   Later jurists needed Companion precedent for established practice
   "ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb" carries more weight than "Yazīd II"
   So unequal rulings got retrojected onto authoritative figures

3. Historical Compression:
   All seen as "early period" by Abbasid-era compilers
   Specifics blurred over 100+ years.

The Smoking Gun: The ʿAṭāʾ Contradiction

In Pro-Equality Reports (3817 #4):

ʿAṭāʾ: "Muʿāhid diya = Muslim diya"

In Anti-Equality Reports (3818 #7):

ʿAṭāʾ: "Jew/Christian: 4,000 dirhams"

Same scholar, two positions? Impossible.

Resolution: Later reporters misattributed Yazīd II's policies to earlier authorities like ʿAṭāʾ.

📜 THE ZUQNĪN CHRONICLE: CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESS

Written: 775 CE (just 50 years after Yazīd II's death)

Author: Syriac Christian monk in Mesopotamia

No reason to lie: Identifying which caliph oppressed Christians

The Critical Passage:

"Then he ordered that the testimony of a Syrian against an Arab not be accepted, and he set the (blood) value of an Arab at twelve thousand (dirhams) and that of a Syrian at six thousand (dirhams). This is the origin of these corrupt laws."

🚨 Key Points:

1. Explicit attribution: "He ordered" = Yazīd II

2. Legal package: Testimony rejection + blood-price inequality

3. Historical memory: "Origin of these corrupt laws" = recognized as new

4. Contemporary witness: Monk lived through both reigns

Why Zuqnīn Blames Yazīd II, Not ʿUmar II:

The monk saw:

• Yazīd's iconoclasm (723 CE: destroy images)

• Yazīd's animal killings (white dogs, pigeons, cocks)

• Yazīd's racial policy (kill blue-eyed people)

• Yazīd's legal inequality (half diya, no testimony)

Logical deduction: "The caliph who did all these other oppressive things also did this."

🧮 THE NUMERICAL PROOF: 4,000 vs. 6,000 vs. 12,000

The Mathematical Problem:

• Muslim diya: 12,000 dirhams (ʿUmar I's standard)

• Reported dhimmi diya: 4,000 (1/3) OR 6,000 (1/2)

If 4,000 = "half" → Muslim diya must be 8,000

But historical consensus: Muslim diya = 12,000 (100 camels equivalent)

The "4,000 dirhams" reports are mathematically inconsistent with "half diya."

The Logical Progression:

Phase 1 (to 717 CE): Equal (12,000)

Phase 2 (717-720): ʿUmar II abolishes treasury share → 6,000 to heirs

Phase 3 (720-724): Yazīd II reduces further → 4,000 (calling it "half" incorrectly)

Phase 4 (post-724): Reports confuse all reductions as "ʿUmar's ruling"

👑 THE PERSONALITY EVIDENCE: SAINT vs. TYRANT

ʿUmar II: The Pious Reformer (29 Months)

Documented Character:

• Buried at Christian monastery (Dayr Simʿān)

• Purchased burial plot from a monk

• Protected churches in Damascus against Muslim mob

• Consulted Christian scholars

• Deathbed concern: "Treat dhimmis justly"

What He Actually Did with Diya:

Not creating inequality but modifying Muʿāwiya's system:

• Before: Killer pays 12,000 → 6,000 to heirs, 6,000 to treasury

• ʿUmar II: Abolishes treasury share → Killer pays 6,000 total

• Result: Dhimmi heirs get same (6,000), state stops profiting

• Unintended: Establishes "half-diya" as standard

29-Month Limitations:

Could only tweak existing systems, not create new legal hierarchies.

Yazīd II: The Decadent Engineer (4 Years)

Documented Character:

• Iconoclast: Destroyed church images (723 CE)

• Superstitious: Killed white animals

• Racist: Attempted to kill blue-eyed people

• Decadent: Famous for Ḥabābah affair (choked lover with grape)

• Theologically lax: Gathered 40 scholars to absolve him of accountability

4-Year Capacity:

Ample time for systematic legal reconstruction.

Psychological Motivation:

After ʿUmar II's pious reign, Yazīd needed:

1. Differentiation: "Not following ʿUmar's path"

2. Legitimacy: Prove his "Islamic credentials" despite personal failings

3. Power demonstration: Show he could make new laws

4. Demographic engineering: Muslims now majority (≈50%+), needed conversion incentives

🏛️ DEMOGRAPHIC REALITY: THE ENGINEERING PROJECT

Population Shift by 720 CE:

• 632 CE: Muslims ≈ 10% (need dhimmi cooperation)

• 661 CE: Muslims ≈ 20% (still need administration)

• 717 CE: Muslims ≈ 40% (transition point)

• 720 CE: Muslims ≈ 50%+ (tipping point)

Yazīd II's Calculus:

• Before: Equal rights necessary for stability

• After 720: Can afford to devalue dhimmi life

• Incentive: Make conversion attractive (3x blood value)

• Control: Formalize Muslim superiority

The 4-Year Implementation Timeline:

Year 1 (720-721): Consolidate, draft legislation

Year 2 (721-722): Iconoclasm (test Christian reaction)

Year 3 (722-723): Legal discrimination (blood money, testimony)

Year 4 (723-724): Cement as policy before death.

⚡ CONCLUSIVE PROOFS AGAINST ʿUMAR II

1. Time Impossibility:

29 months ≠ systemic legal overhaul across empire

2. Character Contradiction:

Man who buried at monastery, protected churches, consulted Christians wouldn't devalue their blood

3. Historical Record:

No contemporary complaint against ʿUmar II for blood-price discrimination

4. Attribution Pattern:

Same policies attributed to ʿUmar I, ʿUthmān, AND ʿUmar II → Shows retrojection

5. Mathematical Inconsistency:

"4,000 = half" only works if Muslim diya = 8,000, but it was 12,000

6. Eyewitness Testimony:

Zuqnīn chronicler (50 years later) explicitly names Yazīd II

7. Policy Package:

Blood-price inequality came with:

• Iconoclasm (Yazīd, documented)

• Testimony rejection (Yazīd, documented)

• Animal killings (Yazīd, documented)

• All documented as Yazīd's policies

8. Scholarly Contradiction:

Same scholars (ʿAṭāʾ) cited for both positions → Attribution error.

🎯 THE HISTORICAL TRUTH: YAZĪD II'S LEGACY

What Really Happened:

Step 1: Muʿāwiya institutes system: 12,000 diya, treasury takes half

Step 2: ʿUmar II (717-720): Abolishes treasury share → 6,000 to heirs (unintended "half" standard)

Step 3: Yazīd II (720-724): Reduces to 4,000, calls it "half" incorrectly, packages with other anti-dhimmi laws

Step 4: Later jurists: Attribute all reductions to "ʿUmar" (I or II) for authority.

Why History Remembered Wrong:

1. Similar names confused attribution

2. Juridical need for Companion precedent

3. ʿUmar II's reputation made plausible carrier of "Islamic" policies

4. Yazīd II's decadence made him unreliable authority figure

5. Historical compression blurred specifics over centuries

The Final Verdict:

The blood that was equal became unequal not under the pious ascetic buried at a monastery, but under the decadent iconoclast who choked his lover with a grape.

ʿUmar II's 29-month reign allowed only administrative tweaks that unintentionally created a "half-diya" precedent.

Yazīd II's 4-year reign allowed systematic legal reconstruction that deliberately instituted one-third diya as state policy.

The Zuqnīn monk—living just 50 years later—got it right: Yazīd II was "the origin of these corrupt laws." Modern scholarship, confronted with the chronological impossibility of ʿUmar II engineering such changes in 29 months, must reach the same conclusion.

The architect of dhimmi blood-price inequality was Yazīd II ibn ʿAbd al-Malik—not despite his 4-year reign, but because of it. Time, personality, and political reality all point to the same man: the Umayyad prince who needed to prove his Islamic credentials after a life of decadence, and found his legacy in making Christian blood legally cheaper than Muslim blood.

🏁 CONCLUSION: THE COVENANT RESTORED

The journey through fourteen centuries of legal debate reveals a truth both profound and simple: the early Islamic state promised equal protection, and delivered it. The Qur'an’s unambiguous “life for life,” the Prophet’s universal formulations of justice, and the swords given to Jewish fathers by Caliph ʿAlī all testify to a revolutionary covenant. The dhimma was not a curse of second-class status, but a sacred contract: the jizya purchased, in ʿAlī’s constitutional formulation, the explicit guarantee that “your blood becomes like our blood, and your blood-money like our blood-money.” This was governance, not theology—a pluralistic statecraft where faith did not determine worth before the law.

This covenant was not lost to time; it was deliberately dismantled. As the Muslim-majority empire solidified under the Umayyads and Abbasids, the political calculus shifted. The demographic and ideological needs of a confident empire—to incentivize conversion, formalize Muslim privilege, and engineer social hierarchy—overrode the constitutional imperative of equality. The grammatically-linked clause in ʿAlī’s scroll, meant for temporary treaty-holders, was isolated and weaponized. The Companions’ documented practice of equal qiṣāṣ was ignored or explained away. Yazīd II’s discriminatory blood-price reforms were retrojected onto the pious ʿUmar II and even the Rightly-Guided Caliphs themselves. What began as a bold experiment in covenantal pluralism was hollowed out into a theology of religious caste.

Yet the evidence for the original bargain has never disappeared. It shouts from the blood-money registers of the early dīwān, from the chronicles of the conquered, and from the furious, forgotten arguments of jurists like Al-Jaṣṣāṣ. His voice, and the voices of the early Ḥanafīs, represent the road not taken—an Islam where the state’s legitimacy flowed from impartial justice, not communal supremacy. Their defeat was not intellectual but political: the triumph of imperial hierarchy over Prophetic justice, of “Islam is exalted” over “life for life,” of a convenient orthodoxy over an inconvenient covenant.

For Muslims today, this history is not a relic but a reclamation project. The battle between the Rashidun Model of contractual equality and the Abbasid Model of religious hierarchy is the defining struggle for the soul of Islamic law in the modern age. To rebuild societies of equal citizenship, the constitutional principle must be revived: the jizya was a premium paid for equal protection, and the state that collected it was bound by “life for life.” The blood that was made equal can be equal again. The choice is not between Islam and modernity, but between two Islams in our own tradition—one that sanctifies inequality, and one that sanctifies justice. The covenant of equal blood awaits its heirs.

THE END

Works Cited

ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī. Al-Muṣannaf. Edited by Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, al-Majlis al-ʿIlmī, 1970-1972. 11 vols.

Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit. Kitāb al-Āthār. Translated by Abdassamad Clarke, Turath Publishing, 2006.

The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Translated from Syriac with notes and introduction by Amir Harrak, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999. Mediaeval Sources in Translation, vol. 36.

al-Baghawī, al-Ḥusayn ibn Masʿūd. Maʿālim al-Tanzīl fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh al-Nimr et al., 4th ed., Dār Ṭaybah, 1997. 8 vols.

al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands. A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān. Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, 2022.

Borrut, Antoine, and Fred M. Donner, editors. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2016.

al-Dāraquṭnī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar. Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī. Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ et al., Dār al-Muʾayyad, 1422H/2001M.

Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.

al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Sīyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusayn al-Asad, Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1422H/2001M.

Fattal, Antoine. Le statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d'Islam. Dar El-Machreq, 1958.

Friedmann, Yohanan. Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Grierson, Philip. Byzantine Coinage. 2nd ed., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999.

al-Ḥamawī, Yāqūt. Muʿjam al-Buldān. 2nd ed., Dār Ṣādir, 1995. 7 vols.

Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Gorgias Press, 2019.

---, translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011.

Ibn Qudāmah, Muwaffaq al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad. Al-Mughnī. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1405H/1985M. 10 vols.

al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Rāzī. Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1412H/1992M.

John, Bishop of Nikiu. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. Translated by R.H. Charles, Text and Translation Society, 1916.

Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge UP, 1992.

Kennedy, Hugh. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. Routledge, 2001.

Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization.

Mālik ibn Anas. Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. Translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, Diwan Press, 2014.

al-Māwardī, ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. Al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.

---. Al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr fī Fiqh Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1999. 18 vols.

al-Mubārakfūrī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. Tuḥfat al-Aḥwadhī bi-Sharḥ Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, n.d.

Newby, Gordon Darnell. A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse Under Islam. U of South Carolina P, 1988.

Penn, Michael Philip. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.

Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. *Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400-800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam*. Brill, 2013.

al-Ṣanʿānī, Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām. Al-Muṣannaf. Edited by Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1403H/1983M.

Sebeos. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated by R.W. Thomson, with historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston and assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool UP, 1999. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 31.

al-Shāfiʿī, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs. Al-Umm. Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1410H/1990M. 8 vols.

Sijpesteijn, Petra M. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford University Press, 2013.

al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Tarbiyah wa-al-Turāth, n.d. 24 vols.