Clarification that the rights of a Muslim with his Muslim brother are certainly different from the rights of a dhimmi with a Muslim, and the confusion that has occurred in this issue

The Shaykh : This special Islamic brotherhood necessitates specific rulings and specific etiquettes. If we lose this special brotherhood and replace it with a general brotherhood, claiming what? That we are accommodating them, and that Islam does not wrong others? This is true; Islam does not wrong others.
However, the rights of a Muslim with his Muslim brother are certainly different from the rights of a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) with a Muslim. I say that using this general brotherhood as a substitute for the specific brotherhood dilutes these characteristics and qualities that the Wise Lawgiver made exclusive to Islamic brotherhood. And to add to that, as they say, "it is like adding a bundle of straw to a camel load".
When we take some jurisprudential rulings and even make them into Prophetic hadiths, we state with complete clarity, in writing, in lectures, on the radio, and so on.
We say, mistakenly, that our Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, in clarifying the rights of non-Muslims when they live under the system of Islam and the rule of Islam, he (peace be upon him) said: This is a hadith with no basis. It is a hadith said to be from the Messenger (peace be upon him) regarding non-Muslims who live under the banner of Islam and the rule of Islam: "They have what we have, and they owe what we owe." This has no basis whatsoever in the books of Islam.
And I mean, of course, as long as the discussion is from the hadith perspective first, I say there is no basis for this hadith in the books of Islam. Otherwise, if we exclude this specification from our speech, in the books of Islam, in some of them, I mean, there are many false and fabricated hadiths, especially in the books of softening the heart, books of admonition, books of literature... there are many hadiths that have no basis, and even in many jurisprudential books, especially those written later.
So I say, this hadith of ours regarding the rights of non-Muslims, "They have what we have, and they owe what we owe," first, has no basis in the books of the Sunnah. And I am not saying this based on a specific research and verification of mine, but this is a matter that preceded us. We are content with that. An example of this is the Hanafi Imam, the famous hadith scholar, Imam Jamal al-Din al-Zayla'i, the author of the book that is considered a mother, a source, and a reference in tracing the hadiths of the Hanafi school, I mean his book Nasb al-Raayah li Ahadith al-Hidayah. Al-Hidayah is a book from the books of the Hanafis in jurisprudence for the school... the famous one. He cited this hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Then al-Zayla'i said, "This hadith has a softening," meaning it is gentle and mild. But I think that many people, or most people, as Allah the Exalted said, "they do not know and they do not understand," this soft expression. He says in this hadith, "It is strange, it has no basis," as al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani said, and before him al-Hafiz al-Iraqi, his sheikh, and the like, explicitly. Because here there is no room for being lenient regarding attributing a hadith with no basis to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But he, considering that he lived in this school, as they say today, the school of the Hanafis, but Allah the Mighty and Majestic bestowed upon him what He rarely bestows upon his like among the Hanafis, where he was an Imam, a memorizer, and a critic in the science of hadith. And thereby he was able to trace this great book of the Hanafis, al-Hidayah.
When he came to speak about this hadith, "A strange hadith," and we know from his terminology that this does not mean the general term among hadith scholars.
And today, some of the youth came to me in the Zahiriyyah Library asking me about a hadith, I think it was So this hadith was difficult for them, and it appeared to them that they have a concern for memorizing the Qur'an, and it became clear that they are newly affiliated with the military. This will naturally divert them from what? Following the Qur'an, as he (peace be upon him) said: So these people will not be able to follow up, which they may have been consistent and holding onto before this new situation. Therefore, they felt great embarrassment when they came upon this hadith that it is among the sins presented to the Messenger (peace be upon him), that a man memorizes the Qur'an and then forgets it. So they asked me, "This hadith was narrated by Abu Dawud, so where do we extract it from Abu Dawud?" The important thing is that I facilitated the way for them.
I asked them, "What do you intend from the hadith?" They said, "We want to see what the meaning is, then he forgot it." So from the fact that religion is advice, I told them that this hadith does not need such effort and research because it is a weak hadith, its chain is not authentic. And in any case, I told them, "Where did you know that this hadith is in Abu Dawud?" They said, "From al-Targhib." I extracted the hadith for them from al-Targhib. And as you know... for more than a quarter of a century, I have been working on it, verifying, scrutinizing, correcting, weakening, and the like. So I quickly extracted the hadith for them. And they read that al-Mundhiri quotes from al-Bukhari that he said in this hadith that al-Mundhiri found it strange. Al-Mundhiri relates from al-Bukhari that he found it strange, meaning he said it is strange. So they said, "What does strange mean?" The point here is, we said, it means the hadith is unique to one man or a weak path that is not authentic. This is the meaning of the word "strange" in the general terminology.
But it has other terminologies, one of which comes in the second rank: "strange" means "unique," because this unique narrator may be trustworthy or may be weak. But generally, they do not say a hadith is "strange" and use that term unless the hadith is weak. This terminology was not used by al-Zayla'i in his book; rather, he became accustomed to and used a specific terminology. The hadith that we find in the book of the jurist whom he is in the process of tracing has no basis; he does not say "it has no basis," he says "the hadith is strange." But one who has a concern for this science quickly understands this specific terminology from two or three hadiths. Why? Because after he says "this is a strange hadith," he says, "and it only came in such-and-such a book with the wording such-and-such." He confirms that the meaning of his saying "strange" is "it has no basis."
And this is what Imam Ahmad did in his current context. He said, "This hadith was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, and perhaps he mentioned others as well, and it is far from being known. It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, and perhaps from Salman al-Farisi: This is the meaning of the hadith or its wording: Here, pay attention: The point is that this hadith, which is used by the great contemporary writers and guides, and so on, regarding the People of the Book, the People of the Dhimma, has no basis in the Sunnah whatsoever. Rather, what has a basis is its exact opposite: that the People of the Dhimma, when they become Muslims, then they have what we have, and they owe what we owe. So when a person gives a lecture or writes an article and generalizes such a hadith that has no basis, and in it is this generalization: "They have what we have, and they owe what we owe," they became brothers, right? They have what we have, and they owe what we owe. And the truth is that the matter is not so. And you are now in front of such a hadith that says to the Muslim regarding the Muslim, "six things," but not for what they call today the "citizen," whose legal name is the dhimmi. This dhimmi does not have, for the Muslim, six characteristics or more than that.
For this reason, we must preserve, we must preserve these legal usages and know that they are usages specific to us Muslims. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) says: