If a state is at war, is it permissible to take its wealth?

The questioner : Some people say: This state is at war with Islam. They place it in the position of a state at war. And regarding a state at war, they say that its wealth becomes permissible to take?

The Shaykh : When one says this, the issue changes fundamentally. In that case, it is permissible to kill the one at war. But who is the one at war (muharib) and who is the one against whom war is declared (muharab)? If there is a foreign state, and there are no relations, good or bad, between the Muslim state and that disbelieving state, but it is a disbelieving state; is it permissible to take its wealth, to violate its honor, and to shed its blood? The answer is: No, even knowing that it is a disbelieving state. This is because the disbelievers have a status in Islam consisting of three categories: either they are People of the Dhimma (dhimmis), who are those who agree to live under the rule of the Islamic system and under the conditions of Islam. In that case, Islam protects them and safeguards their honor, wealth, and blood. So, attacking this dhimmi, in this situation, is like attacking any Muslim, or even worse. This is the first status.

The questioner : The hadith: , is this hadith authentic?

The Shaykh : Yes, this hadith is good.
The second status is the one with whom a treaty has been made (mu'ahad), who is the disbelieving man between whom and the Muslim state a treaty has been concluded for a specific period, according to the interest seen by the Muslim ruler. This mu'ahad, during the treaty—that is, the period of the treaty—his ruling is the ruling of the dhimmi.
The third type is the one at war (harbi). Who is this harbi? The one who is called to give the jizyah with hand, while they are humbled; meaning, to live as a dhimmi, but he refuses. And he is called to conclude a treaty of peace and truce between them and the Muslims, but he refuses. In that case, the Muslim ruler declares war on that state. It is not that he comes in a moonless night and raids them; whether in their wealth, their honor, or their bodies. Rather, he calls them to Islam, as came in explicit, authentic hadiths: ; so it is necessary that we classify the disbelievers in this classification, and it is necessary that we determine our position toward them so that we can determine our Islamic rulings with them. We have known that the dhimmi is not permissible to kill, and likewise the mu'ahad, and likewise his wealth, and likewise his honor; unlike the one at war.
So when a person comes and says that this state is a state at war (muharibah) or a state against which war is declared (muharabah), who are those among these Muslims who declared to them that we are at war with you; because we call you to Islam, or to the Dhimma, or to a treaty, or to war? Not now—unfortunately—is there a Muslim state among the Muslims that declares this Islamic principle, so that the Islamic rulings and the differences between them become clear due to the difference in relations between the Muslim state and other states. Therefore, we cannot say that the state in which we live is a state at war; because we have not declared war on it. On the contrary, perhaps our children and sons are soldiers for it. What concerns us is that we defend this state, not for its benefit, but for our benefit. So likewise, it is not permissible to open the door to theft, otherwise the chaos in this state would increase, as it is said, adding a bundle of straw to a camel's load.
So this insistence, then, on making theft permissible has no basis in the ruling of Islam, as far as we know.
Yes.