Continuation of Benefits: (If they refuse, then demand the jizyah from them. If they respond to you, then accept it from them and hold back from them. If they refuse, then seek help from Allah and fight them. And when you besiege the people of a fortress and they ask you to grant them the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Prophet, do not grant them the covenant of Allah or the covenant of His Prophet, but grant them your covenant and the covenant of your companions. For it is easier for you to break your covenants and the covenants of your companions than to break the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger. And when you besiege the people of a fortress and they ask you to bring them down to the judgment of Allah, do not bring them down to the judgment of Allah, but bring them down to your judgment, for you do not know whether you will hit the judgment of Allah regarding them or not.)

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
, Among the benefits of this hadith in this passage:
Accepting the jizyah from those other than the Jews and the Christians, based on his statement earlier: . There is scholarly disagreement on this issue. Some said that the jizyah is not accepted from the polytheists, but rather it is Islam or fighting. The correct view is that it is accepted. This is indicated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) taking the jizyah from the Zoroastrians of al-Hajar, who were polytheists. The claim that they have a semblance of a book is not correct, because we ask: where is the semblance? And if they have a semblance, we do not accept it from them, because if we say that a condition for accepting the jizyah is that the payer must be from the People of the Book, then these people are doubtful in that regard; the condition has not been verified in them. Therefore, the correct view is the permissibility of taking the jizyah from polytheists, Jews, and Christians, indeed from every disbeliever, even from one who does not follow any religion. If we call them to Islam and they refuse, we demand the jizyah from them. If they refuse, we fight them.
If someone asks: What is the jizyah? We say: It is the compensation taken in exchange for the protection of the dhimmis and for not fighting them. They have what the Muslims have, and they are obligated to what the Muslims are obligated to, but with the conditions known to the scholars.
If someone asks: Is it fixed by the Shari'ah, or is it according to what the imam sees?
The answer is that it is not fixed by the Shari'ah, but rather what the imam sees as the jizyah that will deter them, he may choose it. So it is subject to the ijtihad of the imam.
He says: If they refuse—this is the fourth stage. If they refuse the fourth or the third?
Call them to Islam, and then after they become Muslims, they move to the abode of the emigrants. If they refuse, then the jizyah. If they refuse this third one, he said: . This indicates that if the polytheists refuse what is offered to them, fighting them becomes obligatory.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that a person should seek help from Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in fighting the polytheists. However, a condition for the obligation of fighting is that one is capable of confronting them. If one is not capable, then fighting is not obligatory; indeed, it would be more appropriate to say it is forbidden, because fighting them without the ability to do so harms the Muslims. Perhaps they will defeat those who fought them and proceed to the others. So the condition of the ability to fight them is necessary. It is not required that our forces be stronger, but rather if they are equal or stronger. As for if we know that we cannot stand against them, then fighting them is foolishness, and the Shari'ah did not come with it. For this reason, the Muslims were not commanded to fight until they had a state, and they had strength and power.
Among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of besieging fortresses. Fortresses are the castles in which the enemies take refuge. It is permissible to besiege them, meaning to surround them from all sides and prevent food and drink from reaching them.
If someone asks: Is there any torture in that? Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say: ? What is the answer?
The answer is from two angles:
First: These fighting disbelievers have no sanctity, because their blood is lawful for us, and their wealth is lawful for us.
Second: They are able to escape from this siege. How? By surrendering. If they surrender, they will be freed from the siege, unlike the cat.
So we besiege them, meaning we surround them from every side, and prevent food and drink from reaching them, and prevent anyone from entering or exiting.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that if they ask to be granted the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Prophet, they are not given that, but they are given the covenant of the commander, the commander of the besieging army, and the covenant of his companions. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that: .
Among the benefits of this hadith is the wisdom of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his teaching and rulings, because he explained the reason why we do not give them the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Prophet. Because perhaps the covenant will be broken, and by doing so, we would have broken the covenant of Allah and His Messenger. And breaking our covenant and the covenant of our companions is easier than breaking the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). For this reason, he said: .
Among the benefits of this hadith is the use of the superlative form (af'ala) in a case where neither party possesses the quality, and this is rare. Based on his statement: "easier." The known rule for the name of superlative is that the preferred and the one preferred over share the quality. And here, neither the preferred nor the one preferred over shares the quality, because the quality in which the preference is made is "lightness." It is known that breaking covenants, whether it is the covenant of Allah and His Messenger or the covenant of the commander and his companions, is not light, because it is treachery, and treachery is among the characteristics of the hypocrites.
It is derived from this that it is permissible in the Arabic language to use the superlative form in a case where neither party possesses the quality. So "lightness" is not present in breaking our covenants, nor in breaking the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger, but it is known that some evil is easier than other evil.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that evils differ in degree, some being more severe. Where do you take the other?
Where did you graze? Answer: Did you graze or are you remaining?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : "Easier" is a superlative name that indicates that evils differ in degree, just as good things differ in degree. And this is a matter that, in reality, does not need argumentation, because it is clear.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that it is not permissible to bring down the people of the besieged fortress to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger. Based on his statement: . Why?
He gave the reasons: . So on what do they bring them down? On the judgment of the commander and the army. And he will exert effort, either hitting the mark or missing. If he hits the mark, he has two rewards, and if he misses, he has one reward, and the mistake is forgiven.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that it is not befitting for the mufti to say about what he issues a ruling on that it is the Shari'ah of Allah, because he does not know whether he hits the Shari'ah of Allah or not. Except in a clear matter, such as saying: Carrion is forbidden. This is the ruling of Allah, because this is explicit and there is no ambiguity in it. But in matters of ijtihad, it is not befitting for him to say: The ruling of the Shari'ah is such, the ruling of Islam is such, because he does not know whether he hits the ruling of the Shari'ah or not. So if a questioner directs to you a question saying: What is the ruling of the Lawgiver regarding such and such? Then guide him. Say to him: My brother, do not say this, because I am a human being who makes mistakes and hits the mark, so I do not know if I say something whether I hit the Shari'ah or not.
Among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of ijtihad. Based on his statement: . And it is known that if he does not know whether he hits the mark or not, then he has ruled based on ijtihad. And there is no doubt that ijtihad in the Islamic Shari'ah is permissible, but it cannot be presented against the text in any way, under any circumstances.
And there are matters in which ijtihad occurred during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and after him. 'Amir ibn al-As was in a detachment, and he was in a state of major ritual impurity and feared, and there was no water with him. So what did he do?
He rolled in the dust as a beast rolls, by analogy to the purification of water. For the purification of water from major ritual impurity covers the entire body, so he thought that the earth was like water and exerted effort. And it is known that in that place, he had no option but ijtihad. When he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he informed him that this was not correct, and that it was sufficient for him to perform tayammum with his hands. So do we say that the analogy here takes precedence over the text?
Answer: No, it is not possible. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), when it happened that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , his son Bilal said: "By Allah, we will prevent them," because he saw a matter that necessitated preventing women from leaving the houses. His father, 'Abd Allah, turned to him and cursed him severely, a cursing he had never done before, because he had contradicted the hadith, and even though it was based on independent legal reasoning, it was inappropriate and impermissible reasoning. He said to him: "I tell you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and you say: 'By Allah, we will prevent them!' Then he swore that he would not speak to him for the rest of his life; he boycotted him. Why would he contradict this text in this manner?
So we say that the one who exercises independent legal reasoning may be correct and may be wrong, but it is not possible for the text to be contradicted by the independent legal reasoning of anyone, whoever he may be, and there are many examples of this:
Among them is the hadith of people a few days ago regarding stoning the pillars before noon. Some people exercised independent legal reasoning and issued a ruling for them to stone before noon on the twelfth day, but this is a mistake and does not hold, because it contradicts the Sunnah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and he did not stone before noon, nor did he grant a dispensation for anyone to stone before noon. Independent legal reasoning in the presence of a text is void, without a doubt.
If they say: "The Messenger did not know about the situation of people today?"
We say: If the Messenger did not know, then Allah knows. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say: "Stone before noon when there is a crowd."
And among the benefits of this hadith is that if a person exercises independent legal reasoning and makes a mistake, there is no sin on him, based on his saying: along with his saying: . It is the same; if a person exercises independent legal reasoning and exerts his effort and capacity in seeking the truth and makes a mistake, there is nothing on him, even if he issues a ruling to a person that his prayer is valid while it is invalid according to the text, there is nothing on him, because he is one who exercises independent legal reasoning.
And what about such an action by someone acting as an agent or guardian for another, and he makes a mistake in his independent legal reasoning?
Answer: Yes, even though this is a right of a human being, but he is one who exercises independent legal reasoning. If he appoints a person to sell something, and he sells it in the market, exercising independent legal reasoning and seeking a high price, and sells it at the last bid, then it becomes clear from outside that the value of this commodity is high and he did not know, is there anything on him?
There is nothing on him, and there are many examples of this, whether for guardians of orphans, or agents, or executors, or trustees of endowments. All of them, if they act based on independent legal reasoning and their mistake becomes clear, there is nothing on them, no sin and no liability.
And this is a matter that a person should be alert to, so that he may be at ease and put others at ease when asked for a ruling. He should not say: "If I acted based on independent legal reasoning and then the mistake became clear, I have made a mistake, by Allah, and I fear for my conscience."
We say: No, there is nothing on you, as long as you acted in a way that you saw to be appropriate, there is nothing on you.