Qāʿidah fī Qitāl al-Kuffār - Ibn Taimiya - (132)

What proof could be more conclusive than this that he never compelled anyone to embrace Islam? (1) No one can ever adduce a single report of his having forced a person into Islam—whether someone who resisted him or someone already under his control—and a conversion gained by such coercion would serve no purpose at all. Rather, whoever entered Islam had his outward declaration accepted, even if people suspected that he had done so only out of fear of the sword (2)—such as a polytheist or a member of the People of the Book whom it is otherwise lawful to fight. Once he accepted Islam, his blood and property became inviolable, in keeping with the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. When they make that declaration, they safeguard their lives and their wealth from me, except by right, and their reckoning is with Allah.” (3)

(1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya writes in Al-Sarim al-Maslul, 2/266: “In the year of the Conquest the Prophet granted amnesty to all enemy combatants except a few who had committed specific crimes; since their blood was declared lawful to shed apart from others, it is clear that they were not killed merely for disbelief or for taking up arms.” (2) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya states in Al-Sarim al-Maslul, 3/619: “There is unanimous agreement among Muslims that if an enemy combatant embraces Islam when the sword is drawn—whether he is unbound or in chains—his conversion is valid and his repentance from disbelief is accepted, even if the outward circumstances suggest that his inner state is otherwise.” (3) The source for this narration has already been cited above.

فَأَيُّ شَيءٍ أَبْلَغ فِي أَنَّهُ ما أَكْرَهَ أَحَدًا عَلَى الإِسْلام مِنْ هَذَا (١). وَلَا يَقْدِرُ أَحَدٌ قَطُّ أَنْ يَنْقُلَ أَنَّهُ أَكْرَهَ أَحَدًا عَلَى الإِسْلَام، لا مُمْتَنِعًا، وَلَا مُقْدُورًا عَلَيه، وَلا فَائِدةَ إِسْلاِمِ مِثْل هَذَا، لَكَنْ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ قُبِلَ مِنْهُ ظَاهِرُ الإِسْلَام، وَإِنْ كَانَ يُظَنُّ أَنَّهُ إِنَّمَا أَسْلَمَ خَوفًا مِنَ السَّيفِ (٢) - كَالمُشْرِكِ والكِتَابِيِّ الَّذِيِ يَجُوزُ قِتَالُهُ - فَإِنَّهُ إِذَا أَسْلَمَ حَرُمَ دَمُهُ وَمَالُهُ، كَمَا قَالَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ: "أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أقاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهَ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهِ" (٣).

(١) قال شيخ الإسلام في الصارم المسلول (٢/ ٢٦٦): (أن النبي أمّن عام الفتح جميع المحاربين إلا ذوي جرائم مخصوصه، وكان ممن أهدر دمه دون غيره، فعلم أنه لم يقتل لمجرد الكفر والحراب). (٢) قال شيخ الإسلام في الصارم المسلول (٣/ ٦١٩): (ولا خلاف بين المسلمين أن الحربي إذا أسلم عند رؤية السيف، وهو مطلق أو مقيد يصح إسلامه وتقبل توبته من الكفر، وإن كانت دلالة الحال تقضي أن باطنه بخلاف ظاهره). (٣) سبق تخريجه.