are better than they are. They are therefore also better than the Sabian philosophers. Scholars have taken two approaches concerning the Sabians:
The first recognizes two opinions on whether they may be allowed to remain upon payment of the jizya.
The second distinguishes between them: those who follow the religion of the People of the Book are accorded their status; otherwise, they are not. Both approaches are found in the schools of al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others.
The disagreement over allowing them to remain upon payment of the jizya arises among those who accept it only from Magians and the People of the Book, such as al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, according to one of the two positions reported from him.
As for those who allow non-Arab polytheists to remain upon payment of the jizya—such as Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, and Ahmad according to the other reported position—their disagreement concerns whether the Sabians’ slaughtered animals are lawful to eat and their women lawful to marry. Likewise, these matters are disputed by those who distinguish between a person of the Book whose ancestors embraced the religion before its abrogation and alteration and those who embraced it after its abrogation and alteration. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and a group of Ahmad’s followers, based on the view that status as People of the Book is determined by lineage: they are those whose ancestors adhered to that religion before its abrogation and alteration.
The majority of scholars, however—including Mālik, Abū Hanīfa, and Ahmad according to his explicit statement—hold that what counts is the individual himself, not his lineage, as indicated by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Companions.
The point here is that anyone who gives preference to certain views of the philosophers in which they oppose the adherents of the revealed religions is worse than someone who gives preference to certain views of Jews and Christians over those of Muslims.
And if the path followed by those who employ the method of accidents and composition