and the ruler considers accepting it preferable to executing him, in light of what he judges to be in the Muslims’ interests, including using the money received to support their efforts against the polytheists, and other such considerations. This is the substance of the ruling concerning captives. Al-Dārawardī related in The Book of Wealth that most of Mālik’s followers disapprove of ransoming captives for money. They maintain that this occurred at Badr only because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that he would prevail over them, and he recounted the incident in support of this. He said that agreement extends only to the permissibility of exchanging them for Muslim captives. The position I have set out, however, is the correct one.

Section

Some scholars considered the first verse to abrogate the second and third verses. They therefore held that a captive must be killed in all circumstances and may not be spared. Qatādah and a group of Quran commentators held this view. Others understood Allah Most High’s words in the second verse,

“Then afterward, either release them graciously or ransom them” [Muhammad: 4],

as imposing an obligation rather than offering a choice. They considered it to abrogate the first verse insofar as it requires execution, and the second verse insofar as it implies a choice. They therefore held that a captive must not be executed in captivity. Among those who adopted this view were ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar, al-Hasan, and ‘Atā’. All of these interpretations are far-fetched, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) both executed prisoners and took captives, and his actions served to clarify what is in the Quran. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Section
On the Jizyah

The jizyah is what is taken from the unbelievers in return for granting them security and sparing their lives while allowing them to remain in their unbelief. It is of two kinds: that imposed following conquest and that agreed upon by treaty. Treaty-based jizyah has no fixed amount, since they are not compelled to accept it and have successfully defended themselves and their property until concluding a treaty concerning it. Its amount, whether small or large, is therefore whatever the ruler agrees upon with them, on condition that they are allowed to remain in their lands and retain their religion, provided that they are subject to Muslim jurisdiction and pay the jizyah in acknowledgment of authority and in submission. This is expressly stated by Ibn Habīb in al-Wādihah. In his view, treaty-based jizyah has no fixed amount beyond whatever sum, small or large, has been agreed upon in the treaty. This statement, however, calls for examination. The correct position is that there is no minimum amount that those at war with the Muslims are obliged to accept, since they remain masters of their own affairs; yet there is a minimum amount which, if they offer it, the ruler is obliged