and this is virtually a matter of agreement among the well-known imams, although there is an isolated dissenting view concerning some of its forms.

As for Muslim property seized by non-Muslim belligerents who subsequently embrace Islam, it remains theirs, according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the consensus of the early generations, and the position of the vast majority of imams. This is Ahmad’s explicit ruling and the apparent position of his school. As for their submitting a dispute of this kind to us for adjudication, this occurs when they are bound by an agreement granting safe-conduct, a covenant of protection, or a peace treaty. In this case too, we uphold their possession of that property. This concerns rights that accrued to a person in accordance with his beliefs while he was an unbeliever, even if the means by which they arose were prohibited in Islam.

As for punishments, he is not punished for any prohibited act he committed before embracing Islam, whether or not he believed it prohibited. Thus, he is not punished for killing a person, engaging in usury, theft, or anything else, whether he committed these acts against Muslims or against his own coreligionists. If he committed them against Muslims, he believed such acts against them to be permissible. As for his coreligionists, Islamic law permits taking their lives and property, even if he himself believes this forbidden.

For this reason, we say that when unbelievers take one another captive or seize one another’s property as spoils, they are not punished for this after embracing Islam, even if they believed it prohibited. Thus, whenever an act was permissible either in his own religion or in Islam, punishment for it is waived.