permissible for non-Muslims under protection to establish a church there, just as they were not permitted to do so in territories the Muslims conquered by treaty, where they allowed them to retain their old churches after ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb—may Allah be pleased with him—had stipulated that they must not establish any new church in the treaty lands. How much more, then, does this apply to Muslim cities! Indeed, if they had a church in territory conquered by force, such as Iraq, Egypt, and similar lands, and the Muslims built a city around it, the Muslims would be entitled to take possession of that church, so that no church would remain in Muslim cities without a covenant protecting it.

For in Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Ibn ʿAbbās—may Allah be pleased with them both—reports through a good chain of transmission that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“Two directions of prayer may not coexist in one land, and no jizya is due from a Muslim.”

In a city or village inhabited by Muslims and containing their mosques, nothing among the outward symbols of unbelief may be displayed—neither churches nor anything else—unless those concerned have a covenant, in which case their covenant must be honoured. Thus, even if a church had existed on the site of Cairo or a similar city before its construction, the Muslims would have been entitled to take possession of it, since the territory was conquered by force. How much more so when these churches were newly established by the Christians! For nearly two hundred years, Cairo’s rulers did not follow the law of Islam.

They outwardly professed to be Rāfidīs, while inwardly they were Ismāʿīlīs, Nusayrīs, and Qarmatian esotericists. As al-Ghazālī—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—said of them in the book he wrote to refute them:

“The outward aspect of their doctrine is Rāfidism; its inward reality is pure unbelief.”

The various groups of Muslims were agreed—their scholars, rulers, and ordinary people, from among the