Reports from five Companions agree with it, and no contrary view is known from them. As for Hudhayfa, Ahmad stated that he married a Jewish woman. The general body of scholars has acted upon this report despite its missing link.

According to one of the two scholarly positions, a report lacking the link between a Successor and the Prophet constitutes authoritative evidence. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, and Ahmad, according to one of the two views reported from him. According to the other position, it constitutes authoritative evidence if supported by the position of the majority of scholars and the apparent meaning of the Quran, or if transmitted through another chain with such a missing link. This is al-Shāfiʿī’s position. Thus, a report of this kind constitutes authoritative evidence by scholarly agreement. Moreover, this report explicitly addresses the particular issue and does not need to rest upon the two preceding arguments.

If it is said, “It is reported from ʿAlī that they once possessed a scripture, but it was taken away,” the reply is:

Ahmad and others have judged this report weak. Even if it is authentic, it only indicates that they once possessed a scripture which was then taken away, not that they now have a scripture in their possession. In that case, they cannot properly be included under the designation “People of the Book,” since they possess no scripture—whether altered or unaltered, abrogated or unabrogated. However, if they once possessed a scripture which was subsequently taken away, they retain a semblance of scriptural status. This much has a bearing on sparing their lives through payment of the poll tax, if its acceptance is restricted to the People of the Book.

As for marriage to their women and consumption of the animals they slaughter, permission is restricted to the People of the Book. The Prophet’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

“Treat them in the same manner as the People of the Book,”

is evidence that they are not among the People of the Book. He only commanded that they be treated like them specifically in the collection of the poll tax, as the Companions did, for they understood these words to convey only this ruling. It has also been transmitted with the qualification:

“But do not marry their women or eat the animals they slaughter.”

Thus, those who permit the collection of the poll tax from idolaters reason by analogy