Shundan so'ng oyat urush paytida asir olinganlar haqidagi hukmni bayon qiladi. Bu Qur'onda asirlar haqida hukm bayon qilgan yagona matn.
The verse then sets the ruling concerning those who are taken captive in war. This is the only Qur’anic text stating a ruling on such captives:
"Shundan keyin ularni yo marhamat bilan, yo fidya evaziga ozod qilinglar." (4-oyat) Bu shuni anglatadiki, urush asirlari hech qanday tovon to‘lamasdan, bepul ozod etilishi kerak. Belgilangan fidya yoki asirlar almashinuvi talab qilinmaydi. Qur’on oyatida mushrik asirlarni o‘ldirish yoki ularni qulga aylantirish kabi uchinchi yo‘l haqida hech narsa aytilmagan.
“Thereafter, set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom.” (Verse 4) This means that captives of war are to be set free gratis, without any compensation. No specified ransom or exchange of prisoners is required. The Qur’anic verse does not mention any third option, such as putting idolater captives to death or binding them into slavery.
Shunday bo‘lsa-da, amalda Payg‘ambar ﷺ va undan keyin kelgan xalifalar ba’zi urush asirlarini qulga aylantirdilar va alohida nomlari aytilgan kishilarni o‘ldirdilar. Biz Hanafiy mazhabining imomi Abu Bakr al-Jassos o‘zining “al-Qur’on” kitobida ushbu oyat haqida nima deganini keltiramiz, zarur o‘rinlarda izohlar berib boramiz. So‘ngra bu borada tegishli hukmlar haqidagi o‘z qarashimizni bayon qilib, xulosa qilamiz.
Nevertheless, what happened in practice was that the Prophet and the caliphs succeeding him put some war captives into slavery, and killed specifically named individuals. We will quote what Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas, of the Hanafl school of Islamic law, says about this verse in his book al-Qur’an, making some comments as necessary. We will then conclude by stating our view of the relevant rulings:
Xudo bu oyatda shunday deydi: “Kofirlarga jang maydonida duch kelganingizda, ularning bo‘yinlarini uring.” Ko‘rinishidan, bu so‘zlar kofirlarni to‘liq bo‘ysundirilgunga qadar ularni o‘ldirish yagona yo‘l ekanligini aniq ko‘rsatadi. Bu, Xudoning boshqa oyatidagi so‘zlar bilan ham mos keladi: “Yer yuzida qattiq jang qilmaguncha, hech bir Payg‘ambarga asirlar tutish yarashmaydi.” (8:67) Ibn Abbos bu so‘nggi gapning Badr jangiga taalluqli ekanini aytgan, o‘sha paytda musulmonlar oz sonli ozchilik edi. Ularning soni ko‘payib, kuchga to‘lganida, Xudo quyidagi hukmni o‘rnatdi: “Keyin ularni yo marhamat yuzasidan, yo fidya evaziga ozod qiling.” Shunday qilib, Xudo Payg‘ambar ﷺ va mo‘minlarga barcha imkoniyatlarni berdi: asirlarni o‘ldirish, qul qilish yoki ozod qilish. Biroq, bu hadisni rivoyat qilgan kishi Ibn Abbosning asirlarni qul qilish haqida gapirgan-gapirmaganiga shubha bilan qaraydi.
God says in this verse: “Now when you meet the unbelievers in battle, smite their necks.” On the surface, the statement makes it clear that killing the unbelievers is the only option until they have been thoroughly subdued. This is consistent with what God says in the other verse: “It does not behove a Prophet to have captives unless he has battled strenuously in the land.” (8: 67) Ibn 'Abbas is quoted as saying that this last statement applied to the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims were a small minority. When their numbers increased and they became more powerful, God established the ruling: “ Thereafter, set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom.” Thus, God allowed the Prophet and the believers all options: to kill their prisoners, enslave them or set them free. However, the transmitter of this hadith doubts whether Ibn 'Abbas mentioned enslaving prisoners.
Ibn 'Abbas nomli roviy bu o'rinda qullik haqida gapirganmi-yo'qmi, bu aniq bo'lmagani uchun, bu ehtimolni butunlay rad etamiz. Harbiy asirlarni o'ldirishga kelsak, biz muhokama qilinayotgan oyatda bunga hech qanday asos ko'rmaymiz.
Since the reporter was uncertain that Ibn 'Abbas mentioned slavery in this context, we discard that option altogether. As for killing such prisoners of war, we see no basis for this in the verse under discussion.
Oyat faqat ularni yo‘qotish yo‘li bilan emas, balki mehr-shafqat yuzasidan yoki fidya evaziga ozod qilishni eslatadi.4
The verse mentions only freeing them either as an act of grace or against ransom.4
Al-Suddiy bu hukm haqida xabar qilinishicha, "yo lutf yo'li bilan ozod qiling, yo fidya evaziga" degan oyatni, keyingi, to'qqizinchi surадаgi "Mushriklarni topgan joyingizda o'ldiringlar" (9:5) degan oyat bilan bekor qilingan, deb aytgan.
Biz esa shunday deymiz: Qur'ondagi "Agar kofirlar bilan jangda uchrashsangiz, ularning bo'ynini urинглар", "Payg'ambarga jangda yer yuzini qattiq qilib, asirga tushishi joiz emas" va "Agar ular bilan jangda uchrashsangiz, ularni ortlaridan keladiganlar uchun dahshatli ibrat qilinglar" degan oyatlar eng ehtimol to'g'ri hukmlarni bayon qiladi, ularning hech biri bekor qilinmagan. Alloh Taolo O'z Elchisiga kofirlarni o'ldirishni va ular to'liq bo'ysundirilmaguncha ulardan asir olmaslikni buyurdi. Bu musulmonlar dushmanga nisbatan oz sonda bo'lgan paytda shunday edi. Bunday vaziyatda kofirlar ko'p miqdorda o'ldirilib, ortlaridan keladiganlarga ibrat qilinganidan keyingina ularning ba'zilarini tirik holda asir olish joiz bo'lgan. Bu doimiy qoida bo'lishi kerak, Islamning dastlabki davrida bo'lgan vaziyatga o'xshash vaziyatda musulmonlar qayerda va qachon bo'lmasin, amal qilinadigan bo'lishi kerak.
Al-Suddi is reported to have commented on the ruling, “set them free either by an act ofgrace or against ransom f saying that it has been abrogated by the subsequent verse in Surah 9, stating: “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9: 5) However, we say that the Qur’anic statements: “Now when you meet the unbelievers in battle, smite their necksf and “It does not behove a Prophet to have captives unless he has battled strenuously in the land” and “Should you meet them in battle, make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them,” are most probably outlining valid rulings, none of which has been abrogated. God commanded His messenger to kill the unbelievers and not to take captives from among them until they had been thoroughly subdued. This was the case when the Muslims were small in number, compared with their enemy. In that situation, only when the unbelievers were subdued after being killed in numbers and were made an example of to those who followed them, was it then permissible to take some of them captive, keeping them alive. This should be a permanent rule, applicable at any time when the Muslims are in a similar situation to that which prevailed in the early days of Islam.
Izohda aytilishicha, mushriklarni qayerda topilsa o'ldirish haqidagi buyruq aynan Arabiston yarim orolidagi mushriklarga tegishli edi. Hozirgi surадаги oyat esa mazmuni jihatidan umumiydir. Dushman to'liq mag'lub etilib, uning kuchi sindirilgandan so'ng, asirga olish joiz. Payg'ambardan keyin xalifalar ham shu amaliyotga amal qilganlar. Asirlar faqat alohida hollarda o'ldirilgan, bu hollarni biz hozir tushuntiramiz.
In comment, we say that the order to kill the idolaters wherever they were found applied specifically to the idolaters in the Arabian Peninsula. The verse in the present surah is general in its import. When the enemy is thoroughly subdued and its power is smashed, it is permissible to take prisoners. This was the practice followed by the caliphs after the Prophet. Prisoners were killed only in particular cases which we will explain presently.
"yoki mehr bilan yoki fidya evaziga ozod qilinsin" degan ibora ikki yo'ldan birini nazarda tutadi: asirlarni yo mehr bilan, yo fidya evaziga ozod qilish. Bu esa ularni o'ldirish man etilganini bildiradi. Biroq, ilk olimlar bu masalada turlicha qarashda. Al-Hasan asirlarni o'ldirishga qarshi chiqqan, ular fidya evaziga yoki hatto fidyasiz ozod etilishi kerakligini aytgan, deb rivoyat qilinadi. 'Ato' ham shu qarashda bo'lgan, deb rivoyat qilinadi.
The statement, “set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom” provides for one of two alternatives: freeing the prisoners either by an act of grace or against ransom, which suggests that killing them was prohibited. However, early scholars differ on this point. Al-Hasan is reported to have objected to killing prisoners of war, saying that they should be freed against ransom or indeed without it. ’Ata’ is also reported to have held this view.
Al-Hasan javob berdi, mahbuslar bilan nima qilish kerakligi so‘ralganda: “Badr jangida qo‘lga olingan mahbuslar bilan Payg‘ambar ﷺ nima qilgan bo‘lsa, shuni qilinglar: ular marhamat yuzasidan yoki fidya evaziga ozod etilgan”.
Ibn Umar bir mahbusni, Istakhr shahridan kelgan yuqori mavqeli bir kishini unga o‘ldirishi uchun berishganda, u Qur’ondagi “yoki marhamat yuzasidan, yoki fidya evaziga ozod qiling” degan so‘zni keltirib, buni qilishdan bosh tortgan. Xuddi shunday, Mujohid va Ibn Sirin harbiy asirlarni o‘ldirishga qarshi gapirganliklari rivoyat qilinadi. Biz allaqachon al-Suddiyning bu hukm boshqa Qur’on oyati bilan bekor qilingan, degan qarashini zikr qilganmiz: “Mushriklarni qayerda topsangiz, o‘ldiring”. (9:5) Xuddi shunday, Ibn Jurayj ham shu fikrda. U ‘Uqba ibn Abu Mu‘ayt haqida misol keltirdi, uni Badr jangida asir olingach, Payg‘ambar ﷺ o‘ldirishni buyurgan.
When asked what to do with prisoners, al-Hasan answered: ‘Do with them what the Prophet did with the prisoners taken in the Battle of Badr: they were freed by an act of grace or against ransom.’ Ibn (Umar was given a prisoner, a man of high position from the city of Istakhr, so that he could kill him, but he refused to do so citing the Qur’anic statement: “set them free either by an act ofgrace or against ransom.” Likewise, Mujahid and Ibn Sirin are reported to have spoken against killing prisoners of war. We have already mentioned al-Suddi’s view that this ruling was abrogated by the other Qur’anic instruction: “slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” (9: 5) Likewise, Ibn Jurayj is of this view. He cited the case of ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt whom the Prophet ordered to be killed after he was taken prisoner during the Battle of Badr.
Barcha viloyatlardagi olimlar asir olingan kishini o‘ldirish mumkinligiga bir ovozdan qo‘shiladilar, bu masalada boshqacha fikr bildirgan birorta olimni biz bilmaymiz. Payg‘ambar ﷺ bunday o‘ldirishni ma’qullaganliklari haqida rivoyatlar juda ko‘p. Badr jangidan keyin u ﷺ 'Uqbah ibn Abu Mu'ayt va al-Nadr ibn al-Harisning qatl etilishini buyurdilar, Uhud jangidan keyin esa shoir Abu 'Azzahning qatl etilishini buyurdilar. Qurayza asirlari Sa'd ibn Mu'oz hukmini qabul qilganlarida, ya'ni ularning erkaklari qatl etilib, bolalari qul qilinishi kerakligi haqidagi hukmga rozi bo‘lganlarida, u zot ﷺ ularni ham o‘ldirdilar. Ulardan al-Zubayr ibn Bataga esa inoyat ko‘rsatib ozod qildilar. Xaybarni fath etganlarida, qisman urush yo‘li bilan, qisman esa tinchlik shartnomasi orqali, u zot ﷺ Ibn Abu al-Huqayqqa aniq shart qo‘ydilar, lekin uning xiyonati ochilganda, uni qatl etishni buyurdilar. Keyinchalik Makkaga kirganlarida, bir qator kishilarni o‘ldirishni buyurdilar va ularni, "hatto Ka'baning pardasiga yopishib olgan holda topilsalar ham", o‘ldirish kerakligini aytdilar. Shunga qaramay, u zot ﷺ Makka aholisini ozod qildilar va ularning mollaridan hech narsa olmadilar.
Scholars from all provinces are unanimous that a prisoner of war may be killed, and we do not know of any taking a different view. Reports are numerous that the Prophet sanctioned such killing. He ordered the execution of ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt and al-Nadr ibn al-Harith after the Battle of Badr, and Abu ‘Azzah, the poet, after the Battle of Uhud. He also put the Qurayzah prisoners to death when they accepted Sa‘d ibn Mucadh’s judgement to the effect that their men must be executed and their offspring be enslaved. From among them, he set al-Zubayr ibn Bata free by an act of grace. When he conquered Khaybar, partly by war and partly by peaceful agreement, he stipulated a clear condition on Ibn Abi al-Huqayq, but when his treachery was exposed, he ordered his execution. When he later entered Makkah, he ordered the killing of a number of people, stating that they should be killed, ‘even if found clinging to the robes of the Ka(bah.’ However, he freed the people of Makkah and took nothing of their property.
Abu Bakr'dan rivoyat qilinadi: «Al-Fuja'ah olib kelinganida uni kuydirishni buyurganimdan afsusdaman. Uni oddiy tarzda qatl qildirganimda yoki ozod qilganimda yaxshi bo'lardi», degan.
Abu Muso al-Ash'ariy esa al-Sus shahrining bosh ruhoniysini qatl qildirganini zikr qiladi. Ruhoniy o'zi nomini aytgan bir qancha kishilar uchun unga xavfsizlik kafolati bergan edi. Biroq u o'zini qo'shishni unutib qo'ygan edi, shu sababli xavfsizlik kafolati unga tegishli bo'lmadi. Shunda Abu Muso uning qatl etilishini buyurdi.
Abu Bakr is quoted to have said: “I wish I had not ordered al- Fuja’ah to be burnt when he was brought to me. I wish I had ordered his execution normally or set him free.” Abu Musa al- Ash ‘ari mentions that he executed the chief priest of al-Sus, after he had given him a guarantee of safety for a number of people whom the priest named. However, he forgot to include himself, and therefore, the guarantee of safety did not apply to him. So, Abu Musa ordered his execution.
Barcha shu rivoyatlar va hadislar shubhasiz tasdiqlaydiki, Payg'ambar ﷺ va sahobalari harbiy asirlarni o'ldirishni yoki ozod qilishni ma'qullaganlar. Bu barcha mintaqalardagi ulamolarning ittifoqidir.
All these reports and ahadlth confirm, without any doubt, that the Prophet and his Companions approved the execution of prisoners of war or setting them free. This is the consensus of scholars in all regions.
Biroq, harbiy asirlarni o‘ldirishning ruxsat etilganligini faqat Qur’ondagi bu oyatga tayangan holda asoslab bo‘lmaydi. Buni Payg‘ambar ﷺ va ba’zi sahobalarning amallari nuqtai nazaridan ko‘rib chiqish kerak. Asirlar o‘ldirilgan barcha holatlarni diqqat bilan o‘rganganimizda, ularning hammasi o‘ziga xos bo‘lganini ko‘ramiz; boshqacha aytganda, faqat musulmonlarga qarshi jang qilish va keyinchalik asirga olinishdan tashqari, qo‘shimcha og‘irlashtiruvchi sabablar mavjud edi. Badr va Uhud janglaridan keyin o‘ldirilgan kishilar — mos ravishda Uqba, an-Nadr va Abu Azza — Payg‘ambarga ﷺ zarar yetkazishga qat’iy niyatlangan dushman edilar. Quraydza yahudiylarining holati ham o‘ziga xos edi, chunki ular oldindan kelishib, ularga hukmni Sa’d ibn Mu’od chiqarishiga rozi bo‘lgan edilar. Bu barcha holatlarda biz ularni ushbu oyatda bayon etilgan harbiy asirlar haqidagi umumiy qoidadan chiqarib qo‘yadigan maxsus sabablarni ko‘ramiz: “Ularni yo marhamat yuzasidan, yo fidya evaziga ozod qiling”. (4-oyat)
The permissibility of executing prisoners of war cannot, however, just be based on the Qur’anic statement. It should instead be viewed against the actions of the Prophet and some of his Companions. When we carefully consider all the cases where prisoners were killed, we find that they were all special; in other words, there were additional militating factors other than merely fighting against Muslims and subsequent captivity. The men killed after the Battles of Badr and Uhud, namely, cUqbah, al-Nadr and Abu (Azzah, respectively, were all hostile opponents who were determined to harm the Prophet. The case of the Qurayzah Jews was also special, given they had agreed, in advance, for judgement to be passed on them by Sa'd ibn Mu(adh. In all these cases we find special reasons placing them outside the general rule on prisoners of war stated in this verse: “set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom. ” (Verse 4)
Olimlar asirlarni fidya evaziga ozod qilish masalasida turlicha fikr bildirganlar. Bizning mazhabimiz bo'lgan hanafiylar, asirni moliyaviy fidya evaziga ozod qilib bo'lmasligini, shuningdek dushmanga sotilib, ular bilan yana jangda qatnashishi uchun qaytarilishi mumkin emasligini ta'kidlaydilar. Abu Hanifa ham urush asirini musulmon asirlar evaziga ozod qilish mumkin emasligini bayon qiladi. Hech qanday holatda uni dushman qo'shiniga qo'shilishi uchun qaytarib bo'lmaydi.
Abu Yusuf va Muhammad ibn al-Hasan bu masalada Abu Hanifadan farqli o'laroq, musulmonlar bilan kofirlar o'rtasida urush asirlarini almashtirishga ruxsat beradilar. Bu so'nggi qarashni al-Savriy va al-Avzo'iy kabi yirik olimlar ham qo'llab-quvvatlaganlar. Al-Avzo'iy qo'shimcha qilib, urush asirlarini dushmanga sotish joiz, lekin ularning erkaklarini asirlar almashuvidan boshqa holatda sotish mumkin emas, deydi.
Boshqa tomondan, al-Muzaniy al-Shofe'iydan naql qilishicha, musulmon hokimi mag'lubiyatdan keyin erkak asirlarni marhamat yuzasidan yoki fidya evaziga ozod qilishi mumkin.
Scholars differed on setting prisoners free against ransom. Those of our school, the Hanafl, maintain that a prisoner cannot be set free against financial ransom, and cannot be sold to the enemy so as to join them again in fighting. Abu Hanifah also states that a prisoner of war cannot be set free in exchange for Muslim prisoners. In no way should he ever be returned to join an enemy army. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan differ with Abu Hanifah on this point, allowing the exchange of prisoners of war between Muslims and non-Muslims. This last view is subscribed to by major scholars like al-Thawri and al-Awza1!. Al-Awza(i adds that it is permissible to sell prisoners of war to the enemy, but the men among them may not be sold except in an exchange of prisoners. On the other hand, al-Muzni quotes al-Shaffi as saying that a Muslim ruler may set male prisoners of war free by an act of grace or against ransom after their defeat.
Ular asir olinganlarni moliyaviy fidya evaziga yoki musulmon asirlari bilan almashish orqali ozod qilishni ma'qullaydiganlar o'z qarashlarini quyidagi Qur'on oyati bilan asoslaydilar: "Keyin ularni ya'ni mehr-shafqat bilan yoki fidya evaziga ozod qiling". Bu, ko'rinishidan, asirlarni fidya evaziga va musulmon asirlari bilan almashtirish evaziga ozod qilishga ruxsat beradi. Ular yana shuni dalil qilib keltiradilar: Payg'ambar ﷺ Badr jangidan olingan Quraysh asirlarini moliyaviy fidya evaziga ozod qilganlar. Asirlarni almashtirish joizligiga esa ular Imron ibn Husayn rivoyat qilgan hadisni dalil qilib keltiradilar: "Saqif qabilasi Payg'ambarning ﷺ ikki sahobasini asir oldi, musulmonlar esa 'Omir ibn Sa'sa'a qabilasidan bir kishini asir oldi. Payg'ambar ﷺ bog'langan holdagi bu asirning yonidan o'tdilar, va u kishi Payg'ambarni ﷺ chaqirdi. Payg'ambar ﷺ uning oldiga bordilar. U so'radi: 'Nima uchun meni asir olishdi?' Payg'ambar ﷺ dedilar: 'Sen ittifoqchilaring qilgan jinoyat tufayli.' U kishi dedi: 'Lekin men musulmonman.' Payg'ambar ﷺ javob berdilar: 'Agar sen buni ozod bo'lganingda aytganingda, katta foyda ko'rgan bo'lar eding.' Payg'ambar ﷺ uzoqlashdilar, lekin u kishi yana chaqirdi. Payg'ambar ﷺ uning oldiga borganlarida, u dedi: 'Meni ovqatlantiring, chunki och qoldim.' Payg'ambar ﷺ dedilar: 'Sizga kerak bo'lgan narsa shudir.' So'ngra Payg'ambar ﷺ uni Saqif qabilasi asir olgan ikki kishiga almashtirdilar."
Bizning nazarimizda, asirlarni fidya evaziga ozod qilish mumkin, deganlarning dalili al-Jassos maktabi vakillarining qarashini qo'llab-quvvatlovchi dalildan vazniroq va asosliroqdir. Garchi ular fidyaning shakli, ya'ni moliyaviy bo'lishi yoki musulmon asirlari bilan almashtirish bo'lishi haqida ixtilof qilsalar ham. Imom al-Jassos bahsini o'z hanafiy mazhabining qarashini ma'qullash bilan yakunlaydi:
Those who approve of exchange of prisoners and setting enemy prisoners free against financial ransom cite in support of their view the Qur’anic statement: “set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom? This apparently permits setting them free against ransom and in exchange for Muslim prisoners. They also cite the fact that the Prophet set Quraysh prisoners from the Battle of Badr free against financial ransom. As for the permissibility of an exchange of prisoners, they cite in support a hadlth reported by ‘Imran ibn Husayn: “TheThaqif tribe took two Companions of the Prophet prisoner, and the Muslims took a man from the tribe of ‘Amir ibn Sa'sa'ah prisoner. The Prophet passed by this prisoner when he was tied up, and the man called him. The Prophet went to him. He asked: ‘Why am I taken prisoner?’ The Prophet said: ‘Because of your allies’ offence.’ The man said: ‘But I am a Muslim.’ The Prophet replied: ‘Had you said this when you were free, you would have greatly prospered.’ The Prophet moved away, but the man called him again. When the Prophet went to him, he said: ‘Feed me, for I am hungry.’ The Prophet said: ‘This is what you need.’ The Prophet then exchanged him for the two men taken captive by the Thaqif.” In our view, the evidence in support of those who say that prisoners of war may be set free against ransom is weightier and more valid than that stated in support of the view of al-Jassas’s school. This is true even though they differ concerning the form of ransom and whether it is financial or in exchange with Muslim prisoners of war. Imam al-Jassas concludes his discussion by endorsing the view of his Hanafi school of Islamic law:
Oyat ichidagi mahbuslarni inoyat yuzasidan yoki fidya evaziga ozod qilish haqidagi zikr, shuningdek Badr jangida mahbuslarga nisbatan qilingan ish haqida rivoyat qilinganlar — bularning barchasi quyidagi Qur’on oyati bilan mansux qilingan: “Mushriklarni topgan joyingizda o‘ldiringlar, ularni asirga oling, qamang va har bir yo‘l-yo‘lakayda ularni poylab turinglar. Agar tavba qilsalar, namoz o‘qisalar va zakot bersalar, yo‘llarini ochib qo‘yinglar” (9:
As for the mention in this verse of freeing prisoners as an act of grace or against ransom, along with what is reported of the action concerning the prisoners during the Battle of Badr, all this is abrogated by the Qur’anic verse that says: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakat, let them go their way” (9:
5) Biz bu qarash al-Suddiy va Ibn Juray̅j qarashi ekanini zikr qildik. Nasxning yana bir dalili shu oyatdir: «Kitob berilganlardan bo‘lib, Allohga ham, Oxirat kuniga ham ishonmaydigan, Alloh va Uning Elchisi haram qilgan narsalarni haram qilmaydigan hamda haq dinga e’tiqod qilmaydiganlar bilan — ular o‘z qo‘llari bilan jizya bergan holda xor bo‘lguncha — jang qilinglar» (9:29). Ikkala oyat ham kofirlarga qarshi, ular Islomni qabul qilguncha yoki jizya, ya’ni soliq to‘lamaguncha, jang qilish vojibligidan dalolat beradi. Ularni fidya evaziga ozod qilish esa bunga zid. Qur’on sharhchilari va hadis olimlarining barchasi 9-sura — “Tavba”ning 47-sura — “Muhammad”dan keyin nozil bo‘lganiga ittifoq qilganlar. Demak, uning bayon qilgan hukmlari, jumladan, fidya evaziga ozod qilish hukmi ham, undan oldingi hukmlarni bekor qiladi.
5) We have mentioned that this is the view of al-Suddl and Ibn Jurayj. Further confirmation of the abrogation is seen in the verse that says: “Fight against those who — despite having been given Scriptures - do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, and do not treat as forbidden that which God and His messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, till they [agree to] pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled.” (9: 29) Both verses speak of the duty to fight against the unbelievers until they accept Islam or pay tribute, or jizyah. To free them against ransom runs contrary to this. All commentators on the Qur’an and scholars of hadith agree that Surah 9, Repentance, was revealed later than Surah 47, Muhammad, which means that the rulings it states abrogate the earlier ones including that of freeing them against ransom.
Biz allaqachon bildirdikmiz: butparastlarni Islomni qabul qilmasalar o'ldirish haqidagi bu hukm faqat Arabiston yarim orolida yashovchi butparastlarga taalluqlidir.
We have already stated that this ruling to kill idolaters unless they adopt Islam is specific to idolaters living in the Arabian Peninsula.
Boshqalar, ya'ni musulmon davlatidan tashqarida yashayotganlar ham musulmon davlatida yashab, jizya to'lashlari mumkin, xuddi avvalgi dinlarga ergashuvchilardan jizya qabul qilinganidek. Ular musulmon davlatining hokimiyatiga bo'ysunganda ulardan jizya qabul qilinishi, ularning bunday bo'ysunishdan oldin asirga tushib qolishlariga to'sqinlik qilmaydi. Bunday asirlarga qanday hukm qo'llaniladi, degan savol tug'iladi. Biz aytamizki, musulmon hokimi, agar bu musulmonlar jamoasining manfaatlariga xizmat qilishini aniqlasa, ularni marhamat yuzasidan ozod qilishi mumkin. U ularni moliyaviy to'lov evaziga yoki musulmon asirlar almashinuvi orqali ham ozod qilishi mumkin, agar ularning xalqi hali ham jangovar kuchga ega bo'lsa va dushmanlik munosabatida qolsa. Dushman jizya to'lash evaziga musulmon davlatiga nisbatan dushmanlikdan voz kechganda, aniq belgilangan hukmlarga ega boshqacha vaziyat qo'llaniladi. Bu shuni anglatadiki, jizya to'lash bilan hal etilmagan holatlarda urush asirlari haqidagi hukm amal qilishda davom etadi.
Others living outside it can live in the Muslim state and pay a tribute, just like the payment of tribute is accepted from followers of earlier religions. That the tribute is accepted from them when they submit to the rule of the Muslim state does not preclude that some of them may fall prisoner before such submission. What ruling applies to such prisoners, then? We say that a Muslim ruler may free them by an act of grace if he determines that this serves the interests of the Muslim community. He may also free them against financial ransom or in exchange for Muslim prisoners, when their people continue to have a fighting force and remain hostile. When the enemy renounces hostility by agreeing to pay tribute to the Muslim state, a different situation applies with clearly specified rulings. This means that the ruling concerning prisoners of war continues to be valid in cases that are not settled by the payment of tribute.