then thou mayest attack them. In that case, the attack would be justified and would be crowned with success; and they would suffer humiliation and disgrace, by Allah's will."
The opinion of Sufyân ibn-ʿUyainah. This is what Sufyân ibn-ʿUyainah wrote: "We know of no one who made a covenant with the Prophet and violated it, without having the Prophet consider it legal to put him to death, except the people of Makkah. Their case was a favor on the part of the Prophet. Their violation consisted in rendering aid to their allies against the Khuzâʿah, the Prophet's allies. One of the terms stipulated against the people of Najrân was not to practise usury; but when they did practise it, ʿUmar decreed that they be expelled. Thus by 'the consensus of opinion' [Ar. ijmâʿ], he who violates a covenant forfeits the right of being entitled to security."
The opinion of Mûsa ibn-Aʿyan. Mûsa ibn-Aʿyan wrote:—"Similar cases took place in the past, but in each case the governors would grant a period of respite; and so far as I know, none of the early men ever broke a covenant with the Cyprians or any other people. It may be that the common people and the mass among the Cyprians had no hand in what their leaders did. I, therefore, consider it best to abide by the covenant and fulfil the conditions thereof, in spite of what they have done. I have heard al-Auzâʿi say regarding the case of some, who, after making terms with the Moslems, conveyed information about their secret things and pointed them out to the 'unbelievers': 'If they are dhimmis, they have thereby violated their covenant and forfeited their claim on security, making it right for the governor to kill or crucify them, if he so desires; but if they had been taken by capitulation and are not entitled to the Moslem's security, then the governor would cast off their treaty, for Allah loveth not the machinations of the deceivers.'[1]"
- ↑ Cf. Kor., 12: 52.
