If the protected non-Muslim subjects (ahl al-dhimma) claim they paid their jizya (poll tax) to them (7), their statement is not accepted without proof, because they are not considered trustworthy. Furthermore, what is required of them is a compensation, not an act of benevolence (muwasa), so their statement is not accepted, just like the rent of a house. It is possible that their statement would be accepted if a year has passed, because the outward appearance is that the rebels would not leave the jizya for them. Thus, the statement is theirs because the outward appearance is in their favor, and because if many years have passed, it would be difficult for them to provide proof for every year, which would lead to them being fined the jizya twice. If one who owes the kharaj (land tax) claims to have paid it to them, there are two views: one is that it is accepted, because it is an obligation upon a Muslim, so his statement regarding it is accepted just like Zakat. The second is that it is not accepted, because it is compensation, so it resembles the jizya. If the one who owes the kharaj is a protected non-Muslim subject, then it is like the jizya, because it is compensation on a non-Muslim, so it is like the jizya; and because it is one of the two types of kharaj, it resembles the jizya.

1537 - Issue: He said: (The judgment of their judge shall not be overturned, except for what would be overturned from the judgment of any other).

Meaning, if the rebels appoint a judge who is fit for the position of a judge, his judgment is the same as the judgment of a judge (1) of the people of justice. His judgments that are effective from the judgments of a judge (2) of the people of justice are effective, and what is rejected from them is rejected. If he is someone who deems the blood and property of the people of justice to be lawful, his judgment is not permissible, because he is not upright (adl). This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: His judgment is not permissible under any circumstances, because the rebels become sinful (fasiq) through their rebellion, and sinfulness contradicts the position of a judge. Our position is that this is a disagreement in branches of law based on a plausible interpretation, so it does not prevent the validity of the judgment, nor is one made sinful by it (1), like the disagreement of the jurists. Once this is established, if he judges according to something that does not contradict [a text or] (3) consensus, his judgment is effective. If he contradicts that, his judgment is overturned; [because when a judge of the people of justice judges with that, his judgment is overturned] (3), so the judge of the rebels is even more so. If he judges...