trade, and that we shall host every Muslim traveler for three days and feed them from the best of what we find. We have guaranteed this upon ourselves, our offspring, our wives, and our homes. If we change or violate what we have stipulated upon ourselves and accepted the safe-conduct upon, then there is no protection for us, and what is permissible to you from those who show obstinacy and discord has become permissible to you from us. Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanm wrote of this to Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and Umar wrote to them: 'Grant them what they have asked for, and append two points: stipulate that they shall not purchase anything from our captives, and whoever strikes a Muslim intentionally has nullified his covenant.' Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanm executed this and confirmed those of the Romans who remained in the cities of the Levant upon this condition. These are the general conditions of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him. If they are reconciled upon them, then some of them violate a part of them, the manifest meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that their covenant is nullified by it. This is the apparent meaning of what we have narrated, due to their statement in the document: 'If we violate this, then what is permissible to you from those who show obstinacy and discord has become permissible to you.' And Umar said: 'Whoever strikes a Muslim intentionally has nullified his covenant.' It is also because it is a contract based on a condition; so when the condition is not met, the ruling of the contract ceases, as if he refused to uphold the rulings. The Qadi and al-Sharif Abu Ja'far mentioned that the conditions are of two types: one, by the violation of which the covenant is nullified; these are eleven things: refusing to pay the jizya, refusing to abide by our rulings when a judge rules against them, conspiring to fight the Muslims, committing zina with a Muslim woman, having sexual relations with her under the guise of marriage, tempting a Muslim to abandon his religion, highway robbery against him, killing him, harboring a spy for the polytheists, assisting against the Muslims by guiding the polytheists to their weak points or corresponding with them, and mentioning Allah, His Book, His religion, or His Messenger with evil. The first two points nullify the covenant without disagreement within the school, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i. Fighting the Muslims, whether individually or with the people of war, is included in their meaning, because the implication of the safe-conduct is the opposite of this. So if they do so, they break the safe-conduct, for if they fight us, we are obligated to fight them, and that is the opposite of the safe-conduct. The rest of the conditions have two narrations: one of them is that the covenant is nullified by them, whether it was stipulated upon them or not. The school of al-Shafi'i is close to this, except that what was not stipulated upon them does not nullify the covenant if abandoned, with the exception of the first three points, for their stipulation is definite, and the covenant is nullified by their abandonment in any case. Abu Hanifa said: The covenant is not nullified except by refusal from the Imam in a manner that makes it impossible to collect the jizya from them. Our proof, along with what we have mentioned, is what was narrated that a man was brought to Umar who had attempted to force a Muslim woman [into zina], and he said: 'We did not make peace with you upon this,' and he ordered that he be crucified in Jerusalem. Furthermore, it involves harm to the Muslims, so it resembles the refusal to pay the jizya. In every instance where we stated that his covenant is not nullified, if he commits an act for which there is a hadd penalty, that hadd or qisas (retaliation) shall be carried out upon him. If it does not warrant a hadd, he shall be given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), and he shall be dealt with in a manner that deters others from doing the same. If one of them intends to do such an act, he shall be restrained from it, and if he resists with fighting, his covenant is nullified. Whoever among them we have judged to have nullified his covenant, the Imam is given a choice regarding him among [four things]: killing, enslavement, ransom, or release, like a prisoner of war, for he is a disbeliever whom we have overpowered in our land without a covenant or contract, and without any ambiguity, so he resembles a combatant thief. This is specific to him and does not extend to his offspring, because the violation originated from him, not them, just as if he had committed an act warranting a hadd or ta'zir.