Abu al-Khattab said: In my view, it is not permissible for him to remain for a year without Jizya (poll tax). This is the opinion of al-Awza'i and al-Shafi'i, based on the saying of Allah, the Exalted: {until they give the Jizya willingly while they are humbled} [Surat al-Tawbah: 29]. The reasoning for the first [opinion] is that this is a disbeliever for whom residence in the Abode of Islam was permitted without the obligation of Jizya, so no Jizya is required of him, like women and children. Furthermore, if the messenger was among those from whom it is not permissible to take Jizya, the year and what is less than it are equal regarding the fact that Jizya is not taken from him in either duration. Thus, if his residence is permitted in one of them, it is permitted in the other, by analogy to it. As for His saying, the Exalted: {until they give the Jizya}, it means they commit to it, and He did not mean the actual paying of it; this is specified by consensus, as it is permissible for him to reside without committing to it. Furthermore, the verse is specified by [cases of] less than a year, so we make an analogy based on the specified case.

Section: If a belligerent (harbi) enters the Abode of Islam with safe conduct, and entrusts his wealth to a Muslim or a Dhimmi, or lends it to them, then returns to the Abode of War, we examine: if he entered as a merchant, or a messenger, or for recreation, or for a need he fulfills and then returns to the Abode of Islam, then he remains under his safe conduct regarding his person and his wealth, because he did not exit with that [intention] the intention of residing in the Abode of Islam, so he is like a Dhimmi who enters for such reasons. If he entered to settle, the safe conduct is void regarding his person but remains for his wealth, because by entering the Abode of Islam with safe conduct, safe conduct was established for his wealth which is with him; so when it is void regarding his person by his entering the Abode of War, it remains for his wealth, because the voiding factor is restricted to his person, so the voiding is restricted to it. If it is said: The safe conduct is only established for his wealth as a consequence (taba'), so when it is void for the primary (matbu'), it is void for the consequence, we say: Rather, safe conduct is established for it due to a meaning found in it, which is his bringing it with him, and this necessitates the establishment of safe conduct for it, even if it is not established for his person, evidenced by if he sent it with a mudarib (partner in a profit-sharing venture) of his or an agent, for then the safe conduct is established for it even if it is not established for his person.