It is not permissible for them to be reconciled on that, based on the evidence of what was narrated from Ikrimah, who said: Ibn Abbas said: 'In any garrison city (misr) founded by the Arabs, the non-Arabs (al-'ajam) may not build a synagogue, nor beat a bell therein, nor drink wine, nor possess pigs.' This was narrated by Imam Ahmad and used as an argument. Furthermore, because this land is the property of the Muslims, it is not permissible for them to build gathering places for disbelief. Whatever existed in these lands of synagogues and churches, such as the Roman Church in Baghdad, these were in the villages of the Dhimmis and were thus permitted to remain as they were. The second category is what the Muslims conquered by force. It is not permissible to initiate anything of that nature therein because it has become the property of the Muslims. Regarding what existed there of such things, there are two opinions. One is that it must be demolished, and it is forbidden to keep it, because they are lands owned by the Muslims, so it is not permissible for there to be a church therein, like the lands founded by the Muslims. The second is that it is permissible, because in the hadith of Ibn Abbas: 'Any garrison city founded by the non-Arabs, which God then opened for the Arabs and they settled it, the non-Arabs have what is in their covenant.' Also, because the Companions, may God be pleased with them, conquered many lands by force and did not demolish any of the churches. The existence of churches and synagogues in lands conquered by force bears witness to the validity of this, and it is known that they were not newly built, so it follows that they were already existing and were allowed to remain. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, may God be pleased with him, wrote to his governors not to demolish a synagogue, a church, or a fire temple. Furthermore, consensus has been achieved on that, as they are present in the lands of the Muslims without being denounced. The third category is what was opened by peaceful treaty, and it is of two types. The first is that he reconciles them on the condition that the land is theirs and we receive the kharaj (land tax) from it, so they are allowed to initiate whatever they choose therein because the land belongs to them. The second is that he reconciles them on the condition that the land belongs to the Muslims and they pay the jizya to us, so the ruling regarding the synagogues and churches depends on what the peace treaty stipulates with them regarding initiating such things and maintaining them; because if it is permissible for the peace treaty to be concluded with them on the basis that the entirety belongs to them, it is permissible to...