بَابُ قِسْمَةِ الْغَنَائِمِ وَالْغُلُوْلِ فِيْهَاThe Distribution of Spoils and Misappropriation (Ghulul)

¹ The statement: “The fire came and consumed it, etc.”: If you ask: What is the wisdom in the fire consuming their spoils but making them lawful for us? I say: For them, it was to ensure their fighting was not for spoils due to their lack of sincerity. For this nation, spoils were made lawful because sincerity predominates among them, needing no additional incentive. As stated in (‘Umdat al-Qari).

² The statement: “Mentioned misappropriation, etc.”: Al-Nawawi reported a consensus that misappropriation is a major sin. As stated in (‘Umdat al-Qari).

¹ The statement: “Only the believers enter Paradise”: Ibn al-Malik said: In customary usage, a believer is one who believes in Muhammad (ﷺ) and what he brought. One who misappropriates is as if he did not believe him, failing to act on his belief, so the Prophet (ﷺ) did not count him among the believers to deter others. As stated in (Al-Mirqat).

¹ Scholars differed on the punishment for misappropriation. The majority said: He is disciplined according to his situation as the leader sees fit, but his belongings are not burned. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Shafi‘i, Malik, and many Companions, Successors, and later scholars. They interpreted the Hadith as a warning, not an obligation. Bukhari said: Several Hadiths about misappropriation do not mention burning belongings. Al-Hasan, Ahmad, Ishaq, Mukhawwal, and Al-Awza‘i said: His saddle and belongings are burned, except, per Al-Awza‘i, his weapons and clothes, and per Al-Hasan, animals and the Qur’an. The Hadith from Ibn Umar via Amr about burning the misappropriator’s saddle is narrated solely by Salih ibn Muhammad, weak from Salim. The Prophet (ﷺ) did not burn the belongings of the one with the beads or cloak. As stated in (‘Umdat al-Qari) and (Al-Mirqat).

¹ The statement: “A man brought one or two sandal straps, etc.”: Scholars agree the misappropriator must return what he took to the distributor before the army disperses. They differed on what to do after dispersal. Some said: He gives the fifth to the leader and gives the rest in charity. This is the view of Al-Hasan, Malik, Al-Awza‘i, Al-Layth, Az-Zuhri, Ath-Thawri, Ahmad, Ibn Mas‘ud, Ibn Abbas, and Mu‘awiyah. Shafi‘i said: If he owns it, he need not give it in charity; if not, he cannot give away another’s property. It must be given to the leader like lost property.

² The statement: “I will not accept it from you”: Because misappropriation was not confirmed, per Imam Muhammad in (As-Siyar al-Kabir).

¹ The statement: "The woman only gets what her imam willingly gives her." The summary of what is in the explanation of As-Sir al-Kabir is that the term "anfal" in the terminology of jurists refers to what the imam allocates to some of the warriors, and this act is called tanfil, and that wealth is called nafl. There is no disagreement that tanfil is permissible before the spoils are acquired to encourage fighting, as it is an instructed act known as incitement, based on the words of Allah Almighty: O Prophet, urge the believers to fight [Al-Anfal: 65]. This address is to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and to everyone who takes his place. Brave warriors rarely risk their lives if they are not singled out with something from the spoils. When the imam allocates something to them, it motivates them to risk their lives and confront the enemy’s onslaught. According to our view, the killer does not deserve the spoils without the imam’s tanfil. According to Shafi’i, whoever kills a polytheist in single combat, while advancing and not retreating, deserves his spoils, even without prior tanfil from the imam, because the statement of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): "Whoever kills an enemy has his spoils" establishes a legal ruling. Such a statement from the lawgiver clarifies the cause, like his saying (ﷺ): "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." However, we say: Even if the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said this in Madinah in the presence of his companions, it was not reported except after the need for incitement arose. Malik ibn Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "It has not reached us that the Prophet (ﷺ) said in any of his battles: 'Whoever kills an enemy has his spoils,' except on the Day of Hunayn, and that was after the Muslims were defeated and there was a need to incite them to charge, as Allah Almighty said: Then you turned back, fleeing [At-Tawbah: 25]." Muhammad ibn Ibrahim at-Taymi mentioned that he said it on the Day of Badr and Hunayn as well. The need for incitement on the Day of Badr was evident, so we understand that he said it as a form of tanfil for incitement, not as a general legal ruling. This is supported by what Abdullah ibn Shaddad reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) was besieging and distributing villages. A man came to him and asked about the spoils. He said: "For Allah Almighty is a share, and for these four." The man said: "What about the spoil a man takes?" He said: "If you are struck in your side with an arrow, you are no more entitled to it than your Muslim brother." This is clear evidence that the killer is not entitled to the spoils without tanfil. This is agreed upon by the scholars of Iraq and Hijaz. Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "There is no tanfil after securing the spoils." This is the view of the scholars of Iraq and Hijaz, while the scholars of Sham permit tanfil after securing the spoils, and among those who held this view is Al-Awza’i. Our view invalidates their opinion because tanfil is for inciting fighting, which occurs before acquiring the spoils, not after. Tanfil is to establish exclusive allocation initially, not to nullify an established right of the warriors or the right to the fifth for its recipients. Tanfil after acquiring the spoils nullifies an established right. Then, he cited the hadith of Al-Hasan regarding the rein, that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for a rein of hair from the spoils, and he said: "Woe to you, you have asked me for a rein of fire," [the rest of the hadith]. And by the hadith of Mujahid, that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) with a tuft of hair from the spoils and said: "Grant me this." He said: "As for my share of it, it is yours." And by the hadith of Abu al-Ash’ath as-San’ani, who said: A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) with a rein of hair [the rest of the hadith].

² The statement: "This is a good hadith due to its multiple narrations." It is mentioned in Al-Fath that the hadith is weak, but its weakness does not harm it, as we take it as supporting evidence for one of the possible interpretations of the hadith about spoils, namely the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): "Whoever kills an enemy has his spoils," by interpreting it as tanfil. Not every weak hadith is false, and when weak hadiths have multiple chains, they can rise to the level of hasan, making it likely that it refers to tanfil. The full verification of this matter is in Radd al-Muhtar.

³ The statement: "He said: Both of you killed him, then he awarded the spoils to Mu’adh ibn Amr ibn al-Jamuh." The evidence is that if the spoils belonged to the killer, they would have been divided between them. The fact that he (ﷺ) gave it to one of them indicates that the matter is delegated to the imam. This is stated in Nasb ar-Rayah.

⁴ The statement: "Abu Talhah killed..." In Al-Marqah, it is said: Ibn al-Malik said: Shafi’i used the hadith of Abu Qatadah to argue that the spoils belong to the killer. Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The spoils do not belong to the killer unless the imam grants tanfil. The hadith is interpreted as tanfil to reconcile it with another hadith: "You have no right to the spoils of your killed enemy except what your imam willingly gives." Al-Taybi said in Sharh al-Mishkat: Shafi’i is supported by the hadith of Awf ibn Malik in the second section, as it is absolute, and the default is the absence of restriction. I say: There is no doubt that he (ﷺ) said it in the hadith of Abu Qatadah after the battle, but it is possible that it was a reiteration of what he said before. As for the hadith of Awf, it awards the spoils to the killer with restriction. As for the hadith of Anas in the second section, narrated by Ad-Darimi, he said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said on that day, meaning the Day of Hunayn: "Whoever kills a disbeliever has his spoils."

¹ The statement: “He gave the horseman two shares and the foot soldier one share”: Scholars differed on the entitlement of fighters, whether foot soldiers or horsemen. A foot soldier receives one share by consensus. For a horseman, Abu Hanifah and Zufar say he and his horse get two shares. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad say he gets three shares, one for himself and two for his horse, this being the view of Shafi‘i, Malik, and Ahmad. The majority cite the Hadith of Ibn Umar and similar narrations. Abu Hanifah relies on this Hadith of Mujammi‘ ibn Jariyah. As for Ibn Umar’s Hadith, it does not specify when that division occurred, before or after Khaybar. If before, it could be abrogated; if it was discretionary, the Prophet (ﷺ) could divide as he wished, or it could be tanfil (extra allocation), so it is not conclusive. For further details, refer to (Badhl al-Majhud), which is valuable in this context.

² The statement: “Al-Hafiz Shams ad-Din, etc.”: Abu Dawud weakened the Hadith without evidence. As stated in (Badhl al-Majhud).

¹ The statement: “They do not receive a share unless they are given a discretionary portion”: Ibn al-Humam said: No share is given to a slave, woman, child, or dhimmi, but they may receive a discretionary portion (radkh), which is less than a share, as determined by the leader. This applies whether the slave fights with or without his master’s permission. Per Hanafis, radkh is taken from the spoils before the fifth, as per Shafi‘i and Ahmad. In another view, narrated from Ahmad, it is from four-fifths. Shafi‘i, in one view, says from one-fifth of the fifth. Malik says from the fifth. A slave receives radkh only if he fights, as do a child or dhimmi, as they are capable of fighting if the child is able. For women, they receive it for fighting or serving the army, even without fighting, as they are incapable of it, so service substitutes. As stated in (Al-Mirqat).

¹ The statement: “We ate without taking them for division”: In (Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar) and (Radd al-Muhtar): Fighters may use fodder, food, firewood, weapons, and oil in the land of war without division, as per (Al-Kanz). (Al-Wiqayah) restricts weapons to need, which is correct. In (Ad-Durr al-Muntaqa): (Fath al-Qadir) states using weapons, mounts, or horses is permissible only if needed, e.g., if one’s horse dies or sword breaks. Using them to preserve one’s own is impermissible and sinful, but no compensation is owed if damaged. For food and similar items, (As-Siyar as-Saghir) requires need, which is analogy-based, but (As-Siyar al-Kabir) does not, which is istihsan (preferred), as do the three Imams. Both rich and poor may partake. As in (Ash-Sharnablaliyyah). Istihsan is preferred here, as chosen by the author of (Al-Multaqa), and is correct.

¹ The statement: “The fifth was not taken from what they ate”: Per (Al-Mirqat): This refers to what they consumed. In (Badhl al-Majhud): Likely, they ate only what they needed, leaving nothing for the fifth or division. In (Al-Hidayah): There is no harm in the army using fodder, eating found food, using firewood, oil for anointing, or weapons for fighting in the land of war without division if needed. They may not sell or accumulate wealth from it. Using clothes or items without need before division is disliked.

¹ The statement: “Until we returned to our abodes, etc.”: “Abodes” refers to their dwellings during campaigns. Ibn al-Humam said: When Muslims leave the land of war, they may not use or eat from the spoils, as the necessity has ended. The permissibility in the land of war was due to need. After securing, rights are confirmed, unlike before removal. Excess food or fodder must be returned to the spoils if undivided in the land of war per conditions. If used after securing but before division, its value is repaid. This is the view of Malik, Ahmad, and Shafi‘i in one opinion. Another view from Shafi‘i likens it to a scout who takes something and keeps it. We say: Spoils are tied to the fighters’ rights, and exclusivity was for need, which has ended, unlike a scout, whose right persists. After division, the rich give it or its value in charity if sold; the poor may use it, as it becomes like lost property due to the impossibility of returning it to dispersed fighters. If consumed, nothing is owed. The value of what was used after securing is given in charity by the rich, not the poor. As in (Al-Mirqat).

² The statement: “I obtained a sack of fat, etc.”: Ibn al-Malik said: This shows fighters may take needed food from the spoils. Eating food and using fat for the body or lamps are equivalent. As in (Al-Mirqat).

³ The statement: “Should not ride an animal, etc.”: This applies when not needed. If needed, e.g., if his horse dies in battle and he takes an enemy’s horse to fight, or wears clothes due to cold, it is permissible. When the need ends, it is returned to the spoils. As in (Badhl al-Majhud).

¹ The statement: “Prohibited buying spoils until they are divided”: In (Al-Hidayah) and (Al-Binayah): Selling spoils before division in the land of war is impermissible, as ownership is not established. Shafi‘i disagrees, saying it is permissible, as ownership begins with capture. Per Hanafis, ownership is not established until secured in the land of Islam.

² The statement: "He only allocated shares for them, etc.": It is stated in (Mercy of the Ummah): They agreed that if the spoils were divided and taken possession of, and then reinforcements arrived, the reinforcements would have no share in it. However, if the reinforcements arrived after the battle ended but before the spoils were taken to the abode of Islam or before they were divided, Abu Hanifa said: They are entitled to a share as long as the spoils have not been taken to the abode of Islam or divided. Malik and Ahmad said: They are not entitled to a share in any case. As for Shafi‘i, there are two opinions: one that they are entitled to a share, and the other that they are not. Ibn al-Humam said: If reinforcements join in the abode of war before the spoils are taken to the abode of Islam, according to Shafi‘i, there are two opinions about whether the reinforcements share in the spoils. What we mentioned is based on the premise that ownership is not complete for those who acquired the spoils until they are taken to the abode of Islam. Thus, it is permissible for the reinforcements to share in them if there is evidence for it. The right of the reinforcements is not cut off except by three things: taking the spoils to the abode of Islam, dividing them in the abode of war, or the leader selling the spoils before the reinforcements arrive. This is based on our established principle that confirms or negates the right. As for what Shafi‘i cited as evidence from [Narrated by Bukhari] from Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent Aban on an expedition toward Najd. Aban and his companions arrived at Khaybar after the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had conquered it, and he did not allocate shares for them. There is no evidence in this, because the arrival of reinforcements in the abode of Islam does not necessitate their participation, and Khaybar became an abode of Islam immediately upon its conquest. Thus, their arrival occurred when the spoils were already in the abode of Islam.

¹ The statement: “Gave him a share”: Abu Hanifah cited this to argue the leader may give shares to those absent for a need he assigned. As in (Nayl al-Awtar). At-Tahawi said: Likewise, anyone absent from a battle due to a task assigned by the leader, like fighting elsewhere or fetching weapons or men from the land of Islam, shares in the spoils as if present, even if they do not return until after the spoils are taken. Similarly, one intending to join but assigned another task by the leader shares as if present. Abu Hurayrah’s Hadith suggests Aban was sent to Najd before Khaybar’s preparations, so his absence was not a task assigned to miss Khaybar, unlike one intending to join but reassigned.

¹ The statement: “He gave me two shares, a horseman’s and a foot soldier’s”: He gave me a horseman’s share alongside a foot soldier’s because most of the spoils’ recovery was due to Salamah. The leader may give extra from the fifth, not the Muslims’ shares, to one who exerts great effort. He did not give all due to no prior tanfil before the battle. Post-battle tanfil is from the fifth, as detailed by As-Sarakhsi. As in (Al-Mirqat), (Fath al-Qadir), and (Radd al-Mukhtar).

¹ The statement: “No tanfil except after the fifth”: This indicates that he did not give Abu al-Juwayriyah extra from the dinars due to the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying, which prohibited tanfil before the fifth. This suggests tanfil comes from the four-fifths for the fighters, as per the previous Hadith. The jar was likely considered fay’ (booty returned to the treasury), so no tanfil was given from it. As in (Al-Mirqat). In (Bidayat al-Mujtahid): Scholars agree the leader may give tanfil to whomever he wishes beyond their share.

² The statement: “Would give tanfil to some he sent on expeditions, etc.”: In (As-Siyar al-Kabir): This tanfil involves saying, “Whoever kills an enemy gets his spoils,” or “Whoever captures a captive keeps him,” as the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered announced on Badr and Hunayn. Or, he sent an expedition, saying, “You get a third of what you take after the fifth,” or left it unrestricted. If unrestricted, they get a third of the spoils before their exclusive share, sharing the rest with the army after the fifth. If specified, the spoils are divided after the fifth, with a third exclusively for them, and they share the rest with the army. Elsewhere, it says: If the leader sends an expedition from the land of Islam and assigns a third after or before the fifth, this tanfil is invalid, as it only cancels the fifth or the horseman’s preference over the foot soldier, which is impermissible. In the land of war, tanfil allocates a specific portion to them, as the army shares the spoils, making it valid. As in (Radd al-Muhtar): Though this cancels the fifth for spoils, the intent is encouragement, prioritizing those who cancel the army’s share in spoils, and the fifth’s cancellation follows. What cannot be intended directly may follow indirectly.

¹ The statement: “Give a quarter for the initial engagement and a third for the return”: If a group from the army engages the enemy before the army arrives, they get a quarter of the spoils, with the army sharing three-quarters. If they engage on the return from battle, they get a third due to greater hardship and risk, with the army sharing two-thirds. The expedition and army share the same goal initially, so reinforcements reach them, unlike the return. As in (Al-Mirqat).

² The statement: “Would give a quarter after the fifth, etc.”: It is recommended for the leader to give fighters extra beyond the fifth, e.g., saying, “Whoever kills an enemy gets his spoils,” or to an expedition, “I assign you a quarter, half, or third after the fifth,” to encourage fighting, as it is urged: “O Prophet, urge the believers to fight” [Qur’an 8:65]. The phrase “after the fifth” is not a condition, as tanfil of the entire spoils is permissible, and this occurred by chance. If the leader assigns the entire spoils to an expedition, it is valid. As in (Sharh al-Kanz).

¹ The statement: “The Prophet (ﷺ) did not give anything to Banu Abd Shams or Banu Nawfal”: Scholars of all schools agree that spoils taken by force from disbelievers are divided into five parts, four for the fighters. They differ on the fifth: some say it is divided into six shares, one for Allah, one for the Messenger, and so on, per the verse’s apparent meaning, with Allah’s share for the Ka‘bah (per Abu al-‘Aliyah), the treasury, or combined with the Messenger’s share. The majority hold that Allah’s mention is for blessing, as it precedes the others, so the fifth is divided into five shares, as the Prophet (ﷺ) did. After his death, Shafi‘i says the Messenger’s share goes to Muslim interests, the leader, or the four categories. Per Abu Hanifah, the Messenger’s and near relatives’ shares ceased at his death, with the remainder for orphans, the needy, and wayfarers, including poor relatives, prioritizing them but excluding their rich. Shafi‘i says they get one-fifth of the fifth, equally for rich and poor, divided among Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, per “and for the near relatives” [Qur’an 8:41], without distinction. Hanafis argue the four Rightly Guided Caliphs divided it into three shares, as stated, and their practice is exemplary. No one objected despite the Companions’ knowledge, making it a consensus. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “O Banu Hashim, Allah dislikes for you people’s filth and impurities, compensating you with one-fifth of the fifth.” Compensation applies to those eligible for the original, i.e., the poor. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave for support, as he said: “They never left me in pre-Islam or Islam,” interlacing his fingers, indicating closeness in support, not kinship. The term “near relatives” can mean blood kinship or affection; here, it is the latter, as the Prophet (ﷺ), son of Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim ibn Abd Manaf, had four ancestors: Hashim, al-Muttalib, Abd Shams, and Nawfal. Uthman was from Abd Shams, Jubayr from Nawfal. At Khaybar, the Prophet (ﷺ) gave one-fifth of the fifth to Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, excluding Uthman and Jubayr, who said: “We do not deny Banu Hashim’s merit due to your position, but we and Banu al-Muttalib are equal.” He replied: “They never parted from me in pre-Islam or Islam,” interlacing his fingers. This shows it was for support, not kinship, as Uthman and Jubayr would have received otherwise. Since support ended with his death, the rich among them lose entitlement. The narration of dividing the fifth into five shares is valid, but the issue is whether it was for their poverty or kinship. The Caliphs’ division shows it was for poverty. The Prophet (ﷺ) was strict with spoils, even taking camel hair, saying: “Nothing of your spoils is lawful for me except the fifth, which is returned to you. Return the needle and thread, for misappropriation is a disgrace on its owner on the Day of Resurrection.” He did not favor relatives with the fifth, including all Muslims in: “The fifth is returned to you,” showing their way is like other poor Muslims, given enough for their needs. As in (At-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyyah), (Al-Hidayah), and (Badhl al-Majhud).

¹ The statement: “Left out a man who impressed me most, etc.”: Al-‘Ayni said: This shows the leader distributes wealth based on the most pressing Muslim interests. As in (‘Umdat al-Qari). Thus, (Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar) says: The remaining fifth is divided into three parts for orphans, the needy, and wayfarers, and may be given to one category.

² The statement: “I see him as a believer,” and he said: “Or a Muslim”: Scholars differ on whether Islam and faith are distinct or united. Ali al-Qari said: The dispute is verbal; the first is linguistic, the second Shariah-based. Some say: They differ conceptually but align in application.

³ The statement: “Your share is in it, etc.”: Per Hanafis, fay’ is not subject to the fifth. Shafi‘i says it is, like spoils, so this Hadith is evidence against him. As in (Al-Mirqat), (Radd al-Muhtar), and (Rahmat al-Ummah). In Nawawi’s (Sharh Muslim), the Qadi said: The first refers to fay’ not fought for with horses or mounts, abandoned or taken by treaty, so “your share” means their right to allocations as fay’ is distributed. The second refers to spoils taken by force, from which the fifth is taken, the rest for the fighters, as meant by “then it is for you,” i.e., the remainder. Some who do not mandate the fifth for fay’ cite this Hadith. Shafi‘i mandates the fifth for fay’, like all scholars do for spoils. Ibn al-Mundhir said: No one before Shafi‘i mandated the fifth for fay’.

¹ The statement: “Regarding what the enemy secured and Muslims recovered, etc.”: If disbelievers overpower Muslims’ wealth, God forbid, and secure it in their land, Shafi‘i says they do not own it, and if Muslims recover it, it returns to its owner before or after division. Abu Hanifah says: If disbelievers gain and secure Muslims’ wealth, the Muslims’ ownership ceases, per Allah’s saying in Surah al-Hashr about fay’ recipients: “For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their wealth” [Qur’an 59:8], calling the Companions who migrated from Makkah to Madinah poor despite owning homes and wealth in Makkah. This indicates disbelievers gained ownership upon capture, making them poor, eligible for charity. Supporting Hadiths include those of Ad-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi from Ibn Abbas, stating if the owner finds it before division, it is his; after division, he takes it by price. At-Tabarani narrated from Jabir ibn Samurah: The enemy took a man’s camel from Banu Sulaym; a Muslim bought it, and its owner recognized it, informing the Prophet (ﷺ), who ordered it returned for the price paid or left as is. Abu Dawud narrated similarly in (Kitab al-Marasil). Ad-Daraqutni, Ibn Adi, and others narrated: Whoever finds his property in fay’ before division gets it; after division, he gets nothing. These narrations support this, as disbelievers’ ownership enables valid sales, and division matters after recovery. One cannot say these narrations are weak, as Shafi‘i noted per Az-Zayla‘i and others, as multiple weak chains strengthen the ruling, especially since the ruling is supported by the Qur’an’s indication. The narrations reinforce this, and their weakness does not harm. The Hadiths in (Chapters of Hajj) by Bukhari, Muslim, and others support this, showing Aqil ibn Abi Talib’s question: “Did the Prophet leave us a home?” Thus, if Muslims recover disbelievers’ taken wealth, the owner gets it before division without cost; after division, by value. “Securing” means ownership requires securing in the land of war, not mere capture. As in (Sharh al-Wiqayah), (‘Umdat al-Qari), (Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar), and (Al-Mirqat).

¹ The statement: “From among those given the Scripture”: This clarifies “those who do not believe in Allah”, meaning the jizyah is imposed on those who believe in a revealed scripture, like Jews who believe in the Torah, Samaritans who believe in the Psalms, and Christians who believe in the Gospel. As in (At-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyyah) and (Sharh al-Kanz).

² The statement: “Say to those who remained behind, etc.”: In (At-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyyah), this verse indicates that apostates and Arab idol-worshippers are not offered jizyah, as stated by exegetes and the author of (Al-Hidayah) in the chapter on fighting: This applies to those from whom jizyah is accepted. For those from whom it is not, like apostates and Arab idol-worshippers, there is no benefit in offering jizyah, as only Islam is accepted from them, per Allah’s saying: “You will fight them, or they will submit” [Qur’an 48:16].