“If the Imām make peace with aliens, or with any particular tribe or body of them, and perceive it to be eligible for the Muslims, there need be no hesitation, because it is said in the Qurʾān: ‘If the infidels be inclined to peace do ye likewise consent thereto,’ and also because the Prophet in the year of the punishment of Eubea, made a peace between the Muslims and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years; peace, moreover is war in effect where the interest of the Muslims requires it, since the design of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace: contrary to where peace is not to the interest of the Muslims, for it is not in that case lawful, as this would be abandoning war both apparently and in effect. It is here, however, proper to observe that it is not absolutely necessary to restrict a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years), because the end for which peace is made may be sometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term. If the Imām make peace with the aliens for a single term (namely, ten years), and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muslim’s interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war after giving them due notice, because, upon a change of the circumstances which rendered peace advisable, the breach of peace is war, and the observance of it a desertion of war, both in appearance and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the forsaking of it is not becoming (to Muslims). It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this case indispensably requisite in such a manner that treachery may not be induced, since this is forbidden. It is also requisite that such a delay be made in renewing the war with them, as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be universally received among them, and for this such a time suffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the same to the different parts of their dominion, since by such a delay the charge of treachery is avoided.
“If the infidels act with perfidy in a peace, it is in such case lawful for the Imām to attack them without any previous notice, since the breach of treaty in this instance originates with them, whence there is no occasion to commence the war on the part of the Muslims by giving them notice. It would be otherwise, however, if only a small party of them were to violate the treaty by entering the Muslim territory and there committing robberies upon the Muslims, since this does not amount to a breach of treaty. If, moreover, this party be in force so as to be capable of opposition, and openly fight with the Muslims, this is a breach of treaty with respect to that party only, but not with respect to the rest of their nation or tribe, because, as this party have violated the treaty without any permission from their prince, the rest are not answerable for their act; whereas if they made their attack by permission of their prince, the breach of treaty would be regarded as by the whole, all being virtually implicated in it.
“If the Imām make peace with the aliens in return for property, there is no scruple; because since peace may be lawfully made without any such gratification, it is also lawful in return for a gratification. This, however, is only where the Muslims stand in need of the property thus to be acquired; for if they be not in necessity, making peace for property is not lawful, since peace is a desertion of war both in appearance and in effect. It is to be observed that if the Imām receive this property by sending a messenger and making peace without the Muslim troops entering the enemy’s territory, the object of disbursement of it is the same as that of jizyah or capitation-tax; that is, it is to be expended upon the warriors and not upon the poor. If, however, the property be taken after the Muslims have invaded the enemy, in this case it is as plunder, one-fifth going to the Imām and the remainder to be divided among the troops, as the property has in fact been taken by force in this instance. It is incumbent on the Imām to keep peace with apostates, and not to make war upon them, in order that they may have time to consider their situation, since it is to be hoped that they may again return to the faith. It is, therefore, lawful to delay fighting with them in a hope that they may again embrace Islām; but it is not lawful to take property from them. If, however, the Imām should take property from them, it is not incumbent upon him to return it, as such property is not in protection. If infidels harass the Muslims, and offer them peace in return for property, the Imām must not accede thereto, as this would be a degradation of the Muslim honour, and disgrace would be attached to all the parties concerned in it; this, therefore, is not lawful except where destruction is to be apprehended, in which case the purchasing a peace with property is lawful, because it is a duty to repel destruction in every possible mode.”
[For K͟halīfah ʿUmar’s treatment of the garrison of Jerusalem when captured, see the treaty given in the article [JERUSALEM].]
JIHĀZ (جهاز). (1) The wedding trousseau of a Muḥammadan wife. Those vestments and furniture which a bride brings to her husband’s house, and which ever remain the property of the wife. (Hidāyah, vol. iii. p. 100.) (2) The word is also used for the shroud of a dead Muslim.
JINĀYAH (جناية), pl. Jināyāt. The legal term for all offences committed against the person, such as murder, wounding, drowning, &c.
JINN (جن). [[GENII].]
JĪRĀN (جيران). “Neighbours.” “If a person make a bequest to his neighbours (jīrān) it includes, according to some doctors, all those houses which are within forty cubits of his house in every direction. Some say it is forty houses on either side of his.” (See Baillie’s Digest of Imāmīyah Law, pp. 216, 246.) [[NEIGHBOURS].]
JIRJĪS (جرجيس). George. St. George of England. The author of the G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah says that, “Jirjīs Bāqiyā is the name of a prophet who was on several occasions killed by his people, and was again raised to life by God, and over and over again instructed and preached the way of God. He is called Bāqiyā on account of his being raised up from the dead.” This seems to be a wild and exaggerated account of the story of George of Cappadocia, who suffered death in the first year of the reign of Julian. It is a mystery how this George ever was admitted into the Christian Calendar at all, and still more marvellous how he became a Muḥammadan prophet as well as the patron saint of England. Jalālu ʾd-dīn as-Suyūt̤ī, in his History of the Temple of Jerusalem, says Jirjīs was at Damascus in the time of Muʿāwiyah the K͟halīfah. [[AL-KHIZR].]
JIZYAH (جزية). The capitation tax, which is levied by Muḥammadan rulers upon subjects who are of a different faith, but claim protection (amān). It is founded upon a direct injunction of the Qurʾān: “Make war upon such of those, to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God or in the last day, and forbid not that which God and his Apostles have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of truth, until they pay tribute (jizyah) out of their hand, and they be humbled.”