126 chapter six
standard reference work for Mālikī jurists. In this collection, al- Wansharīsi
considered it impossible for Mudéjares, subject Muslims, to fulfill the ba-
sic requirements of Islam — prayer, alms, fasting, pilgrimage, and jihād —
under Christian rule.^46 In making this claim, he drew upon the precedents
of the Andalusī jurists Ibn Rushd al- Jadd (d. 1126 ) and Ibn Rabī‘ (d.
1319 ), which is to say that his position was neither unique nor extreme, as
has been occasionally argued.^47
Most relevantly, all three of these jurists also spoke with some dis-
dain of Muslim soldiers who served in Christian armies. For instance,
in a section entitled, “Refusal of Jihād (Tamannu‘ al- Jihād),” Ibn Rabī‘
explained, “They [Muslim soldiers in Christian armies] boldly embark
on the very opposite of it [ jihād] (naqīdahu), by supporting their allies
(awlīyā’ihum) against the Muslims, either physically or financially (immā
bi- l- nufūs immā bi- l- amwāl), and thus, they become at that point hostile
combatants (ḥarbiyīn) with the polytheists.”^48 In explaining their views on
the matter, both al- Wansharīsī and Ibn Rushd al- Jadd cited a legal dis-
cussion recorded by the Andalusī jurist al- ‘Utbī (d. 869 ) regarding Mus-
lims who remained in Barcelona after its conquest in 801 :
I [Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā] asked him [Ibn al- Qāsim] about [the case of ] a Muslim from
Barcelona who failed to move away from them [the Christian conquerors] after
the year which had been set [by the Christians as the grace period] for their
departure on the day it [the city] was conquered, and then attacked Muslims
(aghāra ‘alā al- muslimīn), seeking to protect himself, because he feared being
killed if he was defeated [by Muslims retaking the city]. He [Ibn al- Qāsim] said:
I do not see his status as any different from that of the criminal or illegitimate
rebel (al- muḥārib) who steals from Muslims in Islamic territory (dār al- Islām);
this is because he remains within the religion of Islam.^49