How can we know whether the followers of a certain religion can become Dhimmis? For example: In the hypothetical case that any neo-Pagan movement ever becomes large enough in a Muslim country or that a country that already has a large neo-Pagan community (like in Europe) ever becomes Muslim majority could they attain the same status as Zoroastrians and other non-People of the Book attained? And would it make any difference if the movement itself claims to be monotheistic or henotheistic rather than outright polytheistic?

Is a Harbi a person who's at war with Muslims? Or does merely living in a non Muslim state with no treaty make one a Harbi? If a person did not do anything to harm the Muslims can he be considered a Harbi?

- As per 9:5, Jihad is warranted against all Mushrikin (except Daar al-'Ahd) - As per 9:7, It is said that only Mu'ahadat made at al-Masjid al-Haram are valid - As per 9:28, Mushrikin are not allowed to come near al-Masjid al-Haram Mushrikin includes all non-Muslims, but Ahl al-Kitab has the option of paying Jizya to become Ahl al-Dhimma as per 9:29. But that doesn't explain formation of a Mu'ahadah to become Daar al-'Ahd. As per Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 9:6, the Ahl al-Harb are allowed to come in to Daar al-Islam as Musta'min to make Mu'ahadat with the Muslims. > In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, **to negotiate a peace treaty**, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary. How is this possible if al-Masjid al-Haram is off limits? As per the Tafsir Tazkirul Quran by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, no further treaty was signed with the Ahl al-'Ahd (Banu Kinana, Banu Khuza’a, Banu Dhamra) after the expiry of their treaties. That seems about right. So, are Muslims not violating the Islamic Ahkam by having Mu'ahadat signed with Mushirikin? That too, being not in fixed terms. What are the views on the matter by the Madhaahib? Is this only done strategically and by breach of Ahkam for the greater purpose of calling more people to Islam?

Does the hudna (هدنة) has a base in the religion or it is a secular term? I have searched for it on google and got the Wikipedia information which is not informative enough to what I'm looking for.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “Whoever harms a non-Muslim citizen, I will be his enemy on the Day of Resurrection.” I just want to ask what is the source of this hadith Bukhari , muslim or something else

said Allah: > So (do) not weaken and call for peace while you (are) superior (47.35) And Said Allah: > And if they incline to peace, then you (also) incline to it(8.61) And of course there can never be contradiction in Quran But I do not know how to reconcile these two commands

Breaking promises is obviously haraam in general, but the Harbi is the one who is at war against the Muslims, and > Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: “War is deceit" **[ [Sunnah ref: Sahih Bukhari 3029](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3029) ]** So does this mean its okay to be deceitful in promises with those at war with muslims? For example, promising a Harbi protection but then just ending him anyway.

I barely know anything about Najran because I could not find many authentic sources on them and their dealings with the Prophet pbuh. What I want to know is whether they were Dhimmah or lived with the prophet and the muslims based on some other treaty. I am especially interested in the details of the _first_ interactions between the Prophet and Najran. thanks