Hi Alex

them articles seems to be right, but there is far more to getting a comprehensive view in all of this than a limited opinion of one Scholar, thus we really cannot make a final comprehensive view from this as to what the stance of those madhabs will be; there is a lot more to be taken into consideration, such as peace treaties, enslaving idolators [rather than being killed], and inviting them to Islam before they are fought, and for how long, etc,; also there is the issue of one madhab swtiching to the view of another madhab if it is considered the better and more suitable option, etc, 

but if we were to judge on the assumption that any particular given madhab, will invite the idolators to Islam for a period of time, and warn them of confrontation too, and thereafter declaring war on them. maybe a wisdom of that is that, Islam comes with such compelling arguments and signs of Truth, that after the period of dawah [invitation to Islam], the rejectors of faith should be fought as they have basically chosen to become enemies of their creator; also fighting them might make them give up their rebellious attitude against such an obvious Truth, and the fear of dying and meeting their maker might jolt some sense into them and they might accept Islam due to that, hence saving themselves from an eternity in the fire

but as I say, there is so much more that the Scholars could take into consideration before they adopt a line of action towards idolators, and espeically in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the way of peace treaties and adopting more lenient views is given precedence

hope this helps

Peace

ps: the wisdom of giving the people of the Book dhimmi status maybe that, since the people of the Books religions were originally God-revealed [allthough now distorted] thus they may have more of a disposition where they stand a better chance of gradually coming into Islam  

but ultimately i think it is important to consider that the Hanafi school is one of the recognised valid schools of mainsteam Islam, and it's understanding of this issue is that dhimmi status can be given to a non Arab idolator; if it should be correct that dhimmi status is not given to an Arab idolator, maybe that is because the arab idolators being more closer to Muslims, would have been exposed to Islam so well that their rejection of islam is bound to be a denial of what they know to be the Truth, and thus God may not consider such people to be worth breathing His air

enslaving Arab-idolators may apply too in the traditional fiqh, and the institution of slavery in islam is a rehabilitation institution [where prisoners are rehabilitated and in oerwhelming cases, then freed], where slaves are given unprecedented rights and treated with human dignity and respect and virtually as a member of the Family, thereby exposing them to a most beutifull Message of islam in action; many thousands who were enslaved, ended up converting to Islam...; read about this very effective prisoner rehabilitation system in Islam on the following link:

qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=...

There are Hanbali fiqh books and other Shafi one's too, but not sure wether any are available online; regarding the hanbali modern translations though, one should be carefull that they are not distorted by Wahhabi's, for Wahhabi's claim Imam Hanbal for themselves

The word in Arabic for 'idolator' is 'mushrik' and i think a better translation of it would be 'associator' for it means one who associates partners with Allah, so it dont litterally have to be an idol worshipper, for in Islam all non muslims are considered to be associators, iether by worshipping something else other than the one and only true God; Allah [swt] or iether by rejecting the Message of Islam and thereby associating their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He Directs

In the following verse Allah says:

Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though if she attracts you. And not marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though if he attracts you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the fire but Allah beckons by His grace to the garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His signs clear to mankind; that they may receive admonition�. (al-Baqarah, 221).

And a Muslim scholar explains:

The above verse of the Holy Qur�an along with many other statements of the Qur�an and Sunnah clearly mention the impermissibility of Muslims marrying non-Muslims. Therefore, a marriage between a Muslim and someone from another religion will not be lawful or even valid according to Islam. The exception, however, is mentioned in the following verse:

�(Lawful unto you in marriage are chaste women who are believers and chaste women among the people of the book�. (al-Ma�idah, 5).

Thus, it would be permissible, in principle, for Muslim men to marry women from the people of the book (ahl al-Kitab) namely Christian and Jewish girls.

qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=...

the word actually used for 'unbeliever' in that verse is 'mushrikoun' [the male and female indicator of it] which is the plural of mushrik, thus we can see how they are considered to be all non-muslims; it is only due to another verse giving an exception to the ahli kithab [christian and jews] is it understood that ahli kithab women are allowed for muslim men

the ahli kithab are considered to be mushrikoun as well, but they have also been given the title ahli kithab as they have had a Book revealed to them in the past

Also another decicive evidence of that i'd say is in the following verses:

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. -- Sura 4:48 

Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). -- Sura 4:116

it is seen in the above verses that ALlah never forgives the sin of associating partners with Him [which is called 'shirk'], thus we know from this that anyone who dies whith shirky beliefs or not having repented from shirky actions, is never forgiven and remains in hell forever

“Surely, those who disbelieve and did wrong; God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever.” (Quran 4:168-169)

“Surely, God has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire wherein they will abide for ever.” (Quran 33:64)

“And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever.” (Quran 72:23)

we can see from the above verses that a kaafir [desbeliever] is never forgiven iether, hence this goes to show how desbelief in Islam is synonymous with shirk

Also the fact that only the ahli kithab and idolators are being mentioned in them fiqhy excerpts [the fire-worshippers [zoroastrians?] are regarded to be a group a christian sect I think of the past] makes it seem all the more that what is meant by 'idolator' is all non-muslims other than the ahli kithab [and fire-worshippers]

I think there is no contradiction between what is said in the risala of the Maaliki fiqh, and what is mentioned of that jizya is collected from all non-muslims, but that the latter one is a more comprehensive view; this is what i meant that a limited statement in one fiqh book can be misleading to those without all the contextul knowledge

Sorry Alex i'm in the dark just as you are really regarding the shafi and hanbali fiqh books; some search's did not bring up anything on Hanbali fiqh books apart from some online fiqh sites:

www.ibnfarooq.com/lessons.html

www.scribd.com/doc/8488561/Fiqh-Made-Eas...

www.muhaddith.org/fiqh.html [this one contains download of fiqh of all four madhabs]

the following is a shafi fiqh book in english:

Manual Of Islam (AL-MAQASID) by imam an nawawi

Here is a site that lists the various shafi fiqh books:

www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e24.html 

Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Alex wrote:

Thanks again for all of your help, Abdullah.

 

you are welcome alex, it's the least i could do to help

Alex., let me give you an example of how views can differ from what we read in fiqhy excerpts when they are put into context

A great contemporary [but at the same time, strictly traditional] Shaykh, Shaykh hamza Yusuf who adheres to the Maaliki madhab explained how Islam is to deal with non-muslims in general; he said that there are three abodes in islam, the abode of islam, the abode of war [any non-muslim country who is belligerent against Muslims/Islam and who Muslims do not have a peace treaty with] and the abode of treaty, he further explained the latter by saying that any non-Muslim country that has an embassy in a Muslim country is considered a friendly country and it is not allowed to declare war on that, thus according to Islamic law today, there would bo no jihad and 'dhimmitising' [ I think the site 'dhimmitude' would be interested in this word ] against/of the general non-Muslim world for nearly all of them have diplomatic relations with the Muslim world

He also said that 'jihad' [defensive war] is only against belligerence, thus non-muslims who would rather peacefully co-exist with Muslims have nothing to worry about

so your best bet is to try put in a question to a mainstream Scholar and he will give you a contextual answer

 

Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Alex wrote:

You have certainly given many important insights concerning the outlook of traditional Islam. I’m sure we’ll be in contact on Beliefnet in the future.

 

InshAllah!

 

Peace