一名正在交战的敌对者不得进入伊斯兰之家,除非他被授予保护,即一种特别的入境许可。授予保护即是允许其进入。若他未经保护而进入,则须加以审查。若他携带货物前来伊斯兰之地出售,而国家的惯例恰好允许商人无需保护即可入境,他们不会受到伤害,但其货物将与所有外国货物受到同样的限制和税费,这些税费依据对方施加于我方商人的标准而定;换言之,他们将受到与其对待我方商人相同的对待。进入者将依照惯例获准经商,例如居住在国家边境附近的人便是如此。这些商人可以无需入境许可,即无需保护而入境。然而,若此前并无允许他们以商人身份入境的惯例,或虽有此类惯例但某人进入时并无经商之意,则他将被视同不经商的交战敌对者,其血命与财产在国家境内将不受保护。若他声称自己是来寻求保护的,此说法不予接受。这是因为,授予敌对者保护是他在我方领土内获得其血命与财产安全保障的前提条件,因此若他未被授予保护,国家便不对其安全负责。保护的授予依据现行的惯例进行,且专门针对商人,前提是他们携带有意用于交易的货物。授予敌对者保护,也就意味着保护其财产。 如果他决定在伊斯兰国定居并被授予居住权,之后又决定前往交战国,并将其财产留给一位穆斯林或一位齐米人照管,或将财产借给其中一人,那么在这种情况下,必须考察他离开的原因。如果他是出于私人原因,或作为商人、使者、游客,或因紧急事务而离开,并返回伊斯兰土地,那么给予他本人及其财产的保护仍然有效。这是因为,如果他前往交战国,但意图仍是作为伊斯兰国的居民,那么他就会被视同前往交战国的齐米人,两者适用相同的规定。只要他意图居住在伊斯兰土地上,他前往交战国的行为就不会使他的保护失效。然而,如果他以居民的身份前往交战国,他本人所获得的保护就会失效;若他之后想回到伊斯兰土地,则需要重新申请保护。至于给予其财产的保护,则需要考察。如果他将财产留在伊斯兰土地上,交由一位穆斯林或齐米人照管,那么他的财产仍受保护。这是因为,他一旦到达伊斯兰土地并获得保护,这一保护便同时涵盖他本人及其财产。如果他留下了财产,自己却返回交战国,那么他抵达交战国后,给予他本人的保护便会失效,但留在伊斯兰土地上的财产所享有的保护仍然有效,因为使保护失效的因素仅限于他本人。因此,如果他死亡,他的财产将转移给其继承人,因为保护是与财产相关的一项约束性责任。 因此，如果这些财产被转移给他的继承人，那么对其的保护权也应当转给他的继承人。然而，如果他把自己的财产带走了，他就会失去对他自身及其财产所给予的保护。
A warring belligerent could not enter the Islamic household unless He is given protection i.e. a special entry visa. Giving Him protection means a permission to enter. If He entered without protection it has to be examined. If He entered with commodities to sell in the Islamic land, and the State’s common practice happened to allow traders to enter without protection, they would not be harmed, but their commodities would be subjected to the same restrictions and levies imposed on all foreign commodities, these would be based on what they impose on our traders; in other words, they would be treated the same way they treat our traders. Those who enter would be allowed to trade according to the common practices, as is the case for instance with those who live near the State’s frontiers. These traders would be allowed to enter without an entry visa i.e. without protection. However, if there were no prior common practice allowing them to enter as traders, or such common practice were in force but a person happened to enter with no intention to trade, He would be treated like the non-trading warring belligerent, and his blood and his wealth would not be protected within the State’s territories. If He claimed to have come seeking protection, this would not be accepted of him. This is because giving protection to the belligerent is a condition for Him to deserve the safeguarding of his blood and wealth in our land, so if He were not given protection, the State would not be responsible for his safety. Protection would be given based on the common practice in force concerning and exclusively for the traders, provided they were carrying goods they intended for trade. Giving the belligerent protection would also entail protecting his wealth. If He decided to settle in the Islamic State and were given the right of abode, then He decided to leave to the belligerent country, leaving his wealth behind for a Muslim or for a Dhimmi to look after, or lending it to either of them, it would in this case have to be examined as to the reasons why He left. If He left for personal reasons, or as a trader, an envoy, a tourist or for a pressing matter, and returned to the Islamic land, then the protection He had been given to his person and his wealth would remain in force. This is because if He left to the belligerent country, but with the intention to remain as a resident of the Islamic State, He would be treated like the Dhimmi who leaves to the belligerent country, therefore the same rule would apply to both. His leave to the belligerent country would not nullify his protection as long as his intention is to reside in the Islamic land. However, if He returned to the belligerent country as a resident, his protection for himself would be nullified, and if He wished to return to the Islamic land, He would require a new application for protection. As for the protection given to his wealth, this has to be examined. If He had left it behind in the Islamic land, by leaving it in the care of a Muslim or a Dhimmi, then his wealth would remain protected. This is because once He had reached the Islamic land and was given protection, this protection would cover both his person and his wealth. If his wealth was left behind and He returned by himself to the belligerent country, the protection given to Him would be nullified once He reached the belligerent country, but the protection given to his wealth would remain valid for that which He had left in the Islamic land, due to the fact that the nullifying factor would be restricted to his person only. So if He died, his wealth would be transferred to his inheritors; because the protection is a binding duty related to the wealth. Therefore, if this wealth was transferred to his heirs, so too should the right to protection be given to his heirs. However, if He took his wealth with him, He would lose the protection given to both himself and to his wealth.