In a debate, someone mentioned that Muslims cannot criticise British colonialists regarding dispossession of land. His reasoning is that conquered land no longer belongs
to the conquered people and they can thus be forced off the land at the discretion of the conquerer. He contends that Sahaabah also did the same.
In general is it permissible for a Muslim ruler to arbitrarily annex privately owned lands from Non-Muslims in the following scenarios:
1.) During war?
2.) In conquered territory after war?
To make my question more specific, you may ignore the following exceptions, if you wish:
1.) The Jews of Khaibar and Christians of Najran.(The Arabian peninsula is the sole territory of Muslims. I have dealt with this.)
2.) Renegades whose property was confiscated
3.) Public Property
4.) Property annexed in the public interest (Property that would have been annexed wheteher it was owned by Muslims or Non-Muslims)
My question is with particular regard to commoners like farmers and ordinary people living in cities, who refused to accept Islam.In my past readings of Islamic history, I have always
assumed that, while sovereignty(governership, rulership, and state property) passed to the Islamic state, individual Non-Muslims were allowed to retain their property in general.
Is this an incorrect assumption?