both of them are well-known among the scholars.

The first is the position of the majority—Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifah, and others.
The second is the view of al-Shafiʿi, and some of Ahmad’s companions have occasionally argued for it as well.

He says something similar in al-Nubuwwāt (p. 140): “The unbelievers are only to be fought on condition that they are in a state of ḥarāb (armed hostility), as the majority of scholars hold and as the Qur’an and Sunnah indicate—this is set out in detail in its proper place.”

Likewise, he states in al-Fatawa (20/101–102): “Abu Hanifah held that sheer disbelief is not fought unless accompanied by warlike aggression; whoever is free of such aggression is not to be fought. For that reason he accepted jizya from Arab idol-worshippers who were not People of the Book. Malik and Ahmad agreed with him in one of Ahmad’s two reports. Nevertheless, execution may be carried out as a discretionary punishment (taʿzīr), as will be explained elsewhere. As for al-Shafiʿi, mere disbelief itself renders a person’s blood lawful, except that women and children are spared because they are considered property for the Muslims; hence the apostate is put to death because disbelief is present and, in his view, brings no benefit. Ahmad, however, recognizes several factors that make killing permissible. As for the original unbeliever