according to al-Shāfiʿī, the mere fact of disbelief itself renders a person’s blood licit, except that women and children were spared because they are regarded as property for the Muslims)."

• He also said in al-Fatāwā (28/660): "The majority hold that no one is to be put to death except those who assisted the enemy in fighting in some fashion; otherwise he is treated like women and children. Some, however, maintain that sheer disbelief is what makes killing lawful, while revilement is what makes it obligatory—even when a factor that would normally bar fighting, such as a covenant or the person’s womanhood, is present. They therefore forbid, or at least do not permit, killing a non-combatant unbeliever, and this is a fine and subtle position. The basic rule is that human blood is sacrosanct and may only be shed with due right. Killing for mere disbelief is not one of those matters upon which the divine laws—or even the successive phases of a single divine law—are agreed, unlike retributive killing (qiṣāṣ), which all the laws and sound reason concur upon."

• He, may Allah have mercy on him, also stated in the same passage (2/266): "During the Year of the Conquest the Prophet granted safety to all combatants except those guilty of specific crimes. Among those whose blood he declared forfeit—and none besides—was ʿAbd Allah ibn Khatal, which shows that he was not executed merely for disbelief or for taking up arms."

• He likewise said in al-Fatāwā (20/101): "Abū Ḥanīfah held that a disbeliever is fought only on account of his armed hostility; whoever is not hostile is not to be fought. For that reason he accepted jizyah from Arab idolaters who were not People of the Book, and Mālik and Aḥmad agreed with him on this in one of their two reported positions. As for…"