As for disbelief occurring after the profession of Islam, it is a distinct legal cause that makes a person’s blood lawful. Hence the apostate is executed even when incapable of fighting, such as a very old man; this is the view of Malik and Ahmad. Although some, like al-Shafi‘i—who holds that sheer disbelief in itself justifies combat—differ, he too maintains that bare disbelief is one cause, while disbelief after Islam is another. A full discussion of these questions lies outside the present scope. (1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah states in Al-Nubuwwat, p. 140: “Unbelievers are to be fought only when they take up arms (hirab), as held by the majority of scholars and as indicated by the Quran and Sunnah, as explained in its proper place.” He likewise writes in Al-Siyasah al-shar‘iyyah, p. 104: “Those who are not people of resistance or fighting—women, children, monks, the very old, the blind, the chronically ill, and the like—are not to be killed according to the majority of scholars unless they actually fight with word or deed. Some, however, allow killing all unbelievers for mere disbelief, except women and children because they are considered spoils for the Muslims; the first view is the correct one.” In Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 28/354 he adds: “An original non-Muslim who is not among the combatants is not to be killed, according to most scholars such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ahmad.” In the same collection, 28/414, he writes: “An original non-Muslim is not to be killed unless he is from the fighting class, according to the majority of scholars, as the Sunnah shows.” And in Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 16/80 he says: “The divine words wa-idha al-maw’udatu su’ilat … bi-ayyi dhanbin qutilat (‘When the infant girl buried alive is asked … for what sin she was killed’; Qur’an 81:8-9) prove that a life may be taken only for a punishable offense.”