(1) The statements of the Prophet and of Shaykh al-Islam concern a single case: when Muslim forces lay siege to unbelievers during an open war. It is therefore illegitimate to extend these texts so as to permit launching war against Muslim encampments inside Muslim lands, to sanction rebellion against the lawful Muslim ruler, or to target civilian, residential, or commercial buildings that contain Muslims, or non-combatant ahl al-dhimma (contracted non-Muslims). To liken such acts to the classical problem of using human shields (*tatarus*) is a corrupt analogy and a bankrupt opinion—an obvious misguidance to any fair-minded seeker of truth. Ibn Abd al-Barr, after citing this hadith in his work Al-Istidhkar (5/25), writes: “The report of al-Saʿb ibn Jaththama, and others like it that speak of night raids and surprise attacks, contains no mention of a Muslim being used as a shield. Malik’s position is the soundest, for Allah has declared the blood of the Muslim inviolable without restriction as to place or circumstance.” I add—may Allah protect you—that one of the hallmarks of the people of passion and innovation is that they cling to the ambiguous portions of the speech of Allah, His Messenger, and the scholars while abandoning the clear, decisive texts. Shaykh al-Islam, discussing the cause of mankind’s deviations in Al-Jawab al-Sahih (2/715), says: “Among the reasons for the misguidance of the Christians and others who go to extremes—such as certain ascetics and the Shiʿa—is that they seized upon equivocal, ambiguous, problem-laden expressions transmitted from the prophets and turned away from the explicit, unambiguous wording.”