Section
Abū Hanīfah and his followers held that a free Muslim is put to death for killing a non-Muslim under a covenant of protection or a slave. They relied on the apparent meaning of Allah’s words, mighty and majestic:
“We prescribed for them therein: a life for a life.” [al-Mā’idah: 45]
They also relied on the apparent meaning of Allah Most High’s words:
“Whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed the limits in killing. Indeed, he is supported.” [al-Isrā’: 33]
They said that this applies generally to the killing of anyone whose life is inviolable. They interpreted the Prophet’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “A Muslim is not put to death for killing a disbeliever,” as referring to a disbeliever belonging to an enemy people. All of this is a grave error.
Their reliance on Allah’s words, mighty and majestic, “a life for a life,” is unsound for the reason already explained: this prescription was imposed only upon the people of the Torah. They constitute a single religious community and have neither protected non-Muslim subjects nor slaves as Muslims do, for jizyah is spoils and booty that Allah granted exclusively to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and His believing servants.
Likewise, their reliance on His words, “Whoever is killed unjustly” [al-Isrā’: 33], provides them with no proof. The verse does not apply without exception to everyone killed unjustly. A non-Muslim belonging to an enemy people who has been granted safe-conduct may not lawfully be killed, and whoever kills him wrongs him. Yet they exclude him from the verse’s general scope, holding that a Muslim is not put to death for killing him. They must therefore apply the same reasoning to a non-Muslim under a covenant of protection, but they do not.
They also contradict themselves regarding a master who kills his slave. They say that he is not put to death for killing him, excluding him from the verse’s general scope even though the slave has been wronged by his master’s killing him. They likewise contradict themselves regarding wounds: they say that a free Muslim is put to death for killing a slave or a disbeliever, yet they will not put out his eye for putting out the other’s eye. The same applies to other wounds, although these appear in the same sequence in the verse. They thus claim that one life is equal to another, but one hand is not equal to another. If they mean the physical body, the equality is evident; if they mean the category, the two categories are distinct.
Section
Their interpretation of the Prophet’s statement, peace be upon him, “A Muslim is not put to death for killing a disbeliever,” as referring to a disbeliever belonging to an enemy people is among the most far-fetched interpretations and the most plainly erroneous. Allah has commanded that non-Muslims belonging to enemy peoples be killed and has made this among the best deeds and those most beloved to Him. Could anyone imagine that someone who kills a person whom Allah has commanded him to kill, promising him an abundant reward for doing so, must himself be put to death? Would the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, therefore need to explain to us that retaliation does not apply between us and the people of enemy lands? This is unclear to no one, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, has no need to explain it.