—may Allah slay them! Why did they not ask when they did not know? The cure for ignorance is simply to ask.’” These people erred without exercising qualified scholarly judgment, for they were not people of knowledge.

Likewise, “he did not impose retaliation, blood money, or expiation upon Usāmah ibn Zayd when he killed the man who said, ‘There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah,’ during the al-Hariqāt expedition.” Usāmah believed that killing him was permissible because he considered the man’s acceptance of Islam invalid, even though killing him was forbidden.

The early generations and the majority of jurists applied this principle: when rebels shed the blood of those on the just side, believing it permissible on the basis of a tenable interpretation, they incur no liability for retaliation, blood money, or expiation, even though killing and fighting those people is forbidden.

This condition we have mentioned for a threatened punishment to apply need not be stated in every address, since knowledge of it is firmly established in people’s hearts. Likewise, the promise of reward for a deed is conditional upon its being performed sincerely for Allah and not being nullified by apostasy; yet this condition is not mentioned in every hadith containing a promise.

Furthermore, even when the grounds for a threatened punishment are assumed to be present, an impediment may prevent its application. There are numerous impediments to the application of threatened punishment: repentance, seeking forgiveness, good deeds that erase evil deeds, the trials and afflictions of this world, and the intercession of