or expiation, because the killer had acted on an interpretive judgment. This is the view of most scholars, including al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others.

Some, however, say:

“Rather, they had embraced Islam but had not emigrated. They therefore possessed an inviolability that made killing them sinful, but not one that imposed liability, just like the women and children of belligerent non-Muslims.” This is the view of Abū Hanīfa and some Mālikīs.

Furthermore, the great majority of scholars—including Mālik [and Abū Hanīfa] (1), Ahmad according to the apparent position of his school, and al-Shāfiʿī according to one of his two opinions—hold that when supporters of legitimate authority and rebels fight one another on the basis of interpretive judgments, neither side is liable for any lives (2) or property it destroys belonging to the other during the fighting. (3).

Al-Zuhrī said:

“The civil strife broke out while the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) (4) were still numerous. They unanimously agreed that any loss of life or property resulting from an interpretation of the Quran carried no liability. They treated them (5) as having the same legal status as people of the Age of Ignorance.”

By this, he meant that the killer did not believe he had committed a forbidden act (6). Even if it is said (7), “It is objectively forbidden,” it has been established by the mass-transmitted Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the consensus of the Muslims that if a belligerent unbeliever kills