Moreover, imposing death as a discretionary punishment when the desired benefit cannot otherwise be secured is a matter of juristic discretion (1), as in the case of executing a Muslim spy. Scholars hold two well-known views concerning this (2), both of which are found within Ahmad’s school. The first is that [he may be executed; this is Mālik’s school and the view preferred by Ibn Aqīl. The second is that] (3) he may not be executed; this is the school of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfiī, and the view preferred by Judge Abū Yalā and others.

It is reported in the Sahih that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“If someone comes to you while you are united under one man, seeking to divide your community, kill him.” (4)

He also said concerning one who drinks wine: “If he drinks it (5) for the fourth time, kill him.” (6)

Scholars have disagreed over this ruling: was it abrogated or not?

If it were assumed that Umar ordered one of the earliest Emigrants to be put to death, this would have been a permissible exercise of juristic reasoning on his part. It would not have precluded that man from being in Paradise, nor would it have impugned either Umar’s integrity or that man’s admission to Paradise. How, then, when none of this ever occurred?

It is also astonishing that the Rafidah claim that—assuming this report is authentic—those whom Umar ordered to be killed deserved death, with the exception of Ali. If Umar ordered them to be killed, why do they condemn him for it and then say that he was favoring them in the matter of leadership and was ordering