some of the companions of al-Shafi'i: Retribution is obligatory upon the Dhimmi for killing him, and the blood money is [obligatory] if he pardons him; because he has no authority to kill him. Some of them said: Retribution is obligatory without the blood money; because he has no value. We argue that he is a person of permissible blood, resembling a Harbi, and because he whom a Muslim does not guarantee, a Dhimmi does not guarantee, like a Harbi.

Section: There is no retribution, blood money, or atonement upon the killer of an adulterer who is muhsan (previously married). This is the manifest school of al-Shafi'i. Some of them narrated a position that the killer owes the qawad (retaliation); because his execution is the prerogative of the Imam, so qawad is obligatory upon whoever kills him other than the authorized one, like the one who is subject to retribution if killed by someone not entitled to it. We argue that he is a person of permissible blood, and his killing is mandatory (mutahattim), so it is not guaranteed, like the Harbi. What they said is invalidated by the case of the apostate, and he is different from the killer [of a standard protected person], for his killing is not mandatory. He is entitled [to be killed] by way of compensation, so it is exclusive to the one entitled to it, whereas here his killing is for Allah the Exalted, so he resembles the apostate. The same ruling applies to the muharib (bandit) whose killing is mandatory.

Section: An apostate is killed for a Muslim and a Dhimmi, and retribution is prioritized over execution for apostasy, because it is the right of a human being. If the guardian of the retribution pardons him, he has the blood money of the slain; if the apostate accepts Islam, it remains as his liability, and if he is executed for apostasy or dies, it attaches to his wealth. If he cuts a limb of either of them, he is also subject to retribution for it. Some of the companions of al-Shafi'i said: An apostate is not killed for a Dhimmi, nor is his limb cut for his limb; because the rulings of Islam remain for him, as evidenced by the obligation of acts of worship upon him and him being held accountable for Islam. We argue that he is a disbeliever, so he is killed for the Dhimmi, like one who is originally a disbeliever. Their statement that "the rulings of Islam remain for him" is incorrect, for his protection (isma), sanctity, the permissibility of marrying Muslim women, the purchase of Muslim slaves, and the validity of acts of worship and others have ceased. As for his being held accountable for Islam, it is an argument against them, as it indicates the aggravation of his disbelief, and that he is not allowed to remain in his apostasy due to his evil state. Thus, if he is killed for a Dhimmi, then [for] someone who is inferior to him it is more appropriate.