Among them were those who participated at Badr, and they reached a consensus that no hadd-punishment is to be executed upon a man who commits an illicit act of intercourse based on an interpretation of the Qur'an, nor is he to be held liable for property he destroyed based on an interpretation of the Qur'an (7). This is because they are a group protected by fighting, based on a plausible interpretation, thus they do not bear liability for what they destroyed of the other party, just like the people of justice. Furthermore, holding them liable would lead to repelling them from returning to obedience, so it is not legislated, just like holding the people of war liable. As for the statement of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, he retracted it and did not implement it. For 'Umar said to him: 'As for paying blood money for our dead, no; for our dead were killed in the path of Allah Almighty, according to what (8) Allah commanded.' So Abu Bakr agreed with him and returned to his view, and thus it became a consensus that serves as proof for us, and it has not been reported that he held (9) anyone liable for any of that. Tulayha killed 'Ukkashah ibn Mihsan and Thabit ibn Aqram, then he accepted Islam, and he was not held liable for anything (10). Moreover, if liability were mandatory in the case of the apostates, the same would not necessarily apply here; for those are disbelievers who have no [plausible] interpretation, while these are a group of Muslims who have a plausible interpretation, so how can it be valid to equate them with them! As for what some of them destroyed of others outside the state of war, whether before it or after it, the one who destroyed it bears the liability. Al-Shafi'i held this opinion, and it is for this reason that when the Khawarij killed 'Abd Allah ibn Khabbab, 'Ali sent to them: 'Hand over to us [the killers of] 'Abd Allah ibn Khabbab' (11). And when Ibn (12) Muljam killed 'Ali outside the battlefield, he was subjected to retaliation (qisas) for him (13). Is the killing of the rebel mandatory if he kills one of the people of justice outside the battlefield? There are two opinions: The first is that it is mandatory, because he killed by brandishing weapons and spreading corruption on earth, so his killing is mandatory, like a highwayman (14). The second is: It is not mandatory. [And this is the correct view] (15); based on the statement of 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him,