it, whether he is a Muslim or a disbeliever, because he is his equal, so it is not permitted for him to protect his own life by destroying him. There is no disagreement on this. If his blood is not protected, such as a combatant (harbi) or an apostate, the Qadi mentioned that it is permissible for him to kill him and eat him, because his killing is permitted. The companions of al-Shafi'i said the same, because he has no sanctity, so he is in the position of wild beasts. If he finds him already dead, it is permissible to eat him, because his eating is permitted after killing him, so it is the same after his death. If he finds a protected person who is already dead, it is not permitted to eat him according to the opinion of our companions. Al-Shafi'i and some Hanafis said: It is permitted, and this is more appropriate, because the sanctity of the living is greater. Abu Bakr ibn Dawud said: Al-Shafi'i permitted eating the meat of prophets. Our companions argued using the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Breaking the bone of a dead person is like breaking the bone of a living person." Abu al-Khattab opted for the view that he may eat it, and said: There is no proof in the Hadith here, because the eating is of the flesh, not the bone, and the intent of the Hadith is to provide a simile regarding the foundation of sanctity, not its extent, as evidenced by their difference regarding compensation (daman), retaliation (qisas), and the necessity of protecting the living in ways that the dead do not need protection from.

1742 - Issue; He said: (If he finds nothing but food whose owner will not sell, he takes it by force to save his life, and pays the price for it, unless the owner is in the same state of necessity as he is.)

The sum of this is that if he is in a state of necessity and finds nothing but the food of another, we must examine the situation. If the owner is in need of it, then the owner has a greater right to it, and it is not permissible for anyone to take it from him, because he is equal to him in necessity and he is the sole owner, so it resembles the case where there is no necessity. If someone takes it from him and the owner dies, the taker is liable for compensation because he killed him without right. If the owner is not in need of it, he is obligated to provide it to the one in necessity because it pertains to saving the life of a protected human being. Therefore, he is obligated to provide it to him, just as he is obligated to provide his services to save him from drowning or fire. If he refuses, the one in necessity may take it from him because he has a better right to it than its owner, so it is permissible for him to take it, just as in the case of property belonging to others. If this requires fighting, he is permitted to fight for it; if the person in necessity is killed, he is a martyr and the one who killed him is liable for compensation. If the taking leads to the death of the owner, it is without penalty (hadar) because the owner acted unjustly by fighting, so he resembles the aggressor, except...