As for us, we rely on the word of Allah Almighty: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally" (Quran 4:93). The reports concerning the prohibition of killing a Muslim and the consensus on its prohibition stand; what has been excluded from this is that which occurs out of the necessity of repelling a rebel or an aggressor. In everything else, it remains subject to the general rule and the consensus regarding it. It is for this reason that it is forbidden to kill their fugitives and prisoners, or to finish off their wounded, even though they only abandoned the fighting due to their inability to continue; whenever they gain the ability, they return to it. Thus, one who is not fighting, either out of caution despite having the ability or because fighting is not feared from him after that, is all the more worthy [of protection]. This is because he is a Muslim, there was no need to repel him, and none of the three conditions [justifying the shedding of blood] occurred from him; thus, his blood is not lawful, based on the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except by one of three [reasons]."

As for the report concerning Ali, regarding his forbidding the killing of al-Sajjad, it is an argument against them. The prohibition by Ali is more deserving of being followed than the action of those who opposed him, and they do not conform to the word of Allah Almighty, nor the word of His Messenger, nor the word of their Imam. Regarding their claim that he did not censure his killing, we respond: It has not been transmitted to us that Ali knew the reality of the situation regarding his killing, nor did he witness his killing so as to censure it. It has been reported that when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) toured the slain, he saw him and said, "Al-Sajjad, by the Lord of the Kaaba, this is the one whom his piety toward his father has killed." This indicates that he was not aware of his killing. He also saw Ka'b ibn Sur and said, "They claim that only the rabble came out against us, yet this scholar is among them!" It is also possible that his leaving the censure against them was out of sufficiency with the previous prohibition; and because the intent behind fighting them was to restrain them, and this person was already restraining himself, so killing him was not permissible, similar to one who is in retreat.

Section: If slaves, women, and children fight alongside them, they are like the adult free man: they are fought while they are advancing, and left alone while they are in retreat, because their fighting is for the purpose of repelling. If one of them intends to kill a person, it is permissible to repel him and fight him, even if it results in his death. This is why we said regarding the people of war, if women and children are with them and they are fighting: they are to be fought and killed.