the Exalted says: {Then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [to them], nor are they lawful [for them]} (4). And because in returning her to them is exposing her to reverting from Islam and permitting what is not lawful for them from her. If the child is not subject to a ruling of his Islam, such as one who was captured with his parents, it is not permissible to ransom him for wealth. Is it permissible to ransom him for a Muslim? This holds two possibilities.

Section: Ahmad did not permit the selling of any of the Muslims' captives (5) to a disbeliever, whether the captive is a Muslim or a disbeliever. This is the opinion of al-Hasan. Ahmad said: It is not for the dhimmi (protected non-Muslim subjects) to purchase anything that the Muslims have captured. He said: Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to the governors of the provinces forbidding it. This is how the people of Syria narrated it, but it has no chain of transmission (isnad). Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i permitted that, because one is not prevented from establishing his authority over him, so he is not prevented from initiating it, just like a Muslim. Our argument is the statement of Umar, which was not contested, thus it constitutes a consensus (ijma'). Also, because it entails causing the loss of the Islam that is evident in its existence, for if he remains a captive to the Muslims, his Islam is apparent, and that is lost by selling him to a disbeliever. This is contrary to when he was a captive to a disbeliever from the start, for this purpose [of preserving his Islam] was not established for him, and continuation (dawam) differs from initiation (ibtida') due to its strength.

Section: Whoever captures a captive does not have the right to kill him until he brings him to the Imam, so that he may exercise his judgment regarding him; because once he becomes a captive, the choice regarding him rests with the Imam. A statement has been narrated from Ahmad that suggests the permissibility of killing him, for he said: One should not kill the captive (6) of another except if the governor wills it. The implication is that he has the right to kill his own captive without the governor's permission; because he has the right to kill him initially, so he has the right to kill him as a captive, just as if he had fled from him or fought him. If the captive refuses to be led along with him, he may compel him with beating or otherwise, and if he cannot compel him, he may kill him. If he fears him, or fears his escape, he may also kill him. If he refuses to be led along with him due to a wound or illness, he may also kill him. Ahmad hesitated regarding killing him. The correct view is that he may kill him, just as one delivers the final blow (7) to their wounded, and because leaving him alive is a harm to the Muslims and a strengthening of the disbelievers, so killing is determined, as in the case of initiation if