He intended to kill him, but Anas said to him: 'You have granted him safe conduct, so you have no way against him.' Al-Zubayr testified to that, so they considered it safe conduct. Sa'id narrated it. This is because the Imam has the right to bestow favor upon him, and safe conduct is less than that. As for individual subjects, they do not have that right. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that his (a soldier's) safe conduct is valid because Zaynab, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), granted safe conduct to her husband, Abu al-'As ibn al-Rabi', after his capture, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) upheld her safe conduct. This was also narrated from al-Awza'i. Our argument is that the affair of the captive is delegated to the Imam, so it is not permitted to transgress against him in matters he forbids, such as killing him. The hadith of Zaynab regarding her safe conduct was only valid by the authorization of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Section: If two or more Muslims testify for a captive that they granted him safe conduct, it is accepted if they meet the criteria of witnesses. Al-Shafi'i said: Their testimony is not accepted because they are testifying to their own act. Our argument is that they are just Muslims, not suspect, who testified to his safe conduct, so it must be accepted, just as if they had testified against others that they granted him safe conduct. What he mentioned is not valid, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted the testimony of the nursing woman regarding her own act, in the hadith of 'Uqba ibn al-Harith. If one person testifies 'I granted him safe conduct,' the judge said: The analogy of Ahmad's view is that it is accepted, just as if a judge said after his dismissal: 'I ruled for so-and-so against so-and-so with a right,' his statement is accepted. According to the analogy of Abu al-Khattab's view: His safe conduct is valid, so his report of it is accepted, like the judge during his term of office. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i. It is possible that it is not accepted because he does not have the right to grant him safe conduct in the present, so his acknowledgment of it is not accepted, just as if he acknowledged a right against someone else. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu 'Ubaydah.