Azami 6852

Bukhari narrated it in the Book of Blood Money (6915) through Mutarrif, who said, I heard Shaybi narrating, who said, I heard Abu Juhayfa, whose name was Wahb bin Abdullah Suwai, and he mentioned it.His saying, "A believer is not killed for a disbeliever," is due to the nobility of Islam and the deficiency of disbelief. Retaliation implies equality, and there is no equality between a disbeliever and a Muslim. However, it is permissible for the ruler and the one in authority to execute a Muslim killer as a discretionary punishment to preserve security. A group of the jurists of Kufa, among them Abu Hanifa, said, rather he is killed for it, because the Prophet ﷺ was brought a man from among the Muslims who had killed a person under covenant from the people of the dhimma. So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ brought the Muslim forward and struck his neck, and said, "I am the most entitled to fulfill his covenant."This was narrated by Abu Dawud in his Marasil (241), Daraqutni (3/135), and Bayhaqi (8/31), all of them through Rabia bin Abu Abdul-Rahman, from Abdul-Rahman bin Bailmani, from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Abdul-Rahman bin Bailmani is daif, and no argument can be established even if the hadith were connected, so how much more so when he narrates it as mursal. It has also been narrated as connected, but that is not sahih.He also narrated it (242) with another chain, from Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz bin Salih Hadrami, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed a Muslim for a disbeliever on the day of Khaybar. He had killed him by treachery. And he said, "I am the most entitled, or the most deserving, to fulfill his covenant." This is also a daif mursal narration. Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz and the one who narrated from him, Abdullah bin Yaqub, are both unknown.Ghilah and ightiyal mean to deceive someone and then kill him. Malik and the people of Madinah held that in the case of killing by treachery, parity is not a condition, so a Muslim is killed for a disbeliever in such a case.