the captives of war in Kitab al-jihad.In the opinion of this author [al-Kht١I], the phrase t;larb al-riqab (cutting off the neck-that is, killing) in al-Tibyan appears to be a slip of the pen. AI-Tabarsi followed this without checking on its accuracy.
This is the view adopted by the Imamite Shiite scholars, as well as by al-J;)al)i)ak,
Ata, and al-I:Iasan al-Ba ri.

Other Views about This Verse {Q ٤٧:٤]

As for the remaining Sunni scholars, they have adopted several views.

١. According to some of them, the verse was revealed regarding the idolaters. Then it was abrogated by the sword verse. This view is attributed to Qatada, al-Oal)l)ak, al-Suddi, Ibn Jurayi), Ibn Abbas, and to a large number of scholars from Kufa. They say, "The idolater captive should be killed. It is not permissible to accept ransom for him, nor to show grace to him at all."١٤٨
The response [to this is as follows]. There is no reason for supporting the claim for abrogation on this ground. The relation of this verse to the sword verse is the relation between a general and a restricted ordinance, regardless of whether the [sword] verse preceded or succeeded the verse under discussion. We explained above that the subse‌ quent general ordinance cannot abrogate the earlier particular rule. This is even more true in the case of the general ordinance preceding the restricted ordinance. ١٤٩

٢. According to others, the verse was revealed regarding all the disbelievers, and, hence, its specific application to the idolater was abrogated. This opinion has been ascribed to Qatada, Mujah d,
the followers of AbUI:Ianifas legal school. ١٥٠
The response [to this is as follows]. This opinion is as evidently invalid as the previous one. It depends on the sword verse being subsequent in its revelation to the verse under discussion. This cannot be proven by those who maintain abrogation; nor is there any documentation to support it except for single traditions. We already explained that such traditions, according to the consensus among Muslim scholars, cannot, be admitted as proof of abrogation. Moreover, even if we were to accept this hypothetically, there would be no reason to regard the sword verse as the abrogator of this verse [in an effort] to authenticate this opinion. The fact is that this verse par‌ ticularizes the sword verses. The proof is the consensus of the community that this verse either includes the idolaters or is specifically revealed regarding them. Accord‌ ingly, in the light of our argument above-that the general ruling cannot abrogate the restricted injunction-this verse functions as another circumstantial element re‌ stricting the sword (jihad) verse. If, on the other hand, we overlooked this factor, the present verse would, to a certain extent, contradict the general sense of the sword verse. What it would share with it is that the idolater should be taken as a captive at the end of the war. Now, the sword verse orders the killing, whereas this verse does not regard killing as proper. Such being the case, there is no possibility of even think‌ ing of the abrogation of the latter verse.

٣. According to still others, this verse abrogates the sword verse. This opinion has been attributed to al-Dai)i)ak and others. ١٥ I