How can one reconcile the Hadith: "The blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to be shed except in one of three cases: a life for a life, the married adulterer, and one who abandons his religion and separates from the community," with conflicting Islamic legal rulings that permit the killing of those who fall outside these categories, such as killing one who rebels against the Imam, a sorcerer, or one who calls to innovations?

There is no contradiction between the Hadith (definition): "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful..." and the killing of a rebel (kharij), or a sorcerer, because they may fall under the concept of "one who separates from the community" (al-mufariq lil-jama'ah). Al-Nawawi and Ibn Daqiq al-Eid mentioned that "one who abandons his religion and separates from the community" includes every apostate from Islam, and everyone who separates from the community through innovation (bid'ah) or rebellion (baghy). Al-San'ani indicated that an aggressor (sa'il) falls under this description, or that killing him is an act of defense, not an intentional act of aggression.