Do the stories of the killings of Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, Khalid al-Hadali, and al-Aswad al-‘Ansi indicate the permissibility of uttering disbelief without coercion, and what is the interpretation of that, especially the interpretation of the saying: "For we dislike leaving him until we see what becomes of his affair"?

The questioner referred to incidents of deception in war, which are closer to stratagem than to coercion. The most famous of these is the killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, where Muhammad ibn Maslamah and his companions feigned something contrary to reality to lure and kill Ka'b. Al-Bukhari categorized this incident under "Chapter on Lying in War" and "Chapter on the Killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf." Some scholars, like Ibn al-Munayyir, held that what was said was allusion (ta'rid) and not outright lying, while Ibn al-Arabi maintained that lying in war is an exception and permissible by text for the benefit of Muslims.

Scholars have cited the story of Al-Hajjaj ibn 'Allat, whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) permitted to say whatever he wished about him to retrieve his wealth, and the story of Abdullah ibn Unays in his killing of Khalid ibn Sufyan al-Hudhali, and the story of Qays al-Muradi and Fayruz al-Daylami in their killing of al-Aswad al-'Ansi al-Kadhdhab. All of these fall under the principle of "war is deception" and the permissibility of taqiyyah (dissimulation) to avert a greater harm.

Researcher Abdullah Al-Qarni, in his Master's thesis, reviewed that taqiyyah is concealing one's Islam due to an excuse, and it is an exceptional state not permitted except when necessitated. However, in the case of war for the benefit of Muslims, it is permissible. He gave examples of this with what Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud did in the Battle of Al-Ahzab, and what Muhammad ibn Maslamah did in the story of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. All of this falls under the permissibility of lying and alluding in war for the sake of benefit.