The Shafi‘i jurist Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756/1355), in his treatise al-Sayf al-maslul ‘ala man sabb al-rasul, expresses two opposing opinions on the penalty for non-Muslims who insult the Prophet. The first opinion is to pardon those who insult the Prophet if they repent by announcing conversion to Islam. This was al-Subki’s view when he first wrote the treatise in 734/1334. His second opinion was to execute a Christian named Ibn al-Zibtr for insulting the Prophet even though Ibn al-Zibtr repented and later converted to Islam. Al-Subki added this view to the treatise in 751/1351. This paper argues that al-Subki’s divergent views derive from his attempt to sustain the precedence of the Shafi‘i legal school in the Mamluk sultanate. The first opinion sought to cast the Shafi‘is as protectors of Christians working in the bureaucracy during the reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad (d. 741/1340). The position of the Shafi‘i madhhab is to pardon anyone who insults the Prophet if they repent. In contrast, the position of Malikis and Hanbalis is to execute those who insult the Prophet, even if they repent. Therefore, the Sultan referred Christians of lower social status to the Malikis and Hanbalis for execution. After the death of al-Nasir Muhammad, the ruling elite sought to confiscate wealth wherever they could, and Christians working in the bureaucracy were also targeted for execution. The wealthy Christian Ibn al-Zibtr was an easy target. Al-Subki adopted his second opinion to retain Shafi‘i jurisdiction over cases involving insulting the Prophet, and not lose them to the Malikis and Hanbalis, who traditionally issued death sentences for such cases. This study also reveals that al-Subki does not abandon his first opinion when arguing for the second. He instead discusses the two together in al-Sayf al-maslul. Al-Subki was probably keen to keep all options open to remain flexible in the face of unpredictable political shifts and social trends. The paper will show furthermore that that the aims of the Sultan and the ruling elite intersected with the ambitions of judges like al-Subki in a synergistic network of common interests.