Someone who feels compelled may eat a dead human, if he has not found any dead meat other than this, as the two Shiekhs have stipulated in Al-sharh and Al-rawda, since the prohibition on the living is greater than the prohibition on the dead. The exception to this is if the dead one is a prophet, in which case it is resolutely not permissible to eat of them. If someone should say: “How does this exception make sense, being that the prophets are alive in their graves, praying, as the hadith affirm?”, I would answer: By the fact that this is understood by the person under pressure who finds the dead meat of a prophet before his burial.
And if the dead person is a Muslim, and the one under pressure a Kafir, it is not permissible for him to eat of him, in light of the dignity of Islam. Moreover wherever we have made it permissible to eat the dead meat of humans, it is not permissible to cook it or roast it, as this would disgrace its sanctity, and one must prefer between eating it raw or otherwise.
And one [i.e. who feels compelled] may kill an apostate and eat him, or kill a combatant, even a child or a woman, and eat them, since women and children are not infallible; indeed the prohibition on killing a boy combatant or a woman combatant, when there is no necessity, is not because of their sanctity, but rather for the claims of those who go after the spoils. And one may kill a married adulterer, a fighter, someone who abandons prayer, or anyone for whom retaliation is due, even if the Imam has not given permission to kill, because such as these deserve to be killed. Although people out of respectful discipline consider the Imam’s permission when there is not a state of necessity, there is no concern for respectability in a state of necessity. And the ruling for those of the warring party who are insane, or slaves, or hermaphrodites [i.e. sexually undeveloped], as are children: Ibn ‘Abd Al-Salaam said that if someone under pressure finds a child together with someone mature, both of them combatants, then he may eat the mature one but is to refrain from the child, since eating him would be a waste of assets, and because true disbelief is more severe than determined disbelief.