Section

A group may be executed for one person; if retaliation is waived, they must pay a single blood money payment, ………………

His statement, “A group may be executed for one person,” means that if a group joins together to kill someone, they are all executed. For example, if five people join together to kill a man, they are all executed. If it is asked: What is the evidence and rationale for this? For the apparent ruling in this matter seems unjust: how can five people be executed for one?

As for the evidence, it is what is reported from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, concerning a group who took part in killing a man from Yemen. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, ordered that they all be executed, and said, “If the people of Sana'a had jointly conspired against him, I would have executed them for him” (1)—that is, had the people of an entire city agreed together to kill him, I would have executed them for him. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was renowned for his justice; yet he had them all executed for him. Thus, the ruling is not unjust.

As for the rational consideration, these people intentionally killed a human life, and dividing the execution among them is impossible: one cannot execute each of them by one-fifth of an execution, for execution cannot be apportioned. Yet exempting them from execution would be an injustice to the victim, for they destroyed him and took his life—so how could their lives not be taken?

Thus, both rational consideration and the transmitted report require that a group be executed for one person. However, there must be a condition: they must have jointly conspired to kill him, or each person’s act, if done alone, must have been sufficient to cause death.