Question: If one person says to another, “Kill yourself, or I will kill you,” what is the ruling?

Answer: The Hanbali jurists said that this constitutes compulsion; accordingly, liability rests upon the one who compelled him. It was also said that it does not constitute compulsion, because the person who kills himself gains nothing by preserving his life if he refrains; he gains nothing by killing himself. Since he is going to be killed anyway, let the killing be at another’s hand. Thus, this is not a case of compulsion.

In any event, in such disputed issues, where there is no clear evidence that decisively distinguishes between the views, the judge should be given latitude to rule according to what he considers most beneficial for the people. So long as these matters admit of latitude among the positions of the qualified scholars, while people need governance that sets them aright, there is no blame on a judge if he adopts one of the views in order to reform the people.

It is therefore reported that one of the early righteous predecessors once said to his son, “Do such-and-such in a particular legal ruling.” When he did not comply, his father said, “Do it, or I shall give you a legal verdict according to the view of so-and-so”—a view that was more difficult and burdensome.

Thus, in issues whose basis is independent legal reasoning, and for which there is no text binding a person to adopt a particular position, one should consider what will set the people aright.

His statement, “for killing his legal equal,” requires a qualification: namely, that he be compelled to kill a specified person—for example, that he be told, “Kill so-and-so, or I will kill you.” But if he says, “Go out to the market and bring me the head of one of the passersby; if you do not, I will kill you,” and he goes and kills someone in the market, then that person is not specified,