The author’s statement, “Each group is liable for what it destroys of the other’s property”: This differs from the preceding case. There is no liability for damage in fighting between the rebels and the imam, whereas in this case there is liability. If the damage caused by each side is equal, the claims offset one another; but if one exceeds the other, it is liable for the excess.

For example, two groups fight one another out of tribal partisanship. One damages the other’s vehicles, livestock, houses, and tents, and the other does likewise. When the fighting ends and we assess the damage, we find that one group has destroyed property belonging to the other worth one hundred thousand, while the second has destroyed property belonging to the first worth one hundred thousand. What should we do?

The answer is that the two claims offset one another, since neither group has any claim against the other. But if we find that one group has destroyed property of the other worth one hundred thousand, while the second has destroyed property of the first worth five hundred thousand, then the group whose property was damaged to the value of one hundred thousand must pay four hundred thousand to the group whose property was damaged to the value of five hundred thousand.

Here a difficulty arises: it is known that not every individual in this group destroyed that particular property. One person may have destroyed twenty vehicles, while another may not have destroyed anything at all, and yet another may have destroyed less than that. So how can liability be imposed upon all of them?

We say: because whoever did not cause damage assisted and approved of whoever did. Thus, the scholars held both groups collectively liable here, even when the specific person who caused the damage is unknown, because they are allies of one another. And Allah addresses the Children of Israel in the time of the Messenger ﷺ concerning what they did in the time of Moses ﷺ;