According to the first interpretation, the term “sin” is, in the second clause, attached to the doer, whereas in the first clause it is attached to the object; on the second interpretation it is attached to the doer in both clauses.

Some people therefore say, “The murderer left the victim with no sin at all.” The meaning, however, is not that the killer assumes every one of the victim’s misdeeds; rather, it has been reported that being killed is an expiation for the slain person.

It is related that ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī heard, while circumambulating the Kaʿbah, that Ibn Ziyād had been killed, and the news saddened him. He was asked, “Why does that trouble you?” He replied, “Because killing is an expiation for the one who is killed” (1).

The hadith indicates that if the killer has good deeds, they will be taken from him; if he has none, some of the wronged person’s sins will be transferred to him. Thus he returns burdened with the victim’s sin, yet the report does not say that he carries all of the victim’s sins. A wrongfully slain person may have amassed great burdens and may even have murdered others; the sin of killing him is therefore not equal to the combined sin of all those he himself killed. Still, it may be said of the story in question that the victim had no sin greater than the sin of murdering him, for homicide, after disbelief, is the gravest of sins, and he was the first person ever killed on earth.

It is established in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd and others, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “No soul is killed unjustly except that upon the son…"