and its proof is the very hadith that heads this chapter.

3 – Imam Mālik held that if the restrainer realizes that the assailant intends to kill the victim, then both of them are executed. If, however, he restrains the victim thinking the assailant only wishes to beat him, the killer alone is put to death while the restrainer is subjected to a severe discretionary punishment (taʿzīr) and imprisoned.

Al-Shawkānī remarked, “What is correct is to act in accordance with the import of the cited hadith, for the fact that some have classed it as mursal does not undermine its authority, as the leading scholars of legal theory have explained.”

4 – Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī maintain that the restrainer is liable to taʿzīr when he restrained the victim intentionally, knowing that the killer would take his life, for the killer’s deed is a direct act while the restrainer’s deed is merely causal, and in such cases the direct act overrides the cause. Imprisonment is one form of taʿzīr, yet they do not consider it lifelong as the Ḥanbalīs do; rather, its duration is left to the ruler’s discretion, long or short, since the aim is disciplinary, not to keep him confined until death.

5 – Imam Mālik further held that the restrainer is executed in retaliation (qiṣāṣ) if he held the victim so that the assailant could kill him, the assailant did kill him, and the restrainer knew this would happen, because by holding him he became a cause of the murder. If he did not know the assailant intended to kill, the restrainer’s punishment is taʿzīr, not qiṣāṣ. Allah knows best.

6 – Imprisoning the restrainer until death is fitting, for he caused the victim to be held until he was killed.

7 – The hadith substantiates the famous maxim: when a direct perpetrator and a causal agent are both involved, liability rests with the direct perpetrator. In this case each offender received the penalty suited to his crime, and Allah is All-Wise, All-Knowing.