but killed another person whose life was inviolable, mistaking him for the first. This differs from someone who specifically targets Zayd’s property, or intends to take from partners an amount to be apportioned fairly among them, and takes from some on behalf of others. Such a person has made no mistake; rather, he has done what he intended: he meant to take a particular person’s property and demanded it from someone holding that person’s property—a partner, agent, or the like—to pay on his behalf. Likewise, if they demand money from one partner for shared affairs, to be collected from all the partners, they have made no mistake in their understanding. If, then, they intended to take from just one person—or rather, intended to apportion the payment fairly between him and his partners—but could only take from his partner, how can that partner be wronged twice?

A comparable case is when the administrator of the public treasury needs to pay an oppressor to ward off his harm from the Muslims—as with payments to those whose hearts are to be reconciled, to ward off their harm, or payments to disbelievers if such a need arises, and we seek refuge in Allah from that. If the treasury contains nothing, and he borrows money from people and pays it over, would any reasonable person say that the loss of this money must be borne by those from whom it was taken, with no right to reimbursement from the public treasury, merely because the money received was their actual property rather than the treasury’s?

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his Companions would make their payments sometimes from the funds themselves and sometimes from money they borrowed. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would borrow against zakat and fay’ revenues and spend the borrowed money on purposes prescribed by Islamic law, including gifts to those being won over