the people of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance: when a prominent member of a tribe was killed, they would kill several people in his place from another tribe, other than the killer’s own tribe. Yet when a powerless member of a tribe was killed, they would not execute his killer if he was an obeyed chief. Allah abolished this practice through His words:

“And We prescribed for them therein: a life for a life.”

What was prescribed for them was justice—namely, a life for a life—since injustice is forbidden. Whether to exact one’s right, however, is left to the person entitled to it. This is like His saying:

“And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed the limits in taking life.”

That is, he must not kill anyone other than the victim’s killer. If, however, one of the two parties seeks the judgment of Allah and His Messenger, while the other says, “We shall take what is due to us with our own hands now,” this is among the gravest sins, warranting punishment of this unjust, wicked killer. If they refuse to submit to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger and have the strength to resist, the ruler must fight them. If they lack such strength, he must identify those who refuse to submit to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger and compel them to abide by justice.

As for their saying, “We have claims against them dating back many years,” they should be told: “We shall adjudicate between you concerning both old and recent claims, for the judgment of Allah and His Messenger covers all of this.”

Anyone who kills someone after reconciliation, or after a covenant and binding agreement have been concluded, deserves execution. Indeed, a group of scholars held that he must be executed as a prescribed punishment, and that the victim’s heirs may not pardon him. The majority, however, held that his execution is a matter of legal retaliation, and that the choice rests with the victim’s heirs.