a man, the victim is dead. Here, there is no offsetting of the victim; rather, retribution consists in allowing the killer—and no one else—to be killed. Jurists hold two views on whether equivalence of status is required. One view requires it: a Muslim is not executed for killing a non-Muslim under Muslim protection, nor a free person for killing a slave. This is the majority view, held by Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad. The other view does not require equivalence of status, as maintained by Abū Hanīfah. Equivalence of status, however, is not called retribution.

Furthermore, He said:

“Retribution is prescribed for you.”

If “retribution” means equivalence of status, that has not been prescribed. If it means exacting retaliatory execution, that is permissible for the victim’s next of kin: they may exact retribution if they wish, or refrain if they wish. Exacting retribution has therefore not been prescribed as an obligation upon them.

Some have raised this objection and answered: “The killer is obliged to surrender himself.” The response is that Allah Most High said:

“Retribution is prescribed for you in cases of murder.”

This is not addressed to the killer alone. Rather, it addresses the victim’s next of kin, as indicated by His words:

“If anyone is pardoned anything by his brother, then payment should be sought fairly and made to him graciously.”

Moreover, one does not say to the killer, “Retribution concerning the victim is prescribed for you,” for no retribution can be exacted upon the victim. Furthermore, the killer’s mere submission to the victim’s next of kin is not itself retribution. Rather, they may exact retribution or refrain from doing so. This is called qawd (retaliatory execution) only because the victim’s next of kin lead the killer away. It is comparable to handing merchandise over to its buyer.

Then Allah Most High said:

“A free person for a free person.”

How, then, can it be said that such words are intended to address the killer? Rather, this is an address to the Muslim community