and the other man’s garment may be worth more. There is no stronger reason to favour either possibility over the other. The presumption is that neither party owes anything for a difference in value. Liability cannot be established on the basis of something doubtful even if the uncertainty concerns only one party; how much more so when it concerns both?

Thus, the wisdom of His words becomes clear:

“A slave for a slave.”

This also makes clear that the Quran sets forth what people need to know and practise, whereby their blood is spared and their lives preserved. This includes what others have mentioned concerning justice in retaliation. The verse also indicates that blood-money is payable for those killed, thereby establishing the killer’s liability for blood-money and showing that its amount varies according to the person killed. This is among the favours Allah has bestowed upon the community of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, by instituting both retaliation and blood-money. As for whether pardon means accepting blood-money in a case of intentional killing, and whether the person granting pardon becomes entitled to it merely by granting pardon, the verse does not address this.

This verse also indicates that groups possessing the power to resist may each hold the other liable for the lives and property it has wrongfully destroyed, because He says:

“From his brother.”

This differs from what Muslims destroy of the unbelievers’ lives and property, and what unbelievers destroy of the Muslims’ lives and property. As for fighting based on a religious interpretation—“such as the fighting at the Battle of the Camel and at Siffīn”—according to the majority of scholars, there is likewise no liability, with even greater reason. For if unbelievers acting on a religious interpretation