For this reason, the army shares in whatever spoils a detachment captures, and the detachment shares in whatever the army captures, since each gains spoils only through the support of the others. Just as they share liability for losses, they share the gains. Likewise, regarding punishment, the majority of jurists hold that both those who provide support and those who directly perpetrate armed brigandage are liable to execution, just as ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, executed the brigands’ lookout. This is the position of Mālik, Abū Hanīfa and Ahmad. Mālik also holds this view regarding execution in retaliation and thieves.

The verse indicates this as follows: when claims concerning those killed are offset—a free person against a free person, a slave against a slave, and a female against a female—the killer of the free person on one side need not be the legal heir of the free person on the other; it may be someone else. Likewise, the killer of the slave on one side need not be the master of the slave on the other; it may be someone else. However, since they acted together and supported one another in fighting and waging war against the other group, anyone killed by some of them is regarded as having been killed by them all, and they are all liable for him. Thus, any outstanding balance due to either group is taken from the property of the other.

If it is asked:

“If it is firmly established in human nature that someone who wrongfully kills his equal deserves to be killed, and no human being says that he should not be killed, what purpose is served by the words of the Most High:

‘And We ordained for them therein’—meaning in the Torah—‘a life for a life, an eye for an eye,’

and the rest of the verse, when all rational people recognize such a law?”

The reply is:

Its purpose is to make clear the equal worth of the blood of the Children of Israel, and that their blood