he is exempt from punitive requital. However, it may be argued:

Retribution, which is prescribed for intentional wrongdoing, may lapse, while liability for compensation, which applies to mistakes, remains. Thus, blood money is due for accidental killing, and compensation for property destroyed by a child or an insane person must be paid from that person’s own wealth. Although the blood money for accidental killing is payable by the killer’s kin group to assist him, the right of the person wronged by mistake must nevertheless be fulfilled. The same therefore applies to this person who has wronged another by mistake.

The answer, however, is that a distinction must be drawn between cases in which the right belongs to Allah and the human being’s right is subordinate to it, and cases in which the right belongs exclusively or predominantly to a human being. Enjoining right, forbidding wrong, and jihad come under this heading. This accords with the position of the majority, who do not require rebels to compensate the lawful side for what they have destroyed on the basis of a religious interpretation, even though their conduct was mistaken, rather than disbelief or evildoing. When the lawful side gains power over them, they do not pursue those who flee, finish off their wounded, take their women captive, or seize their property as spoils. Thus, they do not fight them in retaliation for the lives and property they have destroyed, if they have inflicted comparable losses or gained dominion over them.

It is therefore clear that retribution lapses in this case, because this belongs to the category of jihad, for which reward is due from Allah. This concerns the personal right of the one who enjoins right and forbids wrong.

As for the questioner’s words: “Should retribution be exacted from him, lest this embolden him against