FQP05 Fiqh of Penalties – Partnering in Murder

Hello Sara Sara Marsala Yosef and I'm about to proceed. So today inshallah we'll talk about the chapter on partnering in murder.

Or Babel is stuck if

you haven't kurama hemolysis here under the chapter on partnering and murder parabola struck with Dr. guerra head into other cat ohada him. Lee oboe what he our other MOOC katello our offley on kobita

courteeners Rocco, I'm sorry partidos Rocco, we're in Canada about Obamacare love our heart and plegable powered, Allah hidden minimum,

a group will be killed in retaliation for killing one person. If it is not feasible to apply lethal retribution to one of them because of his parental relationship to the victim. The inequality of his status in terms of religion and freedom, or his being pardoned, his partners will still be killed. If one of them is not Micallef, or if one kills in error, then lethal retribution is not binding on any of them. So the idea here that we're trying to talk about is when one person when one person kills another person, we apply equal retribution, and we call it equal retribution. Don't we equal retribution? Cathars?

So enough, seven naps, so like a soul for our soul?

That is fair, that is justice. But what about

when 10 people kill one person? Do we kill the 10 people? How is this equitable? It is equitable, because each one of them committed a capital crime. And we cannot sort out who

killed the person, therefore all of them would be

accountable.

When Amara young when a woman, you know where where did this come from? So Omar was informed of a woman and her lover killing her step, son,

along with a servant of them. So you have, so a woman was married, and her husband left

his son with her

and travel son, his son, not hers, his son, her stepson.

And she had an affair with another man.

And she said to the other man, if this

kid tells on us,

you know, whether it will be a scandal. So let's kill the kid. And her lover agreed to killing the child.

They have the assistance of a server amarr was informed of this. And he said, the light automatically on her locker Allah, by Allah, if the entire population of Sunnah

colluded to kill him, or like partners in murdering him, I would have killed them all.

From that time on

partnering and murder does not basically relieve you from being accountable for equal retribution or cases.

Even if each one of them.

Each one of them committed an act, that was mean score, or minimum, like

through like a pebble. But they all agree to throw pebbles until they kill the person.

So all of them in like 1000 people, each one of them throwing a pebble.

So if 1000 people, each one of them through a pebble, I'm not sure that this would kill the person. But if it does, then all since they concluded, these were not individual acts, there was collusion or collusion, I'm sorry. Since they colluded, then all of them will be killed.

And then he talks about this. And he talks about he like what he talks about in the beginning in the first paragraph here is what if some of them What if some of them

were not subject to the death penalty?

Okay, there are different scenarios.

So then people want to

them as a child, non medical, non medical, not liable because of young gaves.

Or because of insanity.

One of them, the one of some one of them killed in error

in error mistaken killing, not intentional in these two scenarios,

according to the position that is mentioned here, but that's not the position of the majority, but in these two scenarios that rest of the people will be off the hook

will not be liable for the death penalty. There will be via level for what

their

blood money

can the authorities impose a punishment? We said 200 times Yes, the authorities can impose a punishment

and that's the correct position and that is the only position that is

that has any sort of semblance of practicality here

Yes, the authorities can impose a punishment.

But what if it is different

that we said if it is non liable not Micallef or give an error then the rest of them according to this position and under will be will not be liable for the death penalty. But they may be liable for some other punishment according to the stronger position.

But what if some of them were not liable for the death because of some other issue?

Some other issue Okay, like what?

So 10 people killed one person, one of the 10 people was the father of this person.

The victim

you can't kill the father for their forgiving their child according to the majority hanafy chef I am somebody

so you will kill the nine and spare the father?

What if this person

was not the father,

but this person was

free person and this was a slave and these nine were slaves. So you kill the nine because they are equality. And you spare this one as we said before, but we said that the HANA fees do not have

do not have this requirement of equality and they would kill the free for the slave msla for the fee for the free and the Hanafi madhhab was the man above the vast majority of Muslim history. abassi and us many philosophers okay

then this he said

we're not gonna have Roger and Roger Anna Hello Kathy Petrella algebra huduma Johanna will offer near our copper huduma mineral cool one after mineral merfolk for homeopathy, Daniela email kasasa enwezor better dia is a wire fee where if a person forces another to kill and he that other person does so or one

Okay, for person forces another ticket and he the other thus so or one of them inflicts one wound on the victim, whereas the other inflicts 100 wounds, or one of them Mames the victim at the wrist, whereas the other Mames him at the elbow, they are both considered murderers and are liable purposes. If indemnity is required, the both are equally liable for it both are equally liable for it. So be what is the bottom line here. The bottom line is we don't know who killed

you know, in the first case where where there is compulsion, where there is compulsion, we will discuss this a little later where there is compulsion. We will discuss this about later when we talk about, you know, the commander and the executer.

But the other scenarios that he mentioned here are basically he's basically trying to say, if two people inflicted different wounds, one of them is greater than the other. We still don't know we cannot ascertain the cause of death definitively. Therefore, both of them will be liable for equal retribution and error.

If

they were pardoned, and the deal was demanded from them by the Alia of the victim, they were pardoned and they was demanded they will be equally liable for the the fact that you cut off

you know just the the hand and the other one cut off the whole arm. Our the fact that he inflicted a smaller wound unless it is completely trivial like an abrasion or something but we don't can ascertain who killed him which wound killed him, we you will be equally liable.

Then we're in Zeb Ohio home so macapa every other who out there who is fine valcartier outward we're in ca homeserve masaba hussaini Patel Carter was on behalf of

and that's when they said before it was getting too graphic. If one of them's lotter is the victim, and then the other cuts off his hand or slices him into two halves. The murder is the first one.

If one cuts a part of him off, and then the others martyrs, the one who cuts will be cut in retaliation, and the one who slaughters will be slaughtered. So two people now and this is the victim and we have two people, one of them, we said a few In fact, the different types of ones you will be equally liable. But what if what if

you are smarter him and then the second one comes and cut him into two pieces?

Who's the murder? The first one only because after slavery the person is is going to be dying, you know the person was lotter. So the person is going to be buying there's the second act is criminal

because even if the person had died, them see mutilation of dead bodies is criminal. So the second adds criminal, but is it punishable by heart? No, we're all equal retribution is punishable by equal retribution. No. Because the first one is the murder, not the second.

So if the first one cuts off his arm, and the second one slaughters Him, who is the murderer?

The second so what do we do to the first we cut off his arm? What do we do the second smarter

Okay, that's what he says. For an Amara man. Yeah, Alamo tahari. malerkotla v.

For katella focus on swallow mubasher. While at the era we're in Amara Allah Allah Mahima who will be I rely on my ears focus also IRA, el amor if one person commands another if one person commands another

who knows the inviolability of the victim the inviolability of the victim to kill and thus he kills them because ours is binding against the one who carries it out. The one who commands it will be punished by a discretionary penalty. If a person commands someone who does not know the victim's inviolability, or someone who is not the serving of MP sauce is binding against the one who gave the order.

Okay, so

let us draw a table here

are these different scenarios

I have three different scenarios and one actually has amb. So one scenario is

we have two people here you'll have the

Okay, you have the order the commander and the executer, the commander and executer. So

if the commander has no authority over the executer this is one scenario. The commander, the commander has authority over the executer. That's another scenario that commander

Ah compels the executer that is the third scenario compels, tells them if you don't kill, I will kill you. And he's able to do it, and he has a gun compelling. Okay, so these are three different scenarios. So should we kill?

None?

Should we kill the executer? Should we kill the commander?

Or should we kill both to execute around the commander?

So that commander has no authority over the executer and goes and says x goes this answers the Why kill z, y goes and kills z, who should be killed?

executer

and that's according to all of them.

Should the commander be killed? No.

Because there is a difference between him with the sub event and mubasher the direct cause and the immediate cause? If the immediate cause is

McCann left a liable individual, not a tool, not an an insane person, not a child, then the immediate cause will absorb the liability.

The immediate cause was absorbed with liability because

the commander did not have authority over him.

What if the commander had authority over the executer authority, but did not compel him? And we are presuming here that the executer knows that the the victim is inviolable, inviolable, inviolable.

So, you know, X has authority over y.

But there's not compared Why does not kill Tell him I'll kill you if you go, you know. But then x tells y go kill z. y goes and kills z, who has to be killed here. So remember, hanifa said, none.

When you don't take care, that does not mean that there will not be another form of punishment. And there could be another punishment short of that. Now, but he said, no equal retribution. Who said the executer only. That's the Safra is on honeyberries.

Who said the commander only nobody said that?

Who said both should be killed? Man is

the Americans, by the way, are the harshest in these because they are the are the ones who want to. You could sit and it depends on your perspective. You could say that are the harshest. And someone else you can say that they're most merciful, because they want to deter crime. And they were so the mannequins are the ones who said if, if a father if we know for sure that the father killed their son, we will kill the Father. But what the prophet may have meant is that most likely he did not mean to kill him. But if he lays him down and slaughters him, then we know that he wanted to kill him and then we can father for the child so the mannequins are a little bit stricter here

you know, for BB can be given because they were sort of mostly concerned with the terms. So if that commander had compelled the executer that commander compel the executer What do we do now? Who's the BK elder now?

Who would say kill none, no one will say cannon who would say kill both most of them will say kill both

that is m plus s plus a who will say killed by commander only. That is the number hanifa kill the commander only.

Okay.

So that is the basically this discussion.

Then the SEC said

when I'm second in Santa little company for a particular cocktail party or hobby sell mom sick Hatta mode, if one restrains a person to be killed and that person is skilled that

Killer will be killed and the strainer will be imprisoned until he dies. And that is the verbatim hubbies.

It's questionable whether it's traceable to the Prophet saws Allah, but at least it comes from the Sahaba one Allah Allah. So someone restraints another, you know, so that another person would kill him.

We were the person who restrained him will be

put in jail forever

until they buy because they restrain the victim until he was killed, and that murder will be killed

for equal retribution.

And that is basically you know,

and does that mean Jensen Ahmed?

Like the same would be, well, what will be done to you is the same as you have done to your brother.

And that brings us to the end of this chapter. So it's it's a smaller chapter. It's a shorter chapter. But the bottom line here is that partnering and murder will not basically

relieve people from accountability whatsoever. Even if they were 1000 people. They will be all accountable. all subjects are equal to retribution, Clinical

Excellence