"The blood of the believers is equal (22)." (23) This is also because considering equality in attributes and virtues would lead to the total dropping of retaliation and the loss of the wisdom of deterrence and admonishment. Therefore, it is necessary that such considerations be discarded, just like height, shortness, blackness, or whiteness.

Section: It is not a condition for the obligation of retaliation that the killing takes place in the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam). Rather, whenever [someone] kills a Muslim in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) intentionally, knowing of his Islam, retaliation is upon him, regardless of whether he had migrated or not. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: Retaliation is not obligatory for killing outside the Abode of Islam. If the murdered person had not migrated, he is not guaranteed through retaliation or blood money, whether he killed him intentionally or erroneously. If he had migrated and then returned to the Abode of War—such as two Muslim men entering the Abode of War with a safe conduct (aman), and one of them kills his companion—he is guaranteed by blood money, and retaliation is not obligatory. A report was narrated from Ahmad similar to his view. If he killed a Muslim captive in the Abode of War, he is not guaranteed except by blood money, whether he killed him intentionally or erroneously. Our position is based on the verses and traditions we mentioned, and because he intentionally and unjustly killed someone who is his match, retaliation is therefore obligatory upon him, just as if he had killed him in the Abode of Islam. Furthermore, every land where there is an Imam is a land where retaliation is obligatory if he is present, and it remains obligatory even if an Imam is absent, just like the Abode of Islam.

Section: Killing by treachery (ghilah) and other forms of killing are the same regarding retaliation and pardon, and that [right] belongs to the guardian, not the ruler. Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir held this view. Malik said: The matter according to us is that he should be executed for it, and the blood guardian does not have the right to pardon him; that belongs to the ruler. Ghilah, according to him, is when a person is deceived, brought into a house or similar, and then killed or his wealth is seized. He perhaps argues using the statement of Umar regarding one who was killed by treachery: "If the people of Sana'a had conspired against him (24), I would have executed them [all] for him (25)," and by analogy to the warrior (muharib).