What is the ruling on a young man who fired shots into the air to organize the queue for obtaining gas cylinders, and the person who lowered his weapon, which led to the injury or killing of some, in light of the Syrian crisis?

The disagreement regarding the aforementioned issue is permissible because determining who is the direct perpetrator and who is the cause defines who is liable for compensation. The jurisprudential rule states: "If the direct perpetrator and the cause converge, liability falls upon the direct perpetrator, not the cause." Jurists have not explicitly stipulated a ruling for this specific issue. The closest relevant case found is that of an animal being driven by a driver, led by a leader, and carrying a rider. If it tramples and kills a person, the liability falls on the rider because he is the direct perpetrator. Therefore, the one who shoots the weapon is the direct perpetrator and bears the liability, so expiation is incumbent upon him, and his family (aqila) pays the blood money. As for the two injured individuals, blood money is due for their injuries.