Is it to be inferred that the ruler alone bears responsibility for his mistake, and his blood money is paid from the public treasury without the requirement of fasting for two consecutive months, and that the soldiers who carried out his erroneous order bear no responsibility for blood money or fasting?

If a bloodwit or expiation becomes obligatory for the leader, it likewise becomes obligatory for his soldiers. However, their belief that their leader is correct removes from them sin and punishment, but not the bloodwit and expiation. Scholars differed regarding the obligation of bloodwit and expiation upon Khalid ibn al-Walid in the story of Banu Jadhimah. Some did not obligate anything, some obligated both, and some obligated expiation without bloodwit.

Ibn Hazm said that Khalid killed Banu Jadhimah by way of interpretation (ta'wil), and similarly Usama ibn Zayd killed a man whom he thought was a disbeliever. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not obligate them to pay retaliation (qisas), bloodwit, or expiation because they acted by way of interpretation.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that the mujtahid (one who exercises ijtihad) who acts by way of interpretation and commits something forbidden is not considered a disbeliever or a fasiq (transgressor), and is not obligated to pay retaliation, bloodwit, or expiation.

In the story of the expedition of Khath'am, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded half of the bloodwit for those killed despite their adherence to prostration, because they resided among the polytheists. Thus, they were as if they aided in their own harm, and their share of the bloodwit for their crime was waived.