How can the hadiths of "the bankrupt" and "retribution for rights on the Day of Resurrection" be explained and applied in the following cases: if the oppressor is a Muslim and his good deeds are exhausted and the oppressed is a Muslim, or if the oppressor is a Muslim and the oppressed is a disbeliever, or if the oppressor is a disbeliever and the oppressed is a Muslim?

The meaning of the two hadiths revolves around warning against violating the rights of others, and that retribution and the redress of grievances on the Day of Judgment will be in terms of good deeds (hasanat) and bad deeds (sayyiat). If both the oppressor and the oppressed are Muslims, and the oppressed did not receive their right in this world, the oppressed will be compensated from the oppressor's good deeds. If the oppressor's good deeds are exhausted, the oppressed's bad deeds will be cast upon the oppressor. However, if a disbeliever wrongs a Muslim, the Muslim's bad deeds will be taken and cast upon the disbeliever. If a Muslim wrongs an aggressive, warring disbeliever, there is no sin upon him. But if the disbeliever is a Dhimmi, a Musta'min (one granted protection), or a Mu'ahad (one with whom a treaty has been made), then retribution will be taken from the Muslim for their sake. The manner of retribution for a disbeliever from a Muslim is left to Allah.