بَابُ الدِّيَاتِBlood Money

¹ His statement: “This and this are equal”: Meaning the little finger and the thumb, i.e., they are equal in blood money, even though the thumb has fewer joints than the little finger. For in each finger, there is one-tenth of the blood money, which is ten camels. In (Sharh al-Sunnah): For each finger that is cut off, ten camels are due. If one phalanx of a finger is cut off, one-third of the blood money for a finger is due, except for the phalanx of the thumb, in which half of the blood money for a finger is due, as it has only two phalanges. There is no difference between the phalanges of the hand and the foot, and the Imams have agreed upon this. So it is in (Al-Mirqat) and (Al-Hidayah).

¹ His statement: “Was miscarried dead”: This is a conditional state, for if he strikes a woman’s abdomen and she miscarries a dead fetus, a ghurrah is due. If she miscarries a live fetus that then dies, a full blood money is due. Ibn Al-Mundhir said: There is no disagreement among the scholars on this. The disagreement is that life is established by any sign of life, such as crying, suckling, breathing, sneezing, etc., which is our position and that of Al-Shafi’i and Ahmad. They say it is only established by crying. We say that any sign of life, like drinking milk, sneezing, or breathing, indicates life like crying. If a limb moves, it does not indicate life, as it could be a spasm or emerging from a tight space. If she miscarries a dead fetus and then the mother dies, he owes blood money for killing the mother and a ghurrah for the miscarriage. It is authentically reported that he (ﷺ) ruled for both the blood money and the ghurrah. If the mother dies from the strike and then the fetus emerges alive and dies, he owes blood money for the mother and blood money for the fetus, as he killed two persons. If she dies and then miscarries a dead fetus, he owes blood money for the mother and nothing for the fetus. Al-Shafi’i said: A ghurrah is due for the fetus, as it likely died from the strike, like if she miscarried a dead fetus while alive. We say: The mother’s death is one of the causes of its death, as it suffocates with her death, since its breath is like hers, so no liability is due with doubt. It is objected that doubt exists in both cases if she miscarries a dead fetus, as it could have died from the strike or not had the soul been breathed into it, yet liability is established. It is answered that the ghurrah in that case is established by text against analogy, as we mentioned, and this case is not analogous, as the doubt is from multiple angles: the soul not being breathed, death due to lack of nourishment, or death due to the mother’s death. Thus, it does not follow by analogy or indication, so it remains on the principle of no liability. The ghurrah is one-tenth of the blood money of a man if the fetus is male, and one-tenth of the blood money of a woman if female, each being five hundred dirhams, as in the narration of Ibn Abi Uyaynah, Al-Bazzar, and Abu Dawud, which is evidence against those who set it at six hundred, like Malik and Al-Shafi’i. It is upon the clan per our view, while Malik says it is upon the striker’s property, as it is compensation for a part, like cutting a finger, and the clan does not bear except compensation for life. We rely on that he (ﷺ) ruled for the ghurrah upon the clan, narrated by Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi from Al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah, and by Ibn Abi Shaybah from Jabir, and because it is for the life of the fetus, hence he (ﷺ) called it blood money when he said: Pay it. They said: Do we pay for one who did not cry or make a sound? The Hadith.

¹ His statement: “For quasi-intentional killing, twenty-five hiqqah” etc.: Therefore, it is said in (Al-Hidayah): The blood money for quasi-intentional killing per Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf is one hundred camels in quarters: twenty-five banat makhad, twenty-five banat labun, twenty-five hiqqah, and twenty-five jadha’ah. Muhammad and Al-Shafi’i said: In thirds: thirty jadha’ah, thirty hiqqah, and forty thaniyyah, all pregnant. Due to his (ﷺ) statement: The killing by mistake in intention, like killing with a whip or stick, for it is one hundred camels, forty of which are pregnant. From Umar and Zayd: thirty hiqqah and thirty jadha’ah. Because the blood money for quasi-intentional killing is heavier, which is in what we said. They rely on his (ﷺ) statement: For a believer’s life, one hundred camels. What they narrated is not established due to the companions’ disagreement on the manner of heaviness. Ibn Mas’ud said: With heaviness in quarters, as we mentioned, and it is like a raised narration, so it is opposed by it.

¹ His statement: “For life, the blood money” etc.: Meaning, when opting for blood money instead of retribution in intentional killing, and it is obligatory in mistake or quasi-intentional killing. In (Kitab al-Rahmah): The Imams agreed that the blood money for a free Muslim male is one hundred camels from the killer’s property if intentional and he opts for blood money. They differed on whether it is immediate or deferred. Malik, Al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad said: Immediate. Abu Hanifah said: Deferred over three years. They differed on the blood money for intentional killing. Abu Hanifah and Ahmad in one narration: It is in quarters for each age group of camels: twenty-five banat makhad, twenty-five banat labun, twenty-five hiqqah, and twenty-five jadha’ah. Al-Shafi’i said: Taken in thirds: thirty hiqqah, thirty jadha’ah, and forty thaniyyah, all pregnant. Ahmad has another narration like this. As for the blood money for quasi-intentional killing, it is like that for purely intentional killing per Abu Hanifah and Al-Shafi’i. Malik’s narrations differ. For mistake, Abu Hanifah and Ahmad said: Twenty-five jadha’ah, twenty hiqqah, twenty banat labun, twenty ibn makhad, and twenty banat makhad. So it is in (Al-Mirqat).

² His statement: “For the people of gold, one thousand dinars”: They differed on whether dinars and dirhams can be taken for blood money. Abu Hanifah and Ahmad said: It is permissible to take them even if camels are available. There are two narrations: whether they are principal or substitutes for camels. Malik said: They are principal, specified by Sharia, not considered in terms of camels. Al-Shafi’i said: Do not opt for other than camels if available, except by agreement. If unavailable, his new preferred view is to take their value at the time of payment, whether more or less. His old view, used out of necessity, is to take one thousand dinars or twelve thousand dirhams. They differed on settling blood money in dirhams. Abu Hanifah said: Ten thousand dirhams. Al-Shafi’i and Ahmad said: Twelve thousand dirhams. So it is in (Ikhtilaf al-A’immah). The apparent Hadith supports Abu Hanifah. He said: For the people of gold, so the amount is one hundred camels for camel owners and one thousand dinars or their equivalent, ten thousand dirhams, for gold owners. So it is in (Al-Mirqat). ³ His statement: “For the nose, if its tip is completely cut off, the blood money is one hundred camels”: The principle for limbs is that if a type of benefit is completely lost or intended beauty in a human is completely removed, the full blood money is due, as it is akin to destroying life from one aspect, and it is treated as destroying it from all aspects, to honor the human. The evidence is the Prophet’s (ﷺ) ruling of full blood money for the tongue and nose. Thus, many rulings follow. We say: For the nose, the blood money, as it removes beauty completely, which is intended. Likewise, if the bridge or tip is cut, for the same reason. If the bridge and cartilage are cut, it does not exceed one blood money, as it is one organ. So it is in (Al-Hidayah).

⁴ His statement: “For the teeth, the blood money”: Al-Tayyibi said: If you ask how this aligns with his statement in the coming Hadith: “For teeth, five each,” I say: Here, he considered their plurality, and there, their essence. Like in definition, the essence of the genus and its inclusion. Hence, he repeated “five” to encompass the full blood money by its fifths. Ibn Al-Hajib said: The Arabs repeat a thing twice to encompass the details of the entire body by the meaning the repeated word indicates. It is objected that the fifths there exceed the blood money. (Al-Mirqat).

⁵ His statement: “For the two lips, the blood money” etc.: Know that for what has no second in the human body among organs or intended meanings, the full blood money is due. The organs are four types: singular, which are three: the nose, tongue, and penis. The singular meanings in the body are intellect, life, smell, and taste. The paired organs are the two eyes, two ears, two eyebrows, two lips, two hands, a woman’s two breasts, two testicles, and two legs; for them, the blood money, and for one, half. The quartered are the eyelids, with each lid being a quarter of the blood money. The tenthed are the fingers of the hands and feet, with the ten being the blood money, and one being a tenth. Those exceeding that are the teeth, with each being half a tenth of the blood money. So it is in (Radd al-Muhtar).

⁶ His statement: “For one leg, half the blood money”: Al-Shamni said: The full blood money is due for two of what is in the body that has two, like the two eyes, two hands, two legs, two lips, two ears, and two testicles. For one of two in the body that has two, half the blood money is due. So it is in (Al-Mirqat).

⁷ His statement: “For a head wound reaching the brain, one-third of the blood money” etc.: So it is in (Al-Hidayah). Al-Tayyibi said in (Al-Mirqat): Such estimations are purely devotional, not knowable except by divine instruction.

⁸ His statement: “For each finger” etc.: So it is said in (Al-Hidayah) due to this Hadith, and because cutting all fingers loses a type of benefit, for which the full blood money is due, and there are ten fingers, so the blood money is divided among them.

⁹ His statement: “For a tooth, five camels”: Or fifty dinars or five hundred dirhams, due to his (ﷺ) statement: For each tooth, five camels, meaning half a tenth of his blood money if free, or half a tenth of his value if a slave. If you say: Then the blood money for all teeth exceeds the blood money for life by three-fifths, based on the usual thirty-two teeth, requiring sixteen thousand dirhams, which is the blood money for life plus three-fifths. I say: Yes, and there is no issue, as it is established by text against analogy, as in (Al-Ghayah) and others. In (Al-Inayah): There is nothing in the body whose loss requires more than the blood money except the teeth. (Al-Durr al-Mukhtar and Radd al-Muhtar, excerpted from them).

¹⁰ His statement: “For the eye, fifty”: Meaning fifty camels, which is half the blood money for life. So it is in (Al-Hidayah).

¹ His statement: “He ruled regarding a man” etc.: This indicates that for each of the four mentioned losses, a full blood money is due per our view and the jurists. The author of (Al-Bahr) deduced this, saying: No companion disapproved of it, so it is consensus. (Nayl al-Awtar, excerpted from it). Therefore, it is said in (Al-Hidayah): Whoever strikes a limb and removes its benefit owes the full blood money, like a paralyzed hand or an eye whose light is gone. In another place: For intellect lost by striking, the blood money, and likewise if his hearing, sight, smell, or taste is lost, as each is an intended benefit.

¹ His statement: “Paid the blood money for the two men from Banu Amir with the blood money of the Muslims” etc.: Meaning, the blood money for a Muslim and a protected non-Muslim, even if he is a Magian, is equal. Malik said: "The blood money for a Jew or Christian is six thousand dirhams," due to his (ﷺ) statement: "The blood money for a disbeliever is half the blood money for a Muslim," and the full amount is twelve thousand dirhams. Al-Shafi’i said: "The blood money for a Christian or Jew is four thousand dirhams, and for a Magian, eight hundred dirhams," as it is narrated thus. This is his old view, and Ahmad and Malik in a narration agree. His new view is one-third of one hundred camels or their value if unavailable, and likewise for a Magian. We rely on what is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) paid for the two covenanted men who had a covenant from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and Amr ibn Umayyah Al-Damri killed them, eight hundred camels. He (ﷺ) said: "The blood money for every person under a covenant during his covenant is one thousand dinars." From Al-Zuhri, Abu Bakr and Umar used to make the blood money for a protected non-Muslim equal to that of a Muslim. It cannot be said that the deficiency of disbelief is greater than that of femininity or slavery, so his blood money should be reduced accordingly, and since slavery is a consequence of disbelief, if it reduces for its consequence, then for it is more so. We say: The reduction in the blood money for a woman or slave is not due to the deficiency of femininity or slavery but due to the deficiency in ownership attributes. A woman does not own marriage, and a slave does not own property, while a free male owns both, so his value is greater, and theirs is less. A disbeliever is equal to a Muslim in this regard, so his compensation should be like his. (Commentaries on Al-Kanz, excerpted from them).

¹ His statement: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ruled regarding the blood money for a mistake” etc.: Meaning, the blood money for a mistake is one hundred camels in fifths: twenty ibn makhad, twenty banat makhad, twenty banat labun, twenty hiqqah, and twenty jadha’ah, due to this Hadith. Al-Shafi’i agreed with us but said: "Twenty ibn labun instead of ibn makhad." The evidence against him is what we narrated. (Al-Takmilah and Al-Ayni, excerpted from them).

² His statement: “Imposed on the people of gold for blood money one thousand dinars” etc.: Know that the scholars differed on the principal in blood money. Al-Shafi’i and Ahmad in a narration said: "Camels only, and other types are settlements, not legal specifications, so their value is due, whatever it may be." This Hadith and the previous one, “For the people of gold, one thousand dinars,” indicate that all three types, camels, gold, and silver, are principals, which is Abu Hanifah’s view. The specification is by agreement or judgment, and this is what judges practice. It is said: "It is for the killer," as mentioned by Al-Qahistani. The deduction is that Umar ruled thus in the presence of the companions without disapproval, so it is consensus. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Ahmad in a narration said: "Camels, gold, silver, cows, two hundred cows, sheep, one thousand sheep, and garments, two hundred garments, are principals." The benefit of the disagreement appears in the killer’s choice. Per Abu Hanifah, the choice is from the three types only; per them, from the six. The benefit appears if the killer settles with the victim’s guardian for more than two hundred cows; per him, it is permissible, as it is settling for what is not of the type of blood money; per them, it is not, like settling for more than one hundred camels or more than one thousand dinars. The correct view is the Imam’s, as in (Al-Mudmarat), because Abu Yusuf and Muhammad took the apparent meaning of Umar’s Hadith, saying: "Blood money is from the six types," as Umar made it from these types and specified each. It is known that ruling for all at once does not occur, so we know the intent was to show the amount for each type. Abu Hanifah said: "Blood money is from camels, dirhams, and dinars," as the reports from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) are well-known. Umar took cows, sheep, and garments initially because they were their wealth, and paying from them was easier, so he took them to facilitate. The narrator thought it was to specify the blood money for these types. When the treasuries and grants became their main wealth, dirhams, dinars, and camels, he ruled for blood money from them. Cows and sheep have no role in the value of destroyed property at all, like houses, slaves, and maidservants. Similarly, camels should not be included, but the reports from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) are well-known, so we left analogy for that specifically for camels. (Al-Mirqat, Nayl al-Awtar, Radd al-Muhtar, Al-Binayah, Al-Hidayah, and Al-Mabsut, excerpted from them). ² His statement: “And from silver, ten thousand dirhams”: Al-Shamni said: "Blood money per us is one thousand dinars from gold, ten thousand dirhams from silver, and one hundred from camels." Al-Shafi’i said: "From silver, twelve thousand," and Malik, Ahmad, and Ishaq agreed, due to what the four Sunan compilers narrated from Ibn Abbas that a man from Banu Adi was killed, and the Prophet (ﷺ) set his blood money at twelve thousand. We rely on what Al-Bayhaqi narrated through Al-Shafi’i, who said: Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan said: "It reached us from Umar that he imposed on the people of gold for blood money one thousand dinars and from silver ten thousand dirhams." The interpretation of what Al-Shafi’i narrated is that the Prophet (ﷺ) ruled with dirhams whose weight was six, meaning six of them weighed six mithqals. At the beginning of the Messenger of Allah’s (ﷺ) time, dirhams were of weight six, until Umar’s time, then became weight seven. Taj Al-Shari’ah said: "The interpretation of what is narrated is that he imposed twelve, meaning from dirhams that were weighed as six, and twelve weighed as six amount to ten thousand weighed as seven." (Al-Mirqat and Al-Inayah, excerpted from them).

¹ His statement: “He is liable”: Meaning, for blood money, and retribution is waived due to the patient’s permission. The physician’s offense is upon the clan per most jurists. (Al-Luma’at and Al-Mirqat, excerpted from them). It is said in (Badhl al-Majhud): "In summary, if the physician performs a treatment with his hand, like cutting a vein, incising the skin, cauterizing, or administering medicine with his hand, and it leads to death, it is an offense requiring blood money. If he prescribes medicine and explains it to the patient, and the patient takes it with his own hand, there is no liability."