وَحَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ أَنَّ الْعَاقِلَةَ لاَ تَحْمِلُ شَيْئًا مِنْ دِيَةِ الْعَمْدِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَشَاءُوا ذَلِكَ ‏.‏ وَحَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ ‏.

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna is that the tribe are not liable for any blood- money of an intentional killing unless they wish that." Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said the same as that.

قَالَ مَالِكٌ إِنَّ ابْنَ شِهَابٍ قَالَ مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ فِي قَتْلِ الْعَمْدِ حِينَ يَعْفُو أَوْلِيَاءُ الْمَقْتُولِ أَنَّ الدِّيَةَ تَكُونُ عَلَى الْقَاتِلِ فِي مَالِهِ خَاصَّةً إِلاَّ أَنْ تُعِينَهُ الْعَاقِلَةُ عَنْ طِيبِ نَفْسٍ مِنْهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَالأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ الدِّيَةَ لاَ تَجِبُ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ حَتَّى تَبْلُغَ الثُّلُثَ فَصَاعِدًا فَمَا بَلَغَ الثُّلُثَ فَهُوَ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ وَمَا كَانَ دُونَ الثُّلُثِ فَهُوَ فِي مَالِ الْجَارِحِ خَاصَّةً ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ الأَمْرُ الَّذِي لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنَا فِيمَنْ قُبِلَتْ مِنْهُ الدِّيَةُ فِي قَتْلِ الْعَمْدِ أَوْ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْجِرَاحِ الَّتِي فِيهَا الْقِصَاصُ أَنَّ عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ لاَ يَكُونُ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَشَاءُوا وَإِنَّمَا عَقْلُ ذَلِكَ فِي مَالِ الْقَاتِلِ أَوِ الْجَارِحِ خَاصَّةً إِنْ وُجِدَ لَهُ مَالٌ فَإِنْ لَمْ يُوجَدْ لَهُ مَالٌ كَانَ دَيْنًا عَلَيْهِ وَلَيْسَ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ مِنْهُ شَىْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَشَاءُوا ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَلاَ تَعْقِلُ الْعَاقِلَةُ أَحَدًا أَصَابَ نَفْسَهُ عَمْدًا أَوْ خَطَأً بِشَىْءٍ وَعَلَى ذَلِكَ رَأْىُ أَهْلِ الْفِقْهِ عِنْدَنَا وَلَمْ أَسْمَعْ أَنَّ أَحَدًا ضَمَّنَ الْعَاقِلَةَ مِنْ دِيَةِ الْعَمْدِ شَيْئًا وَمِمَّا يُعْرَفُ بِهِ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى قَالَ فِي كِتَابِهِ ‏ {‏فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَىْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ‏}‏ فَتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ - فِيمَا نُرَى وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ - أَنَّهُ مَنْ أُعْطِيَ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَىْءٌ مِنَ الْعَقْلِ فَلْيَتْبَعْهُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلْيُؤَدِّ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ فِي الصَّبِيِّ الَّذِي لاَ مَالَ لَهُ وَالْمَرْأَةِ الَّتِي لاَ مَالَ لَهَا إِذَا جَنَى أَحَدُهُمَا جِنَايَةً دُونَ الثُّلُثِ إِنَّهُ ضَامِنٌ عَلَى الصَّبِيِّ وَالْمَرْأَةِ فِي مَالِهِمَا خَاصَّةً إِنْ كَانَ لَهُمَا مَالٌ أُخِذَ مِنْهُ وَإِلاَّ فَجِنَايَةُ كُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا دَيْنٌ عَلَيْهِ لَيْسَ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ مِنْهُ شَىْءٌ وَلاَ يُؤْخَذُ أَبُو الصَّبِيِّ بِعَقْلِ جِنَايَةِ الصَّبِيِّ وَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا الَّذِي لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيهِ أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ إِذَا قُتِلَ كَانَتْ فِيهِ الْقِيمَةُ يَوْمَ يُقْتَلُ وَلاَ تَحْمِلُ عَاقِلَةُ قَاتِلِهِ مِنْ قِيمَةِ الْعَبْدِ شَيْئًا قَلَّ أَوْ كَثُرَ وَإِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ عَلَى الَّذِي أَصَابَهُ فِي مَالِهِ خَاصَّةً بَالِغًا مَا بَلَغَ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ قِيمَةُ الْعَبْدِ الدِّيَةَ أَوْ أَكْثَرَ فَذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ فِي مَالِهِ وَذَلِكَ لأَنَّ الْعَبْدَ سِلْعَةٌ مِنَ السِّلَعِ ‏.‏

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna in the intentional murder is that when the relatives of the murdered person relinquish retaliation, the blood-money is owed by the murderer from his own property unless the tribe helps him with it willingly." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the blood- money is not obliged against the tribe until it has reached a third of the full amount and upwards. Whatever reaches a third is against the tribe, and whatever is below a third, is against the property of the one who did the injury." Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, in the case of someone who has the blood-money accepted from him in intentional murder or in any injury in which there is retaliation, is that that blood-money is not due from the tribe unless they wish it. The blood-money for that is from the property of the murderer or the injurer if he has property. If he does not have any property, it is a debt against him, and none of it is owed by the tribe unless they wish." Malik said, "The tribe does not pay blood-money to anyone who injures himself, intentionally or accidentally. This is the opinion of the people of fiqh in our community. I have not heard that anyone has made the tribe liable for any blood-money incurred by intentional acts. Part of what is well-known of that is that Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Whoever has something pardoned him by his brother, should follow it with what is accepted and pay it with good will' (Sura 2 ayat 178) The commentary on that - in our view - and Allah knows best, is that whoever gives his brother something of the blood- money, should follow it with what is accepted and pay him with good will." Malik spoke about a child who had no property and a woman who had no property. He said, "When one of them causes an injury below a third of the blood-money, it is taken on behalf of the child and woman from their personal property, if they have property from which it may be taken. If not, the injury which each of them has caused is a debt against them. The tribe does not have to pay any of it and the father of a child is not liable for the blood-money of an injury caused by the child and he is not responsible for it." Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that when a slave is killed, the value for him is that of the day on which he was killed. The tribe of the murderer is not liable for any of the value of the slave, great or small. That is the responsibility of the one who struck him from his own personal property as far as it covers. If the value of the slave is the blood- money or more, that is against him in his property. That is because the slave is a certain type of goods."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ سَعِيدَ بْنَ الْمُسَيَّبِ، وَسُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ يَسَارٍ، سُئِلاَ أَتُغَلَّظُ الدِّيَةُ فِي الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ فَقَالاَ لاَ وَلَكِنْ يُزَادُ فِيهَا لِلْحُرْمَةِ ‏.‏ فَقِيلَ لِسَعِيدٍ هَلْ يُزَادُ فِي الْجِرَاحِ كَمَا يُزَادُ فِي النَّفْسِ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ أُرَاهُمَا أَرَادَا مِثْلَ الَّذِي صَنَعَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فِي عَقْلِ الْمُدْلِجِيِّ حِينَ أَصَابَ ابْنَهُ ‏.‏

Malik said that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar were asked, "Does one deal more harshly in taking the blood-money in the sacred month?" They said, "No. But it is increased in it because of violating the month." It was said to Said, "Does one increase for the wound as one increases for the life?" He said, "Yes." Malik added, "I think that they meant the same as what Umar ibn al-Khattab did with respect to the blood-money of the Mudliji when he struck his son." (i.e. giving 120 camels instead of 100).

وَحَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرِ بْنَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ حَزْمٍ، أَقَادَ مِنْ كَسْرِ الْفَخِذِ ‏.‏

Yahya related to me from Malik that he saw whomever he was satisfied with among the people of knowledge say about a man who willed that his murderer be pardoned when he murdered him intentionally, "That is permitted for him. He is more entitled to the man's blood than any of his relatives after him." Malik said about a man who pardoned murder, after he had claimed his right and it was obliged for him, "There is no blood-money against the murderer unless the one who pardons him stipulates that when he pardons him." Malik said about the murderer when he was pardoned, "He is flogged one hundred lashes and jailed for a year." Malik said, "When a man murders intentionally and there is a clear proof of that, and the murdered man has sons and daughters and the sons pardon and the daughters refuse to pardon, the pardon of the sons is permitted in opposition to the daughters and there is no authority for the daughters with the sons in demanding blood and pardoning."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money." Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury." He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that." Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him." Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg.

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، أَنَّ سَائِبَةً، أَعْتَقَهُ بَعْضُ الْحُجَّاجِ فَقَتَلَ ابْنَ رَجُلٍ مِنْ بَنِي عَائِذٍ فَجَاءَ الْعَائِذِيُّ أَبُو الْمَقْتُولِ إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ يَطْلُبُ دِيَةَ ابْنِهِ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ لاَ دِيَةَ لَهُ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الْعَائِذِيُّ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ قَتَلَهُ ابْنِي فَقَالَ عُمَرُ إِذًا تُخْرِجُونَ دِيَتَهُ فَقَالَ هُوَ إِذًا كَالأَرْقَمِ إِنْ يُتْرَكْ يَلْقَمْ وَإِنْ يُقْتَلْ يَنْقَمْ ‏.‏

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from Sulayman ibn Yasar that a slave was set free by one of the people on hajj and his master had abandoned the right to inherit from him. The ex-slave then killed a man from the Banu A'idh tribe. An A'idhi, the father of the slain man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab seeking the blood-money of his son. Umar said, "He has no blood-money." The A'idhi said, "What would you think if it had been my son who killed him?" Umar said, "Then you would pay his blood-money." He said, "He is then like the black and white Arqam snake. If it is left, it devours and if it is killed, it takes revenge."