the blood money in the estate of the first perpetrator, that when retaliation is impossible, blood money becomes due, as if he died, or some of the partners granted a pardon, or an obstacle arose. It differs from the perpetrator slave, for he has no wealth to which it [the obligation] can be transferred. If the heirs of the second [victim] pardon [the killer] for blood money, they take it and pay it to the heirs of the first. If he has debts, what they received of the blood money is added to the rest of his estate, then the heirs of the first victim claim their share along with the other creditors from his estate and his blood money. If the heirs of the second victim assign the heirs of the first victim for the blood money upon the second killer (11), the assignment is valid. It is also deduced that the blood money of the first victim becomes due from the killer of (12) his killer initially; because he destroyed the locus of the right of his heirs, so its liability rests upon him, just as if he had killed a perpetrator slave. If the killer dies intentionally, the blood money becomes due from his estate. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: The right of the heir of the crime lapses. The reasoning for the two schools is based on what was previously stated.

1424 - Issue: He said: (The child and the one whose intellect has ceased are not to be killed for anyone).

There is no disagreement among the scholars that there is no retaliation against a child or a madman, and likewise everyone whose intellect has ceased for a valid, excusable reason, such as the sleeper, the unconscious, and the like. The basis for this is the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "The pen is lifted for three: for the child until he reaches puberty, for the sleeper until he wakes up, and for the madman until he regains his sanity" (1). Furthermore, retaliation is a harsh punishment, so it is not due upon the child and the one whose intellect has ceased, like the Hadd punishments. Also, they do not possess sound intention, so they are like the one who kills by mistake.

Section: If the perpetrator and the victim's heir differ, and the perpetrator says: I was a child at the time of the crime. And the victim's heir says: You were an adult. Then the statement is that of the perpetrator, with his oath, if his claim is plausible; because the original state is childhood and the exoneration of his liability from retaliation. If he says: I killed him while I was insane. And the heir denies his insanity, then if a state of insanity is known for him, his statement is accepted for that reason as well. If no state of insanity is known for him, the statement of the heir is accepted; because the original state is soundness, and likewise if insanity was known for him, then it was known that it ceased before the killing. If one of them provides proof for what he claimed (2), judgment is passed for him. If they both provide proofs, and they conflict, then if the evidence testifies that he was of ceased intellect, and (3) the heir said: You were drunk. And the killer (4) said: I was insane. Then the statement is that of the killer, with his oath; because he is more knowledgeable about himself, and because the original state is the exoneration of his liability and the Muslim's avoidance of doing what is forbidden to him.