the blood money shall be taken from him, and he shall not be killed. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz said: The ruling regarding him rests with the Sultan. Our position is the words of the Almighty: {Whoever transgresses after that, for him is a painful punishment} (15). Ibn 'Abbas, 'Ata', al-Hasan, and Qatada said in interpreting this: Meaning after he has taken the blood money. From al-Hasan, on the authority of Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "I do not pardon one who kills after taking the blood money (16)," and because he killed a protected person who is his equal, therefore retaliation is wajib upon him, just as if he had not killed [previously].

Section: If one pardons the killer absolutely, it is valid, and no penalty is binding upon him. Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Abu Thawr stated this. Malik, al-Layth, and al-Awza'i said: He is to be flogged and imprisoned for a year. Our position is that he only had one right, and the one entitled to it has dropped it, so nothing else is binding upon him, just as if he had dropped the blood money for the one who killed by mistake.

Section: If he appoints an agent to exact retaliation, his appointment is valid. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, stated this textually. If he appoints him, then he is absent, and [the principal] pardons the retaliation, and the agent carries it out, we must examine the situation: if his pardon was after the killing [by the agent], it is not valid because his right has already been exacted. And if he killed him while the agent knew of [the pardon], then he has killed him unjustly, and retaliation is due upon him, just as if he had killed him from the outset. But if he killed him before knowing of the principal's pardon, Abu Bakr said: There is no liability upon the agent because there is no negligence on his part; for the pardon occurred in a manner that it was not possible for the agent to avert, so no liability is binding upon him, just as if he had pardoned after having shot him. Is the principal liable for the compensation? There are two opinions: one is that there is no liability upon him because his pardon is invalid, as we mentioned, for it occurred in a state where it was not possible to avert the act, so the killing occurred as one entitled to him, and no liability is binding upon him (17), and because pardoning is an act of beneficence, so it does not entail a liability. The second is that the liability is upon him, because the killing of the one who was pardoned occurred by his order and his authorization, in a way that the executor of the act is not at fault,