if he pardons some of them, then upon the pardoned party is his share (16) of the blood money, because the blood money is a replacement for the location [of the injury], and it is singular; thus the blood money for it is singular, whether it was destroyed by one or by a group. Ibn Abi Musa said: There is another narration that upon each one of them is a full blood money, because he has the right to kill each one of them, so upon each one of them is the blood money of a full person, just as if a one-eyed person gouged the eye of a healthy person, for it is obligatory upon him to pay the blood money for his eye, which is a full blood money. The correct view is the first, because the obligation is a replacement for what was destroyed, so it does not differ with the difference (17) in what was destroyed. For this reason, if a slave whose value is two thousand [dirhams] killed a free person, he does not possess the right to pardon for more than the blood money. As for retaliation, it is a punishment for the act, so it multiples with the multiplication of the act.

1457 - Issue: He said: (If one is killed for whom the guardians have the right to [demand retaliation], and the killer offers more than the blood money on the condition that he not be retaliated against, it is permissible for the guardians to accept that.)

Its general premise is that whoever has the right to retaliation has the right to settle for it with more than the blood money, with its equivalent, or with less than it; I know of no disagreement regarding this, due to what Amr ibn Shu'ayb narrated from his father, from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever kills intentionally shall be handed over to the guardians of the murdered person; if they wish, they may kill, and if they wish, they may accept the blood money: thirty hiqqah, thirty jadha'ah, and forty khilfah (3), and whatever they settle (4) for is theirs." This is for the sake of emphasizing the blood money (5). It was narrated by Al-Tirmidhi (6), who said: A Hasan Gharib hadith. We have also narrated that Hudbah ibn Khashram killed a person, and Sa'id ibn al-As, Al-Hasan, and Al-Husayn offered the son of the murdered person seven blood-moneys so that he would pardon him, but he refused that and killed him (7). This is because it is a compensation for something other than wealth, so a settlement for it is permissible for whatever they agree upon, like the dower and the compensation for khul', and because it is a settlement regarding that in which usury does not apply, so it resembles a settlement regarding commodities.