Allah, [there is] another narration that for an intentional killer [there is] the emancipation of a believing slave.

The fundamental basis regarding the expiation for killing is His saying, the Almighty: "And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave" [Qur'an 4:92], and the verse follows. Scholars are in consensus that a killer by mistake is obligated to perform expiation, regardless of whether the victim was male or female. It is mandatory in the killing of a minor or an adult, whether he directly committed the killing or was a cause for his killing through a means that warrants liability for a life, such as digging a well, setting up a knife, or false testimony. This is the position of Malik and Al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is not obligatory through causality, because it is not killing, and because he guaranteed its replacement without direct killing, so the expiation does not bind him, just like the 'aqilah (the paternal kinsmen who pay blood money). Our argument is that it is like direct action in terms of liability, so it is like direct action regarding expiation. Furthermore, it is a cause for the destruction of a human, which creates liability, and thus expiation is attached to it, just as if he were a rider and his mount trampled a person. Their analogy is invalidated by the case of a father if he compels a person to kill his son; for the expiation is mandatory upon him without direct killing. It differs from the 'aqilah, for they bear responsibility on behalf of others, and no killing or causality for it emanates from them. Their statement that "it is not killing" is rejected. The Qadi said: Expiation is also binding upon witnesses, whether they say: "We made a mistake" or "We acted intentionally." This indicates that killing by causality necessitates expiation in every case, and error or intent is not considered in it; because if he intended killing by it, it follows the path of error in that retaliation (qisas) is not mandatory for it.

Section: Expiation is mandatory for the killing of a slave. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and Al-Shafi'i. Malik said: It is not mandatory for it, because it is guaranteed by its value, resembling livestock. Our argument is the generality of His saying, the Almighty: "And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave." Also, because retaliation is mandatory for killing him, therefore expiation is mandatory for it, like a free person; and because he is a believer, he resembles a free person, and he differs from livestock in that regard.