others, and the confession of one person against another is not accepted. Furthermore, he is suspected of colluding with the person to whom he confesses this, so that he may take the blood money from his 'Aqilah and then divide it with him. Once this is established, he is held liable for what he confessed, and the blood money becomes due upon him immediately, payable from his own wealth, according to the opinion of the majority of them. Abu Thawr and Ibn Abd al-Hakam said: Nothing is binding upon him, and his confession is not valid, because he is confessing against another and not against himself; and because the object of his confession was not established, it is void, just as if he confessed to a killing on behalf of another. Our evidence is the saying of the Almighty: "And whoever kills a believer by error, then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation [blood money] payment delivered to his family" (Quran 4:92). Also, because he is confessing to a crime against himself that entails wealth, his confession is valid, just as if he confessed to the destruction of property, or to a matter for which the 'Aqilah does not bear the blood money. Furthermore, it is a guaranteed liability, so he becomes liable when he confesses to it, like all other liabilities. The blood money was only dropped from him in the case of consensus because the 'Aqilah bears it; so when they do not bear it, it becomes due upon him, just like the crime of an apostate.

Fifth Issue: That they do not bear [liability for] that which is less than a third. This is the opinion of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Ata', Malik, Ishaq, and 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Abi Salamah. Al-Zuhri held this view as well, and added: They do not bear the third either. Al-Thawri and Abu Hanifah said: They bear the tooth, the mudihah (a wound that exposes the bone), and anything above them, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) placed the ghurrah (compensation) for the fetus upon the 'Aqilah, and its value is one-twentieth of the blood money; they do not bear less than that because there is no fixed arsh (indemnity) for it. The correct view according to al-Shafi'i is that they bear both the large and the small amounts, because one who bears the large amount bears the small amount, like the perpetrator in intentional killing. Our evidence is what was narrated from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he decreed regarding blood money that nothing is to be borne of it until it reaches the blood money for a ma'mumah (head wound reaching the brain cavity). Also, because the basic requirement is the obligation of liability upon the perpetrator;