Muslims, because he was not a Muslim at the time of his shooting, nor do the people of the treaty (Dhimmi) bear it, because he killed him while being a Muslim, so it falls upon the perpetrator's own wealth. The same applies if he shot while a Muslim, then apostatized, then the arrow killed a person; no one bears the blood money for him. If a Dhimmi injured a Dhimmi, then the perpetrator converted to Islam, and the injured party died, and the indemnity (arsh) for his injury exceeded a third, then the blood money for it is upon his 'asaba from among the people of the Dhimma. Whatever exceeds the indemnity of the injury is not borne by anyone, and it is from the perpetrator's own wealth, for the reason we mentioned. If the indemnity of the injury is not of the type that the 'aqilah bears, then the entire blood money is upon the perpetrator. The same ruling applies if a Muslim injured someone, then apostatized. It is possible that the 'aqilah bears the entire blood money in both cases, because the crime occurred while he was someone whose crime the 'aqilah bears, and for this reason, retaliation (qisas) was made obligatory in the first case if it was intentional. It is also possible that the 'aqilah bears nothing, because the indemnity is only established upon the healing of the wound or its spread.

Section: If a slave marries a freedwoman and they have children, their wala' (patronage) belongs to the patron (mawla) of their mother. If one of them commits a crime, the blood money is upon the patron of his mother, because he is his 'asaba and his heir. If his father is freed, then the crime spreads, or he is shot by an arrow and the arrow does not land until his father is freed, then no one bears his blood money, because the patrons of the mother had their wala' over him severed before his killing, and the patrons of the father had no wala' over him at the time of his crime; thus the blood money is upon him from his own wealth, unless the indemnity of the injury is something that the 'aqilah bears individually, in which case the same as what we said in the previous case is derived.

Section: If a man commits a crime against himself by mistake, or against his own limbs, there are two narrations. The Qadi said: The most evident of them is that his 'aqilah is liable for his blood money to his heirs if he killed himself, or for the indemnity of his injury to himself if it is more than a third. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i and Ishaq, due to what was narrated that a man was driving a donkey