and so his killer was not identified. Ali said to Umar, "O Commander of the Faithful, the blood of a Muslim man shall not be wasted (tatal)." So he paid his blood money from the public treasury. Furthermore, because Muslims inherit from one who has no heir, they bear the blood money on his behalf in the absence of his aqila, just as his agnates (asabat) and clients (mawali) do. The second [view] is that this is not mandatory, because the public treasury contains a right for women, children, the insane, the poor, and those who have no aqila; therefore, it is not permissible to spend it on that which is not mandatory upon them. Furthermore, the bearing of blood money (aqila) is upon the agnates (asabat), and the public treasury is not an agnate, nor is it like the agnate of this person. As for the Ansari who was killed, it is not binding, because that was a killing by the Jews, and the public treasury does not bear blood money for the disbelievers under any circumstance; rather, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) showed favor in that instance towards them. As for their statement that "they inherit from him," we say: dispersing it to the public treasury is not inheritance; rather, it is fay' (spoils of war). This is why the wealth of someone who has no heir from among the People of the Dhimma is taken to the public treasury, yet the Muslims do not inherit from him. Moreover, the bearing of blood money is not mandatory upon the heir if he does not have agnates, and it is mandatory upon the agnates even if he is not an heir. Thus, according to the first narration, if he has no aqila, the entire blood money is paid on his behalf from the public treasury, and if he has an aqila that cannot bear the entire amount, the remainder is taken from the public treasury. Is it to be paid from the public treasury in a single payment, or over three years? There are two views: one is that it is over three years, in accordance with what is taken from the aqila. The second is that it is paid in a single payment, and this is the more correct view, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) paid the blood money of the Ansari in a single payment, as did Umar. Furthermore, blood money is a replacement for something destroyed (mutlaf) which the aqila does not pay [over time], so the whole of it becomes mandatory immediately, like other replacements for destroyed items. It is only deferred for the aqila as a mitigation for them, and there is no need for that in the case of the public treasury; therefore, the whole amount is paid.