man, then upon the 'aqila (kinsfolk) of each one of them falls one-third of the blood money, and upon each one of them is the emancipation of a believing slave from his own wealth."

As for the emancipation of a slave by each of them, we know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this, because each of them is a participant in the destruction of a protected human life, and the expiation (kaffara) is not divisible, so it is completed in the case of each one of them. Then, there are two scenarios: First, that they kill one among them. Second, that they kill one other than them. [If the killed person is someone other than them], then upon each one of them is the emancipation of a slave, as we have mentioned, and the blood money is upon their 'aqila in thirds, because the 'aqila bears one-third and more. It makes no difference whether they intended to shoot one specific individual, or a group, or did not intend that at all, except that if they did not intend to kill a protected human being, it is an error (khata'), and its blood money is the blood money for error. If they intended to shoot a group or one specific individual, it is quasi-intentional (shibh 'amd); because intending one specific individual with a catapult rarely results in his destruction, so its blood money is aggravated (mughallaza) upon the 'aqila, except that it is paid over three years. According to the view of Abu Bakr, the 'aqila does not bear the blood money for quasi-intentional killing, so they do not bear it here. The second scenario: that it strikes a man among them. Then upon each one is also an expiation, and it does not fall away from the one the stone struck; because he participated in the killing of a believing soul, and the expiation is only mandatory due to the right of Allah Almighty, so it became mandatory upon him due to participation in his own case, just as it is mandatory due to participation in killing another. As for the blood money, there are three perspectives on it. One is that upon the 'aqila of each one of them is one-third of his blood money for the heirs of the killed person; because each one of them participated in the killing of a believing soul by error, so its blood money became mandatory upon him, like outsiders. This is based on one of the two narrations regarding whether a person's offense against himself or his family is an error whose blood money is borne by his 'aqila. The second perspective is that what corresponds to the action of the killed person is dropped; no one guarantees it; because he participated in the destruction of his own right, so he does not guarantee what corresponded to his action, just as if he participated in the killing of his animal or his slave. This is what al-Qadi mentioned in "al-Mujarrad," and he mentioned no other. It is the position of al-Shafi'i. The third is that the action of the killed person is disregarded in his own case, and his full blood money becomes mandatory upon the 'aqila of the others in two halves. Abu al-Khattab said: This is the analogy of the madhhab, based on the issue of the colliding parties. The one which al-Qadi mentioned is better and more correct upon examination. A similar instance has been narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the case of the scratcher, the jumper, and the breaker of the neck. Al-Sha'bi said: That is because three girls gathered and became playful; one of them rode on the neck of another, and the third scratched the one who was ridden, so she jumped, and the rider fell, her neck was broken, and she died. This was brought to Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and he decreed the blood money in thirds upon their 'aqila, and disregarded the third that corresponded to the action of the one whose neck was broken, because she helped in the killing of herself. This is similar to our issue, and because the killed person is a participant in the killing, the blood money is not completed upon his partners, just as if they had killed someone other than them. If the stone returns and kills two of the shooters, then according to the first perspective, their blood money is mandatory upon their 'aqila in thirds, and upon each one are two expiations. According to the second perspective, it is mandatory upon the 'aqila of the living among them, for each dead person one-third of his blood money, and upon the 'aqila of each one of the two dead people is one-third of his companion's blood money, and his action against himself is disregarded. According to the third perspective, upon the 'aqila of the living person for each of the two dead people is half the blood money, and it is mandatory upon the 'aqila of each one of the two dead people is half the blood money for his companion.