upon the blind man, and the blind man would recite during the pilgrimage seasons:

O people, I have encountered something abominable! Does the blind man pay the blood money for the sound and sighted? Both fell together, and both were broken.

This is the opinion of Ibn al-Zubayr, Shurayh, al-Nakha'i, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. If someone were to say: There is no liability upon the blind man for the sighted person, because he is the one who led him to the place where they both fell and was the cause of him falling upon him—and for this reason, if he had done it intentionally, he would not be liable, by consensus, and he would have been liable for the blind man, and had he not been a cause, no liability would have been incumbent upon him by his intent—this would have a basis, were it not for the fact that it is a matter of consensus, and it is not permissible to oppose consensus. It is possible that liability was not incumbent upon the guide for two reasons: First, that he was granted permission by the blind man, so he is not liable for what was destroyed by it, just as if he had dug a well for him in his house with his permission, and he was destroyed by it. Second, that it is an act that is encouraged and commanded, so it resembles the case where he digs a well on a public path from which the Muslims benefit; he is not liable for what is destroyed by it.

Section: If a man falls into a well and clings to another, and they both fall together, then the blood of the first is void (hadar), because he died by his own action, and the blood money of the second is upon his 'aqila if he dies, because he killed him by pulling him. If the second clings to a third and they all die, then there is nothing upon the third, and the blood money of the second is upon the 'aqila of the second, according to one of the two views, because he pulled him and directly caused it by pulling, and direct action (mubashara) severs the effect of the cause, like the digger (of a well) in relation to the pusher; the blood money of the second is upon the 'aqila of the first and the second, in equal halves, because the first pulled the second who pulled the third, thus he became a participant with the second in destroying him. The blood money of the second is upon the 'aqila of the first, according to one of the two views;