because he perished by his own pulling. If he perished by the falling of the third upon him, he has perished by the pulling of the first and his own pulling of the third; thus, the effect of his own action is voided, like two people who collide, and his full blood money is incumbent upon the first. This was mentioned by al-Qadi. The second view is that half of his blood money is incumbent upon the first, and half of it is voided in consideration of his own action; this is the school of al-Shafi'i. A third view may be derived, which is the obligation of half of his blood money upon his 'aqila for his heirs, as we stated regarding the case where three people fire a catapult and the stone kills one of them. As for the first person, if he dies due to their both falling upon him, the three views apply to him as well, because he died due to his own pulling and the second's pulling of the third, so his entire blood money is incumbent upon the 'aqila of the second, and his own action is disregarded, according to the first view. According to the second, half of his blood money corresponding to his own action is voided, and half of it is incumbent upon the second. As for the third, half of it is incumbent upon his 'aqila for his heirs. If the third pulls a fourth, and they all die due to some of them falling upon others, there is nothing upon the fourth, because he did not perform any act regarding himself or others. Regarding his blood money, there are two views: one, that it is upon the 'aqila of the third, who directly caused his pulling. Second, it is upon the 'aqila of the first, second, and third, because he died due to the pulling of the three, so his blood money is upon their 'aqilas. As for the first person, he died due to his own pulling, the pulling of the second, and the pulling of the third, so there are three views regarding him: one, that his own action is disregarded, and his blood money is incumbent upon the 'aqilas of the second and third in equal halves. Second, two-thirds of it are incumbent upon their 'aqilas, and the portion corresponding to his own action is dropped. Third, one-third is incumbent upon his 'aqila for his heirs. As for the second puller, he died due to the three actions, and the same views mentioned regarding the first apply to him exactly. As for the third, these three views apply to him, as well as two other views: one, that his entire blood money is upon the second, because he is the direct cause of his pulling, so the action of others is dropped by his action. Second, that half of it is upon his 'aqila, and the other half is dropped in consideration of his action against himself.

Section: If some of them fall upon others and they die, you must examine: if their death occurred without some of them falling upon others—such as if the well were deep and the one falling into it dies from the fall itself, or if there were water in it that drowns the one falling and kills him, or a lion that eats them—then none of them are liable for the others because the action of some had no effect on the destruction of others. If we are in doubt about that, none of them are liable for the others, because the principle is the immunity of liability (bara'at al-dhimma), and we do not occupy it with doubt. If their death was due to some of them falling upon others, the blood of the fourth is void (hadar), because others did not do anything to him, and he only perished by his own action. The blood money of the third is upon him, because he killed him by falling upon him; the blood money of the second is upon him and the third in equal halves; and the blood money of the first is upon the three in thirds.