Our position is that the blood money and the value are established as a fixed liability in the conscience (dhimma). Therefore, it is not permissible to reconcile regarding them for more than their amount of the same kind, similar to that which is established regarding a loan or the price of a sold item. Furthermore, if he takes more than that, he has taken his right and an additional amount for which there is no equivalent, which constitutes consuming property unjustly. However, if he reconciles with him for something of a different kind that is of higher value than it, it is permissible because this is a sale, and it is permissible to buy an item for more or less than its value.

Section: If one reconciles regarding a hundred [units of currency] established in the conscience due to destruction for a hundred that is deferred, it is not permissible, and it should be immediate. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Ahmad has an opinion that it is permissible, which is the position of Abu Hanifah, because he has compensated for the destroyed item with a hundred that is deferred, so it is permitted, just as if he had sold it to him. Our position is that he is only entitled to the value of the destroyed item, which is a hundred [units] immediately, and an immediate amount cannot be deferred by deferment. If we consider it a sale, then it is a sale of debt for debt, and the sale of debt for debt is not permissible.

Section: If one reconciles for retribution (qisas) with a slave, and the slave turns out to be rightfully owned by someone else, he reverts to his value according to all their opinions. If he turns out to be a free man, the ruling is the same. This is also the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. Abu Hanifah said: He reverts to the blood money, because the reconciliation is void, so he reverts to the obligation of what he reconciled for, which is the blood money. Our position is that it became impossible to deliver what was established as compensation, so he reverts to its value, just as if it had turned out to be rightfully owned by another.

Section: If one reconciles for a house or a slave for compensation, and he finds the compensation is rightfully owned by another or is a free person, he reverts to the house and what he reconciled for, or its value if it has been destroyed; because the reconciliation here is a sale in reality. When it is revealed that the compensation was rightfully owned or a free person, the sale is void, so he reverts to what was his, unlike reconciliation for retribution, for that is not a sale, but rather he takes compensation for dropping the retribution. If he buys something and finds it defective, then reconciles [regarding its defect] with a slave, and it turns out to be rightfully owned or a free person, he reverts to the amount of the defect (arsh al-'ayb). If the seller was a woman and she married herself to him as compensation for the amount of the defect, and the defect was removed, she reverts to its amount (arsh), not the dowry of an equal (mahr al-mithl), because she agreed to that as her dowry.