It is not obligatory on the Muslim and the free person, but it is obligatory on the Dhimmi and the slave, provided we hold the view of its obligation on the partner of the father; for the prevention of retaliation from the Muslim is due to his Islam, and from the free person due to his freedom and the lack of equivalence (mukafa'a) of the slain to him. This meaning does not extend to his act nor to his partner, so retaliation does not drop from him. Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated, saying: I asked my father about a free man and a slave who killed a slave intentionally. He said: As for the free man, he is not killed for the slave; the free man is liable for half the value of the slave from his wealth, and regarding the slave, if his master wishes, he may surrender him, otherwise he ransoms him with half the value of the slave. The manifest implication of this is that there is no retaliation on the slave; therefore, similar [rulings] can be derived in every case of killing in which someone upon whom retaliation is not obligatory has participated.

1431 - Issue: He said: (If a child, a madman, and an adult participate in a killing, none of them shall be killed. Upon the rational adult is one-third of the blood money from his wealth, and upon the 'aqila (tribal kin) of each of the child and the madman is one-third of the blood money and the emancipation of two captives from their respective wealth; [because their intentional act is [treated as] error].)

As for when one upon whom there is no retaliation participates in the killing due to a meaning in his act—such as the child or the madman—the correct view in the Madhhab is that there is no retaliation upon him. This was the view of al-Hasan, al-Awza'i, Ishaq, and Abu Hanifa and his companions. It is one of the two narrations from al-Shafi'i. From Ahmad, there is another narration that retaliation is obligatory upon the adult of sound mind. Ibn al-Mundhir related it from Ahmad. It was also related from Malik, and it is the second view of al-Shafi'i. This was also narrated from Qatada, al-Zuhri, and Hammad; because retaliation is a punishment that becomes obligatory upon him as a recompense for his act. Whenever his act is intentional and hostile, retaliation becomes obligatory upon him, and there is no regard for the act of his partner in any way. Furthermore, because he participated in the killing intentionally and hostilely, retaliation became obligatory upon him, just like the partner of a stranger. This is because a person is only