taken to account for his act, not for the act of another. According to this, the act of the partner is considered in isolation; whenever it is purely intentional and hostile, and the slain person is equivalent to him, retaliation becomes obligatory upon him. Al-Shafi'i based his view on the principle that the act of a child and a madman, if they intend it, is an intentional act, for they both intend the killing, and the falling away of retaliation from them is due to a meaning within them, namely, the lack of legal accountability (taklif), which does not necessitate its falling away from their partner, like paternity. Our view is that he participated with someone upon whom there is no sin in his act, so retaliation does not bind him, just like the partner of someone who makes an error. Furthermore, because the child and the madman have no valid intention, and this is why their confession is not valid, the ruling on their act is that of error. This is the meaning of the statement of al-Khiraqi: 'their intentional act is error,' meaning it is in the ruling of error regarding the exclusion of retaliation from them, the amount of blood money, the bearing of it by their 'aqila (tribal kin), and the obligation of atonement. Once this is established, the blood money is obligatory upon them in thirds, one-third for each of them, because the blood money is a replacement for the subject (al-mahall), and therefore it differs according to its variation, while the destroyed subject is one, so its blood money is one, and because it is estimated according to its measure. As for retaliation, it is completed in each one because it is the recompense for the act, and their acts are multiple, so it is multiplied in their case and completed in the case of each individual, just as if a group slandered one person. However, the one-third obligatory upon the accountable adult binds him in his wealth immediately because his act is intentional, and the 'aqila does not bear the intentional act. What binds the child and the madman is upon their 'aqila because their intentional act is [treated as] error, and the 'aqila bears the injury of error if it reaches one-third of the blood money, and it is deferred for one year; for whenever the obligation is one-third of the blood money, its term is one year. Each of them is bound by atonement from his wealth, because their act is error, and the one who kills by error or participates in a killing by error is bound by atonement; for it is not obligatory as a replacement for the subject, and for this reason, it does not differ, but rather it is obligatory as an expiation for the act and an erasure of its effect, thus its completion became necessary, like retaliation.

1432 - Issue: He said: (A male shall be killed for a female, and a female shall be killed for a male.)

This is the view of the general body of scholars; among them are al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, al-Zuhri, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Malik, the people of Medina, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and others. It has been narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: 'A man is killed for a woman, and his guardians are given half the blood money.' Sa'id recorded it. Something similar was narrated from Ahmad. It was related from al-Hasan and 'Ata'. It was also related from them that they held the view of the group. Perhaps those who follow the second view argue using the statement of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and because her blood money is half of his, so if he is killed for her, a remainder remains for him, and it is satisfied from the one who killed him. Our evidence is the words of the Almighty: "A soul for a soul," and His saying: "A free man for a free man," along with the generality of the other texts. It is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed a Jew who had crushed the head of a girl from the Ansar. Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm narrated from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wrote to the people of Yemen in a letter containing the obligatory duties, the ages of livestock [for zakat], and that a man is killed for a woman. It is a well-known book among the scholars, received by them with acceptance, and because they are two persons each of whom is penalized for slandering the other, so each of them is killed for the other.