his soul by mistake, as if he intended to strike a limb but hit himself, or he stitched his wound and it struck living flesh, then there is no retaliation upon his partner, according to the most correct of the two views. There is another view that retaliation is incumbent upon him, based on the two narrations regarding the partner of the one who erred.

Section: If a human wounds him, and he treats himself with poison and dies, you should consider: if it was a poison that kills instantly, he has killed himself and severed the cause of the wound. It is treated like one who slaughters himself after being wounded. We then examine the wound; if it necessitated retaliation, his guardian may exact it, and if it did not necessitate it, his guardian receives the blood money (arsh). If the poison does not usually kill, but sometimes does, then the man's act upon himself is an intentional-mistake (amd al-khata'), and the ruling concerning his partner is like the ruling concerning the partner of the one who erred. If retaliation is not incumbent, the one who wounded him is liable for half the blood money. If the poison usually kills after a while, it may be considered intentional-mistake as well, because he did not intend to kill, he only intended to treat himself, so he would be like one who killed him; and it may be considered in the category of intentional (amd), so his partner would be subject to the two views mentioned in the previous section. If a man is wounded, and he stitches his wound, or orders someone else to stitch it for him, and it was something that could potentially kill, its ruling is the ruling of one who drinks poison that could potentially kill, as has already passed. If someone else stitches it without his permission, by force, then they are both killers and subject to retaliation (qawad). If his guardian or the Imam stitches it, and he is someone over whom they have no guardianship, they are like a stranger. If they have guardianship over him, there is no retaliation upon them, because their act is permissible for them, as they have the right to treat him, so it is considered a mistake. Is there retaliation upon the one who wounded him? There are two views, based on the partner of the one who erred.

1435 - Issue; he said: (The blood money for a slave is his value, even if it reaches [the amount of] blood monies.)

Scholars have reached a consensus that for a slave whose value does not reach the blood money of a free person, his value is paid. If