Section: Al-Khiraqi did not distinguish between whether the disbeliever was a dhimmi (protected subject) or otherwise, except that it is necessary to distinguish between them. Whenever one shoots at an enemy combatant in the land of war, and he becomes a Muslim before the arrow strikes him, there is no blood-money for him, but there is the kaffarah (expiation) on him; because this is a permitted shot that was commanded, so it is similar to if he killed him in the land of war, thinking him to be an enemy combatant, while he had already become a Muslim and concealed his Islam. There is another narration that the blood-money is due upon the 'aqilah (agnatic kin) of the killer, because it is a type of quasi-intentional killing, and thus it is the same here. If he shoots at an apostate in the land of Islam, and he becomes a Muslim, then the arrow strikes him, he is liable, because he was negligent by sending his arrow at him; for the killing of an apostate is the prerogative of the Imam, not private individuals, and his killing should be by the sword, not by the arrow.

Section: If one shoots at an enemy combatant, and he uses a Muslim as a human shield, and he hits the Muslim and kills him, we look: if he was used as a shield after the shooting, there is the expiation, and regarding the blood-money upon the 'aqilah of the shooter, there are two narrations, like the one before it. If he was used as a shield before the shooting, it is not permitted to shoot him, unless he fears for the Muslims, in which case he may shoot the disbeliever without intending the Muslim. If he kills him, there are also two narrations regarding his blood-money. If he shoots him without fear for the Muslims and kills him, then upon him is his blood-money, because it was not permitted for him to shoot.

Section: If one cuts off the hand of a slave, then he is emancipated and dies, or the hand of a dhimmi, then he becomes a Muslim and dies, there are two views. The first is that the obligation is the blood-money of a free Muslim, for his heirs, and for his master from it is the lesser of the two: either the slave's blood-money or the damages for his injury, considering the state at the time the injury became established. Al-Qadi and Abu Bakr said: The value of the slave is due, reaching whatever it reaches, paid to the master, considering the state at the time of the injury, because it is the cause for the liability, so its state at the time of its occurrence is considered. The implication of their view is that the liability for the dhimmi who becomes a Muslim is the blood-money of a dhimmi, and it would be incumbent upon them in this case to pay it to his heirs among the People of the Covenant (dhimmis), which is incorrect; for the blood-money cannot be anything but something entitled to the victim or his heirs. If it were his, it would have to be...