because the insane person cannot validly perform the execution [of retaliation]. It differs from a deposit (wadi'ah) if he destroys it, because that was destroyed without negligence, and it has no substitute if it is destroyed in that manner, whereas the hand is different; for if it were destroyed without negligence, its blood-money would be upon him. The same applies to a minor, and the same ruling holds for both of them if they kill the killer of their father intentionally. If they take retaliation from the perpetrator for an amount that his 'aqilah cannot bear—such as an amount less than a third, like cutting a finger or the like—their right falls away, because that necessitates blood-money upon their own liability, and they have the equivalent of that upon the liability of the perpetrator, so they settle the accounts. If their blood-moneys are different, such as a Muslim and a dhimmi, or a man and a woman, and we say: "They are considered to have received their right by cutting," then no right remains for them, just as if they had destroyed their deposit. If we say: "They are not considered to have received it," then one settles the account from the two blood-moneys by the amount of the lesser of the two, and the excess becomes due to the minor or the insane person. If the injury against them or their guardian was erroneous, which the 'aqilah bears, and they then performed the retaliation, their right does not fall away, according to a single view, and the blood-money of the one from whom they took retaliation is upon their 'aqilah as a deferred payment, and the blood-money for the injury against them or their guardian is upon the perpetrator's 'aqilah as a deferred payment.

Section: The progression (sirayah) of retaliation is not guaranteed. Its meaning is that if he cuts a limb for which retaliation is due, and the victim executes it, then the perpetrator dies as a result of the progression of the execution, then nothing is required of the one who performed the execution. This is the view of Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Ibn al-Mundhir. This has been narrated from Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with them. 'Ata', Tawus, 'Amr ibn Dinar, Al-Harith al-'Ukli, Al-Sha'bi, Al-Nakha'i, Al-Zuhri, and Abu Hanifah said: He is liable for the guarantee. Abu Hanifah said: He is liable for the full blood-money from his property. Others said: It is upon his 'aqilah; because he caused his own death, and he was not entitled to anything but his limb, so he became liable for his blood-money, just as if he had struck his neck. And because it is the progression of a guaranteed cutting, so it is guaranteed, like the progression of an injury. The evidence that it is guaranteed is that it is guaranteed by the first cutting, for it is in its place of compensation.