Section: If the partner who did not pardon kills him while knowing of his partner's pardon and the resulting dropping of retaliation (12), then retaliation is due upon him, regardless of whether the judge ruled on it or not. Abu Hanifah and Abu Thawr stated this, and it is the evident position of the Shafi'i school. It is said there is another opinion: retaliation is not wajib because there is a doubt (shubha) for him due to the existence of disagreement regarding it (13). Our position is that he intentionally killed a protected person who is his equal, while knowing that he had no right to kill him; therefore, retaliation is wajib upon him, just as if a judge had ruled on the pardon. Disagreement does not drop retaliation; for if one were to kill a Muslim for a non-Muslim, we would execute him in retaliation, despite the disagreement regarding his execution. As for if he killed him before knowing of the pardon, then there is no retaliation upon him. Abu Hanifah held this view. Al-Shafi'i stated in one of his two opinions: Retaliation is upon him, because it is an intentional, wrongful killing of someone he has no right to kill. Our position is that he killed him while believing in the establishment of his right to do so, while the basic principle is its persistence; thus, retaliation is not binding upon him, like an agent who kills after the principal has pardoned, but before the agent knew of the pardon. There is no difference between whether the judge has ruled on the pardon or not, because the doubt (shubha) exists with the absence of knowledge and is non-existent with its presence. Al-Shafi'i said: Whenever he kills him after the judge's ruling, retaliation is binding upon him, whether he knew of the pardon or not. We have already explained the difference between the two cases. Whenever we rule that blood money is wajib upon him—either because he is excused or due to the pardon of retaliation—then from that blood money, the amount equivalent to his right to retaliation against the killer drops, and the remainder is wajib upon him. If the guardian pardoned for no money, then it is due to the heirs of the killer, and they owe nothing. If he pardoned in exchange for blood money, then it is due to the heirs of the killer, and they owe the portion of the pardoner from the blood money. It is said regarding this: the right of the pardoner is from the blood money owed by the killer. This (14) is not correct, because the right did not remain attached to its specific object; rather, the blood money is a liability upon him, so it did not transfer to the killer, as if he had killed his creditor.

Section: If the killer is the one who pardoned, then retaliation is upon him, whether he pardoned absolutely or in exchange for wealth. 'Ikrimah, al-Thawri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir stated this. It is narrated from al-Hasan: