Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Malik that retaliation is mandatory, because the injury has become a life, and he did not pardon it. Our position is that it is impossible to fulfill the retaliation for the life without also including that which he pardoned, so it lapses regarding the life, just as if one of the heirs had pardoned it. Furthermore, because when an injury does not have retaliation attached to it despite its possibility, it is not required in its extension (siraayah), just as if one cut the hand of an apostate, then he converted to Islam, and then died from it. It is examined; if he pardoned it for property, he is entitled to the full blood money. If he pardoned it for something other than property, the blood money is required, excluding the damages (arsh) for the wound that he pardoned. Al-Shafi'i stated this. Abu Hanifah said: The full blood money is required, because the injury has become a life, and his right is in the life, not in what he pardoned, and retaliation only lapsed due to the ambiguity (shubhah). If he says: "I have pardoned the injury," nothing is required, because the injury is not specific to the cutting. The Qadi said, regarding the case where he pardoned the cutting: The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is that nothing is required. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad also stated this, because it is an injury that is not liable, so its extension is likewise. Our position is that it is the extension of an injury that necessitated liability, so it is liable, as it would be if he had not pardoned it. The liability for it was only lost due to his pardoning it, so the loss is limited to what he pardoned and not anything else, and what was pardoned was half the blood money; because the injury necessitated half the blood money. So when he pardoned it, that which was required lapsed, not what was not required. Thus, when it became a life, half the blood money was required by the extension, and the damages for the wound were not lost in a case where he did not pardon it, and the blood money was only completed by the extension.

Section: If the wound is one that does not have retaliation in it, such as a deep abdominal wound (ja'ifah) and the like, and he pardons the retaliation for it, then it extends to the life, his heir has the right to retaliation; because retaliation was not required for the wound, so his pardon for it was not valid, and retaliation was only required after his pardon, and he has the right to pardon the retaliation, and he has the right to the full blood money. If he pardoned the blood money for the wound, it is valid, and after the extension, he is entitled to the blood money for the life, minus the damages for