the wound. It does not prevent the obligation of retaliation for the life, even though the full blood money is not required due to pardoning it, just as if one cut a hand, and it healed, and retaliation was taken for it, then it broke open again and extended to the life; he has the right to retaliation for the life, and he has no right to pardon except for half the blood money. If he cut his hand from the middle of the forearm, and he pardoned the retaliation, then it extended, then according to the opinion of Abu Bakr, retaliation for the life does not lapse; because retaliation was not required, so it is like the deep abdominal wound (ja'ifah). Whoever permitted him retaliation from the wrist, causes the retaliation for the life to lapse, just as if the cutting were from the wrist. Al-Muzani said: Pardoning the blood money for a wound before it heals is not valid. If he cut a hand, and pardoned its blood money and retaliation, then it healed, its blood money does not lapse, and its retaliation lapses; because retaliation has become required for it, so pardoning it is valid, unlike the blood money. This is incorrect; because the blood money for the wound was only required by the injury, since it is the cause. This is why if one inflicted an injury on the limb of a slave and then sold him before it healed, the damages for the limb belong to the seller, not the buyer, and delaying the claim for it does not necessitate the lack of obligation, nor does it prevent the validity of the pardon, like a deferred debt, for which the claim is not possessed, yet pardoning it is valid; it is the same here.

Section: If he cut his hand, and he pardoned him, then the perpetrator returned and killed him, his heir has the right to retaliation. This is the apparent position of the school of al-Shafi'i. Some of them said: There is no retaliation; because the pardon was obtained for part of it, so he is not killed for it, as if the cutting had extended to his life. Our position is that the killing is separate from the cutting, so his pardon for the cutting does not prevent what is required by the killing, just as if the one who did the cutting were someone else. If he chooses the blood money, the Qadi said: If the pardon for the limb was not for blood money, he is entitled to half the blood money for the killing. This is the apparent position of the school of al-Shafi'i, and because when the killing follows the injury before healing, it is like the extension (siraayah), and for this reason, if he had not pardoned it, no more than one blood money would be required, and the cutting is included in the killing regarding the blood money, not the retaliation; for this reason, if he wanted retaliation, he could cut and then kill, but if the matter led to the blood money, only one blood money would be required. Abu al-Khattab said: He has the right to pardon in exchange for full blood money. This is the opinion of some of the companions of