pardons absolutely, nothing becomes due. This is the apparent school of thought of al-Shafi'i. Some of them said: Blood money becomes due, so that the blood is not wasted (9). This is invalid; because if he were to pardon the blood money after it became due, his pardon would be valid, and if he were to pardon the retaliation without wealth, nothing would become due. As for if he were to pardon the blood money, his pardon would not be valid because it had not yet become due. If we say: the obligation is one of two things, not specifically one, and he pardons the retaliation absolutely, or in favor of blood money, blood money becomes due because the obligation is not specific; thus, if he abandons one of them, the other becomes due. If he chooses blood money, retaliation lapses, and if he chooses retaliation, it becomes specific. Does he have the right after that to pardon in favor of blood money? Al-Qadi said: He has that right, because retaliation is higher, so he may transition to the lower, and it becomes a substitute for retaliation, and is not the one that became due by the act of killing, just as we said in the first narration: that the obligation is retaliation specifically, and he has the right to pardon in favor of blood money. It is also possible that he does not have that right, because he waived it by his choosing qawad, so he cannot return to it.
Section: If a slave commits an offense against a free person that warrants retaliation, and the victim buys him for the amount of the diyah (blood money) for the injury, the retaliation lapses because his resorting to purchase is a choice of wealth. However, the purchase is not valid: if they do not know the amount of the injury, the price is unknown; and if they know the number of camels and their ages, their characteristics are unknown, and ignorance of characteristics is like ignorance of the essence in terms of the invalidity of a sale. Therefore, if he sold him something for the weight of a branch of unknown characteristics, it would not be valid. If he estimates the injury in gold or silver and sells it for that, it is valid.
Section: (13) If retaliation becomes due for a minor, his guardian is not permitted to pardon him for anything other than wealth, because he does not own the right to waive his [the minor's] right. If he wishes to pardon him for wealth, and the child has sufficient means from other sources, it is not permitted; because
(9) In the original: "yabtal" (it becomes invalid). "Talla damuhu" means it is wasted/gone unavenged. (10) In B: "baqiya" (it remains). (11) Omitted from B. (12) In B, there is an addition: "fihi" (in it). (13) In B, there is an addition: "wa yasihhu 'afwan" (and his pardon is valid).
