it involves wasting his right without need. If he is poor and in need, there are two views: one of them is that he may do so, because of his need for the wealth for his support. Al-Qadi said: This is more correct. The second is that it is not permissible, because he does not own the right to waive his retaliation, and as for his need, his sustenance is provided by the public treasury (Bayt al-Mal). The correct view is the first, for the obligation of sustenance in the public treasury does not suffice him if it is not received. As for if the one entitled to retaliation is an insane, poor person, then his guardian may pardon in exchange for wealth, because it is not a habitual state in which one waits for his recovery (14).

Section: The pardon of a bankrupt person and one under interdiction due to incompetence for retaliation is valid, because it is not wealth. If the bankrupt person desires retaliation, his creditors may not force him to abandon it. If he desires to pardon it in exchange for wealth, he may do so, because it contains a benefit for the creditors. If he desires to pardon it in exchange for something other than wealth (15), it is based on the two narrations: if we say the obligation is retaliation, then he may do so, because no wealth has been established for him that the creditors' right could attach to. If we say the obligation is one of two things, he does not have that right, because the wealth becomes due upon his statement "I have pardoned the retaliation," so his statement "for other than wealth" is a waiver of it after its obligation and specification, and he does not possess that. This is the ruling regarding the incompetent person and the heir of the bankrupt person. If a sick person pardons for other than wealth, the Qadi mentioned in one place that it is valid, whether it is covered by the third of his estate or not, and he mentioned that Ahmad explicitly stated this. In another place he said: It is considered whether it is covered by his third, and perhaps it is based on the two narrations regarding the requirement of intentional killing, as has already passed.

Section: If one who has no heir is killed, the matter belongs to the Sultan; if he desires retaliation, he may have it; if he desires to pardon for wealth, he may have it; and if he desires to pardon for other than wealth, he does not have the right, because that belongs to the Muslims, and they have no interest in this. This is the opinion of the proponents of Ra'y (reasoning), except that they do not view a pardon for wealth as valid except with the consent of the offender.

Section: If a group participates in a killing, and he pardons them in exchange for blood money, there is only one blood money due upon them, and if