blood-moneys, so that he would pardon him, but he refused that and killed him (7). This is because it is a compensation for something other than wealth, so a settlement for it is permissible for whatever they agree upon, like the dower and the compensation for khul', and because it is a settlement regarding that in which usury does not apply, so it resembles a settlement regarding commodities.

1458 - Issue: He said: (If a man holds another man and someone else kills him, the killer shall be killed, and the holder shall be imprisoned until he dies.)

It is said: amsaka, masaka, and massaka. Al-Khiraqi combined both linguistic forms, saying: "If he holds (amsaka), and the holder (al-masik) is imprisoned." This is the active participle from masaka in its lightened form. There is no disagreement that the killer shall be killed because he killed a person of equal status intentionally without right. As for the holder, if he did not know that the killer would kill him, then there is nothing upon him, because he is a causative agent (mutasabbib), while the killer is the direct agent (mubashir), thus the ruling on the causative agent falls away (1). If he held him for him so that he could kill him, such as restraining him until he slaughtered him (2), then the reports from Ahmad differ regarding this; it is narrated from him that he is imprisoned until he dies, which is the position of 'Ata' and Rabi'ah, and it is narrated from 'Ali. It is also narrated from Ahmad that he is killed as well, which is the position of Malik. Sulayman ibn Musa (3) said: The consensus among us is that both shall be killed (4), because had he not held him, he would not have been able to kill him, and by his holding him, he gained the capability to kill him; thus the killing is a result of their joint action, making them both partners in it, so retaliation is obligatory upon them, just as if they had both wounded him. Abu Hanifah, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He shall be punished and he is sinful, but he is not killed, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "The most defiant of people toward Allah is one who kills someone other than his killer" (5). The holder is not a killer, and because holding is a cause that does not force the outcome, so when direct action is combined with it, the liability lies with the direct agent, just as if the holder did not know that he would kill him. Our evidence is what Al-Daraqutni (6) narrated with his chain of transmission from Ibn 'Umar, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If a man holds a man and another kills him, the one who killed shall be killed, and the one who held him shall be imprisoned." This is because he held him until death, so the other shall be imprisoned until death, just as if he had restrained him from food and drink until he died; we would do the same to him until he dies.

Section: If a man follows a man to kill him, and he flees from him, then another catches up to him and cuts off his leg, then the second catches up to him and kills him, you must consider: if the intention of the first was to hold him by means of the cutting so that the second might kill him, then upon him is retaliation for the cutting, and his ruling regarding retaliation for the life is the ruling of the holder, because he held him for the killing. If he did not intend to hold him, then upon him is the cutting but not the killing, like the one who held him without knowledge. There is another view that there is nothing upon him except the cutting in any case. The first is more correct, because he is the one who held him by his action, so he resembles the one who held him by manual restraint. If it is said: Why did you consider the intention of holding here while you do not consider the desire to kill in the one who wounds? We say: When he dies from the wound, he has died from its spreading and its effect, so we consider the intention of the wound, which is the cause, not the intention of the effect. In our issue, his death occurred by something other than the spreading of the wound, and the act enabled him to do so, so his intention for that act is considered, just as if he had held him.

1459 - Issue: He said: (And whoever orders his slave to kill a man, and the slave was a foreigner ('ajami) who did not know that killing is forbidden, the master shall be killed. If he knew the gravity of killing, the slave shall be killed, and the master shall be disciplined.)

Al-Khiraqi (1) only mentioned his being a foreigner (a'jami), which is one who cannot speak clearly, in order to verify his ignorance, and ignorance only exists in the case of one who grew up in non-Islamic lands. As for one who has resided in the lands of Islam,