on God, a man who killed in the Sacred Precinct, a man who killed someone other than his killer, and a man who killed for a vendetta (39) of the Pre-Islamic period (40)." The prohibition of hunting is not the cause for the aggravation, even if it is among the factors contributing to it, for the prohibition of the Sacred Precinct differs, as it is not mandatory to pay a penalty (Jaza') for one who kills game within it. Furthermore, grazing (41) within it is not prohibited, nor is gathering fodder from it, nor what is needed for one's traveling equipment, tools, or similar things.

1464 - Issue: He said: (The 'Aqilah [male relatives on the paternal side] do not bear the liability for a slave, intentional killing, reconciliation settlements, confessions, or amounts less than a third [of the blood money].)

There are five issues in this matter:

First: That the 'Aqilah does not bear liability for a slave. This means that if a killer kills a slave, his value becomes due from the killer's wealth, and there is nothing upon his 'Aqilah, whether it was unintentional or intentional. This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, al-Sha'bi, al-Thawri, Makhul, al-Nakha'i, al-Batti, Malik, al-Layth, Ibn Abi Layla, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. Ata', al-Zuhri, al-Hakam, Hammad, and Abu Hanifah said: The 'Aqilah does bear it, because he is a human being for whose killing retaliation (Qisas) and expiation (Kaffarah) are due, so the 'Aqilah bears his compensation, like a free person. There are two opinions from al-Shafi'i, and Abu Hanifah agreed with us regarding the blood money for his limbs. Our evidence is what Ibn Abbas narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he said: "The 'Aqilah does not bear [liability for] an intentional act, nor a slave, nor a reconciliation settlement, nor a confession." (1) It was also narrated from Ibn Abbas as a statement attributed to him (Mawquf), and we do not know of any Companion who opposed him.