cast a stone onto a fully-loaded ship, causing it to sink. The second opinion is that he is liable for half the blood money; because the death occurred due to an act that carries liability and an act that does not, therefore the obligation is half the blood money, just as if he had wounded himself and someone else had also wounded him, and he died. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i in one of his two views. In the other view, he said: The portion of the blood money is mandatory based on the extent of the excess, and the blood money is divided across all the lashes, and it is the same whether the excess was by mistake or intentional; because liability becomes mandatory in both mistake and intentional acts. Then, it must be examined: if the executioner added it on his own initiative without an order, the liability is on his 'aqila (kinsmen), because the transgression is from him. Likewise, if the Imam said to him: 'Strike as much as you wish,' then the liability is on his 'aqila. If there is someone counting for him, and he added to the number without informing him, the liability is on the one who is counting, whether he did so intentionally or made a mistake in the count; because the error is from him. If the Imam ordered him to exceed the prescribed punishment and he did so, the judge (al-qadi) said: The liability is on the Imam. The analogy of the school of thought is that if he believed in the obligation to obey the Imam and was ignorant of the prohibition of the excess, the liability is on the Imam; and if he was aware of that, the liability is on him, just as if the Imam had ordered him to kill a man unjustly and he killed him. In every situation where we have said the Imam is liable, is it binding upon his 'aqila or the public treasury (bayt al-mal)? There are two reports: one is that it is from the public treasury; because his error is frequent, so if his liability were to be imposed upon his 'aqila, it would be an excessive burden on them. The judge said: This is more correct. The second is that it is on his 'aqila; [because it was made mandatory due to his error, so it was on his 'aqila], just as if he had shot at game and killed a human being. It is possible that the two reports only apply to cases where the excess occurred from him by mistake, whereas if he intended it, this is a transgression he sought, so there is no grounds for attributing his liability to the public treasury under any circumstances, just as if he had intentionally flogged someone upon whom there was no prescribed punishment. As for the expiation (kaffara) that is binding upon the Imam, no one else can carry it for him; because it is an act of worship, so it does not attach to anyone other than the one from whom its cause originated, and because it is an expiation for his own act, it cannot be achieved except by him bearing it himself, and for this reason, transfer of liability does not apply to it under any circumstances.

Section: The prescribed punishment is not to be carried out on an intoxicated person until he becomes sober. This has been narrated from Umar ibn