Hadith 30885

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna inthe intentional murder is that when the relatives of the murderedperson relinquish retaliation, the blood-money is owed by the murdererfrom his own property unless the tribe helps him with it willingly."Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the blood-money is not obliged against the tribe until it has reached a third ofthe full amount and upwards. Whatever reaches a third is against thetribe, and whatever is below a third, is against the property of theone who did the injury."Malik said, "The way of doing thingsabout which there is no dispute among us, in the case of someone whohas the blood-money accepted from him in intentional murder or in anyinjury in which there is retaliation, is that that blood-money is notdue from the tribe unless they wish it. The blood-money for that isfrom the property of the murderer or the injurer if he has property.If he does not have any property, it is a debt against him, and noneof it is owed by the tribe unless they wish."Malik said,"The tribe does not pay blood-money to anyone who injures himself,intentionally or accidentally. This is the opinion of the people offiqh in our community. I have not heard that anyone has made the tribeliable for any blood-money incurred by intentional acts. Part of whatis well-known of that is that Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted,said in His Book, 'Whoever has something pardoned him by his brother,should follow it with what is accepted and pay it with good will'(Sura 2 ayat 178) The commentary on that - in our view - and Allahknows best, is that whoever gives his brother something of the blood-money, should follow it with what is accepted and pay him with goodwill."Malik spoke about a child who had no property and awoman who had no property. He said, "When one of them causes an injurybelow a third of the blood-money, it is taken on behalf of the childand woman from their personal property, if they have property fromwhich it may be taken. If not, the injury which each of them hascaused is a debt against them. The tribe does not have to pay any ofit and the father of a child is not liable for the blood-money of aninjury caused by the child and he is not responsible for it."Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about whichthere is no dispute, is that when a slave is killed, the value for himis that of the day on which he was killed. The tribe of the murdereris not liable for any of the value of the slave, great or small. Thatis the responsibility of the one who struck him from his own personalproperty as far as it covers. If the value of the slave is the blood-money or more, that is against him in his property. That is becausethe slave is a certain type of goods."