Home
Hadith
Hadith 35452
Yahya related to me from Malik that he saw whomever he was
satisfied with among the people of knowledge say about a man who
willed that his murderer be pardoned when he murdered him
intentionally, "That is permitted for him. He is more entitled to the
man's blood than any of his relatives after him."
Malik said
about a man who pardoned murder, after he had claimed his right and it
was obliged for him, "There is no blood-money against the murderer
unless the one who pardons him stipulates that when he pardons him."
Malik said about the murderer when he was pardoned, "He is
flogged one hundred lashes and jailed for a year."
Malik
said, "When a man murders intentionally and there is a clear proof of
that, and the murdered man has sons and daughters and the sons pardon
and the daughters refuse to pardon, the pardon of the sons is
permitted in opposition to the daughters and there is no authority for
the daughters with the sons in demanding blood and pardoning."
Muwatta Malik Book 43, Hadith 43
← Previous Hadith
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn
al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a
drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him
to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.
Yahya said that
Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of
this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man
for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the
woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between
women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free
woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is
slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave.
Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because
Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written
for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a
nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and
for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed,
the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of
a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his
injury."
Malik said about a man who held a man fast for
another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he
thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for
him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people
sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the
murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very
severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against
him."
Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally
or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye
gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is
no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who
was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is
claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders
another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the
murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood-
money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the
Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for
the free man and the slave for the slave.' "
Malik said, "He
only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who
murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."
Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a
slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he
intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave,
even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have
heard." Muwatta Malik Book 43, Hadith 42
Next Hadith →
Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing
things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who
breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money."
Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the
wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted
on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been
inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is
retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been
inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the
one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the
retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is
paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or
blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does
not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken
for his injury."
He said, "But there is blood-money from him
according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured
party. The bodily injury is also like that."
Malik said,
"When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or
breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it
intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who
strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean
to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for
what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not
inflicted on him."
Yahya related to me from Malik that he
had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation
for the breaking of a leg. Muwatta Malik Book 43, Hadith 44