to do, and it strikes a person whom he did not intend to strike—for example, he shoots at game, but the arrow hits a person. We call this accidental homicide.

Intentional homicide entails retaliation, whereas شبه-intentional and accidental homicide entail blood-money. Thus, if the heirs of the slain person reach a settlement and are told, “We will settle with you for the killing of our companion in return for such-and-such,” or if the killer himself settles with the heirs of the slain person by giving them his share of this land, and they take his share of the land and then waive retaliation, does the co-owner have the right of pre-emption? According to the view adopted by the author, no, because the compensation is not monetary: the killing is not property, and he has made this parcel compensation for retaliation; therefore, there is no right of pre-emption.

The stronger view—which we have deemed preferable—is that the right of pre-emption does apply, and the value of this parcel is assessed by qualified appraisers.

It is understood from the author’s statement, “for intentional blood,” that if the settlement concerns شبه-intentional or accidental blood, the right of pre-emption applies. For example, a man kills someone accidentally or in a شبه-intentional manner. What he owes is blood-money, and blood-money is monetary. If he settles with the heirs of the slain person by giving them his share of this land in exchange for the blood-money, then the co-owner has the right of pre-emption, because the killer’s share has passed to the heirs of the slain person in exchange for monetary compensation.

But in this case, should it be taken for the value of the blood-money for which the settlement was made, or for the value of the parcel? The latter is correct, though the former has also been held. Thus, for example, we may say: the blood-money for a Muslim is one hundred thousand, and this parcel was taken in exchange for the one hundred thousand. If the pre-emptor wishes to take it, we would say, “It is yours for one hundred thousand.” According to the stronger view, however, he takes it for its actual value. Qualified appraisers are asked how much it is worth, and if they say, “It is worth such-and-such,” we say, “Take it.”