It is well known that retaliation for a tooth is based on what was legislated in the Torah; yet the Prophet ﷺ made it part of our law.

Deliberate killing involves three rights:

First: the right of Allah, which is waived through repentance.

Second: the right of the slain person’s heirs, which is waived when the killer surrenders himself to them.

Third: the right of the slain person, and this is not waived, for he has been killed and is gone. But will it be taken from the killer’s good deeds, or will Allah Most High, out of His grace, bear it on his behalf? The correct view is that Allah, out of His grace, bears it on his behalf if He knows this killer’s repentance to be sincere.

His statement, “retaliation is exclusive to it,” means deliberate killing. It is also distinguished by the fact that no expiation is due for it, because it is too grave for an expiation to atone for it.

His statement, “subject to the condition of intent,” means intending the offence and intending the victim; both intentions are indispensable. Thus, if he did not intend the offence—for example, if he moved a weapon he was carrying and it suddenly struck out and killed someone—then this is not deliberate killing, because he did not intend the offence. Likewise, if he intended to shoot at an object, only to find that it was a person, this is not deliberate killing, because he did not intend to kill a person whom he knew to be inviolable.

His statement, “and quasi-deliberate killing”: this is the second category of unlawful killing. It is neither purely deliberate nor purely mistaken, but lies between the two. This is because the offender intended the assault, but used something that does not usually kill. Thus, quasi-deliberate killing is to intend an assault that does not usually kill, such as striking someone with a fan (1).