As for the increased severity of the blood money, the well-known position in the Hanbali school is that the two are alike.

His statement, “Accidental killing is when a person does something he is permitted to do”: the word “what” is a relative pronoun, meaning “that which.” Or, if you prefer, it may be understood as an indefinite noun qualified by a description; that is, that he does something which he is permitted to do.

His statement, “such as shooting at what he believes to be game”: for example, a man intends to shoot game but strikes a person instead. Shooting game is an act he is permitted to do. However, if the authorities have prohibited it, then he is not permitted to do so, because Allah has made it obligatory upon us to obey the ruler in matters other than disobedience to Allah. Prohibiting hunting at a particular time or in a particular place is not an act of disobedience; therefore, we must obey him in this matter. I regard a state prohibition as among the binding legal prohibitions that must be observed, so long as it does not entail disobedience to Allah. Thus, if he shoots at game whose hunting we have not been legally prohibited from, but strikes a person, it is accidental killing. The error here lies in the killing, not in the instrument, because the instrument normally causes death.

His statement, “or a target”: a target is the object aimed at. If someone sets up a target at which to shoot, then fires a bullet and strikes a person whom he did not intend, this is accidental killing. There are also stone-throwing contests, in which they set up what is called a nīshān—that is, a piece of wood fixed in the ground—and then throw stones at it. An incident of this kind occurred: when one of them threw a stone, the other was close to what is called the nīshān; the stone struck him on the head, and he died. This killing is accidental, even if the stone thrown was large, because he did not intend to strike him.