His statement, “and his pardon without compensation is better”: the apparent meaning of his words is that it is better in all cases, whether the offender is known for wrongdoing and corruption or not. But the correct view, without doubt, is that held by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—who said: “Pardon is an act of benevolence, and benevolence is not truly benevolence unless it is free of wrongdoing, evil, and corruption. Thus, if this benevolence entails evil, corruption, or injustice, it is neither benevolence nor justice.” Accordingly, if this killer is known for evil and corruption, then exacting retaliation from him is better.

What Shaykh al-Islam—may Allah have mercy on him—said is supported by the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “But whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allah.” [al-Shura 42:40] Is one who pardons a criminal, unjust aggressor known for transgression truly setting matters right?! No. For if he is pardoned today, he may kill one person—or ten—tomorrow. Such a person should not be pardoned. Even if we do not say that pardon is prohibited, we do not hold it to be preferable.

From this we recognize the error of some people whose emotions are stronger than their sound judgment. When emotion is devoid of sound judgment, it sweeps a person away, for emotion is a storm. A person must therefore let reason govern his affairs before emotion; otherwise, his emotions will overwhelm him and lead him to ruin. Thus, when someone causes a traffic accident or the like, some people hasten to waive the blood money. This is a grave mistake. However, if the deceased had a debt, or if the heirs are minors, then waiving it is unquestionably prohibited. What is astonishing is that some heirs waive it without asking whether he had any debt or not, even though debt takes precedence over the right of the heirs.