Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, regarded it as more likely that he is entitled only to the blood money, because a hadith recorded by Imam Ahmad states—though its chain includes Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who narrated it using an ambiguous transmission formula—that when the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Retaliation, blood money, or pardon,” he then said: “If he chooses a fourth option, restrain him.” (1) That is, do not agree to it. For this reason, Ibn al-Qayyim considered it more likely that he may not reach a settlement for more than the blood money, because the Sacred Law has granted him only one of these two: either retaliation or blood money. Usually, if he is told, “You are entitled only to the blood money,” he will choose retaliation.

“If he chooses it, grants an unrestricted pardon, or the offender dies, then he is entitled to nothing other than it, ...”

His statement, “If he chooses it, grants an unrestricted pardon, or the offender dies, then he is entitled to nothing other than it,” means that the blood money becomes fixed in three cases:

The first is if he chooses the blood money. If he then says, “I have reverted to retaliation,” we say: There is no retaliation, because by choosing the blood money, you forfeited retaliation.

The second is if he grants an unrestricted pardon. Pardon has three forms: it may be unrestricted, specifically directed to retaliation, or specifically directed to the blood money. Thus, if he says, “I waive retaliation,” this is a pardon specifically directed to retaliation, and he is entitled to the blood money. If he says, “I waive the blood money,” this is a pardon specifically directed to the blood money, and he is entitled to retaliation.