Third: where the direct act is based on the cause, and that cause exerts a strong influence upon it, such that the perpetrator’s intent is not valid, as in the third example.

If the one who killed is like an instrument—for example, if someone takes hold of a person and strikes another person with him, causing the latter to die—then liability rests upon the person who made him into an instrument. This is because the person who was seized and used to strike the other until he died is like an instrument, as though he were a stick with no choice whatsoever. We have previously stated that if someone compels another person to kill, then, according to the authoritative position in the school, liability rests upon both of them. It has also been said that it rests upon the person compelled, and it has been said that it rests upon the one who compelled him.

If it is deliberate killing outright, then it is payable immediately from the offender’s own property. In cases of شبه العمد (shibh al-ʿamd, quasi-deliberate killing) and accidental killing, it is borne by his male agnatic relatives. If someone unlawfully takes possession of a free minor and he is bitten by a snake, struck by lightning, or dies of illness; or if he shackles and restrains a legally accountable free person, who then dies from lightning or a snakebite, the blood money is due.

His statement, “If it is,” means: the criminal act.

His statement, “deliberate,” excludes accidental killing.

His statement, “outright,” excludes quasi-deliberate killing. For although quasi-deliberate killing involves an intentional act, its perpetrator did not intend to kill, because he committed the offence by means of something that does not usually kill.

What the author means is killing that is both fully deliberate and wrongful, for an act committed rightfully entails neither retaliation nor blood money.

His statement, “from the offender’s own property,” means that the blood money is to be paid from the offender’s own property.

His statement, “immediately,” means without deferment. Thus, it differs from the blood money due for quasi-deliberate and accidental killing: it is immediately due from the offender’s own property, and the male agnatic relatives are not required to bear any part of it.

For example, a man deliberately kills another person outright, and the heirs of the slain choose blood money. The blood money then becomes due, and the one responsible for paying it is the offender. His male agnatic relatives are not obliged to pay it on his behalf; but if they voluntarily do so, that is permissible and there is no objection.