and is subsidiary, not a basis. This is the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi’s words—may Allah have mercy on him—and it was the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and a group of the scholars of the school. This is also the practice followed among us: from ancient times, people have continued to rule that camels are the basis for blood-money. Today, blood-money in our country is assessed at one hundred thousand riyals. If silver were a basis, a person’s blood-money would amount to three thousand three hundred and sixty silver riyals.

His statement, “Whichever of these is presented by the one liable for it, the legal heir must accept it”: “Whichever” is in the accusative case, serving as an object placed before the verb “presents,” while “the one” is its subject.

In saying, “the one liable for it,” he did not say, “the killer,” because blood-money may be due from the male agnate relatives rather than from the killer himself. He therefore said, “the one liable for it,” so that the expression would include both the killer and the male agnate relatives.

His statement, “the legal heir must accept it”: he did not say, “the injured party,” because he may be dead or alive. As will come later in the discussion of compensation for bodily members, if a person cuts off both of another’s hands, he is liable for the full blood-money. Thus, had the author said, “the one entitled to it must accept it,” it would have been more comprehensive.

In any case, if the offender presents one hundred camels, and the person entitled to the blood-money says, “I want one thousand mithqāls of gold,” we say to him: the choice is not yours; rather, it belongs to the offender.

Likewise, if the offender presents eight thousand four hundred mithqāls of silver, and the person entitled to the blood-money says, “I want camels instead,” we say to him: the choice is not yours.

From this ruling, we learn that, in imposing blood-money, consideration has been given to easing the burden