Thus, if it were supposed that camels became so inexpensive that one hundred camels were worth five hundred mithqals of gold, would we say that the blood-money in camels should be raised to two hundred? No.

And if it were supposed that one thousand mithqals of gold were worth no more than fifty camels, we would not raise the gold payment to two thousand mithqals.

His statement, “Rather, soundness,” means that what is taken into consideration is soundness, not value. Soundness means that they must be free of defects. But is what is meant defects recognized in the Sacred Law, or defects recognized by customary practice?

What appears to be intended is defects recognized by customary practice, because the blood-money is a right owed to a human being. When it is a human being’s right, the relevant defects are those which diminish its value in his estimation, or do not diminish it.

The difference between defects recognized in the Sacred Law and those recognized by customary practice is that legally recognized defects are those on account of which an item is unacceptable before Allah, whereas customary defects are those on account of which it is unacceptable in people’s estimation.

For example, if the camels are lame with lameness that is not manifest, then before Allah they are not defective, but in people’s estimation they are defective. Likewise, if they are one-eyed in a manner that is not manifest, then before Allah they are not defective, but in people’s estimation they are defective.

Therefore, what is taken into consideration is freedom from customary defects. Even if they are not legally defective but are customarily defective, the legal heir is not required to accept them, because this is a right owed to a human being. Hence, if the person entitled to the blood-money waives this requirement and says, “It is sufficient for me that you give me one hundred camels, all of them bint makhad,” that is permissible.