weak—that “their blood-money is two-thirds of one-tenth of the blood-money of a Muslim” (1), and that it was estimated at eight hundred dirhams.

Some scholars held that the blood-money for a member of the People of the Scripture and others is the same as that for a Muslim. They said that the authenticity of the hadiths differentiating between them is questionable, and that Allah says in the noble verse:

“And if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to his family and a believing slave set free.”

And He says:

“Whoever kills a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family, unless they waive it.” [al-Nisa 4:92]

They argued: In both instances He says, “blood-money”; and the basic principle is that no distinction is made unless sound evidence establishes it.

Furthermore, each of them is a human being, and it is possible that Allah may guide this disbeliever, so that he becomes like the Muslim. If we do not differentiate between the most devout and obedient of people toward Allah and the most sinful and immoral among them, then likewise we should not differentiate between the disbeliever and the Muslim. This indicates that religion has no bearing on blood-money and does not determine its value. Accordingly, the blood-money of a Muslim and that of a disbeliever—whatever kind he may be—are equal.

Others adopted a middle position: all disbelievers are entitled to half the blood-money of a Muslim. They cited the hadith of Amr ibn Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The blood-money of disbelievers is half that of Muslims.” (2) This is general in meaning, they said, and singling out a member of the People of the Scripture in certain wordings does not entail restricting or qualifying the ruling, because the principle regarding the general and the specific is: “That”