Should we say that whoever becomes liable for the blood-money of a person is also obligated to offer expiation for him?

The answer is that we say, as the author said: “Whoever kills,” because blood-money may become due without any killing having occurred. Thus, the loss of hearing entails full blood-money, as does the loss of sight. Therefore, the wording “killing” is essential. Its evidence is the Quran, in the words of Allah Most High: “Whoever kills a believer…”

His words, “a soul”: this is an indefinite noun occurring in the context of a conditional clause, and therefore conveys generality. However, it has been qualified by descriptions that prevent it from being understood in an unrestrictedly general sense.

His words, “Whoever kills a soul,” include even one who kills himself. Thus, if someone were handling a weapon carelessly and it discharged, killing him, expiation is due from him, though no blood-money is due. This is based on the general import of the words of Allah Most High: “Whoever kills a believer by mistake…” He is a believer and is called a killer, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever kills himself with an iron instrument will be punished with it” (1). He has therefore killed a believing soul, and expiation is binding upon him.

This is the well-known position of the madhhab, which its scholars affirmed decisively. They said that the expiation must be paid from his estate, due to the generality of the verse.

The second view is that expiation is not binding upon one who kills himself. They cited the account of Amir ibn al-Akwaʿ in the Battle of Khaybar. Amir stepped forward to duel the Jew Marhab. When Amir intended to stab him from below, his sword was short, so it recoiled and struck Amir on the inner side of his knee. He bled and died. When he died, the people became doubtful about his case and said, “Amir’s reward has been nullified,” to the extent that some of them refrained from supplicating for him. Salamah ibn