it is borne by the offender, according to the sounder view. Retaliation is to be carried out immediately, even inside the Sacred Precinct, in extreme heat or cold, or when the offender is ill.
If the person to be executed is a pregnant woman—whether for homicide or for maiming—she is detained until she has given the child the first milk and the child can be cared for by someone else, or until the full two-year weaning period is complete. The preferred opinion is to believe her claim of pregnancy even when no outward signs are visible.
Whoever kills with a sharp weapon, by strangulation, by starvation, or the like is put to death by the same means. If he killed by sorcery, he is executed with the sword, and the same—according to the sound view—applies when the death was caused by forcing wine or by sodomy. Where the offender is to be killed by starvation corresponding to the way he killed, yet fails to die, further measures are taken; another opinion requires the sword from the outset. Should the avenger choose to change to the sword, he is entitled to do so.
If the offender amputated a limb and the wound later spread, the heir may have his neck struck, or may first amputate and then slit the throat, or may simply wait for the saraya (subsequent spread of the wound) to finish its course. When the victim died from a jaʾifah (a penetrating wound that reaches a body cavity) or from the breaking of an upper arm, retaliation is by throat-slitting; another opinion exacts the very act he committed, and if a single jaʾifah does not kill him, no further wounds are added according to the stronger view.
If retaliation for a severed limb has already been taken and the victim later dies because of saraya, the heir may then have the offender’s throat slit, or he may pardon him for half the blood money. Should the offender have severed both hands and retaliation be carried out, and the victim later die, the heir likewise may have the throat slit; if he pardons, he receives nothing further. If the offender dies from the amputation exacted as retaliation, his blood is forfeit. If both men die of saraya simultaneously, or the victim dies first, retribution is deemed satisfied; but if the offender’s death comes later, the heir is entitled to half the blood money, according to the sounder opinion.
If the rightful claimant said, “Extend your right hand,” and the offender instead extended the left intending to deceive him and it was cut off, the loss of the left is forfeit. If the offender says, “I intended that to stand in place of the right and thought it would suffice,” and he is not believed, the sounder view is that no retaliation is due for the left, its blood money is payable, and the retaliation for the right remains. The same ruling applies if he says, “I was confused and thought it was the right,” or if the executioner says, “I assumed it was the right.”
Section
In cases of deliberate homicide the primary obligation is retaliation, and the blood money is only a substitute if retaliation falls away; another opinion holds that either retaliation or blood money is owed, but without specifying which until the heir chooses. On both views the heir may pardon in return for the blood money without the offender’s consent. Under the first view, if the heir issues an unqualified pardon, the accepted position is that no blood money becomes due. If he then pardons the blood money itself, that pardon is void, though he may later pardon in exchange for it. Should he pardon for something other than the standard blood money, the settlement is valid provided the offender accepts; otherwise