The second is that it is aggravated. According to this view, there are three opinions concerning how it is aggravated:
The first is that the thirty three-year-old she-camels, thirty four-year-old she-camels, and forty pregnant she-camels are valued, however high their value may be, and that amount is payable by the killer. If, however, their value falls below one thousand mithqāls of gold or twelve thousand dirhams, nothing is deducted from those amounts.
The second, which is Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in al-Mudawwana, is that the five age categories prescribed for accidental killing and the three categories prescribed for aggravated blood money are valued. The difference between them is then expressed as a proportion of the blood money for accidental killing. If it is one third or one quarter, one third or one quarter is added to the thousand dinars or twelve thousand dirhams.
The third is that the difference between the two valuations is determined and that amount is added to the gold or silver payment. According to Abū Hanīfa, blood money for quasi-intentional killing is divided into four groups, and it is not aggravated for those whose wealth consists of gold or silver. According to Abū Thawr, it is divided into five groups and is not aggravated under any circumstances.
Section
On Blood Money for Jews and Christians
The blood money for a Jew or a Christian is half that for a free Muslim. This is the position adopted by Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—which he related in his Muwatta’ from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. All his companions followed him in this. Al-Shāfiʿī said that their blood money is equal to that of a Muslim, which is also the position of a number of the early generations. Abū Hanīfa and his companions held that the blood money for a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian is equal to that for a free Muslim. He cited as evidence the apparent meaning of Allah’s words—Mighty and Majestic is He:
“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 freed.” [al-Nisā’: 92]
He interpreted this as referring to an unbeliever and said: “Allah has required blood money and expiation for killing him accidentally, just as He has required them for killing a believer. Their blood money must therefore be equal, just as the expiation for killing either of them is equal.”
This provides no proof, because Allah did not state here that the person was an unbeliever; the intended meaning may be that he was a believer. Even if it were established that an unbeliever was intended, the equality of the two expiations would not require equality of the two amounts of blood money, for this is a matter in which there is no scope for analogical reasoning