The sole point of contention lay in identifying the antecedent of the pronoun in Allah’s words,

“that shall be an expiation for him” (al-Māʾidah 5:45).

Some held that it refers to the killer—on the view that repentance is open to him—while others said it refers to the slain person, as an expiation for his own sins and misdeeds.

As for their disagreement over a victim of accidental killing who waives the blood-money, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and the great majority of the jurists of the provinces maintained that his waiver is valid only up to one-third, unless the heirs ratify it. Another group, among them Ṭāwūs and al-Ḥasan, held that it may apply to the whole amount.

The majority reason that he is donating property that will fall to him after death, and such gifts are valid only within the one-third limit, by analogy with bequests. The second group argues that if he is entitled to pardon the blood itself, then pardoning money is all the more permissible. Strictly speaking, this issue belongs in the Book of Blood-Monies.

The scholars also differed: if a wounded man forgives the injuries and then dies from them, may his heirs still demand retaliation for his blood? Mālik said they may do so, unless the victim explicitly declares, “I pardon the injuries and whatever they may lead to.” Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad maintained that if he pardons the wound and later dies, the heirs have no claim, for pardoning the injuries is tantamount to pardoning the blood. Still others ruled that the diyah becomes obligatory when he gives an unrestricted pardon for the wounds. Among this latter group, some—al-Muzanī adopting one of al-Shāfiʿī’s opinions—obligate the assailant to pay the full diyah, while others, such as al-Thawrī, oblige him only for the remainder after deducting the diyah of the specific wound that was forgiven.

Those who deny that a victim may pardon the blood altogether, of course, concede that such a pardon can never bar the heir’s claim to the diyah; if pardoning the blood does not cancel the heir’s right, pardoning the wound is even less able to do so.

They further disagreed about an intentional killer who has been pardoned: does the ruler still have any right over him? Mālik and al-Layth said that he is to be flogged one hundred lashes and imprisoned for a year; this is also the view of the people of Madinah and is reported from ʿUmar. Another party—including al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, and Abū Thawr—held that no such penalty is due. Abū Thawr added: unless the man is known for wickedness, in which case the imam may discipline him as he sees fit.

The first party’s only support is a weak report, whereas the second relies on the manifest sense of the Law: fixed corporal punishments require specific textual proof, and no sound, definitive text exists here.