According to another report, it consists of three categories: 30 three-year-old females (ḥiqah), 30 four-year-old females (jadhaʿah), and 40 pregnant camels carrying their young. The diyah for purely accidental killing is aggravated when the killing occurs in the Sacred Precinct, during the sacred months, while the perpetrator is in a state of ihram, or against a blood relative. The diyah for purely intentional killing, when the right to retaliation is pardoned, is also aggravated and is payable immediately from the killer’s own wealth. We have already described how the diyah is aggravated.
If a group jointly participates in killing one person, retaliation is due against all of them, regardless of their number. The blood heir may pardon whichever of them he wishes and execute the remainder. If he pardons all of them, a single diyah is due from them collectively, apportioned among them according to the number of persons involved. If some of them merely inflicted wounds while others slaughtered the victim or inflicted the fatal injury, retaliation for the killing is imposed on the slaughterer and the one who inflicted the fatal injury, while the wounder is liable to retaliation for the wound, not for the life. According to another report, a full diyah is due from each of them. This report was transmitted by al-Faḍl ibn Ziyād and chosen by Abū Bakr among a set of issues he treated separately.
If one person kills a group, and all of their heirs appear and demand retaliation, he is executed for all of them, and no diyah is due from him. If some demand retaliation while others demand diyah, he is executed on behalf of those who demand retaliation, while a diyah is owed to those who demand it, regardless of whether the claimant is the heir of the first or the second victim.
If all of them demand retaliation, their right to diyah is forfeited because retaliation has been established for each victim’s heir independently. This is shown by the fact that, if the heir of the first victim pardoned, retaliation would remain due to the heir of the second; and if the latter had preceded him in killing the murderer, he would have been exercising his own right. Thus, if both agree to retaliation, each has agreed to take half of the right established for him and has waived the remainder, which must therefore fall away. This is like the case we have mentioned of a person with a paralyzed hand who cuts off someone’s sound hand: the injured party may choose either to take the diyah, which is the replacement for his hand, or to exact retaliation by having the paralyzed hand cut off; if he chooses retaliation, he is entitled to nothing beyond that.
If some demand retaliation while others demand diyah, each receives what he requested. These are separate injuries which, had they been accidental, would not merge; therefore, when intentional, they do not merge either. This is like the case of someone who cuts off the right hands of two men: his hand is cut off for one of them, and he pays compensation to the other.
When an authority whose commands are obeyed orders a man to kill, retaliation is imposed on both the one who gave the order and the one who carried it out. Even if the one giving the order is not an authority whose commands are obeyed, retaliation is imposed on the person who carried out the killing, not on the one who gave the order. Likewise, if a man compels another to kill, retaliation is imposed on both the one who compelled him and the one who was compelled.