into them is the unlawful shedding of inviolable blood.” (1)
Al-Hāfiz said in Fath al-Bārī: “The scholars disagreed as to whether legal retaliation applies in such a case—that is, against the person who casts the evil eye. Al-Qurtubī said: ‘If such a person destroys any property, he is liable for it; and if he kills someone, he is liable to legal retaliation or blood money, provided this has happened repeatedly at his hands until it has become habitual. In this respect, he is like a sorcerer according to those who do not execute a sorcerer for disbelief.’
“The Shāfiī jurists did not address legal retaliation in this case; rather, they rejected it, saying that the evil eye does not generally kill and is not regarded as a lethal means. Al-Nawawī said in al-Rawda: ‘Neither blood money nor expiation is due, because a legal ruling may be based only on a generally applicable and ascertainable factor, not on something peculiar to certain people in certain circumstances and lacking any consistent standard. Indeed, no act whatsoever proceeded from him; at most, there was envy and a wish that a blessing be removed. Furthermore, the evil eye may cause harm to befall that person, but such harm does not necessarily consist in loss of life; the evil eye may cause him some other form of harm.’
“The sole difficulty for this view is the ruling that a sorcerer may be put to death, for the two cases are analogous and distinguishing between them is difficult. Ibn Battāl related from some scholars that the ruler should prevent a person known for casting the evil eye from mingling with others and require him to remain in his home. If he is poor, he should be given sufficient provision, for the harm he causes is greater than that of the leper whom Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—ordered to be kept from mixing with people, as explained clearly in the relevant chapter. It is also greater than the harm caused by garlic, whose eater the Lawgiver barred from attending the congregational prayer. Al-Nawawī said: ‘This view is correct and must be adopted; no one is known to have explicitly stated otherwise.’” (2)
Al-Hāfiz was a judge, and it therefore appears that he would have adjudicated this matter according to his own school, for he followed the Shāfiī school. He reported that the Shāfiīs do not execute someone who kills another through his envy, and this is the sounder of the two views. Nevertheless, his mention of the disagreement indicates the gravity of the envious person’s offense and that he incurs sin by indulging in envy until it causes his fellow’s death. Let this be carefully noted. Allah Most High knows best.