you were following? By Allah, if it was guidance, then you have abandoned guidance; and if it was misguidance, then you had been following it.” Ayyash became angry at what he said and declared, “By Allah, if ever I meet you alone, I shall kill you.”
Thereafter, Ayyash returned to Islam and emigrated. Later, al-Harith ibn Zayd also accepted Islam and emigrated to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Ayyash was not present at that time and did not learn of his acceptance of Islam. Then, while Ayyash was walking in the outskirts of Quba, he encountered al-Harith and killed him. The people said, “Woe to you! What have you done? He had accepted Islam!” So Ayyash returned to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said, “O Messenger of Allah, you know what had transpired between al-Harith and me. I was unaware of his acceptance of Islam until I killed him.” Thereupon, the following was revealed: “It is not for a believer to kill another believer, except by mistake.” (1)
This is a prohibition against killing a believer, like His saying, Exalted is He: “It is not for you to harm the Messenger of Allah” (al-Ahzab, 53).
“Except by mistake” is a disjunctive exception, meaning: rather, if it occurs by mistake. “Whoever kills a believer by mistake must free a believing slave”: that is, he must emancipate a believing slave as an expiation. “And pay blood-money in full” means that it must be complete. “To the victim’s family” means to the slain person’s heirs. “Unless they waive it as charity” means that they relinquish the blood-money, pardon the killer, and forgo it.
“But if the victim was a believer from a people at war with you, then the freeing of a believing slave is required.” This refers to a Muslim living alone among disbelievers in enemy territory, whom someone kills without knowing that he is Muslim. No blood-money is due in his case, but expiation is required. It was also said that this refers to a slain Muslim living in Muslim lands who is related to a people of disbelievers whose relatives are in enemy territory and at war with the Muslims. In this case, expiation is due, but no blood-money is payable to his family. Al-Harith ibn Zayd was from a people of disbelievers at war with the Muslims; therefore, the freeing of a slave was required in his case, but no blood-money was due, because there was no treaty between his people and the Muslims.
His saying, Exalted is He: “And if the victim was from a people with whom you have a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to his family, along with the freeing of a believing slave,” refers to a slain disbeliever who is either a protected non-Muslim subject or under treaty. In such a case, blood-money and expiation are both required. The expiation consists of freeing a believing slave, whether the victim is Muslim or under treaty, male or female, free or enslaved; and it is to be paid from the killer’s own wealth.
“Whoever cannot find one must fast for two consecutive months.” If the killer possesses a slave, or is able to obtain one because he has enough money to pay its price beyond what he needs for his own maintenance, the maintenance of his dependants, and such necessities as housing, then he must free the slave and may not resort to fasting. But if he is unable to obtain one, he must fast for two consecutive months. If he deliberately breaks the fast for a day during the two months, or fails to make the intention for this fast and instead intends another fast, he must begin the two months anew.
If he breaks the fast for a day due to an excuse, such as illness or travel, does the required continuity cease? The scholars differed concerning this. Some held that it does cease, and that he must begin the two months anew. This was the view of al-Nakha'i and the stronger of the two views reported from al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, because he broke the fast by choice. Others held that the continuity does not cease and that he should continue from where he left off. This was the view of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, and al-Sha'bi.