He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Concerning two men who quarrelled and grappled with one another: one headbutted the other in the nose, causing it to bleed. The man whose nose was bleeding then strangled the other and kicked him in the testicles, whereupon he fell down dead. What is the ruling?

He replied:

The man who strangled the other and kicked him in the testicles is liable to execution in retaliation, for an act of this kind ordinarily causes death. His death from this act is evidence that what was done to him was ordinarily fatal.

An act that ordinarily causes death entails execution in retaliation according to the schools of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, and the two leading disciples of Abū Hanīfa. Thus, if someone strikes another in the testicles until he dies, execution in retaliation is required. Likewise, if he strangles him until he dies, execution in retaliation is required. How much more so when both acts are combined!

The victim’s heir has the choice: he may have the killer executed, accept blood money, or pardon him. The ruler has no right to take anything from the killer for himself or for the public treasury. This right belongs solely to the victim’s heirs.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Concerning someone who struck a man a single blow, after which the man lived for some time before dying, remaining weakened by the blow throughout that period: what is the assailant liable for?

He replied:

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all worlds. If he struck him unlawfully, this constitutes quasi-intentional homicide, for which aggravated blood money is due, but not execution in retaliation. This applies if his death was not caused by the blow. Allah knows best.