Is atonement (Kaffarah) obligatory in intentional homicide?
Chapter on Qasamah (Oaths regarding murder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
Atonement is not obligatory in intentional homicide. This is the known position within the school of thought (Madhab), held by Al-Thawri, Malik, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). The primary evidence relies on the implication of the verse: "And whoever kills a believer unintentionally, then [the atonement is] the freeing of a believing slave..." (Quran 4:92). Since the verse subsequently mentioned intentional killing without stipulating atonement, but rather stated the recompense is Hellfire, the implication is that no atonement is required. Further supporting this, it is narrated that when Suwayd ibn al-Samit killed a man, the Prophet (peace be upon him) mandated retribution (Qisas) but did not mandate atonement. Similarly, when Amr ibn Umayyah al-Dhamri killed two men during the Prophet's time, he paid the blood money (Diyyah) but no atonement was imposed. Furthermore, an act that mandates the death penalty does not necessitate atonement, similar to the case of married person committing adultery (Zina al-muhsan).
Supporting text
There is an alternative narration from Ahmad, held also by Al-Zuhri and Al-Shafi'i, asserting that atonement is obligatory. Their support comes from the narration of Wathilah ibn al-Asqa' where the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded the freeing of a slave for a man who had caused a killing. They argue that since atonement is obligatory in unintentional killing, it is even more appropriate in intentional killing because the sin is greater and the need for expiation is more severe.