What is the ruling regarding liability for accidental self-inflicted injury or death?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
There are two narrations concerning liability for a man accidentally injuring himself or his limbs. The more apparent narration holds that the *aqilah* (blood-alliance) must pay the blood money (*diyah*) to the heirs if the person caused their own death, or pay the *arsh* (damages) for the injury to himself if the injury exceeds one-third of the value. This view is held by Al-Awza'i and Ishaq. The evidence cited is that 'Umar ruled that the *diyah* for a man whose eye was gouged by a splinter from the stick he was using to drive his donkey fell upon his *aqilah*, stating it was an injury sustained by a Muslim without aggression against anyone, and no dissent was known from him in his time. Liability rests on the *aqilah* because it is an accidental injury (*khata'*), just as if he had injured another person. If the *aqilah* are the heirs, nothing is due since a person owes nothing to himself. If some heirs are included in the *aqilah*, the portion corresponding to their inheritance share is waived, and they are responsible for any amount exceeding their share, receiving what remains if their share of the *diyah* exceeds their obligation.
Supporting text
The second narration states that self-inflicted injury is voided (*hudar*). This is the position of the majority of scholars, including Rabi'ah, Malik, Al-Thawri, Al-Shafi'i, and the people of reason (*Ashab al-Ra'y*). This view is considered stronger because when 'Amir ibn al-Akwa' struck himself fatally with his sword at the Battle of Khaybar, it was not reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ruled for any *diyah* or otherwise; had it been obligatory, the Prophet would have clarified it. Furthermore, since he injured himself, no other party is liable, similar to intentional injury. The imposition of *diyah* on the *aqilah* is meant as solace and relief for the perpetrator, and in this case, the perpetrator has no liability requiring assistance or solace, thus negating the obligation. This differs from injury to others, where failure of the *aqilah* to pay would result in severe hardship due to the high cost of the *diyah*.