What is the ruling concerning an injury inflicted upon a bankrupt person that mandates retaliation (*qisas*)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of the Insolvent (Bankruptcy)
Primary text
If the injury mandates retaliation (*qisas*), the injured party has the choice between exacting retaliation or granting pardon. The injured party cannot be compelled to accept monetary compensation in lieu of *qisas*, as doing so forfeits the right to *qisas* which exists for his benefit. If *qisas* is carried out, nothing is due to the creditors.
Supporting text
If the injured party pardons the perpetrator in exchange for a monetary sum, that sum is established, and the creditors' rights attach to it. If the injured party grants an absolute pardon, the outcome depends on differing scholarly opinions regarding intentional harm: if the ruling is that only *qisas* is mandated, nothing is established, and *qisas* is waived. If the ruling is that retaliation or a substitute is mandated, the blood-money (*diyah*) is established, and the creditors' rights attach to it. If the pardon is granted without specification of money, the ruling also depends on the differing opinions: if *qisas* is considered a specific personal right, nothing is established. If it is considered one of two options, the *diyah* is established, and waiving it is invalid, because pardoning the *qisas* establishes the *diyah* which cannot then be waived.