What is the financial compensation (Diyah) owed if the heirs opt for Diyah instead of Qisas after the assailant committed a cutting and subsequently the killing?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If the heirs opt for Diyah, the ruling established by Al-Qadi is that if the pardon was granted for the limb without accepting Diyah for it, the heirs are entitled to half the Diyah for the killing. This aligns with the apparent position of the Shafi'i school. The reasoning is that when killing follows the initial injury before the wound heals, it is treated as a natural consequence (Sarayah). If no pardon had been issued, only one Diyah would be due. The cutting is subsumed under the Diyah for killing, but not under Qisas, because if Qisas were sought, the assailant could first cut and then kill, whereas if Diyah is chosen, only one Diyah is due.
Supporting text
Abu Al-Khattab asserts that the heirs have the right to a full Diyah for the killing, a view also held by some Shafi'i scholars. This is because the cutting is distinct from the killing, meaning the consequence of one does not supersede the other, as if the wound had healed. Furthermore, killing mandates Qisas, which by extension mandates full Diyah, just as if no prior pardon existed. This situation is differentiated from Sarayah (natural consequence), as Sarayah does not mandate killing, whereas the subsequent killing was not pardoned in any part, nor was its cause pardoned, regardless of whether the initial pardon for the limb included accepting compensation for it.