Is a pardon (afw) granted by the injured party for an injury and its subsequent complications legally valid?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
The pardon granted by the injured party concerning an injury (*jinayah*) and whatever arises from it is legally valid. Consequently, neither retribution (*qisas*) nor blood money (*diyah*) is due for its subsequent complications. This validity holds whether the pardon is issued using the explicit word of pardon or as a bequest (*wasiyyah*). This view is supported by Malik, Tawus, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, and Al-Awza'i. The legal reasoning is that the injured party waived their right after the cause of action was established, which is effective just as waiving the right of preemption (*shuf'ah*) after a sale is effective. Since the underlying liability in intentional harm is either retribution or one of two things (implying *diyah* in one narration), once *diyah* is determined, it is not treated as a specific bequest of wealth. Therefore, the pardon is valid regardless of whether it exceeds one-third of the estate, similar to how a bankrupt person can validly grant a pardon affecting their estate.
Supporting text
The followers of Al-Shafi'i hold two opinions. The first opinion considers this statement a bequest, which is subject to the rules of bequests made to a murderer. Within this view, there are further opinions: either the bequest is invalid, mandating the full *diyah* of the person minus the *diyah* of the initial injury, or the bequest is valid, being invalidated only to the extent it exceeds one-third of the estate. The second opinion is that it is not a bequest because it is a waiver of rights during the lifetime of the waiving party, hence it is invalid, requiring the full *diyah* of the person minus the *diyah* of the injury.