Explanation: Then he said that if the killing was accidental, it is permissible, because this is wealth in his opinion, and it only became wealth after the killing was established, so accidental and intentional killing are the same.

The Shaykh : Then he said, meaning this group of people, that if the killing was accidental, it is permissible, because this is wealth in his opinion, and it only became wealth after the killing was established, so accidental and intentional killing are the same. Al-Bukhari’s statement here is that some people said that the letter of one judge to another is not accepted in hudud (fixed punishments), and that this person said that if the killing was accidental, it is permissible, because accidental killing entails wealth but does not entail retaliation. Is this correct, that it entails wealth but not retaliation? Yes, accidental killing entails wealth but not retaliation. And because this is wealth in his opinion. Then he said: “And it only became wealth after the killing was established.” But it is said: Yes, the killing is a cause; the first killing is a cause, but the obligation arising from the killing is wealth, not retaliation. The perspective of the one who said this is clear, because accidental killing does not entail retaliation, only wealth. But al-Bukhari says that this wealth is based on the establishment of the first killing, which is the accidental killing of the killer. And this is not wealth, and the wealth, which is the blood money, is not established until the killing is established. However, there is a point of consideration in the issue from its origin, for qisas (retaliation) is not from the category of hudud, and whoever included it in hudud has been negligent, because hudud are a right for Allah that is established, and no one has the right to waive them. Qisas is a right for the human being, and the human being has the right to waive it, even after it reaches the ruler. He has the right to waive it in favor of blood money, and he has the right to waive it for free. Hudud are not like that; when hudud reach the two pillars (of proof), their execution is obligatory, and there is no pardon in them. But in qisas, there is pardon. So the basis of including killing, or including qisas, in hudud contains some negligence. Yes, some scholars said that the letter of one judge to another is not accepted in qisas, but we say that the correct view is that the letter of one judge to another is accepted in everything that is judged by the judge. Whatever falls under the judge’s ruling, the letter of one judge to another is permissible.