From Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ata, and Ikrimah, and this is the view of Malik and Al-Shafi'i. Mahmoud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The view of Malik and Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with them, is that a free person is not killed for a slave, and a male is not killed for a female..." Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "This is from Al-Zamakhshari and they are mistaken regarding the two Imams, for they do seek retribution from a male for a female without disagreement from them. As for the free person and the slave according to them, this is what Al-Zamakhshari erred about regarding them." May Allah have mercy on them: that a free person is not killed for a slave, and a male is not killed for a female, taking this from this verse. And they say:

It is an explanation for what was ambiguous in His saying: "the soul for the soul." This is because it is related to what was written in the Torah for its people. And this was addressed to the Muslims, and what is in it was written upon them. And from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Qatadah, and al-Thawri, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and his companions: it is abrogated by His saying: "the soul for the soul," and retribution is established between the slave and the free, and the male and the female. They support this with the saying of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: "The blood of Muslims is equal." [Reported by Abu Dawood, al-Nasa'i, and al-Hakim through Qais ibn 'Abbad from Ali in a story. It was narrated by Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah from the narration of 'Amr ibn Shu'aib from his father from his grandfather. And it was added: "And the least of them is responsible for their protection, and the most distant of them is obliged to them. They are a single hand against others." And there is a narration from 'Aisha: reported by al-Bukhari in his history and al-Daraqutni. And from Ibn Abbas and Ma'qil ibn Yasar in Ibn Majah and from Jabir in the al-Mu'jam al-Awsat of al-Tabarani.]" And that superiority is not considered in souls, as evidenced by the fact that a group could kill one person, and they narrated: "There was bloodshed between two tribes of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period, and one of them had superiority over the other. They swore that they would kill the free man from you for the slave from us, and the male for the female, and two for one. They referred the matter to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, when Allah brought Islam, and it was revealed, and He commanded them to settle." [I could not find it.] "So whoever is granted pardon by his brother, it means: whoever is pardoned by his brother." [Mawlid said, may Allah have mercy on him: "The meaning of the verse is: whoever is pardoned by his brother... etc." Ahmad said, may Allah have mercy on him: This interpretation is supported by the saying that the consequence of intentional killing is one of two things: retribution or blood money, and the choice is with the guardian. This is one of the opinions in the school of Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, and it is the most famous. For if we considered the consequence of intentional killing to be retribution according to the other opinion, it would be a restriction on the guardian. The verse suggests leniency and expansiveness. The verse can also have another aspect, which is that both pronouns return to the guardian. They said in this way that pardon is giving compensation, as if it said: whoever gives something from his brother, meaning compensation for his brother. And "whoever" is like it in His saying: "And if We wished, We could have made angels among you who would succeed one another on the earth." And a similar usage of pardon in giving is in His saying: "Except that they pardon or the one in whose hand is the contract of marriage pardons," if we consider the one in whose hand is the contract to be the husband. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him. His companions say: His pardon is on one of two aspects: either from reclaiming the half that is due if he has paid the full dowry, or on paying the other half that is waived if he has not paid it, thus pardon in this case is used in giving. This aspect is strengthened by the fact that there is no retribution in His saying: "So following with kindness." Because the one addressed by following with kindness is only the guardian. If we consider both pronouns to refer to him, the speech would flow in a single direction towards one point, and the meaning would be: whoever gives from the guardians a substitute for his brother, let him follow with kindness in seeking what he has given. And when the guardian opposed him in litigation, he addressed the killer with good performance, so that the speech would be directed towards a single direction. As for the aspect that al-Zamakhshari established, both pronouns refer back to the killer, and the estimation of the speech is: whoever is pardoned by the killers for their offense, let the guardian follow this pardoned killer with kindness, thus the one addressed at the beginning of the verse is the killer, and at the end, the guardian, unlike the aspect I established, and Allah knows best. Both aspects are good and sound.]] Something of pardon. It is as if to say: travel with Zayd some of the travel, and a portion of the travel. And it is not correct for "something" to be in the meaning of the object, because "pardon" does not take an object except through a means. And his brother: he is the guardian of the murdered, and he is called his brother because he is connected to him, as he is the guardian of the blood and demands it, just as you say to a man: say to your friend such and such, for the one between him and another has the closest connection or he is mentioned by the term of brotherhood, to incline one towards the other by mentioning what is established between them of kinship and Islam. If you say: "But pardon takes an object by 'an' not by 'li', what is the meaning of His saying: 'So whoever is pardoned for him'?" I say: it takes an object by 'an' to the perpetrator and to the sin, so it is said: I pardoned so-and-so and his sin. Allah said: "Allah has pardoned you" and said: "Allah has pardoned her." So when it is taken to both the sin and the perpetrator, it is said: I pardoned for so-and-so what he committed, as you say: I forgave him his sin and overlooked it. And on this, what is in the verse, as if it were said: whoever is pardoned for him at his offense, thus it suffices to mention the offense. If you say: why did you not interpret pardon as leaving so that something could be in the meaning of the object? I say: because "pardon" of something meaning leaving it is not established, but rather he pardoned him. And from it is his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "And let the beards grow." [Agreed upon from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them.] If you say: their saying has been established: he pardoned his trace if he erased it, so why did you not make its meaning: whoever erased for him from his brother something? I say: it is a clumsy expression in its place, and pardon in the context of offenses is a well-known term in the Book and the Sunnah and among people, so it should not be deviated from to another awkward expression that is out of place. And you see many who engage in this knowledge daring to, if it becomes difficult for them to find a way to explain something from the words of Allah, to invent a language and claim something about the Arabs that they do not know, and this is a daringness one seeks refuge from Allah from. If you say: why was it said: something of pardon? I say:

To inform that if a party is forgiven for some of the blood, or if some of the heirs forgive him, then the forgiveness is complete and the retribution is lifted, and only the blood money is required. So, let there be following in a good manner, or the matter is following. This is a recommendation for both the forgiven and the forgiver. It means that the guardian of the killer should follow in a good manner by not being harsh with him and not demanding from him except in a beautiful manner. And the killer should pay the blood money with kindness, by not delaying it or diminishing it. This ruling mentioned about forgiveness and blood money is a relief from your Lord and a mercy. For the people of the Torah, retribution was made obligatory and forgiveness and taking blood money were prohibited. And for the people of the Gospel, forgiveness was made obligatory and retribution and blood money were prohibited. This nation has been given the choice among three: retribution, blood money, and forgiveness, as an expansion and ease for them. So whoever transgresses after that relief, exceeding what has been prescribed for him by killing someone other than the killer, or killing after taking the blood money, then the guardian in the pre-Islamic era would secure the killer by accepting the blood money, then he would seize him and kill him. For him is a painful punishment, a type of severe punishment in the Hereafter. And from Qatadah: the painful punishment is that he will certainly be killed and no blood money will be accepted from him, due to his saying, blessings and peace be upon him, 'I do not forgive anyone who kills after taking the blood money.' And for you in retribution is life. This is eloquent speech due to its strangeness. It was said by Mahmoud, may Allah have mercy on him: 'Eloquent speech due to its strangeness...' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'His saying made one of the opposites a place for the other: this speech is either an error in it or leniency, because the condition for the opposition of life and death is their meeting in one place in estimation, and there is no opposition between the life of one who is not avenged and the death of the avenger. The eloquence that he clarified in the verse is evident without this broad statement.' And that is because retribution is killing and deprivation of life, and it has been made a place and a condition for life. And from the striking of the eloquence by defining retribution and the indefinite article for life, because the meaning is: 'And for you in this type of ruling, which is retribution, is great life.' This is because they used to kill many for one, and how many were killed by Mahallal for his brother Kulaib until the tribe of Bakr ibn Wa'il was nearly extinguished. And they would kill the killed's kin, causing discord and conflict among them. So when Islam came with the law of retribution, there was in it life, any life, or a type of life, which is the life gained by refraining from killing due to the knowledge of retribution from the killer. Because if he intends to kill, he knows that he will be avenged, so he refrains from it, and his companion is safe from being killed, and he is safe from retribution. Thus, retribution was the cause of the life of two souls. And Abu Al-Jawza read: 'And for you in retribution is life,' meaning in what has been narrated to you of the ruling of killing and retribution. And it was said that the stories refer to the Qur'an, meaning 'And for you in the Qur'an is life for the hearts,' as His saying, glorified and exalted is He: 'A spirit from Our command,' and 'And he revives whom He wills by clear proof.' Perhaps you will be conscious, meaning I have shown you what is in retribution of preserving lives and protecting souls. Perhaps you will be conscious, meaning you act in accordance with the actions of the people of piety in preserving retribution and ruling by it. And this is a speech that has the virtue of being specifically addressed to the leaders.