Are the boundaries intertwined if the judge kills the criminal who does not pray, and does the ruling differ if he kills him as an apostate or as a Hadd punishment, and are the next of kin entitled to demand the blood money after reaching maturity?

Scholars have differed on the necessity of waiting for the minor guardians of the victim to reach maturity to demand retribution (Qisas). If the judge rules to postpone Qisas and imprison the killer, his ruling is binding.

When two capital punishments converge (overlapping of legal penalties), the majority of scholars believe that the right of the human being takes precedence over the right of Allah. Thus, the perpetrator is killed for both, or the earlier right is given precedence, and the other is waived or converted into blood money (Diyah).

If the perpetrator is sentenced to death as a Hadd punishment or for apostasy, the guardians of the victim have the right to demand blood money due to the forfeiture of their right to Qisas.

Examples of this include: - If Qisas for a non-highway robbery murder converges with death for highway robbery (muharaba), the earlier takes precedence, and the other reverts to blood money. - Qisas takes precedence over execution for apostasy because it is a human right. If the guardian of the victim pardons, he is entitled to the blood money of the deceased. - If an apostate intentionally kills an equivalent person, the guardian has the choice between Qisas or pardoning in exchange for money. If he pardons, blood money becomes obligatory from his wealth. - If a highway robber kills a group of people, he is executed for the first (victim), and the guardians of the remaining victims are entitled to their blood money due to the impossibility of Qisas.

The difference between execution as a Hadd punishment or for apostasy remains in the religious rulings related to washing the body, shrouding, burial, prayer, and inheritance.