What is incumbent upon a man who killed his father's murderer years after his father was killed and blood money was taken for him, then he paid the blood money for the slain and was imprisoned for three years, knowing that he is remorseful and illiterate?

If the forgiveness of the paternal uncles for the first killer is not considered valid Islamically due to the presence of children of the slain, then the first killer is not immune from bloodshed. In this case, the guardian of the blood, if he kills him in retribution, is not liable for qisas (retribution), nor diyah (blood money), nor kaffarah (definition) (expiation). However, he should be disciplined for usurping the authority of the ruler.

However, if the forgiveness for the first killer is considered Islamically valid and issued by someone who has the authority to forgive, then the son's killing of his father's killer after the forgiveness is considered the killing of an immune soul. This entails what is entailed for an intentional murderer, namely qisas. But since the guardians of the new victim have agreed to blood money, qisas is dropped, and kaffarah remains. The kaffarah is: freeing a believing slave. If one cannot find a slave, then fasting for two consecutive months. The repentance of an intentional murderer is accepted by the majority of scholars.