What is the wisdom behind the differing order of punishment (blood money and the freeing of a slave) in cases of accidental killing, depending on whether the slain person is a believer from a believing people, or a believer from a people with whom Muslims have a covenant, even though the punishment itself is the same in both cases?

The conjunction with "waaw" (and) in the Holy Quran does not always imply sequence; it has a specific purpose and meaning. Scholars have differed on the reason for prioritizing blood money (diyah) over emancipation (manumission) in the case of killing those with whom a covenant has been made. Some believe that this is to encourage prompt payment of blood money and avoid suspicions about breaking the covenant. Others believe that a Muslim prioritizes the right of Allah, while a disbeliever prioritizes their own right.

The verse clarifies that intentionally killing a believer is something a true believer avoids. The recompense for accidental killing is the emancipation of a believing slave and blood money to be handed over to the victim's heirs. If the victim was a believer from a warring disbelieving people, the recompense is only the emancipation of a slave without blood money. However, if the victim was from a people with whom a covenant or a pact of protection (dhimmah) exists, the obligation is blood money for their family and the emancipation of a believing slave. And whoever cannot find a slave must fast for two consecutive months. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise in His judgments.