his state of insanity is known, then the statement is that of the guardian; because the original state is soundness, and likewise if insanity was known for him, then it was known that it ceased before the killing. If one of them provides proof for what he claimed (2), judgment is passed for him. If they both provide proofs, and they conflict, then if the evidence testifies that he was of ceased intellect, and (3) the guardian said: You were drunk. And the killer (4) said: I was insane. Then the statement is that of the killer, with his oath; because he is more knowledgeable about himself, and because the original state is the exoneration of his liability and the Muslim's avoidance of doing what is forbidden to him.

Section: If he kills him while he is sane, then becomes insane, retaliation does not lapse from him, whether that is established against him (5) by evidence or confession; because his retraction is not accepted, and he is to be retaliated against during his state of insanity. If a Hadd punishment were established against him by his confession, then he became insane, it would not be carried out on him during his state of insanity; because his retraction [of the confession] is accepted, so it is possible that if he were sane, he would have retracted it.

Section: Retaliation is mandatory upon the intoxicated person if he kills while in his state of intoxication. Al-Qadi mentioned this, and Abu al-Khattab mentioned that the obligation of retaliation upon him is based on the occurrence of his divorce, concerning which there are two narrations, so there are two views regarding the obligation of retaliation upon him: One of them is that it is not obligatory upon him; because he is of ceased intellect, resembling the madman, and because he is not legally accountable (mukallaf), resembling (6) the child and the madman. Our position is that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, placed his intoxication in the position of (7) his false accusation (qadhf), so they made the Hadd of the accuser mandatory upon him. If it were not that his accusation is something that necessitates the Hadd upon him, the Hadd would not have been mandatory (8) through its presumptive state. And if the Hadd is mandatory, then retaliation—which is purely the right of a human being—is more deserving [of being mandatory]. Also, because this is a ruling [such that] if retaliation and the Hadd were not mandatory upon him, it would lead to a situation where anyone who wanted to disobey Allah the Almighty would drink that which intoxicates him, then kill, commit adultery, and steal, and no punishment [or sin] would be required of him, [and his disobedience would become a cause for the lapsing of the punishment] (9) of this world and the hereafter, and there is no basis for this.