the wound of one of them, and he died from the other two wounds, the guardian has the right to take retaliation from the one whose wound healed with the equivalent of his wound, and to kill the other two, or to take a full blood money from them, or to kill one of them and take half the blood money from the other. He also has the right to pardon the one whose wound healed and take from him the blood money for his wound. If the one who inflicted the mudhiha claims that his wound healed before his death, and his two partners deny it, you should look to the guardian: if he believes him, the ruling of healing is established with respect to him, so he does not have the right to kill him or demand from him one-third of the blood money; he only has the right to take retaliation from him for the mudhiha or take its indemnity (arsh). His statement is not accepted regarding his two partners; because the base principle is the non-existence of healing in them. However, if the guardian chooses retaliation, there is no benefit for them in denying it, because he has the right to kill them both, whether or not it healed. And if he chooses blood money, they are not liable for more than two-thirds of it. If the guardian denies him, he must take an oath, and he then has the right to take retaliation from him or demand from him one-third of the blood money, and he would not have the right to demand from his two partners more than two-thirds of it. If his two partners testify for him that it healed, they become liable for the full blood money; because of their admission of its obligation. The guardian may take it from them if he believes them. If he does not believe them and pardons them for blood money, he has no right to more than two-thirds of it; because he does not claim more than that. Their testimony for him is accepted if they have repented and have been declared trustworthy ('udul); because they do not thereby draw any benefit to themselves, so retaliation lapses from him, and he is not liable for more than the indemnity of a mudhiha.

Section: If a man cuts off his hand at the wrist, then another cuts it off at the elbow, and then he dies, you should look: if the first wound healed before the second cut, then the second person is the sole killer, and upon him is the capital punishment (qawad) or the full blood money if he pardons him from killing. He [the guardian] has the right to cut off the hand of the first or take half the blood money. And if it did not heal, then they are both killers, and they are liable for retaliation for the life (qisas fi al-nafs), and if he pardons them for blood money, it becomes due from them. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: The killer is the second one alone,