for exacting it, they are ordered to appoint one of themselves, or one from someone else, and it is not permissible for all of them to undertake it collectively, because of the torment to the offender involved and the multiplicity of their actions. If they do not agree upon one and dispute, and each of them is capable of exacting retaliation, lots are drawn among them, because when rights are equal and a tie-breaking factor is absent, we resort to drawing lots, just as if they disputed over the marriage of a female ward; whoever the lot falls to, the others are ordered to appoint him as their agent, and it is not permissible for him to exact retaliation without their permission, because the right belongs to them, so it is not permissible to exact it without their permission. If they do not agree to appoint one person, they are prevented from exacting retaliation until they appoint one.

1438- Issue: He said: "And if the wounds healed before he killed him, then upon the one who was pardoned are three blood-monies, unless they wish for qisas (retaliation), so they take qisas and take two blood-monies from his wealth."

As for when he cut off his hands and feet and his wounds healed, then he killed him, the ruling of the cutting off has been established, and the guardian of the slain has the choice: if he wishes, he may pardon and take three blood-monies: a blood-money for his person, a blood-money for his hands, and a blood-money for his feet. If he wishes, he may kill him in retaliation for the killing and take two blood-monies for his limbs. If he likes, he may cut off his four limbs and take a blood-money for his person. If he likes, he may cut off his hands and take two blood-monies for his person and his feet. If he likes, he may cut off his feet and take two blood-monies for his person and his hands. If he likes, he may cut off one limb and take the blood-money for the remainder. If he likes, he may cut off three limbs and take the blood-money for the remainder. Likewise for all other branches, because the ruling of the cutting off was established before the killing due to the healing, so its ruling does not change due to the killing that occurs after it, just as if a stranger killed him, and we know of no dissenter in this.

Section: If the offender and the guardian disagree regarding the healing of the wound before the killing, and the period between them was short such that it is not likely the wound would heal in such a time, then the statement is that of the offender without an oath. And if they disagree regarding