the group were killed for one person, so that the involvement does not lead to the dropping of retaliation, in order to make the retaliation more severe and as an exaggeration in deterrence. In our case, this is reversed; for if he knows that retaliation is obligatory upon him for the killing of one person, and that the killing of the second and third does not increase the right [of retaliation] against him, he will hasten to kill whomever he intends to kill and do whatever he desires to do. Thus, this becomes equivalent to dropping the retaliation against him from the outset, along with [just] the blood-money.

Section: If every guardian demands his killing for their ward independently, without participation, the first is given priority because his right is earlier, and because the subject became entitled to him by the first killing. If the guardian of the first pardons, the second guardian may kill him. If the second guardian demands before the first, the judge shall send word to the guardian of the first to inform him. If the second acts quickly and kills him, he has done wrong, and the right of the first reverts to blood-money. If the guardian of the first is absent, a minor, or insane, he shall be awaited. If the guardians of all pardon for blood-money, they may do so. If he killed them all at once and they disputed over who should carry out [the retaliation], lots shall be drawn among them, and the one for whom the lot falls shall be given priority, due to the equality of their rights. If someone else acts quickly and kills him, he has fulfilled his right, and the right of the remainder reverts to blood-money. If he killed them separately, and the first [killing] is ambiguous, or each guardian claims that he is the first, and they have no proof, and the killer admits it for one of them, the one for whom he confessed is prioritized. If he does not confess, we cast lots among them, due to the equality of their rights.

Section: If he cuts the right [hand] of two men, the ruling regarding it is like the ruling regarding persons, based on the details and the difference of opinion we have mentioned. However, the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: He is subjected to retaliation for both of them, and he must pay the blood-money for the hand for both of them from his own wealth, in two halves. This is not correct because it leads to making retaliation obligatory for part of the limb and blood-money for part of it, and combining the replacement and the replaced in one subject, and the Shari'ah has not come with this, nor is there a counterpart for it to be compared with.