his blood money from the public treasury. Ahmad said, regarding someone found killed in the Sacred Mosque: "One looks to see who had a dispute with him during his lifetime—meaning enmity—and they are seized." Thus, he did not consider mere presence to be Lawth; rather, he considered the Lawth to be the enmity. Al-Hasan and al-Zuhri said, regarding one who dies in a crush: "His blood money is upon those who were present;" because the killing resulted from them. Malik said: "His blood is unavenged (hadar), because no killer is known for him, and no Lawth was found; so Qasamah (oath-based judgment) is not ruled in his case." It has been narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz that it was written to him regarding a man found killed, whose killer was unknown, and he wrote back to them: "Indeed, among matters are those which are not judged except in the Hereafter, and this is one of them."

The fourth is to find a killed person, and there is no one found near him except a man with a sword or knife stained with blood, and there is no one else among those whom it is assumed likely that he killed him, such as seeing a man fleeing who could possibly be the killer, or a predator that could possibly be the one who did it. The fifth is for two factions to fight and then disperse, leaving behind a dead person from one of them; the Lawth is then against the other faction. This was mentioned by the Qadi. If they are situated such that their arrows could not reach one another, the Lawth is against the faction of the killed person. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Ahmad that the blood money for the killed person is upon those whom they contested if the two factions fought, unless they make a claim against one specific individual. This is the view of Malik. Ibn Abi Layla said: "His blood money is upon both groups together;" because it is possible he died from the actions of his own companions, so all are equal regarding it. Regarding Ahmad, in the case of a group that fought, some of whom were killed and some wounded: the blood money of the killed is upon the wounded, and from it, the blood money for the wounds is subtracted. If there are those among them who have no wounds, do they owe any of the blood money? There are two viewpoints, mentioned by Ibn Hamid. The sixth is for slaves or women to testify to the killing; there are two reports from Ahmad concerning this. One is that it is Lawth, because it causes the predominance of the assumption of the truthfulness of the claimant in his claim, so it resembles enmity. The second is that it is not Lawth, because it is rejected testimony, so it is not Lawth, just as if infidels testified to it. And if...