Section: If the one sued produces evidence that he was, on the day of the killing, in a distant land from the city of the victim, such that it was impossible for him to come from it to him in one day, the claim is void. If the evidence says: "We bear witness that so-and-so did not kill him," this testimony shall not be heard; because it is mere negation. If they both say: "So-and-so did not kill him; rather, so-and-so killed him," it is heard; because it is testimony with affirmation that includes negation, so it is heard, just as if it said: "So-and-so did not kill him; because he was on the day of the killing in a distant land."

Section: If a man comes and says: "This one sued did not kill him; rather, I killed him," and the guardian belies him, his claim is not void, and he has the right to the Qasama, and he is not obligated to return the blood money if he had already taken it; because it is a single statement, and the confessor is not obligated to anything; because he confessed for someone who belies him. If the guardian confirms him, or demands from him the consequence of the killing, he is obligated to return what he took, and his claim against the first one is void; because that proceeds in the manner of a confession regarding the invalidity of the claim. Does he have the right to demand from the confessor? There are two views: One of them is that he has the right to demand from him; because he confessed to him a right, so he has the authority to demand it from him, like other rights. The second is that he does not have the right to demand from him; because his claim against the first one was that he was solely responsible for the killing; this is an exoneration for others, so he does not have the authority to demand from the one he has exonerated. The text reported from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is that the legal retaliation (qisas) drops for both of them, and he has the right to demand the blood money from the second; for he said, regarding a man against whom two witnesses testified of killing, so he was taken to have retaliation performed upon him, then a man came and said: "This one did not kill him, I killed him": then the retaliation drops from both of them, and the blood money is upon the second. The basis for this is what was narrated, that a man slaughtered a man in a ruin and left him and fled, and a butcher had slaughtered a sheep and wanted to slaughter another, but it fled from him into the ruin, so he followed it until he stood over the slain man, with the knife in his hand stained with blood, so he was taken in that state, and brought to Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, who ordered his execution. The killer said to himself: "Woe to him, I killed a person, and another will be killed because of me." So he stood up and said: "I killed him, and I did not