of women, just as in the first category. What clarifies the correctness of this is that when (2) women had no role in the qasamah (oath-taking procedure) in cases of intentional killing, they (3) had no role in the qasamah for accidental or quasi-intentional killing that necessitates financial payment. This indicates that they have no role in testimony regarding blood under any circumstances. Our argument is that it is testimony regarding that which is intended for financial purposes specifically, so it must be accepted, like testimony regarding sales and leasing. It differs from intentional killing, as that necessitates a punishment for which precaution is exercised by omitting it; thus, precaution is exercised in the testimony concerning its causes. In our issue, the intended goal is wealth, and since their testimony is accepted for that, their testimony is accepted for its cause.

Section: If someone claims an intentional crime and says, "I have pardoned the retaliation for it," the testimony of one man and two women is not accepted for this; because he only pardons a right that is established for him, and that killing is not established by that testimony. If the killing is established either by two witnesses or by the confession (4) of the defendant, the pardon is valid; because the right was established for him by the occurrence of the killing, and the establishment of it was only hidden from those who did not know of it. When that becomes known, it is understood that it was established from the time the killing occurred, so the pardon coincides with his established right, [and it takes effect, just as if he had manumitted] (5) a slave whom someone was disputing with him over, and then it was proven that he was his property at the time of manumission.

Section: Killing is not established by testimony except with the removal of ambiguity in the words of the two witnesses, such as them saying: "We bear witness that he struck him and killed him," or "He died from it." If they say: "He struck him with a sword and he died," or "We found him (6) dead," or "He died following it," or they say: "He struck him with a sword, causing his blood to flow," or "He made his blood pour out, and he died on the spot," the killing is not established; because it is possible that he died following the striking due to another cause. It has been narrated from Shurayh that a man testified before him regarding a killing, saying: "I bear witness that he leaned on him with his elbow and he died." Shurayh said to him: "Did he die from it?" The man repeated his first statement, so he said to him: