because the evidence is established for it. If he confesses to intentional killing, it is established by his confession. If he confesses to accidental killing and the guardian (wali) denies it, the statement is the statement of the killer. Is he asked to swear an oath regarding that? There are two views derived on this. If the guardian confirms his account of it being accidental, it is established against him. If he confesses to intentional killing and the guardian belies him, saying: "Rather, it was accidental," retaliation (qawad) is not obligatory because the guardian does not claim it, and the blood money (diyah) for accidental killing becomes obligatory. The paternal kin (aqilah) do not bear any of the blood money in all these instances; rather, it is from his own wealth, because it was not established by testimony, and in some of these cases, the killer confesses that it is from his own wealth, not that of his paternal kin. If one of the two witnesses says: "I bear witness that he confessed to killing him intentionally," and the other says: "I bear witness that he confessed to killing him accidentally," the killing is also established because there is no contradiction between their testimonies (12); for it is possible that he confessed to intentional killing before one of them and to accidental killing before the other. Thus, his confession of the killing is established, but not its specific nature, and he is demanded to clarify its nature, as we mentioned regarding the case preceding this. If one of them testifies that he killed him intentionally, and the other testifies that he killed him accidentally, the killing is also established, but not its nature, and he is demanded to clarify its nature, as we mentioned, because one of them may believe the act to be accidental and the other intentional, and the ruling is as if they had testified (13) to his confession of that. If one of the witnesses testifies that he killed him in the morning, and the other says: "In the evening," or one of them says: "He killed him with a sword," and the other says: "With a stick," the testimony is not complete. This was mentioned by the Qadi, because each one of them contradicts and belies the other. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: The killing is established by that (15) because they both agreed on the killing and differed in its description, so it resembles the case preceding it. The first [view] is more correct, because each of the two witnesses belies the other; for killing in the morning is not the same as killing in the evening, and it is not conceivable that one be killed in the morning and then killed in the evening, nor that he be killed with a sword and then killed with a stick, unlike [the difference between] intentional and accidental, for (16) the act...