The first of these is that he strikes him with a sharp object (muhaddad), which is anything that cuts and penetrates the body, such as a sword, a knife, a spearhead, or anything of that nature that is sharpened so as to wound, whether it be of iron, copper, lead, gold, silver, glass, reed, or wood. If he wounds him with this in a large wound, and he dies, this is intentional killing, and there is no disagreement among scholars regarding this, to the best of our knowledge. As for if he wounds him with a small wound, such as the incision of a cupper, or pricks him with a needle or a thorn, you must look: if it was in a vital organ, such as the eye, the heart, the flank, the temple, or the base of the ear, and he died, it is also intentional, because causing injury to a vital organ with such an object is like wounding with a knife in a non-vital area. If it was in a non-vital area, you must look: if he went to excess in inserting it into the body, it is like a large wound, because this causes intense pain and leads to death, just as the large wound does. But if the pricking was slight, or he wounded him with the sharp object with a light wound, such as the incision of a cupper or less, our companions said: If he remained suffering from it until he died, then retribution (qisas) applies, because the apparent reality is that he died from it. If he died immediately, there are two views. The first is that there is no qisas, as stated by Ibn Hamid, because the apparent reality is that he did not die from it, and because such an act does not usually kill, so it resembles a staff or a whip. The first reasoning is better, because since the occurrence of death is seemingly possible from other than that, it constitutes a doubt (shubhah) that wards off qisas. If the cause were solely that it does not usually result in death, the state would not differ between his dying immediately or later, as with all other acts for which qisas is not obligatory. The second view is that qisas applies, because for a sharp object, one does not consider the preponderance of probability in death resulting from it, evidenced by the case of one cutting off an earlobe or a fingertip. And because, since it is not possible to regulate the ruling and restrict it based on preponderance of probability, it became necessary to link it to the fact that it is a sharp object, and the manifestation of the rationale in individual instances of the category is not required; rather, the mere possibility of the rationale is sufficient. For this reason, the ruling was established in the case where he remained suffering, even though intentional killing does not differ regarding the speed or delay of death given the identity of the instrument and the act. Furthermore, there are hidden vital organs in the body, and this has a potential for spreading and penetration, so it resembles a large wound. This is the apparent view from the words of al-Khiraqi, as he did not distinguish between the small and the large. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, and for al-Shafi'i, there is a detail similar to what we have mentioned.

The second type is killing with something other than a sharp object, from which it is predominantly thought that the soul will likely depart upon its use. This is also intentional killing that necessitates qisas. This is the view of al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, Ibn Sirin, Hammad, Amr ibn Dinar, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Al-Hasan said: There is no qisas in that. This is also narrated from al-Sha'bi. Ibn al-Musayyab, Ata', and Tawus said: Intentional killing is only that which is done with a weapon. Abu Hanifah said: There is no qisas [in that], unless he killed him with fire. There are two narrations from him regarding heavy iron objects. He argued using the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Indeed, for the victim of intentional killing by mistake—the victim of the whip, the staff, and the stone—there is one hundred camels." He labeled it "intentional killing by mistake" and made blood money obligatory for it rather than qisas. And because intentional killing cannot be defined by itself, it must be defined by its likely circumstances; and it cannot be defined by what "usually kills," because intentional killing occurs without that in small wounds, so it became necessary to define it by the wounding itself. Our argument is the saying of Allah the Almighty: "And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority." This person was killed unjustly. And Allah the Almighty said: "Retribution is prescribed for you in the case of those who are killed." And Anas narrated that a Jew killed...