Therefore, there is no retribution (qisas) for it, nor is there any blood money (diyah), because this act did not kill him; rather, his death occurred due to his lingering in it, which was his own act, so no one else is liable for it. If he leaves him in a fire from which he could escape due to its small size, or because he is on the edge of it and could exit with the slightest movement, and he does not exit until he dies, there is no qisas, because this does not usually kill. Is he liable for it? There are two opinions: one is that he is not liable, because he destroyed himself by staying there, so he is not liable, just as if he had cast him into shallow water. However, he is liable for what the fire harmed him. The second is that he is liable, because he brought about the casting [of the person] into something leading to destruction, and failing to escape does not negate liability, just as if he opened his vein (fasd) and he neglected to tighten the bandage despite being able to, or he wounded him and he neglected to treat his wound. This differs from water, because it does not destroy by itself; therefore, people enter it for bathing, swimming, and hunting, whereas even a small amount of fire is destructive. His ability to escape is only known through his own statement, such as: "I am able to escape," or the like; because fire has intense heat, so its heat might disturb him from knowing how to escape, or it might cause him to lose his mind from its pain and terror. If he casts him into a deep water where it is impossible for him to escape, and a whale swallows him, there are two opinions: one is that qisas is due, because he cast him into a place of destruction and he perished, so it resembles the case of one who drowns therein. The second is that there is no qisas, because he did not perish by it, resembling the case of one who is killed by another human. If he casts him into shallow water, and a beast eats him, or a whale or crocodile swallows him, there is no qisas, because what he did does not usually kill, yet he is liable for his blood money, because he perished due to his act. The third sort is to bring him and a lion or tiger together in a narrow space, such as a pit (zubyah) or similar, and it kills him. This is intentional and qisas is due if the beast does an act to him that usually kills. If it does an act to him that would not be intentional if done by a human, qisas is not due, because the beast became a tool for the human, so its act is like his act. If he casts him bound before a lion or tiger in an open space, and it eats him, qisas is due. Likewise, if he brings him and a snake together in a narrow space, and it strikes him and kills him, qisas is due. Al-Qadi said: There is no liability for him in...