according to that. If neither party has evidence, then the statement is that of the one who gave the drink; because the fundamental principle is the non-necessity of qisas, so it is not established by doubt, and because he is more knowledgeable about the nature of what he provided. If it is established that he is the killer, but he says: "I did not know it was lethal," there are two viewpoints regarding this: One of them is that he is subject to retaliation (qawad), because poison is of the type that usually kills, so it resembles the case where one wounds another and says: "I did not know he would die from it." The second is that there is no qawad upon him, because it is possible that it was hidden from him that it was lethal, and this is a doubt (shubhah) by which qawad is dropped.

The Sixth Type: That he kills him with magic that usually kills, in which case qawad is mandatory upon him, because he killed him with something that usually kills, resembling the case where he kills him with a knife. If it is of a type that does not usually kill, or is of a type that kills sometimes and not others, then blood money (diyah) is due instead of qisas; because it is quasi-intentional, resembling being struck with a stick.

The Seventh Type: That he becomes the cause (tasabbub) of his killing by something that usually kills, and this is of four forms: The first is that he coerces a man to kill another, and he kills him. In this case, qisas is mandatory upon both the coercer (mukrah) and the coerced (mukrah) alike. This is the opinion of Malik. Abu Hanifah and Muhammad said: Qisas is mandatory upon the coercer, not the direct actor (mubashir), based on his (peace be upon him) saying: "My nation has been forgiven for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they have been coerced into." Also, because the coerced person is an instrument for the coercer, evidenced by the necessity of qisas upon the coercer and the attribution of his act to him; therefore, it is not mandatory upon the coerced person, just as if he had thrown him at someone and killed him. Zufar said: It is mandatory upon the direct actor, not the coercer; because the direct act severs the effect of the cause, like the digger of a well versus the pusher, or the one who orders versus the killer. Al-Shafi'i said: It is mandatory upon the coercer, and there are two opinions regarding the coerced person. Abu Yusuf said: It is not mandatory upon either of them; because the coercer did not directly commit the killing, so he is like the digger of a well, and the coerced person is forced, resembling one who is thrown onto a person. Our argument for its necessity upon the coercer is that he caused his killing by something that usually leads to it, resembling the case where he sics a snake on him, or throws him onto a lion in a pit. Our argument for its necessity upon the coerced person is that he killed him intentionally and unjustly to preserve his own life, resembling the case where he kills him in a state of starvation in order to eat him. Their statement that the coerced person is forced is incorrect, for he has the ability to refrain, and for that reason he sinned by killing him, and it was forbidden for him; he only killed him under coercion due to his thinking that there was survival for himself in his killing, and deliverance from the evil of the coercer, so he resembles the killer in the state of starvation in order to eat him. If the matter comes to blood money, it is due upon both of them, and this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah and Muhammad said: There is no blood money upon the coercer, based on their view that he is an instrument, and we have already clarified the fallacy of that. They are both partners; qisas is mandatory upon them both, therefore blood money is mandatory upon them both, like partners in an act, and just as a penalty is mandatory upon the one who directs another to game while in the state of ihram and the direct actor, or the supporter (rid') and the direct actor in highway robbery (muharabah). According to this, if the guardian wishes to kill one of them and take half the blood money from the other, or pardon him, he may do so.

The Second Form: If two men testify against a man with that which necessitates his killing, and he is killed based on their testimony, then they recant and confess to intentional, unjust killing and lying in their testimony, then qisas is upon them. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: There is no qisas upon them because it is a cause that does not force, so it does not necessitate qisas, like digging a well. Our argument is what al-Qasim ibn 'Abd al-Rahman narrated: That two men testified before 'Ali—may God honor his countenance—against a man that he had stolen, so he had him cut, then they recanted their testimony. 'Ali said: "If I knew that you had done it intentionally, I would have cut your hands," and he held them liable for the blood money of his hand. And because they reached his killing through a cause that usually kills, so qisas is mandatory upon them, like the coercer. The Third Form: The ruler, if he judges against a man with killing, being aware of that and doing so intentionally.