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