and he killed him, and admitted to that, then qisas is mandatory. The discussion concerning him is like the discussion concerning the two witnesses. If the guardian who directly performed his killing admitted to his knowledge of the falsehood of the witnesses and that he intentionally killed him, then qisas is upon him. I do not know of any disagreement regarding this. If the two witnesses, the ruler, and the guardian all admit to that, then the qisas is upon the guardian because he directly performed the killing intentionally and wrongfully, and it is appropriate that nothing should be mandatory upon the others because they are causes (mutasabbibun), and direct action (mubasharah) nullifies the ruling of the cause, like the one who pushes [someone into a pit] along with the one who dug the pit. This differs from the case where he does not admit, because the ruling of direct performance of killing has not been established against him as being unjust, so his existence is like his non-existence, and the qisas is upon the two witnesses and the ruler because they are all causes. If the matter comes to blood money, it is upon them in thirds. It is possible that the ruling could be tied to the ruler alone because his causality is more specific than theirs; for his ruling is an intermediary between their testimony and his killing, so he resembles the direct actor alongside the one who caused it. If the guardian who admitted to intentionality did not directly perform the killing, but rather appointed someone else to do it, you should examine the agent; if he admitted to the knowledge and intentionally killed him wrongfully, he is the sole killer because he is the one who directly performed the killing intentionally and wrongfully without coercion, so the ruling is tied to him, just as if he had ordered the killing in a case other than this one. If he did not admit to that, the ruling is tied to the guardian, just as if he had directly performed it himself. And God knows best.
1417- Issue: He said: "And for it (killing) is the retaliation (qawad) if the guardians gather upon it, and the killed person was a free Muslim."
Scholars have reached a consensus that retaliation is only mandatory for intentional killing, and we do not know of any disagreement among them regarding its necessity for intentional killing when its conditions are met. Verses and reports have indicated this in their generality. God Almighty said: "And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life" (1). And God Almighty said:
