regarding the one killed by treachery: "If the people of Sana'a had conspired against him (24), I would have executed them [all] for him (25)." By it (26) and by analogy to the warrior (muharib). Our position is based on the general import of His, the Almighty's, saying: "We have given his guardian authority [to seek retribution]" (27). And the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "His family has a choice [between two things]" (28). Moreover, he is a person killed in a situation other than warfare, so his matter rests with his guardian, like all other murdered persons. As for the statement of Umar: "I would have executed them for him" (26), it means: I would have enabled the guardian to carry out the retaliation against them.

Section: If a man kills another and claims that he found him with his wife, or that he killed him in self-defense, or that the man entered his home to forcibly seize his property and he was unable to repel him except by killing him, his claim shall not be accepted unless supported by evidence, and retaliation is required of him. A similar report was narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). [This view is also held by Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, and I know of no dissenter regarding this. It makes no difference whether he was found in the killer's house or elsewhere, or whether he was found with a weapon or not, based on what was narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)] (29), that he was asked about a man who found a man with his wife and killed him, and he said: "If he does not produce four witnesses, let him deliver himself for his crime" (30). And because the default state is the absence of what he claims, so it cannot be established by mere claim. If the guardian admits to that, there is no retaliation and no blood money.