retaliation. This was narrated [from Malik]; because he participated in the killing intentionally and aggressively, so retaliation became incumbent upon him, like the partner of the intentional killer. Also, because he is held accountable for his act, and his act is intentional and aggressive, for which he has no excuse. Our position is that it is a killing that was not purely intentional, so it does not necessitate retaliation, just like quasi-intentional killing, and as if one person killed him with two wounds, one intentional and one by mistake. Furthermore, each of the two partners is a direct perpetrator (mubashir) and a cause (mutasabbib). If both are intentional, each one is a cause of an act that necessitates retaliation, so the act of his partner stands in the place of his own act due to his being a cause for it. Here, if we place the one who erred in the position of the intentional killer, it becomes as if he killed him with both intention and mistake, and this does not necessitate [retaliation].

Section: Is retaliation incumbent upon the partner of his own soul and the partner of a beast of prey? There are two views on this, which Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid mentioned. The scenario is that a beast of prey wounds him, and a human wounds him intentionally, either before or after that, and he dies from both of them; or he wounds himself intentionally, then someone else wounds him intentionally, and he dies from both. Does retaliation become incumbent upon the one who participated with him? There are two views, and it is reported differently regarding al-Shafi'i. The people of opinion ( اصحاب الرأي) said: There is no retaliation upon him, because he participated with one upon whom retaliation is not incumbent, so retaliation is not binding upon him, just like the partner of the one who erred. Also, because it is a killing composed of that which necessitates [retaliation] and that which does not, so it does not necessitate it, like the killing resulting from both intention and mistake. Furthermore, if it is not incumbent upon the partner of the one who erred—and his act is guaranteed (madmun)—then it is even more appropriate that it not be incumbent upon the partner of one whose act is not guaranteed. The second view is that retaliation is upon him. This is the view of Abu Bakr. It is narrated from Ahmad that he said: If a man wounds him, then the man wounds himself and dies, then upon his partner is retaliation; because it is a purely intentional killing, so retaliation became incumbent upon the partner therein, like the partner of a father. But if the man wounds...