it does not require retaliation, such as a deep abdominal wound (ja'ifah) and the like, then he is liable for the indemnity (arsh). We have ruled that retaliation is required [against the first] because the second's action severed the progression (sirayah) of his wounds, making him like a wound that has healed and does not spread. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, and I know of no dissenter regarding it. If the first's wound was bound to lead to death inevitably, but did not remove him from the state of life, and a settled life remained with it, such as a puncture of the intestine or the membrane of the brain, and the second then struck his neck, the killer is the second, because he terminated a settled life. It was said: He remains in the state of life, based on the fact that when Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was wounded, the physician came to him and gave him milk to drink, which came out undigested. The physician realized he was dying and said, "Make your final instructions to the people." He then gave instructions, bequeathed, and entrusted the Caliphate to the Shura committee, and the Companions accepted his mandate and reached a consensus on the validity of his bequests and his mandate. Since the status of life was remaining, the second was the one who terminated it, and thus he is the killer, just as if he had killed a sick person whose recovery is not expected.

Section: If a man is thrown from a high place and another meets him with a sword and kills him, the retaliation is upon the one who killed him, because he terminated his life before it reached a state where his survival was despaired of. This resembles the case where a person shoots another with a lethal arrow, and someone else cuts his neck before the arrow hits him, or if he throws a boulder at him and another severs his head with a sword before it falls upon him. This is the view of al-Shafi'i if he threw him from a place from which it is possible for him to survive. If he threw him from a high place from which one who falls cannot survive, there are two views: one is what we have said, and the second is that both are held liable for retaliation and blood money upon his fall, because each of them is a cause (sabab) for the destruction. Our view is that the throwing is a cause, while the killing is a direct act (mubasharah); therefore, the ruling of the cause is severed, like the pusher with the digger of a pit, or the one who wounds with the one who slaughters, and like the instances we have mentioned. What they have mentioned is void according to these established principles.