the one exacting retaliation; because it resulted from the act of the perpetrator. If they differ as to whether he did it by mistake or intentionally, the statement is the statement of the one exacting retaliation, along with his oath; because this is something in which a mistake is possible, and he is more knowledgeable of his own intention. If the one exacting retaliation says, "This occurred due to your trembling or an act on your part," then the statement is the statement of the one against whom retaliation is being exacted; because he is the denier. If the execution of retaliation—in which the excess occurred—spread to the life of the person against whom retaliation was exacted, causing him to die, or to some of his organs—such as if he severed his finger and it spread to his entire hand—or if he exacted retaliation with a dull or poisoned instrument, or during extreme heat or severe cold, and it spread, then the judge said: The one exacting retaliation is liable for half of the blood money; because he perished through two acts: a permissible one and a forbidden one, one for which liability exists and one for which it does not. Thus, the obligation is divided between them in two halves, just as if one wounded him with a wound during his apostasy and another wound after his conversion to Islam, and he died from both. This is the entire school of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that he is bound by the liability for the entire spread (siraya) in the case where he exacted retaliation with a poisoned or dull instrument; because the entire act is forbidden, unlike the severing of two fingers, for one of them is permissible.

Section: The judge said: It is not permissible to exact retaliation except in the presence of the Sultan (ruler). He narrated this from Abu Bakr. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because it is a matter that requires ijtihad (legal reasoning) and injustice (hayf) is forbidden in it, and one is not safe from injustice when there is an intention of seeking retribution. If he executes it without the presence of the Sultan, it takes effect, but he is disciplined (ta'zir); for his presumptuousness in doing that which he was forbidden to do. It is possible that it is permissible to execute it without the presence of the Sultan if the retaliation is for life (al-nafs); because a man came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with a man whom he was leading by a rope (nis'a), and said, "This man killed my brother." He confessed to killing him, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "Go and kill him." Muslim narrated it with its meaning. And because the requirement of the presence of the Sultan is not established except by a text, or