the passage of time, the statement is that of the offender with his oath, because the original state is that it has not passed. If the period is one in which healing is possible, then the statement is that of the guardian with his oath, because the cause for the obligation of the blood-money for the two hands has been established by cutting them, and the offender claims the lapse of their blood-money due to the killing, and the original state is the absence of that. If the offender has evidence of the victim remaining alive until he killed him, it is ruled in his favor based on his evidence; and if the guardian has evidence of his healing, it is likewise ruled in his favor. If both evidences contradict each other, the guardian’s evidence is given precedence because it affirms the healing. It is possible that the statement of the offender is accepted if neither of them has evidence, because the original state is the persistence of the wound and its failure to heal. If he cut off his limbs and he died, and they disagreed on whether he healed before death or died from the spread of the wound, or the guardian said he died from another cause—such as being stung, or he slaughtered himself, or someone else slaughtered him—then the ruling, if he died without another cause, is the same as the ruling if he killed him. As for if he died from being killed or another cause, there are two views: one is giving precedence to the statement of the offender, because the manifest appearance is the persistence of the injury and the original state is the absence of another cause, so the manifest appearance is with him. The second is that the statement is that of the guardian of the injury, because the original state is the persistence of the two blood-monies whose cause was found, until that which removes them is found. If their claims are the opposite, and the guardian said, "He died from the spread of your cutting, so upon you is retaliation for the soul," while the offender said, "Rather, his wounds healed before his death," or he claimed his death was due to another cause, then the statement is that of the guardian with his oath, because the wound is a cause of death and it has been established, and the original state is the absence of healing and the absence of another cause that would result in death. This applies whether the wound is one that requires retaliation in the limb, such as cutting the hand at the joint, or does not require it, such as a deep abdominal wound (ja'ifah) or cutting other than at a joint. All of this is the school of al-Shafi'i.

1439- Issue: He said: "And if he shot, while he was a Muslim, at a disbeliever who was a slave, and the arrow did not strike him until he was emancipated and became a Muslim, there is no qisas, and upon him is the blood-money of a free Muslim if he dies from the shot."