it collapses (65) upon him. There are two views regarding this, as well as regarding a child, a lunatic, and a blind person, because he perished by his own act, so the pursuer is not liable, as if he had not pursued him. Our position is that he perished due to his aggression, so he is liable, as if he had dug a well for him, set up a knife, or poisoned his food and placed it in his house. What he mentioned is invalidated by these principles, and because he was the cause of his destruction (66), so it is like if a ceiling had collapsed beneath him, or if he were a child or a lunatic. If he pursues him with something he uses to frighten him (67), such as a lion or the like, its ruling is the ruling of if he pursued him with a drawn sword, because it is of the same meaning.

Section: If he draws a sword in a person's face, or lowers him from a high place, and he dies from his fright, or his reason is lost, he owes his blood money (diya). If he shouts at a child or a lunatic with a loud shout, and he falls from a roof or the like and dies, or his reason is lost, or he takes a sane person unawares and shouts at him, and that happens to him, he owes his blood money, which is borne by the 'aqila (tribal kin). If he does that intentionally, it is quasi-intentional, and otherwise, it is an error (khat'a). Al-Shafi'i agreed regarding the child, but he has two views regarding the adult. Our position is that he is the cause of his destruction, so he is liable, like with the child.

Section: If he presents a person to a target that people are shooting at, and an arrow hits him without intent, the liability is upon the 'aqila of the one who presented him, because the shooter is like the digger (of the well) and the one who presented him is like the pusher, so the liability is upon his 'aqila. If the shooter intended to hit him, the liability is upon him, because he is the direct actor, while the other is the cause, so it is like the one who holds (the victim) and the killer. If no one presented him, the liability is upon the shooter, and his 'aqila bears it if it was an error, because he killed him.

Section: If two men testify against a man for murder, wounding, or theft that warrants amputation, or adultery that warrants stoning or flogging, or the like, and the penalty is executed upon him, or he is amputated for the theft, or he is subjected to the prescribed punishment (hadd) and it leads to his death, then they retract their testimony, they are both liable for what was destroyed by their testimony, like two partners in the act. The liability is on their wealth and is not borne by their 'aqila, because it (the 'aqila) does not bear liability for an admission, and this is established (68) by their admission.