Lawth. This is the statement of al-Qadi and his chosen position. The text narrated from Ahmad regarding the case where one of them testifies to his killing and the other to his confession of the killing is that the killing is established. Abu Bakr chose the position that the killing is established here, and in the case where one of them testifies that he killed him with a sword and the other testifies that he killed him with a knife, because they agreed upon the killing but differed in its description. Al-Shafi'i said: It is Lawth in this instance, according to one of two positions, and in the two instances before it, it is Lawth because it is testimony that causes the predominance of the assumption of the truthfulness of the claimant; it resembles the testimony of women and slaves. Our position is that it is rejected testimony due to the difference therein, so it is not Lawth, like the first instance.

Section: It is not a condition of Lawth that there be a mark on the killed person. Malik and al-Shafi'i stated this. According to Ahmad, it is a condition. This is the statement of Hammad, Abu Hanifa, and al-Thawri; because if there is no mark on him, it is possible that he died of natural causes (hatf anfih). Our position is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not ask the Ansar whether there was a mark on their killed person or not. Furthermore, killing can occur by means that leave no mark, such as suffocating the face, strangulation, squeezing the testicles, or a blow to the heart. Thus, it resembles one who has a mark, and one who has a mark may die of natural causes due to a fall or epilepsy, or he may kill himself. Therefore, according to the statement of those who consider the mark: if blood emerges from his ear, it is Lawth, because it only happens due to his strangulation or a matter by which he was struck. If it emerges from his nose, does it constitute Lawth? There are two viewpoints.

The Second Section: Qasama (oath-taking) is not established unless the guardians (awliya') agree on the claim. If some of them belie others, such as if one of them says, "This person killed him," and another says, "This person did not kill him," or says, "Rather, this other person killed him," the Qasama is not established. Ahmad explicitly stated this. It is the same whether the one belying is just ('adl) or immoral (fasiq).