The requirements of the evidence point to what we have mentioned; this is because it (20) has been treated the same as accidental killing in terms of negating retaliation (qisas), the 'aqilah (agnate relatives) bearing the blood money, and deferring it over three years; therefore, it follows the same ruling in the obligation of expiation. Furthermore, the reason the killer does not bear any of the blood money is because he bears the expiation; thus, if the expiation were not mandatory upon him, he would have borne (21) part of the blood money, so that the killer would not be free from the obligation of anything at all, and the Law (Shari'a) has not decreed this.

Section: The expiation for killing is the freeing of a believing slave, according to the text of the Book, whether the killer or the killed is Muslim or non-Muslim. If he does not find one in his possession in excess of his needs, or does not find the price for one in excess of his sufficiency, then it is fasting for two consecutive months as a repentance from God, and this is also established by the text. If he is unable to do so, there are two narrations: The first is that the fasting becomes established as a liability (dhimmah) upon him, and nothing else is mandatory because God Almighty did not mention it, and had it been mandatory, He would have mentioned it. The second (22) is that the feeding of sixty poor persons is mandatory because it is an expiation that includes freeing a slave and fasting for two consecutive months; therefore, it includes the feeding of sixty poor persons when those two are absent (23), similar to the expiation for dhihar and breaking the fast in Ramadan. Even if it is not mentioned in the text of the Qur'an, it has been mentioned in its counterpart, so it is deduced by analogy (qiyas) based upon it. According to this narration, if he is incapable of feeding them, it remains a liability upon him until he is able to do so. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions on this, similar to these two narrations. And God knows best.

1530- Issue: He said: "And for that which necessitates retaliation (qisas), nothing is accepted except two just witnesses."

The summary of this is that for whatever necessitates retaliation in the case of a person, such as intentional, hostile killing by a peer, or in a limb, such as severing it from a joint intentionally by one who is a peer, nothing is accepted except the testimony of two just men. The testimony of one man and two women is not accepted, nor is the testimony of one witness and the oath of the plaintiff. We are not aware of any disagreement regarding this.