Shurayh said: "Get up, there is no testimony for you." If the testimony concerns a wound, and they say: "He struck him and caused an incision (mudihah)," or "It became incised from it," or "We found him with an incision from the blow," their testimony is accepted. But if they say: "He struck him and his head became incised," or "We found him (7) incised," or "He caused his blood to flow, and we found an incision on his head," the incision is not established; because it is possible it became incised following his striking due to another cause. It is necessary to specify the incision when imposing retaliation, because if there are two incisions on his head, they need to clarify which of them (8) they have testified about. If there is only one, it is possible that someone other than the one being testified against caused it, so the witnesses must specify it by saying: "This one." If they say: "He caused an incision on such-and-such a place of his head, with dimensions of such-and-such size," their testimony is accepted. If they say: "We do not know its size or its location," retaliation cannot be decreed (9) because it is impossible [to determine] in the presence of uncertainty, but the blood money (diyah) becomes obligatory because it does not differ based on [the size of] it. If they say: "He struck his head and made his blood flow," it counts as a slight wound (bazilah). If they say: "His blood flowed," nothing is established because it is possible his blood flowed for another reason. If they say: "We bear witness that he struck him and cut off his hand," and he had not already lost both hands, their testimony is accepted and retaliation is established because there is no ambiguity. If he was already missing both hands, and they did not specify the amputated one, retaliation is not established because they did not specify the hand for which retaliation is due; however, the blood money for the hands (10) becomes obligatory, as it does not differ based on which hand it is.

Section: If one of them testifies that he confessed to killing him intentionally, and the other testifies that he confessed to killing him without saying "intentionally" or "accidentally," the killing is established because the evidence is complete against him, though the specific nature of it is not established because it [the testimony] was not fully complete regarding it. The person testified against is asked about (11) its nature; if he denies the killing entirely, his denial is not accepted.