is one, and the difference lies in his intention and aim, and that may be hidden from one of them but not the other. If one of them testifies that he killed him, and the other testifies that he confessed to killing him, the killing is established. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and Abu Bakr chose it. The Qadi chose the view that it is not established, which is the school of al-Shafi'i, because one of them testified to something other than what the other testified to, so their testimonies did not agree on a single act. Our [Hambali] argument is that what he confessed to is the same killing that the witness testified to, so there is no contradiction between them, and it is established by their testimony, just as if one of them testified to intentional killing and the other to accidental killing, or as if one of them testified that he owed him a thousand, and the other testified that he confessed to owing him a thousand (17).

Section: If a man is killed intentionally with a killing that warrants retribution, [and one of the heirs testifies against one of them that he pardoned the retribution, the retribution is dropped] (18), whether the witness is just or dissolute; because his testimony contains the dropping of his [the witness's] right to retribution, and his word is accepted regarding that; for if one of the two guardians pardons his right, the entire retribution is dropped. This resembles the case where a slave is owned by two partners, and one of them testifies that his partner emancipated his share, and he is solvent; his share is emancipated even if the other denies it. If the witness to the pardon [testified to the pardon] (18) of the retribution and the property, the property is not dropped, because the witness acknowledged that his share was dropped without his choice. As for the share of the person testified against, if the witness is among those whose testimony is not accepted, the word is the word of the person testified against along with his oath. So if he swears, his share of the blood money is established. If the witness is of accepted testimony, the perpetrator swears along with him, and the right of (19) the person testified against is dropped from him, and the perpetrator swears that he pardoned the blood money. He does not need to mention the pardon of the retribution, because it has already been dropped (20) by the testimony of the witness, so he does not need to mention it in the oath; and because