does not entail the blood money being paid by the paternal kin (aqila), such as a crime of intent or [the wounding of] a slave, the testimony of the paternal kin regarding the injury of the witnesses is heard, because they are not warding off any harm from themselves, as the consequence of this injury is retaliation (qisas) or a financial liability on the person of the perpetrator. Likewise, if the two witnesses testified (24) regarding his admission of the injury, because the paternal kin does not bear the burden of a confession. If their testimony concerns a wound whose financial liability (aql) is less than one-third of the blood money in a case of error, we examine: if the testimony of the paternal kin regarding the injury of the witnesses is before healing, it is not accepted, because it may lead to death, in which case the paternal kin would bear it. If it is after healing, it is accepted, because they do not bear [the liability for] what is less than a third. If the two witnesses to the injury are not from the paternal kin at the time, but they would become part of the paternal kin that bears the burden if the one closer than them were to die, their testimony is accepted. This was mentioned by the Qadi, because they are not from the paternal kin, and they only become part of it upon the death of the relative, and the apparent state is that he is alive. This differs from the poor person if he testifies, because there is no sign regarding the rich person, as wealth comes and goes. The school of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is [similar to what] (25) we mentioned. It is possible to equate the two issues (26), because neither of them is from the paternal kin at the time, and they only become part of it upon the occurrence of a matter whose cause has not yet been realized (27). Therefore, they are the same, and the possibility of the poor person becoming rich is like the possibility of the living person dying; indeed, death is more certain, as it is inevitable. Every (28) living thing is dead, and every soul shall taste death, while not every poor person becomes rich. Thus, what is established in one of the two cases is established in the other, and two views are established for both of them, by transferring the ruling of each (29) of the two cases to the other.

Section: If two men testify against two men that they killed a person, and then the ones testified against testify against the first two that they are the ones who killed him, and the guardian (wali) confirms the first two and denies the last two, the death penalty becomes mandatory for them; because the guardian denies their claim, and they are warding off [punishment] from themselves by their testimony.