the evidence for adultery is established, so his blood is not protected. If three retract, one-quarter of the blood money is upon them. If four retract, half the blood money is upon them. If five retract, three-quarters of it is upon them. If all six retract, one-sixth of it is upon each of them. The position explicitly stated by al-Shafi'i regarding the case where two retract is similar to the madhhab of Abu Hanifah. His associates differed regarding the case where three testified to qisas (retaliation) and one of them retracted. Abu Ishaq said: There is no qisas upon him because the evidence for qisas is established. Is he liable for one-third of the blood money? There are two views. Ibn al-Haddad said: Qisas is upon him. He distinguished between him and the one who retracts from the witnesses of adultery if he is in excess, on the grounds that the blood of the one testified against for adultery is not protected, whereas this one's blood is protected. His blood is only made permissible for the wali (guardian) of the qisas alone. They differed in the case where three testified to property and one retracted; there are two views: one is that he guarantees one-third, and the second is that he is not liable for anything. Our position is that the destruction occurred through their testimony, so the retracting party acknowledges participating in it intentionally and wrongfully with someone who is his equal in that, thus qisas is incumbent upon him, just as if he had confessed to participating with them in the direct act of killing him. Furthermore, he is one of those whose testimony caused the killing of the one testified against, so he resembles the second of the qisas witnesses and the fourth of the adultery witnesses. Also, because he is one of those through whose testimony the destruction occurred, he is held liable for the guarantee according to his portion, just as if everyone had retracted. Also, that which each one guaranteed while they were in agreement upon the retraction, he guarantees if he is alone in the retraction, just as if they were four. Their claim that "his blood is not protected" is incorrect, for the discussion is about the case after he has been killed, at which point he has no blood left to be described as protected or otherwise. The existence of testimony does not prevent the obligation of qisas, just as if they testified for a man regarding his entitlement to qisas, he executed it, and then they confessed that he killed him unjustly and that the witnesses [were perjurers]. Distinguishing between qisas and stoning based on the killer's blood not being protected is invalid because it is not protected in relation to the one who killed him, and because each individual is held accountable for their own confession, and the statement of his partner is not taken into account; this is why if he confessed...