then the authoritative view is that this is deliberate killing on the part of the offender. They say, “Even if a wounded person does not treat his wound.” Thus, if the offender says, “I will treat you at my own expense,” but the victim says, “No; rather, let it continue to gush blood until you are executed,” they deem it deliberate killing. But in reality, this is foolishness on the victim’s part, for there are matters which we know will heal if treated. Thus, you are the one who brought harm upon yourself. We therefore would not allow him to leave his wound gushing blood until he dies.

The second case is his statement: “or striking him with a large stone or the like”—such as if he strikes him with a large hammer and says, “I did not know that it could kill.” We say: this is incorrect. Rather, this is something that will most likely kill, so the offender is executed for it, even if he strikes him with it in a non-vital part of the body. This is why al-Rawḍ (1) explicitly states: “Even in a non-vital part.” If the victim dies, it is deliberate killing, and the offender is executed for it.

The author’s statement, “or striking him with a large stone,” also indicates that if he strikes him with a small stone, it is quasi-intentional killing—unless he kills him with a small stone by striking a vital area, such as the kidneys, the liver, or the like, which may cause death. In that case, it is deliberate killing.

Whether or not a stone is lethal is determined by customary practice. Thus, whenever people say that this stone would kill a person if he were struck with it, even in a non-vital area, killing with such a stone is deliberate killing.

Question: What if he kills him with an electric shock? It must be considered whether it is of a voltage