Moreover, the location and size of the wound must be precisely stated so that retaliation can be pursued. A killing perpetrated through sorcery is proven only by the killer’s own confession, not by witness testimony. If an heir testifies on behalf of the person from whom he inherits that the latter was wounded before the injury had healed, his testimony is rejected; once the wound has knitted, it is accepted. The same ruling applies—according to the sounder view—to testimony establishing a property claim that arose during the decedent’s final illness.

The testimony of the ʿāqilah declaring the witnesses to a homicide morally corrupt is inadmissible when those same ʿāqilah would be liable for the blood money.

If two witnesses testify that two individuals murdered the victim, and another pair then testifies that the first two were the murderers, the decision lies with the heir: should he credit the first pair, judgment is rendered against the second; if he believes the second pair, or both pairs, judgment follows accordingly; but if he declares them all untruthful, both testimonies are dismissed.

If some of the heirs admit that another heir has granted a pardon, the right of retaliation is forfeited.

Should two witnesses differ over the time, place, weapon, or manner of the killing, their testimony is void—although another opinion treats such a discrepancy as lūth (circumstantial suspicion).