7 – Giving him poison to drink.
8 – Killing him by means of sorcery.
9 – The testimony of two men against him to a charge that carries the death penalty.

The governing rule for all nine cases is that they constitute “killing by something that, in all likelihood, causes death.” This definition holds universally. It therefore excludes, for example, pricking a person with a needle or a thorn in a non-vital spot so that a little blood flows and he later dies from it; that falls under quasi-intentional homicide, because such instruments do not ordinarily kill. It is one of the instances of quasi-intentional killing, as our teacher ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī—may Allah have mercy on him—pointed out.

5 – If retaliation (qiṣāṣ) or blood money becomes obligatory yet a tyrannical party prevents its enforcement, that party—may Allah curse it—is liable, for it has deprived the rightful claimants of their due. Allah the Exalted says, “Whoever is killed unjustly, We have indeed granted his heir authority; so let him not exceed limits in killing, for he is supported.” ⦗17:33⦘

6 – The Prophet’s phrase “intentionally” (ʿamdan) indicates that qiṣāṣ is contingent on proving deliberate homicide.

Shaykh Nāṣir ibn Ḥamd ibn Muʿammar summarized the issue as follows:
“If the killer claims that the act was accidental, not deliberate, and explains it accordingly, and the killing has been established only by his own confession, his claim of error is accepted and no qiṣāṣ is imposed, for a prerequisite of qiṣāṣ is that the homicide be purely intentional.”