He replied:

If two witnesses testify on behalf of the slain person’s heirs, but their uprightness has not been established, this constitutes grounds for suspicion. If, on that basis, the claimants swear fifty oaths—the qasāma (homicide) oaths—against one particular person, they are awarded the right to retaliatory execution. If they swear against more than one person, there is disagreement over whether retaliatory execution applies.

If, however, they claim that the killing was accidental or quasi-intentional—for example, that the assailants struck him with a stick in a manner that would not ordinarily be fatal—then their claim that the group participated jointly in this is admissible, and they are entitled to blood money.

He was asked—may Allah have mercy on him:

If a person who has been beaten says, “My killer is none other than so-and-so,” is his statement accepted?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds. There is no disagreement that his statement alone is insufficient grounds for action. But does his statement constitute grounds for suspicion on the basis of which the slain person’s heirs may swear fifty oaths and become entitled to the retaliatory execution of the person against whom they swear?

The scholars have two stated opinions on this:

The first is that it does not constitute grounds for suspicion. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad and Abū Hanīfa.

The second is that it does constitute grounds for suspicion. This is Mālik’s position.

He was asked—may Allah have mercy on him—about two men who had been drinking, with another man accompanying them. When they wished to return to their homes, the two exchanged words, and one struck the other a blow with a mace. He fell from his horse, and he stopped