He replied:

On the strength of this statement alone, he incurs no liability, by the consensus of the Muslims. The defendant is required only to swear an oath denying the allegation against him: either a single oath, according to most scholars, including Abū Hanīfa and Ahmad, or fifty oaths, according to al-Shāfiʿī.

The scholars have differed concerning a man who bears signs of a fatal assault—such as a wound or marks of a beating—and says, “So-and-so struck me deliberately.” Does this constitute presumptive evidence of guilt (lawth)? Most scholars, including Abū Hanīfa, al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, hold that it does not. Mālik holds that it does, and that if the slain person’s heirs swear fifty oaths, judgment is rendered on that basis. If the killing was accidental, however, the fifty-oath procedure (qasāma) does not apply, according to the sounder of the two reports from Mālik.

In the case at hand, it was said that the killing was not accidental. What, then, when he bears no sign of fatal injury and the witnesses have testified as they did? Undoubtedly, the fifty-oath procedure does not apply to this case according to the doctrines of the imams.

He was asked:

May someone suspected of killing a person be beaten to make him confess, or not?

He replied:

If there is presumptive evidence of guilt—that is, evidence making it highly probable that he killed the victim—the slain person’s heirs may swear fifty oaths, thereby becoming entitled to have him executed in retaliation. As for beating him to obtain a confession, this is not permissible unless there is circumstantial evidence indicating that he killed the victim. Some scholars permitted extracting a confession through beating in these circumstances, while others prohibited it altogether.