Is a claim of justifiable homicide accepted without proof when killing someone found with one's wife, defending property, or defending oneself?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
The claim of killing a man because he was found with the killer's wife, or killed in self-defense, or killed while resisting robbery, is not accepted without testimonial evidence, and thus retaliation (Qisas) is obligatory. This view is held by Ali, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. The ruling applies whether the incident occurred in the killer's house or elsewhere, and whether a weapon was found with the deceased or not. Evidence supporting this is the report from Ali, peace be upon him, who ruled that if one finds a man with his wife and kills him, if the killer does not bring four witnesses, he must pay the full blood price (or equivalent). The foundational principle is that the presumed state is non-liability, and one's claim does not establish an exception without proof.
Supporting text
If the heirs of the deceased acknowledge the justification (such as confirming the wife's adultery), then neither Qisas nor Diyah (blood money) is due. This is supported by the action of Umar, peace be upon him, who, upon hearing a man killed another while finding him with his wife, accepted the explanation and returned the sword to the killer, telling him to strike again if it recurs. Another supporting narration involves Al-Zubayr killing two men who demanded his slave girl after he had already given them provisions. The reason is that the adversary admitted to an act justifying the killing, thereby forfeiting his right, similar to admitting to a killing deserving Qisas or a penal execution.