Is retaliation (Qisas) incumbent upon an accomplice (sharīk) when the victim injures himself or is injured by a predator before or after the accomplice's injurious act, leading to death?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
There are two reported opinions regarding whether Qisas is obligatory upon the accomplice in cases where the victim is injured by a predator (sab') or injures himself intentionally, and subsequently dies from those injuries. The second opinion states that Qisas is incumbent upon the accomplice. This is the position attributed to Abu Bakr. Ahmad reported that if a man injures the victim, and then the man injures himself (and the victim dies from both wounds), Qisas is due from the accomplice because it constitutes pure intentional killing, thus Qisas must be applied to the accomplice, similar to the case of an accomplice to a father's act.
Supporting text
The opposing view holds that no Qisas is due upon the accomplice. This is the opinion of the *Ashab al-Ra'y* (People of Opinion). They argue that since the accomplice shared in an act for which Qisas is not obligatory, Qisas does not devolve upon him, similar to an accomplice to an unintentional killer (*sharīk al-khāṭi'*). They further argue that it involves a killing compounded from an action that necessitates Qisas and one that does not, thus negating Qisas, like a killing resulting from intentional and unintentional acts combined. Furthermore, if Qisas is not due from the accomplice to an unintentional killer whose act is compensable (dhamin), it is even less so for an accomplice whose act does not result in guaranteed liability (lā yuḍmanu fi'lihu).