What is the ruling when one causes death by coercion (ikrah) or through false testimony?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If a man compels another man to kill a third party, retribution (qawad) is incumbent upon both the coercer and the perpetrator. This is the position of Malik. The basis for requiring retribution from the coercer is that he caused death by a means that typically leads to it, resembling throwing someone to a lion. For the perpetrator, retribution is due because he intentionally and unjustly killed to save his own life, similar to killing in starvation to eat the victim. If retribution is not taken, blood money (diya) is due from both. If two men testify falsely against someone regarding a matter punishable by death, and the victim is executed based on their testimony, and they subsequently confess to intentionally bearing false witness for murder, retribution is due from both witnesses, as held by Ash-Shafi'i. This is because they used a means that typically leads to death.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa and Muhammad held that only the coercer is liable, viewing the perpetrator as a mere tool, citing the hadith stating the Ummah is pardoned for error, forgetfulness, and what they are coerced to do. Zafar held that only the direct actor is liable. Abu Yusuf held neither is liable, viewing the coercer as a non-direct cause and the perpetrator as compelled. If the victim was killed based on false testimony and the executor (Wali) admits he knew the testimony was false and intended the killing, retribution is due from the executor alone as the direct killer, potentially negating liability for the others who were mere means.