What is the ruling when a person suffers severed limbs, dies, and there is a dispute regarding the cause of death (healing before death versus death due to infection/saraayah)?

Primary text

If the perpetrator severs the limbs, the victim dies, and they dispute whether the wound healed before death or if the death resulted from the infection (saraayah) of the wound, or if the guardian claims death resulted from another cause (e.g., poisoning or suicide), the ruling is the same as in the case where the perpetrator killed the victim directly if death resulted from a cause other than the wound itself. If death resulted from another act of killing or external cause, there are two opinions: One states that the perpetrator's statement is given precedence because the continuity of the injury is the apparent state, and the default is the absence of another cause. The second opinion favors the statement of the guardian of the injury, because the two established blood monies remain due unless an overriding cause is proven. If the claims are reversed—the guardian asserting the death resulted from the severance, thus demanding Qisas for the life, and the perpetrator claiming the wounds healed or death resulted from another cause—the statement of the guardian is accepted with an oath, because the wound is a cause for death, which is confirmed, and the default is the non-healing and the absence of another cause for demise. This applies whether the injury was one that mandates Qisas for the limb (like severing at a joint) or one that does not (like a deep wound, Jaifah, or severance not at a joint). This entire doctrine follows the madhhab of Al-Shafi'i.