What is the ruling regarding liability for death when one individual severs a limb, and a second individual severs it again at a different point before the first wound heals?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If the first wound had healed before the second amputation, the second person alone is considered the killer, liable for Qisas (retaliation in kind) or full Diyah (blood money) if the first claimant pardons the killing. The first party is entitled to the amputation of the first hand or half the Diyah. If the first wound had not healed, both parties are considered killers, and Qisas for the life is incumbent upon both. If they settle for Diyah, it is incumbent upon both. This is the position held by Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that only the second individual is the killer, and the first has no liability for Qisas in life because the second act was a progression (sarayah) of the initial injury occurring after the initial injury's effect had ceased. Malik stipulates that if the second severance occurs immediately after the first, both are killed. If the victim lives, eats, and drinks after the first severance, and dies immediately after the second, only the second is the killer. If the victim lives, eats, and drinks after both severances, the heirs may choose which perpetrator to execute.