“Suretyship in property matters is a unanimous and agreed-upon subject whose validity and legitimacy have been confirmed in the jurisprudence of Islamic schools and Iranian law. However, suretyship in criminal matters is a controversial and debated issue. The present study, using a library-based method and a descriptive–analytical approach, investigates the legitimacy of ‘suretyship in Qisas,’ meaning the possibility of employing the institution of suretyship in the case of an accused or convicted person subject to Qisas, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of Islamic schools. Research findings indicate that ‘suretyship in Qisas,’ particularly according to Imamiyyah jurisprudence, is valid and legitimate, and Qisas is not subject to the rules that prevent the application of suretyship in Hudud (such as “No suretyship in Hudud”). Accordingly, it appears that the guardian of the victim’s blood right (wali al-dam) in Qisas can, in return for his right, accept suretyship. Iranian law is silent on the permissibility or non-permissibility of suretyship in Qisas, and this issue has not been extensively discussed in legal literature. Therefore, based on Article 167 of the Constitution, which obliges judicial authorities to refer to the fatwas of jurists in cases where the law is silent, it can be said that Iranian law also considers such suretyship legitimate. In summary, suretyship in Qisas, from both jurisprudential and legal perspectives, is valid and legitimate.