mandatory, and if they deny his lineage, it is not negated by their statement. If one of them denies it, it is not negated by his statement, because it is joined to him by virtue of the marriage bed (firash), so it is not negated except through li'an (imprecation). It differs from the previous case in two respects: firstly, [that one of them] (9) if he retracts his claim, the other one [the child] is joined to the other man, whereas here, he is not joined by that. Secondly, that the establishment of his lineage in that case was by acknowledgment, so it is nullified by denial, whereas here it is established (10) by the participation in the intercourse, so it is not nullified by denial. The view of al-Shafi'i in this section is the same as what we have said.

Section: If one of the parents kills his spouse, and they have a child, retaliation is not mandatory, because if it were mandatory, it would be mandatory for his child, and retaliation is not mandatory for a child against his parent. For if it is not mandatory for the crime committed against him, then it is more appropriate that it not be mandatory for him regarding a crime against someone else. It is the same whether the child is male or female, or whether the victim has another child, or someone who shares in the inheritance, or not; because if retaliation were established, a portion of it would be mandatory for him, and it is impossible for it to be mandatory. When part of it cannot be established, the whole of it falls, because it cannot be divided, and it becomes as if some of those entitled to retaliation had pardoned their share of it. If the victim has no child from both of them, retaliation is mandatory, according to the opinion of most scholars, including Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Al-Zuhri said: The husband is not to be killed for his wife, because he owns her (11) through the marriage contract, so he resembles a slave woman. Our evidence is the general texts, and because they are two equivalent individuals; each one of them is subjected to the hadd punishment for slandering the other, so he is to be killed for her, like two foreigners (to one another). His statement that he owns her is incorrect, for she is a free woman; he only owns the benefit of enjoyment (istimta'), so she resembles a hired person. For this reason, her blood money is mandatory upon him, and her heirs inherit from her, and he inherits from her only the extent of his share. If someone else killed her, her blood money or the retaliation would be for her heirs, unlike the slave woman.

Section: If a man kills his brother, and his son inherits from him, or anyone (12) from whom his son inherits anything of his inheritance,