1454 - Issue: He said: "And if a man is killed while he has two heirs: an adult and a child or an absent person, he shall not be killed until the absent person arrives and the child reaches maturity."

The totality of this is that if the heirs of the slain are more than one, it is not permissible for some of them to fulfill the retaliation (qisas) except with the permission of the remainder. If some of them are absent, his arrival is awaited, and it is not permissible for the present [heir] to proceed independently with the fulfillment, without any disagreement known to us. If some of them are a child or insane, then the evident (zahir) view of the school of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is that others do not have the right of fulfillment until the child reaches maturity and the insane person regains sanity. This is the position stated by Ibn Shubruma, Ibn Abi Layla, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Ishaq, and this is narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, may Allah have mercy on him. From Ahmad, there is another narration: the adult, sane [heirs] may fulfill it. This was also held by Hammad, Malik, Al-Awza'i, Al-Layth, and Abu Hanifa; because Al-Hasan ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with both of them, killed Ibn Muljam in retaliation, and there were young heirs among the survivors, yet this was not censured. Furthermore, the authority of retaliation is the entitlement to fulfill it, and the child does not possess this authority. To us, it is a non-binding (ghayr mutahattim) retaliation that has been established for a group of specified individuals, so it is not permissible for any one of them to fulfill it independently, just as if it were between a present and an absent person, or as one of the two replacements for the life (the blood money), so some of them may not act separately from the others, like blood money (diya). The evidence that the child and the insane person have a right in it is based on four points: Firstly, that if he were alone, he would be entitled to it, and if childhood negated it along with another, it would negate it if he were alone, like the authority of marriage (wilayat al-nikah). Secondly, that if he were to reach maturity, he would be entitled, and if he were not entitled at the time of death, he would not be entitled after it, just like a slave if he is manumitted after the death of his father. Thirdly, that if the matter turns to wealth, he is entitled, and if he were not entitled to the retaliation, he would not be entitled to its replacement, like a stranger. And fourthly, that if the child were to die, his heirs would be entitled to it, and if it were not a right, he would not inherit it, like all other things he is not entitled to. As for Ibn Muljam, it has been said: