that he killed him due to his disbelief (kufr), and because he killed Ali while regarding his blood as permissible, believing in his disbelief, and seeking thereby to draw near to Allah the Exalted. It is also said: he killed him for his striving to cause corruption on earth and for brandishing weapons, so he is like a highwayman (qati' al-tariq) when he kills. His killing is mandatory (mutahattim), and it is up to the Imam, and Al-Hasan was the Imam, and for that reason, he did not wait for the absent heirs. There is no disagreement among us regarding the necessity of waiting for them; and if it were assumed that he killed him in retaliation (qisas), then we have agreed upon the disagreement regarding it, so how can some of us argue against others using it?

Section: If there is only one heir who is a child, such as a boy whose mother was killed, and she was not a wife to his father, then the retaliation (qisas) belongs to him, and neither his father nor anyone else has the right to fulfill it. This is the position stated by Al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: He (the father) has the right to fulfill it. The same ruling applies to the executor (wasi) and the judge regarding a limb (taraf), not the life. Abu al-Khattab mentioned in one place regarding the father two narrations, and in another place two views; one of them is like their statement: because retaliation is one of the two replacements for the life, so the father has the right to fulfill it, like the blood money (diya). To us, he does not possess the right to initiate a divorce for his wife, so he does not possess the right to fulfill retaliation on his behalf, like the executor. Furthermore, the objective is to seek healing of one's grievance (tashaffi) and to assuage anger, and this is not achieved by the guardian's fulfillment. This differs from blood money, as the objective is achieved by the father fulfilling it, so they are distinct. Moreover, the father only has the right to fulfill the blood money when it is finalized, while retaliation is not finalized, as it is permissible to pardon in exchange for blood money, or to reconcile for a sum of money more or less than it, whereas blood money is the contrary of that.

Section: In every instance where the fulfillment must be delayed, the killer is imprisoned until the child reaches maturity, the insane person regains sanity, and the absent person arrives. Mu'awiyah imprisoned Hudbah ibn Khashram for retaliation until the son of the slain person reached maturity during the era of the Companions, and this was not censured. Al-Hasan, Al-Husayn, and Sa'id ibn al-'As offered the son of the slain seven blood moneys, but he did not accept them.