retaliation, just as if he were a partner in the ownership of a slave girl and had sexual intercourse with her. Furthermore, because he is a person who owns part of the deceased, the fixed punishment (hadd) is not due upon his claiming it, as is the case in the original. It differs from when a group kills one person, for we do not necessitate retaliation for the destruction of a portion of a life; rather, we consider each one of them as a killer of the entire life. Even if we concede that it is due upon him for killing a portion of the life, a condition for it would be participation with one who does so, like his act in the case of intentionality and aggression, and this is not realized here. Once this is established, the heir who did not kill is entitled to his share of the blood money, because his right to retaliation was dropped without his choice, so it is similar to when the killer dies or some of the heirs pardon him. Is this due from the killer of the perpetrator, or from the estate of the perpetrator? There are two views regarding this. There are two statements from Al-Shafi'i; one of them is that he has recourse against the killer of the perpetrator because he destroyed the object of his right, so the recourse against him is for the compensation of his share, just as if he had a trust (wadi'a) and he destroyed it. The second is that he has recourse to the estate of the perpetrator, just as if an outsider had destroyed him, or his partner had pardoned him regarding the retaliation. Our statement: "He destroyed the object of his right," is refuted by the case where he destroys his lessee, his debtor, or his wife, or if the one destroyed was an outsider. It differs from the trust, for it is owned by both of them, so compensation for his ownership was due. As for the perpetrator, he is not owned by the victim; rather, the victim has a right over him, so it is similar to when one kills his debtor. According to this, the heirs of the perpetrator have recourse against his killer for the blood money of their ancestor, except for the amount of his right from it. Therefore, if the perpetrator was of less blood money value than his killer, such as a woman who killed a man who has two sons, and one of them killed her without the permission of the other, the other has half the blood money of his father from the estate of the woman who killed him, and her heirs have recourse for half her blood money against her killer, which is a quarter of the man's blood money. According to the first view, the son who did not kill has recourse against his brother for half of the woman's blood money, because he did not deprive his brother of anything except half of the woman, and it is impossible for him to have recourse against the heirs of the woman for anything, because his brother who killed her destroyed the entire right. This indicates the weakness of this view. Among its benefits, also, is the validity of releasing the one whom we ruled has recourse against him, and the ownership of claiming it from him; if we say: He has recourse against the heirs of the perpetrator.

Section: If any of the heirs of the slain person pardons the retaliation, there shall be no way to pursue retaliation, even if the one pardoning is a husband or a wife.

Scholars have unanimously agreed on the permissibility of pardoning retaliation and that it is superior. The foundation for this is the Book and the Sunnah. As for the Book, it is the saying of God Almighty in the context of His statement: {Prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered} - {But if his brother grants any remission, then a fitting follow-up and payment with kindness} [Quran 2:178]. And He, the Almighty, said: {And We prescribed for them therein: A life for a life}, up to His statement: {And whoever gives it up as charity, it is an expiation for him} [Quran 5:45]. It is said in its interpretation: It is an expiation for the perpetrator by the owner of the right pardoning him. It is also said: It is an expiation for the one who pardons through his charity. As for the Sunnah, Anas bin Malik said: I did not see the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, have anything brought before him in which there was retaliation, except that he commanded pardon in it. Narrated by Abu Dawud. And in his hadith regarding the story of Al-Rubayyi' bint al-Nadr, when she broke a tooth...