the heirs of the murdered person to kill him. The wife of the murdered person, who was the sister of the murderer, said: "I have pardoned my share." Umar said: "God is the Greatest (Allahu Akbar), the murderer is freed." Recorded by Abu Dawud (9). In a narration from Zayd, he said: A man entered upon his wife and found a man with her, so he killed her. Her brothers sought justice from Umar, and some of her brothers said: "I have forgone [my share]." So he decreed the blood money (diyah) for the rest of them (10). Qatadah narrated that a man was brought to Umar who had killed a man. The children of the murdered person came, and some of them had pardoned. Umar said to Ibn Mas'ud: "What do you say?" He replied: "He has been saved from killing." He (Umar) struck him on his shoulder and said: "A small vessel (kunayf) filled with knowledge (11)." The proof that retaliation is for all heirs is what we mentioned in the issue of retaliation between a minor and an adult, and because whoever inherits the blood money inherits the right to retaliation, like the agnates ('asabat). Thus, if some of them pardon, their pardon is valid, just like their pardon regarding the rest of his rights. The cessation of the marriage tie does not prevent the entitlement to retaliation, just as it did not prevent the entitlement to the blood money and the rest of his inherited rights. Whenever it is established that it is a right shared among all of them, it drops by the dropping of it by whoever is among those capable of causing it to drop; because his right of it belongs to him, so his disposal regarding it is effective. If it drops, the whole of it drops, because it is something that cannot be divided, like divorce and emancipation. Furthermore, retaliation is a shared right among them that cannot be divided, and its foundation is on averting and dropping. So if some of them drop it, it extends to the remainder like emancipation, and the woman is one of those entitled to it, so it drops by her pardon just like the man. Whenever one of them pardons, the rest have their share of the blood money, regardless of whether he pardoned absolutely or in exchange for blood money. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i stated this. I do not know of any dissenter to them among those who said that retaliation drops. This is because his right to retaliation dropped without his consent, so the substitute was established for him, as if the murderer had inherited some of his blood or had died, and because of what we mentioned of the report of Umar, may God be pleased with him.