Section: Regarding four brothers, if the first killed the second, and the third killed the fourth, then retaliation is due from the third; for when he killed the fourth, he did not inherit from him, and the first inherited from him exclusively (26). The fourth had half the retaliation of the first, so half of his retaliation returned to him, and it fell. Half the blood money became due to the third, and the first had the right to kill the third, because he did not inherit anything from the blood of his own self. If he kills him, he inherits from him according to the manifest [opinion] of the school, and he inherits what he would have inherited from his second brother. If he pardons him in exchange for blood money, it becomes due from him in its entirety, and he settles accounts with him for half of it. If they have heirs, the details regarding them are like [those in] the case preceding it.

1427 - Issue: He said: (And the child is executed for each of the two [parents])

This is the opinion of the generality of the scholars; among them are Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Our companions narrated from Ahmad a second version: that the son is not executed for his father, because he is among those whose testimony is not accepted for him regarding the right of lineage, so he is not executed for him, like the father with his son. The school's position is that he is executed for him, due to the verses, the traditions, the consistency of analogy, and because the father has greater sanctity and right than a stranger; so if he is killed for a stranger, he is more entitled to be [the subject of retaliation] for a father. Furthermore, he is subject to the hadd punishment for accusing him of unchastity (qadhf), so he is executed for him, like a stranger. It is not correct to draw an analogy between the son and the father, because the sanctity of the parent over the child is more confirmed, and the son is attributed to his father with the 'lam' of possession, unlike [the parent with the child] (1). Our companions mentioned two contradictory hadiths from Suraqa, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace); one of them is that he said: "A father shall not be executed for his son, nor a son for his father." The second is that he used to have the father executed for his son, but would not have the son executed for his father. This was narrated by Al-Tirmidhi (2). As for these two hadiths; (3) the first hadith we do not know, and we have not found it in the famous books of Sunan, nor do I think it has any basis. If it did have a basis, they are both contradictory and mutually exclusive, necessitating that they be discarded and that one acts upon the clear, established texts and the consensus (ijma') which it is not permissible to oppose.