Can we treat the two words as a compound and say abamān? No, because the Arabs never said this. Nor did they say qamshān for the sun and the moon; rather, they said al-qamarān (the two moons). Likewise, for Abu Bakr and Umar, they said al-Umarān.

Thus, neither the father nor the mother—however high their line of ascent—is executed in retaliation for a descendant, however far down the line.

For example, a man—Allah forbid—may become enraged with his son and harbor resentment toward him. Then one day he deliberately kills him. Is he executed? No.

Another example: a maternal grandfather says to his daughter’s son, “Give me a thousand riyals, for I am in need.” The grandson refuses, so the grandfather becomes angry and kills him. Is he executed? No.

The evidence is the well-known hadith: “A parent is not executed for killing his child.” (1) This is based on textual evidence. Rationally, moreover, the parent is the cause of the child’s existence, so it is not fitting for the child to become the cause of the parent’s execution.

Let us examine these proofs. As for the hadith, many scholars have deemed it weak; thus, it cannot stand against the general texts indicating that retaliation is obligatory. As for their rational reasoning, the answer is that the son is not the cause of his father’s execution; rather, the parent himself causes his own execution by committing the crime of murder.

The correct view is that a parent is executed in retaliation for killing his child. Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, held this view, though he restricted it to a deliberate killing in which there is absolutely no ambiguity,