is a minor and has a father—for example, if a man is killed and his father and young son inherit from him—the father has no right to carry out retaliation, because one of those entitled to it is a minor who has not reached maturity. The reason is that retaliation was prescribed only to bring relief from the anguish caused by the killer, so that a person may rid his heart of its resentment toward the killer who killed his relative from whom he inherits. No one can do this on another’s behalf, because such relief is an inward feeling. Thus, the slain man’s father cannot obtain relief on behalf of his grandson. This is why the offender is imprisoned until the child reaches maturity or the insane person recovers.

It states in al-Rawḍ (1): “Mu‘awiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, imprisoned Hudbah ibn Khushram in a retaliation case until the son of the slain man reached maturity (2). This occurred in the time of the Companions, and no one objected.” Thus, we have both textual evidence and legal reasoning here.

Some scholars excluded from this ruling the case of deceptive murder—that is, killing someone by catching him unawares. In such a case, the killer is executed in all circumstances, whether the heirs of the slain person choose execution or blood money; they have no choice in the matter. This is the position of Imam Malik and the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. According to this view, the offender is not imprisoned until the heirs of the slain person reach maturity.

Malik and Shaykh al-Islam chose this view because deceptive murder entails tremendous harm and cannot be guarded against—except by a king or ruler who has soldiers and attendants to protect him, and can therefore take precautions. Ordinary people, however, cannot protect themselves against it.