in retaliation for the child. This report is well-known among the scholars. Some of them have acted upon it, arguing that its widespread circulation, the scholars’ employing it, and their adducing it as proof all indicate that it must rest upon an original source.
Other scholars, however, attach no weight to such popularity.
A third group offers a more nuanced stance: if the report does not conflict with the plain wording of a revealed text, it is admissible; but if it does contradict the apparent sense of a text, it must be rejected. This third view is the soundest of the three. In other words, when a report becomes famous among the scholars, it should be examined: if it is not at odds with an explicit text, it may be accepted, whereas if it clashes with a text, it is not acceptable.
For example, the statement, “No retaliation is exacted from a parent for (killing) the child” 1 runs counter to the plain wording of the verse, “We ordained for them therein: a life for a life” (al-Māʾidah 5:45). It also contradicts His words, “O you who believe, retribution for the slain is prescribed for you: the free for the free…” (al-Baqarah 2:178), as well as the Prophet’s ﷺ saying, “The blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed except in three cases: a life for a life…” 2