the direct perpetrator and assisted him, there are two views:

“The first” is that only the direct perpetrator is subject to execution in retaliation. This is the view of Abū Hanīfa, al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad: each person’s act must be capable of causing death.

“The second” is that all of them are subject to execution in retaliation. This is Mālik’s view.

If they killed him for a personal motive—for example, because of enmity or a dispute between them, or because they were coercing him to do something that does not make killing him lawful—the right to retaliation belongs to his heir. He may choose to have the killer executed, pardon him, or accept blood money. If the heir is a minor who has not reached puberty, this right belongs to his guardian. If he has no guardian, the ruler is his guardian, and the judge acts as the ruler’s deputy. This is one of the two scholarly views, held by Abū Hanīfa, Mālik and Ahmad, according to one of the two reports from him. According to the second view, this right cannot be exercised until the heir reaches puberty. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, according to the other report from him.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Concerning a man whom his children, his neighbours and an unrelated man had agreed to kill: what is Allah’s ruling regarding them?

He replied:

If they jointly killed him, all of them may be executed. The decision does not rest with those who participated in killing him, but with his other heirs. If he has brothers, they are entitled to seek retaliation for his death, and they also inherit his property, for a killer does not inherit from his victim. The ruler has no right either concerning retaliation for his death or to his property. Rather, his brothers have the choice: they may have all the adults who participated in killing him executed, or they may have only some of them executed. This is agreed upon by the four imams. As for those who directly carried out his killing, the imams agree that they may be executed.