As for those who assisted by bringing the man into the house, guarding the doors, or similar acts, scholars hold two views concerning their execution. Their execution is permissible according to Mālik and others. The person who restrained him may be executed according to Mālik, Ahmad in one of the two reports from him, and others. Neither of the two is entitled to inherit.

If his minor children also helped to kill him, the right to seek retaliation for his death belongs neither to them nor to their guardian, but to his brothers. Whether they inherit from his property, however, is disputed. The well-known position in the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad is that they do not inherit from his property. The minors are subject to disciplinary punishment, but are not executed. The position of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik is that the minors inherit from his property. Allah knows best.

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

Concerning two men who exchanged blows and tried to strangle one another, whereupon one of them fell down and died: what is the other liable for?

He replied:

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all worlds.

If he strangled him in a manner that ordinarily causes death, he is liable to execution in retaliation according to the majority of scholars, including Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad and the two leading disciples of Abū Hanīfa. Even if he claims that this does not ordinarily cause death, his claim is not accepted without evidence.

If, however, one of them lost consciousness after being strangled, and the other kicked him with his foot until something came out of his mouth and he died, then the latter is undoubtedly liable to execution in retaliation. He has deliberately killed a person and must therefore face execution in retaliation, provided the victim is his equal in legal status, being a free Muslim. He is then handed over to the victim’s heirs: they may choose to have him executed, pardon him, or accept blood money.