while the other son pardons him, the killer is not executed and the right of retaliation is lifted by virtue of his brother’s pardon.
If someone deliberately kills a man or a woman and the heir entitled to retaliation is the killer’s own child, Mālik holds that the child may not exact retaliation from the parent. The child has been commanded to honour father and mother, not even to say “Fie” to them nor to rebuke them; so how could he kill them—or either of them—in a matter where pardon is permissible? Mālik even disliked making a child swear an oath against a parent in a mere property claim; how much more so in a case like this.
When several people combine to kill a single victim, cooperate in the act, and the proof is established by evidence or confession, the entire group is put to death for him. By contrast, the procedure of qasāma (collective oath-taking) leads to the execution of only one person.
If someone restrains the victim, fully aware that the others will kill him, and they do in fact kill him, the restrainer counts as one of the killers and is executed with them.
If an adult and a minor, or a Muslim and a dhimmī, jointly commit a killing—whether intentional or accidental—or if a Muslim and a dhimmī together kill a dhimmī, retaliation is taken from whichever of the two is liable, and the other must pay half the blood money.
If two men intentionally kill one man and the victim’s heir pardons one of them, the right of retaliation is not waived against the other. Some have said that blood money then becomes due—half of it—but the first view is the established opinion of Mālik.
If a man orders another to kill someone and the latter carries it out, yet he lacks understanding and does not grasp the meaning of killing and legal penalties, the one who gave the order is deemed the killer and retaliation falls upon him. Scholars differ when both persons are of discernment and one commands the other to kill: one view says both are executed if the commander’s order is obeyed; another says only the actual perpetrator is executed and the commander receives a discretionary punishment—and this, God willing, is the correct view.
If one man deliberately wounds another and a second man then comes and kills him, retaliation is taken from the wounder for the wound, and the killer is put to death for the homicide. If the same person both wounded and later killed the victim, but the wounding and the killing did not take place in a single continuous act, there are two opinions. One says that retaliation is first exacted for the wound and then he is executed for the murder, so that he may taste the consequence of his deed and be dealt with as he dealt with his victim; the other view is that he is executed for the homicide alone, and no further retaliation is taken against him.