As for retaliation, the well-known opinion transmitted from Mālik by his Egyptian students and those who follow their school is that a deliberate killer is liable only to reciprocal execution, unless he himself agrees to settle for his life on whatever terms he chooses; once the heir of the victim accepts that settlement, it becomes binding on him.

A group of the Medinan transmitters—this is also reported by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam—relate from Mālik that the heirs of the slain person may choose either retaliation or the blood money; whichever of the two they prefer is their right. This is the position I adopt, on the strength of the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Whoever has a relative killed has two sound options: if he wishes, he may exact retaliation, and if he wishes, he may take the blood money.” Rabīʿah and a number of the scholars of Medina ruled the same.

ʿAbd al-Wārith ibn Muʿāwiyah al-Ḥaḍramī told me that, while I was present, Mālik was asked about a case in which one slave deliberately wounds another. The master of the wounded slave says, “I do not want retaliation; I prefer the blood money,” whereas the owner of the offending slave says, “Exact retaliation from my slave.” Mālik answered, “The master of the wounded slave has the choice: if he wishes, he may retaliate, and if he wishes, he may take the blood money.” Mālik added, “The same ruling applies in cases of homicide.”