when those grandsons are present, nor do sisters have any right in the presence of brothers.

Imam Mālik (d. 179 AH) held two different positions on whether women may participate in waiving the blood-claim and in exercising the authority of retaliation. At one time he said that this authority belongs exclusively to the men, excluding the women; at another he allowed that the women do have a share in it.

His students also reported divergent views from him regarding a person who is killed and leaves both agnate male heirs (ʿaṣaba) and female heirs such as a mother, daughter, or sister. When the agnates want one course of action and the women want another, three opinions are transmitted from Mālik:

1. The right belongs solely to the agnates; they may retaliate if they wish or pardon if they wish.
2. The deciding voice is that of whichever party—whether agnates or women—demands the blood-claim.
3. Whoever seeks pardon and grants it, the pardon is effective and retaliation is cancelled.

The upshot of his school is that daughters, sisters, and maternal siblings have no share in retaliation when agnate males are present, nor may any of them pardon the blood-claim. The agnate males, however, may lawfully pardon. Thus, if both sons and daughters are heirs and the sons pardon, their pardon is valid and the daughters’ right lapses; the same rule applies to sisters alongside brothers and to the mother alongside the father.

With daughters and the father together, Mālik said that the father may not pardon without their consent, nor they without his; whichever of the two parties pursues the blood-claim has the stronger claim. On another occasion he stated, “Women have no right to pardon and no right to qasāma (the procedure of collective oaths),” and this is the more widely known opinion from him. Consequently, in every blood-case established by qasāma, women have no entitlement. A fuller discussion of this will appear in the chapter on qasāma, providing sufficient guidance.

The father likewise has no right to pardon when the son is a co-heir. When the heirs entitled to retaliation are equal in degree and in agnatic rank, the blood-claim is annulled if any one of them pardons, and the one who did not pardon is entitled to his share of the diya (blood-money). Thus, if the slain person leaves two heirs and one of them kills the murderer while the other says, “I had intended to pardon for half the diya,” the transgressor must pay that heir half the diya. And if the slain person leaves a minor son