bless him and grant him peace—that he said:

“Whoever comes to you while you are united under one man, seeking to divide (2) your community, strike his neck with the sword, whoever he may be.” (1)

Thus, he commanded that anyone seeking to divide the community be killed; and whoever kills the leader of the Muslims has divided their community.

Whoever holds this view maintains that Umar’s killer must invariably be executed, and that Uthmān’s killers must likewise invariably be executed, [as must Alī’s killer] (3).

This also answers the objection concerning his son, al-Hasan ibn Alī (4), and others against whom the same objection is raised. It is said (5): How could they kill Alī’s killer when his heirs included both minors and adults, and the minors had not yet come of age?

The objection concerning al-Hasan may be answered in two ways. The first is that the killer’s execution was invariably required, because killing Alī and others like him constitutes one of the gravest forms of waging war against Allah and His Messenger and spreading corruption in the land.

Others answer that the adult heirs are permitted to exact retaliation independently. This is the position of those who hold it among the followers of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, and it is one of the two reported positions of Ahmad.

If the killing of Umar, Uthmān, Alī, and others like them falls under the category of waging war, then, according to the majority, both the accessory and the direct perpetrator are deemed participants in such an offense. Accordingly, whoever assisted