jured] brother, let the prosecution be fair and let the payment be with kindness"
(Q. ٢:١٧٨).
Accordingly, the purport of the verse is that it is incumbent upon the killer to submit to the ruling of retaliation if the avenger of blood seeks that from him. Moreover, it is evident that this ruling applies when a man kills another man, or when a woman kills a man or a woman. But if a man kills a woman, it is not incum):>ent upon him to submit to punishment simply because retaliation is demanded. He has the right of refusal until he collects half the amount of compensation [for his own killing]. The legal authority has no right to apply retaliation to him before that.
In other words, the terms of the verse establish that the substitute for a woman is a woman and, hence, a man cannot substitute for her, Accordingly, there is nothing in the verse that could cause its abrogation. Yet it is true that outside evidence estab‌ lishes that it is obligatory for a man who kills a woman to surrender for retaliation when the avenger of the blood of the woman has paid half of the compensation [due for killing a man as a substitute for a woman]. Thus the man [who killed the woman] would constitute the total [indemnity] of the [murdered] woman; [but because] he substituted for her [in retaliation], he [additionally] receives half [of his own indem‌ nity]. This is a different case and does not affect the first ruling derived from the verse. Hence, there is nothing in this ruling to support its abrogation.
To conclude, the occurrence of abrogation in the [first] verse is dependent upon the establishment of the killers obligation to surrender as soon as the avenger of the woman seeks retaliation, as maintained by Sunni scholars. But how are they to estab‌ lish it? To do that, they have to adhere to the general sense provided by the second verse, as it is inferred from their statements, and to the prophetic tradition, which says, "The blood of each Muslim is on a par [with that of other Muslims]." We have already shown the weakness of the opinion based on this documentary evidence. Alternatively, they [Sunni scholars] will have to adhere to the report, narrated by Qatada on the authority of SaId b. al-Musayyib, in which it is related that Umar killed a person from among the people of Sanaa in retaliation for the killing of a woman and held them all responsible for her killing.
Al-Layth reports from al-I:Iakam, who reported on the authority ofAa and Abd Allah. They said, "If a man kills a woman intentionally, then he is liable to be slain in retaliation for killing her," Al-Zuhri reports from Abu Bakr b. Amr b.I:Iazm, who reported, from his father and his grandfather, that the Prophet said, "A man is to be killed in retaliation for killing a woman." ١٧
This opinion is invalid for the following reasons:

١. These traditions, even if they are assumed to be authentic, are in contradiction of the Quran. Accordingly, they cannot be admitted as evidence. We already explained above that there is a consensus among Muslim scholars that abrogation cannot be established on the basis of a single tradition.
٢. These traditions are contradictory to the ones reported on the authority of the Imams and to those reported by Ata, al-Shabi, and al-I:Iasan al-Ba ri
Ali (peace be upon him), who said, regarding a man who kills a woman, "The rela‌ tives of the woman, if they wish, may kill the man [in retaliation, provided they] pay half the blood money [of the man]; and if they wish, they may take half the blood money of a man." IS