What is the evidentiary status of Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali executing the killer of 'Ali without awaiting the minor heirs?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
The incident of Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali executing Ibn Muljam is explained by some as being due to the killer's apostasy, as he killed 'Ali while holding his blood permissible, seeking closeness to God. Others state it was for spreading corruption (fasād) and displaying weapons, making him like a highway robber. In either case, the execution was mandatory and belonged to the Imam, which Al-Hasan was. Therefore, he did not wait for the absent heirs. However, there is no dispute among us that waiting for heirs is obligatory if the killing was strictly for personal retaliation; thus, using this specific case as evidence against others is contradictory.
Supporting text
Evidence supporting the right of the minor and the insane to the right of retaliation includes: (1) If they were the sole heir, they would have the right; if their minority negates the right with others, it should negate it when they are alone. (2) If they attained majority/sanity later, they would have the right, implying the right existed at the time of death. (3) If the matter reverted to financial compensation (diyah), they would have the right, implying they had the right to the original retaliation. (4) If the minor dies, their heirs inherit the right, which would not happen if the right was not established for the minor.