وَإِذۡ قَتَلۡتُمۡ نَفۡسࣰا فَٱدَّ ٰرَ ٰٔۡ تُمۡ فِیهَاۖ وَٱللَّهُ مُخۡرِجࣱ مَّا كُنتُمۡ تَكۡتُمُونَ
وقَوْلُهُ تَعالى: ﴿واللَّهُ مُخْرِجٌ ما كُنْتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ﴾ يَدُلُّ عَلى أنَّ ما يُسِرُّهُ العَبْدُ مِن خَيْرٍ وشَرٍّ ودامَ ذَلِكَ مِنهُ أنَّ اللَّهَ سَيُظْهِرُهُ، وهو كَما رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ: «إنَّ عَبْدًا لَوْ أطاعَ اللَّهَ مِن وراءِ سَبْعِينَ حِجابًا لَأظْهَرَ اللَّهُ لَهُ ذَلِكَ عَلى ألْسِنَةِ النّاسِ وكَذَلِكَ المَعْصِيَةُ» .
And His, the Exalted’s, statement: {And Allah will bring forth what you were concealing} indicates that what the servant conceals of good and evil, and that persists from him, Allah will make it manifest. And it is as was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ: “If a servant were to obey Allah from behind seventy veils, Allah would surely make that manifest for him on the tongues of the people, and likewise disobedience.”
ورُوِيَ أنَّ اللَّهُ تَعالى أوْحى إلى مُوسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: قُلْ لِبَنِي إسْرائِيلَ يُخْفُوا لِي أعْمالَهم وعَلَيَّ أنْ أُظْهِرَها وقَوْلُهُ تَعالى: ﴿واللَّهُ مُخْرِجٌ ما كُنْتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ﴾ عامٌّ والمُرادُ خاصٌّ؛ لِأنَّ كُلَّهم ما عَلِمُوا بِالقاتِلِ بِعَيْنِهِ ولِذَلِكَ اخْتَلَفُوا وجائِزٌ أنْ يَكُونَ قَوْلُهُ: ﴿واللَّهُ مُخْرِجٌ ما كُنْتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ﴾ عامًّا في سائِرِ النّاسِ؛ لِأنَّهُ كَلامٌ مُسْتَقِلٌّ بِنَفْسِهِ وهو عامٌّ فِيهِمْ وفي غَيْرِهِمْ.
And it was narrated that Allah the Exalted revealed to Musa, peace be upon him: Say to the Children of Israel, “Conceal your deeds for Me, and it is upon Me to make them manifest.” And His, the Exalted’s, statement: {And Allah will bring forth what you were concealing} is general, but the intended meaning is specific; because not all of them knew the killer specifically, and for that reason they disputed. And it is possible that His statement: {And Allah will bring forth what you were concealing} is general for all people; because it is a statement that is independent in itself, and it is general concerning them and others.
وفِي هَذِهِ القِصَّةِ سِوى ما ذَكَرْنا حِرْمانُ مِيراثِ المَقْتُولِ، رَوى أبُو أيُّوبَ عَنِ ابْنِ سِيرِينَ عَنْ عُبَيْدَةَ السَّلْمانِيِّ: أنَّ رَجُلًا مِن بَنِي إسْرائِيلَ كانَ لَهُ ذُو قَرابَةٍ وهو وارِثُهُ، فَقَتَلَهُ لِيَرِثَهُ، ثُمَّ ذَهَبَ فَألْقاهُ عَلى بابِ قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ وذَكَرَ قِصَّةَ البَقَرَةِ وذَكَرَ بَعْدَها: فَلَمْ يُوَرَّثْ بَعْدَها قاتِلٌ وقَدِ اخْتُلِفَ في مِيراثِ القاتِلِ.
And in this story, besides what we have mentioned, is the deprivation of the inheritance of the slain. Abu Ayyub narrated from Ibn Sirin from ‘Ubaydah al-Salmani: that a man from the Children of Israel had a relative who was his heir, so he killed him to inherit from him, then he went and cast him at the door of another people. And he mentioned the story of the cow and mentioned after it: So after it, no killer was made an heir. And there has been disagreement regarding the inheritance of the killer.
ورُوِيَ عَنْ عُمَرَ وعَلِيٍّ وابْنِ عَبّاسٍ وسَعِيدِ بْنِ المُسَيِّبِ أنَّهُ لا مِيراثَ لَهُ سَواءٌ كانَ القَتْلُ عَمْدًا أوْ خَطَأً، وأنَّهُ لا يَرِثُ مِن دِيَتِهِ ولا مِن سائِرِ مالِهِ وهو قَوْلُ أبِي حَنِيفَةَ والثَّوْرِيِّ وأبِي يُوسُفَ ومُحَمَّدٍ وزُفَرَ إلّا أنَّ أصْحابَنا قالُوا: إنْ كانَ القاتِلُ صَبِيًّا أوْ مَجْنُونًا ورِثَ وقالَ عُثْمانُ البَتِّيُّ: قاتِلُ الخَطَأِ يَرِثُ دُونَ قاتِلِ العَمْدِ وقالَ ابْنُ شُبْرُمَةَ: لا يَرِثُ قاتِلُ الخَطَأِ وقالَ ابْنُ وهْبٍ عَنْ مالِكٍ: لا يَرِثُ القاتِلُ عَمْدًا مِن دِيَةِ مَن قَتَلَ شَيْئًا ولا مِن مالِهِ، وإنْ قَتَلَهُ خَطَأً ورِثَ مِن مالِهِ ولَمْ يَرِثْ مِن دِيَتِهِ.
And it was narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, and Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib that he has no inheritance, whether the killing was intentional or unintentional, and that he does not inherit from his blood money nor from the rest of his wealth. And this is the view of Abu Hanifah, al-Thawri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Zufar, except that our companions said: If the killer is a child or insane, he inherits. And ‘Uthman al-Batti said: The unintentional killer inherits, but not the intentional killer. And Ibn Shubrumah said: The unintentional killer does not inherit. And Ibn Wahb said from Malik: The intentional killer does not inherit anything from the blood money of the one he killed, nor from his wealth; and if he killed him unintentionally, he inherits from his wealth but does not inherit from his blood money.
ورُوِيَ مِثْلُهُ عَنِ الحَسَنِ ومُجاهِدٍ والزُّهْرِيِّ، وهو قَوْلُ الأوْزاعِيِّ وقالَ المُزَنِيُّ عَنِ الشّافِعِيِّ: إذا قَتَلَ الباغِي العادِلَ أوِ العادِلُ الباغِيَ لا يَتَوارَثانِ لِأنَّهُما قاتِلانِ
The like of it was narrated from al-Hasan, Mujahid, and al-Zuhri, and it is the view of al-Awza’i. And al-Muzani said from al-Shafi’i: If the transgressor kills the just one, or the just one kills the transgressor, they do not inherit from one another because they are both killers.
قالَ أبُو بَكْرٍ: لَمْ يَخْتَلِفِ الفُقَهاءُ في أنَّ قاتِلِ العَمْدِ لا يَرِثُ المَقْتُولَ إذا كانَ بالِغًا عاقِلًا بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ، واخْتُلِفَ في قاتِلِ الخَطَأِ عَلى الوُجُوهِ الَّتِي ذَكَرْنا وقَدْ حَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ الباقِي قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَنْبَسَةَ بْنِ لَقِيطٍ الضَّبِّيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَجَرٍ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا إسْماعِيلُ بْنُ عَيّاشٍ عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ والمُثَنّى ويَحْيى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ قالَ: قالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «لَيْسَ لِلْقاتِلِ مِنَ المِيراثِ شَيْءٌ» .
Abu Bakr said: The jurists have not differed that the intentional killer does not inherit from the slain if he [the killer] is of age and sound mind, [and the killing was] without right. And they differed concerning the unintentional killer according to the ways which we have mentioned. And ‘Abd al-Baqi narrated to us, he said: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Anbasah ibn Laqit al-Dabbi narrated to us, he said: ‘Ali ibn Hajar narrated to us, he said: Isma’il ibn ‘Ayyash narrated to us from Ibn Jurayj, al-Muthanna, and Yahya ibn Sa’id from ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather, he said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The killer has nothing of the inheritance.”
وحَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ الباقِي قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُوسى بْنُ زَكَرِيّا التُّسْتَرِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا سُلَيْمانُ بْنُ داوُدَ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا حَفْصُ بْنُ غِياثٍ عَنِ الحَجّاجِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنُ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الخَطّابِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: «لَيْسَ لِلْقاتِلِ شَيْءٌ» ورَوى اللَّيْثُ عَنْ إسْحاقَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أبِي فَرْوَةَ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ عَنْ حُمَيْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ أبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قالَ: قالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «القاتِلُ لا يَرِثُ» .
And ‘Abd al-Baqi narrated to us, he said: Musa ibn Zakariyya al-Tustari narrated to us, he said: Sulayman ibn Dawud narrated to us, he said: Hafs ibn Ghiyath narrated to us from al-Hajjaj from ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab from the Prophet, peace be upon him, he said: “The killer has nothing.” And al-Layth narrated from Ishaq ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Abi Farwah from al-Zuhri from Humayd ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman from Abu Hurayrah, he said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The killer does not inherit.”
ورَوى يَزِيدُ بْنُ هارُونَ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ راشِدٍ عَنْ مَكْحُولٍ قالَ: قالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «القاتِلُ عَمْدًا لا يَرِثُ مِن أخِيهِ ولا مِن ذِي قَرابَتِهِ شَيْئًا ويَرِثُ أقْرَبُ النّاسِ إلَيْهِ نَسَبًا بَعْدَ القاتِلِ»، ورَوى حِصْنُ بْنُ مَيْسَرَةَ قالَ: حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ حَرْمَلَةَ عَنْ «عَدِيٍّ الجُذامِيِّ قالَ: قُلْتُ: يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كانَتْ لِيَ امْرَأتانِ فاقْتَتَلَتا فَرَمَيْتُ إحْداهُما ؟ فَقالَ: اعْقِلْها ولا تَرِثْها»، فَثَبَتَ بِهَذِهِ الأخْبارِ حِرْمانُ القاتِلِ مِيراثَهُ مِن سائِرِ مالِ المَقْتُولِ، وأنَّهُ لا فَرْقَ في ذَلِكَ بَيْنَ العامِدِ والمُخْطِئِ لِعُمُومِ لَفْظِ النَّبِيِّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِيهِ.
And Yazid ibn Harun narrated, he said: Muhammad ibn Rashid narrated to us from Makhul, he said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The intentional killer does not inherit anything from his brother nor from his relative, and the person closest to him in lineage after the killer inherits.” And Hisn ibn Maysarah narrated, he said: ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Harmalah narrated to me from ‘Adiyy al-Judhami, he said: “I said: O Messenger of Allah, I had two wives and they fought, so I struck one of them? He said: ‘Pay her blood money and do not inherit from her.’” So, by these reports, the deprivation of the killer of his inheritance from all of the slain’s wealth is established, and that there is no difference in that between the intentional and the unintentional killer, due to the generality of the Prophet’s, peace be upon him, wording in it.
وقَدِ اسْتَعْمَلَ الفُقَهاءُ هَذا الخَبَرَ وتَلَقَّوْهُ بِالقَبُولِ فَجَرى مَجْرى التَّواتُرِ كَقَوْلِهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: «لا وصِيَّةَ لِوارِثٍ» وقَوْلِهِ: «لا تُنْكَحُ المَرْأةُ عَلى عَمَّتِها ولا عَلى خالَتِها» «وإذا اخْتَلَفَ البَيِّعانِ فالقَوْلُ ما قالَهُ البائِعُ أوْ يَتَرادّانِ» وما جَرى مَجْرى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الأخْبارِ الَّتِي مَخْرَجُها مِن جِهَةِ الإفْرادِ وصارَتْ في حَيِّزِ التَّواتُرِ لِتَلَقِّي الفُقَهاءِ لَها بِالقَبُولِ مِنِ اسْتِعْمالِهِمْ إيّاها فَجازَ تَخْصِيصُ آيَةِ المَوارِيثِ بِها ويَدُلُّ عَلى تَسْوِيَةِ حُكْمِ العامِدِ والمُخْطِئِ في ذَلِكَ ما رُوِيَ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وعُمَرَ وابْنِ عَبّاسٍ مِن غَيْرِ خِلافٍ مِن أحَدٍ مِن نُظَرائِهِمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وغَيْرُ جائِزِ فِيما كانَ هَذا وصْفَهُ مِن قَوْلِ الصَّحابَةِ في شُيُوعِهِ واسْتِفاضَتِهِ أنْ يُعْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِ بِقَوْلِ التّابِعِينَ ولَمّا وافَقَ مالِكٌ عَلى أنَّهُ لا يَرِثُ مِن دِيَتِهِ وجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ حُكْمَ سائِرِ مالِهِ مِن وُجُوهٍ.
And the jurists have used this report and received it with acceptance, so it runs the course of mass transmission (tawātur), like his, peace be upon him, statement: “No bequest for an heir,” and his statement: “A woman is not to be married [simultaneously] with her paternal aunt nor with her maternal aunt,” and “If the two parties to a sale differ, the statement is what the seller says, or they may annul [the sale],” and other such reports whose origin is from a single chain but have entered the realm of mass transmission due to the jurists’ reception of them with acceptance through their usage of them. So it is permissible to specify the verse of inheritance by it. And what indicates the equalization of the ruling for the intentional and the unintentional killer in this regard is what was narrated from ‘Ali, ‘Umar, and Ibn ‘Abbas without any opposition from any of their peers against them. And it is not permissible, regarding a statement of the Companions of this description in its prevalence and widespread nature, that it be opposed by the statement of the Successors. And since Malik agreed that he does not inherit from his blood money, it becomes necessary that this be the ruling for the rest of his wealth, for several reasons.
أحَدُها: أنَّ دِيَتَهُ مالُهُ ومِيراثٌ عَنْهُ بِدَلِيلِ أنَّهُ تُقْضى مِنها دُيُونُهُ وتُنَفَّذُ مِنها وصاياهُ ويَرِثُها سائِرُ ورَثَتِهِ عَلى فَرائِضِ اللَّهِ تَعالى كَما يَرِثُونَ سائِرَ أمْوالِهِ، فَلَمّا اتَّفَقُوا عَلى أنَّهُ لا يَرِثُ مِن دِيَتِهِ كانَ ذَلِكَ حُكْمَ سائِرِ مالِهِ في الحِرْمانِ كَما أنَّهُ إذا ورِثَ مِن سائِرِ مالِهِ ورِثَ مِن دِيَتِهِ، فَمِن حَيْثُ كانَ حُكْمُ سائِرِ مالِهِ حُكْمَ دِيَتِهِ في الِاسْتِحْقاقِ وجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ حُكْمُ سائِرِ مالِهِ حُكْمَ دِيَتِهِ في الحِرْمانِ؛ إذْ كانَ الجَمِيعُ مُسْتَحَقًّا عَلى سِهامِ ورَثَتِهِ وأنَّهُ مَبْدُوءٌ بِهِ في الدَّيْنِ عَلى المِيراثِ ومِن جِهَةٍ أُخْرى أنَّهُ لَمّا ثَبَتَ أنَّهُ لا يَرِثُ مِن دِيَتِهِ لِما اقْتَضاهُ الأثَرُ وجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ حُكْمُ سائِرِ مالِهِ كَذَلِكَ؛ لِأنَّ الأثَرَ لَمْ يَفْصِلْ في وُرُودِهِ بَيْنَ شَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ، وقالَ مالِكٌ: إنَّما ورِثَ قاتِلُ الخَطَأِ مِن سائِرِ مالِهِ سِوى الدِّيَةِ؛ لِأنَّهُ لا يُتَّهَمُ أنْ يَكُونَ قَتَلَهُ لِيَرِثَهُ وهَذِهِ العِلَّةُ مَوْجُودَةٌ في دِيَتِهِ؛ لِأنَّها مِنَ التُّهْمَةِ أبْعَدُ.
One of them: That his blood money is his wealth and an inheritance from him, with the proof being that his debts are paid from it and his bequests are executed from it, and the rest of his heirs inherit it according to the obligatory shares of Allah the Exalted, just as they inherit the rest of his properties. So when they agreed that he does not inherit from his blood money, that should be the ruling for the rest of his wealth regarding deprivation, just as when he inherits from the rest of his wealth, he inherits from his blood money. So, from the perspective that the ruling of the rest of his wealth is the same as the ruling of his blood money in terms of entitlement, it is necessary that the ruling of the rest of his wealth be the same as the ruling of his blood money in terms of deprivation; since all of it is due according to the shares of his heirs and that it [debt] is given precedence over inheritance. And from another perspective, when it was established that he does not inherit from his blood money due to what the narration necessitated, it is necessary that the ruling for the rest of his wealth be likewise; because the narration, in its transmission, did not differentiate between any of that. And Malik said: The unintentional killer only inherits from the rest of his wealth besides the blood money because he is not suspected of having killed him in order to inherit from him. And this legal cause is present in his blood money; because it is further from suspicion.
فَواجِبٌ عَلى مُقْتَضى عِلَّتِهِ أنْ يَرِثَ مِن دِيَتِهِ ومِن جِهَةٍ أُخْرى أنَّهم لا يَخْتَلِفُونَ في قاتِلِ العَمْدِ وشِبْهِ العَمْدِ أنَّهُ لا يَرِثُ سائِرَ مالِهِ كَما لا يَرِثُ مِن دِيَتِهِ إذا وجَبَتْ، فَوَجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ حُكْمَ قاتِلِ الخَطَأِ؛ لِاتِّفاقِهِما في حِرْمانِ المِيراثِ مِن دِيَتِهِ وأيْضًا إذا كانَ قَتْلُ العَمْدِ وشِبْهِ العَمْدِ إنَّما حَرَّما المِيراثَ لِلتُّهْمَةِ في إحْرازِ المِيراثِ بِقَتْلِهِ فَهَذا المَعْنى مَوْجُودٌ في قَتْلِ الخَطَأِ؛ لِأنَّهُ يَجُوزُ أنْ يَكُونَ إنَّما أظْهَرَ رَمْيَ غَيْرِهِ وهو قاصِدٌ بِهِ قَتْلَهُ لِئَلّا يُقادَ مِنهُ ولا يُحْرَمَ المِيراثَ، فَلَمّا كانَتِ التُّهْمَةُ مَوْجُودَةً مِن هَذا الوَجْهِ وجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ في مَعْنى العَمْدِ وشِبْهِهِ وأيْضًا تَوْرِيثُهُ بَعْضَ المِيراثِ دُونَ بَعْضٍ خارِجٌ مِنَ الأُصُولِ؛ لِأنَّ فِيها أنَّ مَن ورِثَ بَعْضَ تَرِكَةٍ ورِثَ جَمِيعَها ومَن حُرِمَ بَعْضَها حُرِمَ جَمِيعَها.
So it is necessary, according to the requirement of his legal cause, that he should inherit from his blood money. And from another perspective, they do not differ concerning the intentional killer and the quasi-intentional killer that he does not inherit the rest of his wealth, just as he does not inherit from his blood money if it becomes due. So it is necessary that this be the ruling for the unintentional killer, due to their agreement in the deprivation of inheritance from his blood money. Also, if intentional killing and quasi-intentional killing only forbid inheritance due to the suspicion of securing the inheritance by killing him, then this meaning is present in unintentional killing; because it is possible that he only made it appear he was shooting at something else while he intended to kill him with it, so that he would not face retaliation and not be deprived of the inheritance. So since the suspicion is present from this aspect, it is necessary that it be in the same category as intentional and quasi-intentional killing. Also, making him an heir to some of the inheritance but not other parts is outside of the principles (uṣūl); because it is in them that whoever inherits a part of an estate inherits all of it, and whoever is deprived of a part of it is deprived of all of it.
وإنَّما قالَ أصْحابُنا: إنَّ الصَّبِيَّ والمَجْنُونَ لا يُحْرَمانِ المِيراثَ بِالقَتْلِ مِن قِبَلِ أنَّهُما غَيْرُ مُكَلَّفَيْنِ، وحِرْمانُ المِيراثِ عَلى وجْهِ العُقُوبَةِ في الأُصُولِ فَأُجْرِيَ قاتِلُ الخَطَإ مَجْراهُ وإنْ لَمْ يَسْتَحِقَّ العِقابَ بِقَتْلِ الخَطَأِ تَغْلِيظًا لِأمْرِ الدَّمِ، ويَجُوزُ أنْ يَكُونَ قَدْ قَصَدَ القَتْلَ بِرَمْيِهِ أوْ بِضَرْبِهِ وأنَّهُ أوْهَمَ أنَّهُ قاصِدٌ لِغَيْرِهِ فَأُجْرِيَ في ذَلِكَ مَجْرى مَن عَلِمَ مِنهُ ذَلِكَ، والصَّبِيُّ والمَجْنُونُ عَلى أيِّ وجْهٍ كانَ مِنهُما ذَلِكَ لا يَسْتَحِقّانِ الدَّمَ، قالَ النَّبِيُّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: «رُفِعَ القَلَمُ عَنْ ثَلاثٍ: عَنِ النّائِمِ حَتّى يَنْتَبِهَ، وعَنِ المَجْنُونِ حَتّى يُفِيقَ، وعَنِ الصَّبِيِّ حَتّى يَحْتَلِمَ» .
And our companions only said that the child and the insane person are not deprived of inheritance by killing because they are not legally responsible, and the deprivation of inheritance is by way of punishment in the principles. So the unintentional killer was treated in the same way, even if he does not deserve punishment for unintentional killing, as a stern measure concerning the matter of blood. And it is possible that he intended the killing by his shot or by his strike and that he gave the illusion that he was intending something else, so he is treated in that regard like one from whom that is known. And the child and the insane person, in whatever way it comes from them, do not deserve [to have their] blood [shed]. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “The pen has been lifted from three: from the sleeper until he awakens, from the insane person until he recovers, and from the child until he reaches puberty.”
قالَ أبُو بَكْرٍ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: فَظاهِرُ هَذا الخَبَرِ يَقْتَضِي سُقُوطَ حُكْمِ قَتْلِهِ رَأْسًا مِن سائِرِ الوُجُوهِ، ولَوْلا قِيامُ الدَّلالَةِ لَما وجَبَتِ الدِّيَةُ أيْضًا.
Abu Bakr, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The apparent meaning of this report necessitates the nullification of the ruling of his killing entirely, from all aspects. And were it not for the establishment of the evidence, the blood money would not have been obligatory either.
فَإنْ قِيلَ: فَإنَّهُ يُحْرَمُ النّائِمُ المِيراثَ إذا انْقَلَبَ عَلى صَبِيِّ فَقَتَلَهُ ؟ قِيلَ لَهُ: هو مِثْلُ قاتِلِ الخَطَأِ يَجُوزَ أنْ يَكُونَ أظْهَرَ أنَّهُ نائِمٌ ولَمْ يَكُنْ نائِمًا في الحَقِيقَةِ وأمّا قَوْلُ الشّافِعِيِّ في العادِلِ إذا قَتَلَ الباغِيَ حُرِمَ المِيراثَ، فَلا وجْهَ لَهُ؛ لِأنَّهُ قَتَلَهُ بِحَقٍّ وقَدْ كانَ الباغِي مُسْتَحِقًّا لِلْقَتْلِ، فَغَيْرُ جائِزٍ أنْ يُحْرَمَ المِيراثَ ولا نَعْلَمُ خِلافًا أنَّ مَن وجَبَ لَهُ القَوَدُ عَلى إنْسانٍ فَقَتَلَهُ قَوَدًا أنَّهُ لا يُحْرَمُ المِيراثَ وأيْضًا فَلَوْ كانَ قَتْلُ العادِلِ الباغِيَ يَحْرِمُهُ المِيراثَ لَوَجَبَ أنَّهُ إذا كانَ مُحارِبًا فاسْتَحَقَّ القَتْلَ حَدًّا أنْ لا يَكُونَ مِيراثُهُ لِجَماعَةِ المُسْلِمِينَ؛ لِأنَّ الإمامَ قامَ مَقامَ الجَماعَةِ في إجْراءِ الحُكْمِ عَلَيْهِ فَكَأنَّهم قَتَلُوهُ، فَلَمّا كانَ المُسْلِمُونَ هُمُ المُسْتَحِقِّينَ لِمِيراثِ مَن ذَكَرْنا أمْرَهُ وإنْ كانَ الإمامُ قامَ مَقامَهم في قَتْلِهِ ثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أنَّ مَن قُتِلَ بِحَقِّ لا يُحْرَمُ قاتِلُهُ مِيراثَهُ، وقالَ أصْحابُنا في حافِرِ البِئْرِ وواضِعِ الحَجَرِ في الطَّرِيقِ إذا عَطِبَ بِهِ إنْسانٌ: إنَّهُ لا يُحْرَمُ المِيراثَ؛ لِأنَّهُ غَيْرُ قاتِلٍ في الحَقِيقَةِ؛ إذْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فاعِلًا لِلْقَتْلِ ولا لِسَبَبٍ اتَّصَلَ بِالمَقْتُولِ، والدَّلِيلُ عَلى ذَلِكَ أنَّ القَتْلَ عَلى ثَلاثَةِ أوْجُهٍ: عَمْدٍ، وخَطَأٍ، وشِبْهِ العَمْدِ، وحافِرُ البِئْرِ وواضِعُ الحَجَرِ خارِجٌ عَنْ ذَلِكَ.
If it is said: Is the sleeper deprived of inheritance if he rolls over onto a child and kills him? It is said to him: He is like the unintentional killer; it is possible that he made it appear that he was sleeping but was not truly sleeping. As for the statement of al-Shafi’i regarding the just one who kills the transgressor being deprived of inheritance, it has no basis; because he killed him with right, and the transgressor was deserving of being killed, so it is not permissible that he be deprived of inheritance. And we know of no disagreement that one for whom retaliation (qawad) is due against a person, and he kills him in retaliation, is not deprived of inheritance. Also, if the just one’s killing of the transgressor deprived him of inheritance, it would be necessary that if he were a muḥārib (one who wages war against society) and deserved to be killed as a ḥadd (prescribed punishment), his inheritance would not go to the community of Muslims; because the Imam acts in the place of the community in carrying out the ruling upon him, so it is as if they killed him. So since the Muslims are the ones entitled to the inheritance of the one whose case we mentioned, even though the Imam acted in their place in killing him, it is established by that that whoever is killed with right, his killer is not deprived of his inheritance. And our companions said regarding the one who digs a well or places a stone in the road, if a person perishes by it: that he is not deprived of inheritance; because he is not a killer in reality; since he was not the doer of the killing, nor of a cause that was connected to the slain. And the proof for that is that killing is of three types: intentional, unintentional, and quasi-intentional, and the one who digs a well or places a stone is outside of that.
فَإنْ قِيلَ: حَفْرُ البِئْرِ ووَضْعُ الحَجَرِ سَبَبٌ لِلْقَتْلِ كالرّامِي والجارِحِ أنَّهُما قاتِلانِ لِفِعْلِهِما السَّبَبَ قِيلَ لَهُ: الرَّمْيُ وما تَوَلَّدَ مِنهُ مِن مُرُورِ السَّهْمِ هو فِعْلُهُ وبِهِ حَصَلَ القَتْلُ، وكَذَلِكَ الجُرْحُ فِعْلُهُ فَصارَ قاتِلًا بِهِ؛ لِاتِّصالِ فِعْلِهِ بِالمَقْتُولِ؛ وعِثارُ الرَّجُلِ بِالحَجَرِ ووُقُوعُهُ في البِئْرِ لَيْسَ مِن فِعْلِهِ فَلا يَجُوزُ أنْ يَكُونَ بِهِ قاتِلًا.
If it is said: Digging the well and placing the stone is a cause of killing, like the archer and the wounder, that they are killers for their doing of the cause. It is said to him: The shooting and what is generated from it of the arrow’s passage is his action, and by it the killing occurred. Likewise, the wounding is his action, so he becomes a killer by it, due to the connection of his action to the slain. But the man’s stumbling on the stone and his falling into the well is not from his [the digger’s/placer’s] action, so it is not permissible that he be a killer by it.