رَوَى صَفْوَانُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنِ اِبْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ جَمِيلٍ عَنْ أَحَدِهِمَا عَلَيْهِمَا اَلسَّلاَمُ: فِي رَجُلٍ قَتَلَ أَبَاهُ قَالَ "لاَ يَرِثُهُ وَ إِنْ كَانَ لِلْقَاتِلِ اِبْنٌ وَرِثَ اَلْجَدَّ اَلْمَقْتُولَ".
Safwan ibn Yahya narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr, from Jamil, from one of the two Imams (peace be upon them), regarding a man who killed his father. Imam (a.s) said: "He does not inherit from him. However, if the killer has a son, the son inherits from the murdered grandfather."
وَ رَوَى عَاصِمُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: "إِذَا قَتَلَ اَلرَّجُلُ أُمَّهُ خَطَأً وَرِثَهَا وَ إِنْ قَتَلَهَا عَمْداً لَمْ يَرِثْهَا".
Asim ibn Humeid narrated from Muhammad ibn Qays, from Abu Jafar Imam Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Baqir (a.s), who said: "If a man kills his mother by mistake, he inherits from her. However, if he kills her intentionally, he does not inherit from her."
وَ رَوَى اَلنَّضْرُ عَنِ اَلْقَاسِمِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: "لِلْمَرْأَةِ مِنْ دِيَةِ زَوْجِهَا وَ لِلرَّجُلِ مِنْ دِيَةِ اِمْرَأَتِهِ مَا لَمْ يَقْتُلْ أَحَدُهُمَا صَاحِبَهُ".
Al-Nadr narrated from Al-Qasim ibn Sulayman, from Ubayd ibn Zurarah, from Abu Abdullah (a.s), who said: "A woman is entitled to a share of the blood money (diyyah) of her husband, and a man is entitled to a share of the blood money of his wife, as long as neither of them has killed the other."
وَ رَوَى اَلْحَسَنُ بْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: "قَضَى أَمِيرُ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ فِي دِيَةِ اَلْمَقْتُولِ "أَنَّهَا تَرِثُهَا اَلْوَرَثَةُ عَلَى كِتَابِ اَللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَ سِهَامِهِ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَى اَلْمَقْتُولِ دَيْنٌ إِلاَّ اَلْإِخْوَةَ وَ اَلْأَخَوَاتِ مِنَ اَلْأُمِّ فَإِنَّهُمْ لاَ يَرِثُونَهُ مِنْ دِيَتِهِ شَيْئاً" ".
Al-Hasan ibn Mahbub narrated from Abu Ayyub, from Sulayman ibn Khalid, from Abu Abdullah (a.s), who said: "The Commander of the Faithful (a.s) ruled regarding the blood money (diyyah) of a murdered person that it is to be inherited by the heirs according to the Book of Allah (swt), the Exalted, and according to their prescribed shares, provided the murdered person has no outstanding debt. However, the maternal brothers and sisters do not inherit anything from the blood money."
وَ رَوَى اَلْحَسَنُ بْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رِئَابٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ قُتِلَ وَ لَهُ أَخٌ فِي دَارِ اَلْهِجْرَةِ وَ أَخٌ آخَرُ فِي دَارِ اَلْبَدْوِ وَ لَمْ يُهَاجِرْ أَ رَأَيْتَ إِنْ عَفَا اَلْمُهَاجِرِيُّ وَ أَرَادَ اَلْبَدَوِيُّ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ أَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ "لَيْسَ لِلْبَدَوِيِّ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُهَاجِراً حَتَّى يُهَاجِرَ وَ إِنْ عَفَا اَلْمُهَاجِرُ فَإِنَّ عَفْوَهُ جَائِزٌ" قُلْتُ لَهُ فَلِلْبَدَوِيِّ مِنَ اَلْمِيرَاثِ شَيْءٌ قَالَ "وَ أَمَّا اَلْمِيرَاثُ فَلَهُ وَ لَهُ حَظُّهُ مِنْ دِيَةِ أَخِيهِ اَلْمَقْتُولِ إِنْ أُخِذَتِ اَلدِّيَةُ".
Al-Hasan ibn Mahbub narrated from Ali ibn Ri'ab, from Zurarah, who said: I asked Abu Jafar Imam Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Baqir (a.s) and he had one brother residing in the land of migration (Dar Al-Hijrah) and another brother in the land of the Bedouins (Dar Al-Badw), who had not migrated. I asked: "If the migrant (Muhajir) brother pardons the killer, but the Bedouin brother wants to execute retaliation (Qisas), does he have the right to do so?" Imam (a.s) replied: "The Bedouin has no right to kill a migrant until he himself migrates. However, if the migrant pardons the killer, his pardon is valid." I asked: "Does the Bedouin have any share in the inheritance?" Imam (a.s) said: "As for inheritance, he has a share, and he is entitled to his portion of his slain brother's blood money (Diyyah) if it is taken."
وَ رَوَى اَلْحَسَنُ بْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رِئَابٍ عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدَةَ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَنِ اِمْرَأَةٍ شَرِبَتْ دَوَاءً عَمْداً وَ هِيَ حَامِلٌ وَ لَمْ تُعْلِمْ بِذَلِكَ زَوْجَهَا فَأَلْقَتْ وَلَدَهَا فَقَالَ "إِنْ كَانَ لَهُ عَظْمٌ قَدْ نَبَتَ عَلَيْهِ اَللَّحْمُ فَعَلَيْهَا دِيَةٌ تُسَلِّمُهَا إِلَى أَبِيهِ وَ إِنْ كَانَ عَلَقَةً أَوْ مُضْغَةً فَإِنَّ عَلَيْهَا أَرْبَعِينَ دِينَاراً أَوْ غُرَّةً تُؤَدِّيهَا إِلَى أَبِيهِ" فَقُلْتُ لَهُ فَهِيَ لاَ تَرِثُ وَلَدَهَا مِنْ دِيَتِهِ مَعَ أَبِيهِ قَالَ "لاَ لِأَنَّهَا قَتَلَتْهُ فَلاَ تَرِثُهُ".
Al-Hasan ibn Mahbub narrated from Ali ibn Ri'ab, from Abu Ubaydah, who said: I asked Abu Jafar Imam Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Baqir (a.s) about a woman who intentionally drank medicine while she was pregnant without informing her husband, causing her to miscarry his child. Imam (a.s) said: "If the fetus had developed bones upon which flesh had grown, she must pay the full diyyah (blood money) to the father. However, if it was a clot of blood (alaqah) or a lump of flesh (mudghah), then she must pay forty dinars or provide a compensatory slave (ghurrah) to the father." I then asked: "Does she inherit any share of the blood money for her child along with the father?" Imam (a.s) replied: "No, because she killed the child, and therefore she does not inherit from it."
وَ رَوَى زُرْعَةُ عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ ضَرَبَ ابْنَتَهُ وَ هِيَ حُبْلَى فَأَسْقَطَتْ سِقْطاً مَيِّتاً فَاسْتَعْدَى زَوْجُ الْمَرْأَةِ عَلَيْهِ فَقَالَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ لِزَوْجِهَا إِنْ كَانَ لِهَذَا السِّقْطِ دِيَةٌ وَ لِي فِيهِ مِيرَاثٌ فَإِنَّ مِيرَاثِي فِيهِ لِأَبِي قَالَ يَجُوزُ لِأَبِيهَا مَا وَهَبَتْ لَهُ.
Zur'ah narrated from Sama'ah, who said: I asked Imam (a.s) about a man who struck his pregnant daughter, causing her to miscarry a stillborn child. The woman's husband sought justice against her father. The woman then said to her husband: "If this miscarriage has a diyyah (blood money) and I have a share of inheritance in it, then I give my share to my father." Imam (a.s) said: "What she gifted to her father is permissible for him to receive."
وَ رَوَى سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ اَلْمِنْقَرِيُّ عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ غِيَاثٍ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ جَعْفَرَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَنْ طَائِفَتَيْنِ مِنَ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِحْدَاهُمَا بَاغِيَةٌ وَ اَلْأُخْرَى عَادِلَةٌ اِقْتَتَلُوا فَقَتَلَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ اَلْعِرَاقِ أَبَاهُ أَوْ اِبْنَهُ أَوْ أَخَاهُ أَوْ حَمِيمَهُ وَ هُوَ مِنْ أَهْلِ اَلْبَغْيِ وَ هُوَ وَارِثُهُ هَلْ يَرِثُهُ قَالَ "نَعَمْ لِأَنَّهُ قَتَلَهُ بِحَقٍّ".
Sulayman ibn Dawud Al-Minqari narrated from Hafs ibn Ghiyath, who said: I asked Imam Jafar ibn Muhammad Al-Sadiq (a.s) about two groups of believers - one of them being rebellious (baghiyah) and the other just (Adilah) - who fought each other. A man from the people of Iraq, belonging to the rebellious group, killed his father, son, brother, or close relative during the battle and was also his heir. I asked: "Does he inherit from him?" Imam (a.s) replied: "Yes, because he killed him rightfully."
قَالَ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ شَاذَانَ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا ضَرَبَ ابْنَهُ ضَرْباً غَيْرَ مُسْرِفٍ فِي ذَلِكَ يُرِيدُ بِهِ تَأْدِيبَهُ فَمَاتَ الِابْنُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الضَّرْبِ وَرِثَهُ الْأَبُ وَ لَمْ تَلْزَمْهُ الْكَفَّارَةُ لِأَنَّ لِلْأَبِ أَنْ يَفْعَلَ ذَلِكَ وَ هُوَ مَأْمُورٌ بِتَأْدِيبِ وَلَدِهِ لِأَنَّهُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْإِمَامِ يُقِيمُ حَدّاً عَلَى رَجُلٍ فَيَمُوتُ الرَّجُلُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الضَّرْبِ فَلَا دِيَةَ عَلَى الْإِمَامِ وَ لَا كَفَّارَةَ وَ لَا يُسَمَّى الْإِمَامُ قَاتِلًا إِذَا أَقَامَ حَدَّ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ عَلَى رَجُلٍ فَمَاتَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَ إِنْ ضَرَبَ الِابْنَ ضَرْباً مُسْرِفاً فَمَاتَ لَمْ يَرِثْهُ الْأَبُ وَ كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِ الْكَفَّارَةُ وَ كُلُّ مَنْ كَانَ لَهُ الْمِيرَاثُ لَا كَفَّارَةَ عَلَيْهِ وَ كُلُّ مَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ الْمِيرَاثُ فَعَلَيْهِ الْكَفَّارَةُ فَإِنْ كَانَ بِالابْنِ جُرْحٌ فَبَطَّهُ الْأَبُ فَمَاتَ الِابْنُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَإِنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِقَاتِلٍ وَ هُوَ يَرِثُهُ وَ لَا كَفَّارَةَ عَلَيْهِ وَ لَا دِيَةَ لِأَنَّ هَذَا بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْأَدَبِ وَ الِاسْتِصْلَاحِ وَ الْحَاجَةِ مِنَ الْوَلَدِ إِلَى ذَلِكَ وَ إِلَى شِبْهِهِ مِنَ الْمُعَالَجَاتِ وَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا كَانَ رَاكِباً عَلَى دَابَّةٍ فَوَطِئَتْ أَبَاهُ أَوْ أَخَاهُ فَمَاتَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَرِثْهُ وَ كَانَتِ الدِّيَةُ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ وَ الْكَفَّارَةُ عَلَيْهِ وَ لَوْ كَانَ يَسُوقُ الدَّابَّةَ أَوْ يَقُودُهَا فَوَطِئَتْ أَبَاهُ أَوْ أَخَاهُ فَمَاتَ وَرِثَهُ وَ كَانَتِ الدِّيَةُ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ لِلْوَرَثَةِ وَ لَمْ تَلْزَمْهُ كَفَّارَةٌ وَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا حَفَرَ بِئْراً فِي غَيْرِ حَقِّهِ أَوْ أَخْرَجَ كَنِيفاً أَوْ ظُلَّةً فَأَصَابَ شَيْءٌ مِنْهَا وَارِثاً فَقَتَلَهُ لَمْ تَلْزَمْهُ الْكَفَّارَةُ وَ كَانَتِ الدِّيَةُ عَلَى الْعَاقِلَةِ وَ وَرِثَهُ لِأَنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِقَاتِلٍ أَ لَا تَرَى أَنَّهُ إِنْ فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ فِي حَقِّهِ لَمْ يَكُنْ بِقَاتِلٍ وَ لَا وَجَبَ فِي ذَلِكَ دِيَةٌ وَ لَا كَفَّارَةٌ فَإِخْرَاجُهُ ذَلِكَ الشَّيْءَ فِي غَيْرِ حَقِّهِ لَيْسَ هُوَ قَتْلًا لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ بِعَيْنِهِ يَكُونُ فِي حَقِّهِ فَلَا يَكُونُ قَتْلًا وَ إِنَّمَا أُلْزِمَ الْعَاقِلَةُ الدِّيَةَ فِي ذَلِكَ احْتِيَاطاً فِي الدِّمَاءِ وَ لِئَلَّا يَبْطُلَ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ وَ لِئَلَّا يَتَعَدَّى النَّاسُ حُقُوقَهُمْ إِلَى مَا لَا حَقَّ لَهُمْ فِيهِ وَ كَذَلِكَ الصَّبِيُّ إِذَا لَمْ يُدْرِكْ وَ الْمَجْنُونُ لَوْ قَتَلَا لَوَرِثَا وَ كَانَتِ الدِّيَةُ عَلَى عَاقِلَتِهِمَا وَ الْقَاتِلُ يَحْجُبُ وَ إِنْ لَمْ يَرِثْ أَ لَا تَرَى أَنَّ الْإِخْوَةَ يَحْجُبُونَ الْأُمَّ وَ لَا يَرِثُونَ.
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan Al-Naysaburi said: If a man strikes his son with a non-excessive blow intending to discipline him, and the son dies as a result of that strike, the father inherits from him and is not obligated to offer kaffarah (expiation). This is because the father has the right to discipline his child, and he is commanded to do so. In this case, the father is in the position of an Imam who enforces a legal punishment on a man, and if the man dies due to that punishment, there is no diyyah (blood money) or kaffarah upon the Imam, nor is the Imam considered a killer when he enforces the command of Allah (swt), the Mighty and Majestic. However, if the father strikes his son excessively and the son dies, the father does not inherit from him, and kaffarah becomes obligatory upon him. Anyone who is entitled to inherit does not bear kaffarah, but anyone who is not entitled to inherit must offer kaffarah. If the son had a wound and the father opened it (to treat it), and the son died from that, the father is not considered a killer. He inherits from his son, and there is neither kaffarah nor diyyah upon him because this action is regarded as a form of discipline, correction, and necessary treatment required for the child. If a man was riding an animal and it trampled over his father or brother, causing their death, he would not inherit from them. In this case, the diyyah (blood money) would be upon the Aqilah (the male relatives responsible for blood money), and the kaffarah (expiation) would be obligatory upon him. However, if he was leading or guiding the animal and it trampled over his father or brother, causing their death, he would inherit from them, the diyyah would still be upon the Aqilah for the heirs, and no kaffarah would be required from him. If a man dug a well in a place where he had no right to do so, or he opened a sewage channel or built a canopy, and one of his heirs was harmed by it and died, the man would not be liable for kaffarah, and the diyyah would be upon the Aqilah, and he would still inherit from the deceased. This is because he is not considered a killer. Do you not see that if he had done such things within his rightful property, he would not be considered a killer, and no diyyah or kaffarah would be required? Therefore, doing this in a place where he had no right is not considered intentional killing, as this action in his rightful place would not be deemed as such. The Aqilah is held responsible for the diyyah in this case as a precaution regarding the sanctity of life, to prevent the blood of a Muslim from being wasted, and to stop people from transgressing beyond their rights. Similarly, if a child who has not reached maturity or a mentally ill person committed a killing, they would still inherit, and the diyyah would be upon their Aqilah. Moreover, the killer prevents others from inheriting even if he himself does not inherit. Do you not see that siblings prevent the mother from inheriting a larger share, even though they themselves do not inherit in certain situations?
