and his son forced one of them, she does not inherit from him, because the suspicion regarding him is negated, since her inheritance does not return to him. If he forced the second one after her, the second one would inherit, because he is suspected regarding her. If he forced them both at once, they both inherit. All of this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and his companions. As for al-Shafi'i, he does not consider the marriage to be dissolved by unlawful intercourse. The same ruling applies if the sick person has intercourse with someone whose marriage is dissolved by having intercourse with her, such as his wife's mother or her daughter; his wife becomes irrevocably divorced from him and inherits from him if he dies during his illness, but he does not inherit from her. It makes no difference whether the woman with whom he had intercourse complied with him or he forced her, for her compliance does not constitute an act by the wife through which her inheritance is forfeited (67). If he was mentally incapacitated at the time of the intercourse, his wife does not inherit anything from him, because he possesses no valid intention, and thus he is not fleeing from her inheritance. Likewise, if his son had intercourse with his [father's] wife while forcing her, and the son was mentally incapacitated, she does not inherit for that reason. If he was an intelligent young boy, she inherits, because he possesses a valid intention.

Abu Hanifah said: He is like the insane person, because his word is not to be taken into account. The same ruling applies if he has intercourse with his wife's daughter or her mother. Regarding the boy's intercourse with his wife's daughter (68) or mother, al-Shafi'i has two opinions: one is that it does not dissolve the marriage of his wife because it (69) does not render her unlawful. The second is that his wife becomes irrevocably divorced by that, and she neither inherits from him nor does he inherit from her. Regarding kissing and physical contact without intercourse, there are two reports: one is that it spreads the state of prohibition. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and his companions, because it is physical contact that is prohibited outside of marriage and legal ownership, so it is similar to intercourse. The second is [that it does not spread it, because it is not] (70) a cause for partiality, so it does not spread the prohibition, like looking or seclusion. Our companions derived an opinion regarding looking at the private parts and seclusion with desire that it does spread the prohibition.

Section: If the sick woman does that which dissolves her marriage, such as a woman suckling her husband's young [female relative], or the husband's suckling of her young [female relative], or she apostatizes, or similar actions, and she dies during her illness, the husband inherits from her, and she does not inherit from him. Abu Hanifah held this view. Al-Shafi'i said: He does not inherit from her. Our argument is that she is one of the two spouses who fled from the inheritance of the other, so she is similar to the man.