The intentional killer was singled out by consensus, so one must remain upon the apparent meaning regarding what is besides it. Our argument rests on the aforementioned hadiths, and on the fact that whoever does not inherit from blood money does not inherit from other things, just like the intentional killer and the one who differs in religion. The general texts are particularized by what we have mentioned.

Section: The killing that prevents inheritance is killing without right, which is that which is guaranteed by retaliation (qisas), blood money (diyah), or atonement (kaffarah), such as intentional killing, quasi-intentional killing, accidental killing, and that which is treated as accidental, such as killing by cause, or the killing by a child, a madman, or a sleeper. What is not guaranteed by anything of what we have mentioned does not prevent inheritance, such as killing by way of legal retaliation (qisas), a prescribed penalty (hadd), in self-defense, or the killing of a rebel (baghi) by one who is just, or by someone who intends a benefit for the one under his care through an action he is permitted to perform, such as administering medicine or lancing an abscess, where the person dies as a result. Whoever is ordered by a sane, adult person to lance an abscess or cut off a tumor, and the person perishes as a result, he inherits from him according to the manifest view of the school. Ahmad said: If a just person kills a rebel in war, he inherits from him. Muhammad ibn al-Hakam narrated from Ahmad regarding four people who testified against their sister for adultery, and she was stoned, and they participated in stoning her with the people: they inherit from her as they are not killers. There is another narration from Ahmad indicating that killing prevents inheritance in every case, for he said in the narration of his two sons, Salih and 'Abd Allah: The just person does not inherit from the rebel, nor does the rebel inherit from the just person. This indicates that killing prevents inheritance in all cases. This is the apparent view of the Shafi'i school, taking the apparent meaning of the wording of the hadith, and because he is a killer, thus he resembles the child and the madman. Abu Hanifa and his two companions said: Every killing in which there is no sin does not prevent inheritance, such as the killing by a child, a madman, a sleeper, someone who falls upon a person without his own volition, or the driver of an animal, its leader, or its rider, if it kills by its hand or its mouth; he inherits from him because it is a killing in which he is not accused and in which there is no sin, so it resembles killing in a prescribed penalty. Our argument against Abu Hanifa and his companions is the generality of the reports; we have excluded from them the killing that is not guaranteed, so in what remains besides it, it stays upon its implication. Furthermore, it is a guaranteed killing, so it prevents inheritance like accidental killing. Our argument against al-Shafi'i is that it is a permitted act, so it does not prevent inheritance, just as if he fed him or gave him drink.