by his own choice, which led to his death. The reason inheritance is prohibited in cases of consensus is to prevent it from leading to the commission of forbidden killing and as a deterrent against the termination of an inviolable soul. In our discussed issue, however, the deprivation of inheritance would prevent the implementation of mandatory prescribed penalties and the fulfillment of legitimate rights, and it does not lead to the commission of a forbidden killing; thus, it is the opposite of the established principle. It is invalid to draw an analogy to the killing by a child or a madman, because that is a forbidden killing and the waste of an inviolable soul, and granting inheritance would lead to it, unlike our issue. Once this is established, a participant in the killing is treated like one who acted alone in terms of inheritance, because the liability for indemnity falls upon him accordingly. If he testified against the person he would inherit from along with others, unjustly, and the person was killed, he does not inherit from him. But if he testified truthfully, he inherits from him because it is not a guaranteed act.

Section: Four brothers, the eldest of whom killed the second, then the third killed the youngest. Retaliation (qisas) is dropped for the eldest, because the inheritance of the second brother became split equally between the third and the youngest. When the third killed the youngest, he did not inherit from him, so the eldest inherited from him. Thus, half of the blood money for his own self returned to him, as well as the entire inheritance of the youngest, so retaliation was dropped for him because he inherited a portion of his own blood money. He is entitled to retaliation against the youngest and inherits from him according to the manifest view of the school. If retaliation is exacted from him, he inherits from him, and he inherits from his three brothers. If two sons killed one of their parents, and they (the parents) were spouses, then the other (son) killed the other parent, retaliation is dropped for the first killer and becomes mandatory for the second. This is because when the first killed his father, his brother and mother inherited his wealth and blood money. When the second killed his mother, the killer of the father inherited from her. Thus, he acquired an eighth of his own blood money, so retaliation was dropped for him because of that, and he is entitled to retaliation against the other. If he kills him, he inherits from him according to the manifest view of the school. If one of them wounded his father and the other wounded his mother, and they both died simultaneously with no heirs other than the two sons, then each of them is entitled to the wealth of the one he did not kill, and each of them is entitled to retaliation against his companion. The same applies if each of them killed one of the parents and they were not spouses; each of them has the right to retaliation against his brother, except that neither can exact it without nullifying the right of the other, so both rights are dropped. If one of them pardons the