Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Qisas and diyat: homicide and compensation > Fourth category of killing: what is treated as accidental killing
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This type of killing has been mentioned by the Hanafi and Hanbali fuqaha and others. The Hanafi fuqaha say: what is treated as accidental, such as the sleeping person who turns over upon a man and kills him, follows the ruling of accident, that is, the dropping of qisas, the obligation of the diyah and the deprivation of inheritance.
The dropping of qisas, because there was no deliberateness; the obligation of the diyah, because death occurred through his act; and the deprivation of inheritance, because he may have intended to kill him and feigned sleep.
It was treated as accidental because the sleeper has no intent: his act is therefore described neither as deliberate nor as erroneous; this is why it was not given the name of accident, except that it follows the ruling of accident because death occurs through his act, as with the one who errs (al-Mabsut 26/68, al-Hidayah 4/158 and 159, al-Ikhtiyar 5/33, al-Jawharah al-Nayyirah 5/203, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/327 and 328).
Many Hanbalis have mentioned this category, saying: what is treated as accidental, like a sleeper turning over upon a person and killing him, or something falling upon him from a height, follows the ruling of accident in all its rulings (al-Mughni 8/208, al-Sharh al-Kabir 9/320, Sharh al-Zarkashi 3/3, al-Mubdi' 8/240 and 241, al-Insaf 9/433, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/594, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/6).
According to the generality of the fuqaha, this category is treated as accidental and takes all the rulings of accidental killing: they placed it within the category of accident, and there is no quarrelling over terms.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: there is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that there is no qisas upon a child nor upon an insane person; the same applies to anyone whose intellect is removed by an excusable cause, like the sleeper, the unconscious and their like. The basis for this is the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"The pen is lifted from 3: from the child until he matures, from the sleeper until he wakes, and from the insane person until he recovers."
Cited by Ibn Qudamah in al-Mughni (8/226)
It is also because qisas is an aggravated punishment: it is not due upon the child nor upon one deprived of reason, like the fixed penalties; and because they have no valid intention: they are like the accidental killer (see also Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/180, al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/216, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/3, al-Sharh al-Kabir with the commentary of al-Dasuqi 6/176, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/220, Rawdat al-Talibin 6/158, Asna al-Matalib 4/12, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 8/355, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/231, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/613 and 614, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/26, Manar al-Sabil 3/225).
The drunk person who kills in his drunkenness: if his intellect was removed by a non-prohibited means, he is like the unconscious: no qisas upon him, by agreement, for he has neither intention nor restraint.
They then differed concerning one who becomes drunk by prohibited means and kills in his drunkenness, the fact being established by evidence or by confession: is qisas exacted upon him, or not?
The majority of the fuqaha, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to the school's position, hold that qisas is due upon the drunk person who transgressed by his drunkenness if he killed during it: for acts of disobedience are not causes of dispensation; and so that qisas not be abandoned, for whoever intends to kill will not scruple to get drunk in order to escape it.
And because the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, treated his drunkenness like his slander: they imposed upon him the fixed penalty of the slanderer; now if his slander did not entail the penalty upon him, the penalty would not have been required by its mere presumption; and if the penalty applies, pure qisas, which is a human right, entails it all the more.
For otherwise, whoever wished to disobey Allah the Most High would drink what intoxicates him, then kill, fornicate and steal without incurring any punishment or sin, and his disobedience would become a cause for cancelling the punishments of this world and the hereafter: there is no sense in that. Divorce differs from it: it is a word that can be annulled, unlike killing (al-Durr al-Mukhtar 5/622 and 6/586 and 587, al-Dhakhirah 12/273, al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah 226, al-Bayan 11/303, Rawdat al-Talibin 6/158, Asna al-Matalib 4/12, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 8/355, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/231, al-Mughni 8/226, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/613 and 614).
According to the Shafi'is, whoever transgressed by drinking a medicine that removes the intellect is assimilated to this case; as for the non-transgressor, he is like the feeble-minded: no qisas upon him.
The Hanbalis say: as for one who drank or ate, in a prohibited manner, what removes the intellect other than wine: if his intellect disappears entirely so that he becomes insane, there is no qisas upon him; and if it disappears briefly and returns without treatment, it is like drunkenness, according to the detail already given (al-Mughni 8/226).
The Hanbalis also said, in one view: qisas is not due upon him, for he is one whose intellect is removed, like the insane, and because he is not legally responsible, like the child and the insane (al-Mughni 8/226).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about 2 men who had drunk, with a third man in their company. When they wanted to return to their homes, they quarrelled, and one struck the other with a blow of a club: he fell from his mount. The third man stayed with him until he remounted and accompanied him to his home; he did not stay with him, and he fell from his mount a second time; in the morning, he was dead.
A man among the relatives of the deceased then questioned the third in secret, without informing him of the death, and he related their story. Witnesses testified that so-and-so had struck him, the witnesses not having heard anything from the deceased; and the suspect had not turned himself in, for fear of the punishment, so as not to confess against himself; the deceased leaves a suckling daughter and brothers.
He answered: if the one who drank the wine knew what he was saying, then if he kills, he is a killer: qisas and the punishment of a life-taker are due upon him, by the agreement of the scholars.
But if he had become drunk to the point of not knowing what he says, or more, and he killed: is qisas due upon him, for him to be handed over to the heirs of the victim that they may kill him if they wish? There are 2 views among the scholars, and 2 narrations from Ahmad. Most of the fuqaha, among the companions of Abu Hanifah, Malik and al-Shafi'i, and many companions of Ahmad, make it due as upon the sober. If only one witness testifies to the killing, no judgment is based on it, unless the heirs of the victim join to it 50 oaths. This applies if he died of his blow, that blow being pure aggression; but if he died while another had also struck, there is disagreement over qisas... (al-Mughni 8/226).
The Hanafis hold that one who strikes another with a small stick, a small stone, a slap and the like of what is not usually destructive, like the whip and the like, when he strikes once or twice without repeating the blows, commits quasi-intentional killing without qisas; likewise with the small whip while repeating the blows until death: it is quasi-intentional, without disagreement among the Hanafi fuqaha (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/233, al-Ikhtiyar 5/31 and 32, al-Jawharah al-Nayyirah 5/197, al-Lubab 2/237, Durar al-Hukkam 5/424).
The fuqaha have differed concerning one who kills another by strangling with his hands or with a rope, or by throwing a cushion or a handkerchief over his face and leaning upon it until he dies: is this to be counted as intentional killing with qisas exacted, or as quasi-intentional?
The majority of the fuqaha, the Malikis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and the 2 Hanafi companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, hold that one who kills another by strangling with his hands or a rope, or by throwing a cushion or a handkerchief over his face and leaning upon it until he dies, commits intentional killing: qisas falls upon his author if he continued this for a duration of which the strangled person usually dies; for he intended his death by a means that kills most of the time; Allah, exalted be His name, has said:
"And whoever kills a believer intentionally..."
Surah an-Nisa, 93
Now this one is an intentional killer: he must be put to death.
The 2 companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad say: if he strangles him until death, it is intentional killing with qisas; this applies if he persisted in the strangling until death; if he released him before death, one looks: if he persisted in the strangling for a duration of which a human being usually dies, qisas applies according to them both; if not, it does not, by consensus (Tibyan al-Haqa'iq 6/101, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/333, commentary of Ibn 'Abidin 6/543, Mu'in al-Hukkam p. 181).
The Malikis say: whoever strangles another, or squeezes his 2 testicles until death, qisas is exacted upon him (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/222, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/7, al-Sharh al-Kabir with the commentary of al-Dasuqi 6/184, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/227, commentary of al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 10/43).
The Shafi'is say: if he strangles him with his hands or a rope, or places his hand over his mouth preventing his breathing, or throws a cushion or a handkerchief over his face and leans upon it until he dies: if he did this for a duration of which the strangled person usually dies, qisas falls upon his killer, for he intended his death by a means whose like usually kills; and if it was for a duration in which his like may as well die as not die, the more usual being that he does not die: qisas does not apply, and he owes an aggravated diyah, for his act is a deliberate accident.
And if he strangles him with a strangulation of which the like dies, then releases him alive, and he then dies: if the strangling left in him an impairment such that his breath no longer comes out, or if he remained in pain until death, qisas falls upon the strangler, for he died from the trace of his act.
And if he strangles him then releases him alive, without pain or ailment, and he bears it, then recovers and regains strength, then dies: no qisas nor diyah upon the strangler, for he died of another cause, as when he had wounded him and his wound had healed, then he died.
And if he passes a running noose around his neck, places a stool under his feet, ties the rope to the ceiling of the house or the like, then removes the stool from under his feet, and he is strangled and dies: qisas falls upon him, for it is the most consummate form of strangulation.
Likewise if he violently squeezes his 2 testicles until death: qisas applies, for that usually kills (al-Muhadhdhab 2/176, al-Bayan 11/338 and 339, Rawdat al-Talibin 6/135).
The Hanbalis say: preventing the breath from coming out is of 2 kinds:
One: to place around his neck a running noose, what is known today as the gallows, then to hang him from a wood or something by which he is raised above the ground: he is strangled and dies; this is intentional killing, whether he dies at once or lasts for a time, for it is the most consummate form of the kinds of strangulation, the one the authorities customarily used against thieves and their like among the corrupters.
The second: to strangle him on the ground with his hands, a handkerchief or a rope, or to suffocate him with a cushion or anything placed over his mouth and nose, or to place his hands over them, and he dies: if he did this to him for a duration of which one usually dies, and he dies of it, it is intentional killing with qisas. And if he does it for a duration of which one does not usually die, and he dies of it, it is a deliberate accident; unless the thing is too slight for death to be suspected of it: it then entails no indemnity, for it is like touching him.
And if he strangles him then leaves him, for a while for example, until death: qisas applies, for he died from the trace of his offense, like one who dies from the trace of the wound; and if he breathes and recovers then dies: no retaliation, for the apparent is that he did not die of it, like the wound that heals and then death (al-Mughni 8/210, al-Kafi 4/13, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/598, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/10, Matalib Uli al-Nuha 6/9).
Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, holds that one who strangles another until death owes no qisas: it is quasi-intentional, whose aggravated diyah is borne by his aqilah; for the instrument carries a deficiency that causes hesitation: did he intend his death by this act, or did he intend to press the pain and inflict harm upon his person, death occurring while he could not bear it.
However, if he has strangled more than once, he is put to death forthwith, for his intention to kill by strangling has become apparent, strangulation being known to lead to death and his having persisted in intending it; and because he has become one who spreads corruption in the land, and whoever is like that, his evil is repelled by execution.
But if he was a known strangler, having strangled more than one: execution applies to him, for his intention to kill by strangling has become apparent, strangulation being known to lead to death and his having persisted in intending it; and because he has become one who spreads corruption in the land, and whoever is like that, his evil is repelled by execution, as a fixed penalty and not as qisas (al-Mabsut 26/153, Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/234, al-Hidayah 2/134, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/432, Tibyan al-Haqa'iq 6/101, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/333, commentary of Ibn 'Abidin 6/543, Mu'in al-Hukkam p. 181).
...his aqilah having to pay the diyah; now she was pregnant, and he ruled a ghurrah for the fetus. Someone of her kin said: shall we pay blood money for one who tasted nothing, nor drank, nor cried out to be heard, and whose like is cast away? He said: "rhyming, like the rhyming of the Bedouins" (Reported by Muslim 1682).
Now the aqilah does not bear intentional killing: proof that killing with the tent pole is not intentional; and what is greater than it usually kills: it is intentional killing.
Of this type: throwing upon him a wall, a rock, an enormous piece of wood or the like of what usually destroys, and destroying him by it: qisas applies, for it usually kills (al-Mughni 8/209 and 210, al-Kafi 4/14, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/595 and 596, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/7 and 8).
The fuqaha have differed on one who strikes another with a small blunt object, such as a small stone, a whip or a stick, and death ensues: does qisas apply, or not?
The majority of the fuqaha, in general, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that one who strikes another with a small blunt object, such as the stick, the whip or the small stone, and death ensues, incurs qisas.
The Malikis say: the condition of the killing that entails qisas is that the killer intended the blow, the intention to kill not being required. If he intended to strike him with what usually kills and death ensues, qisas will apply; likewise if he intended to strike him with what does not usually kill, such as striking him with a stone, a slap, a jab, a pellet, a rod or a stick, and death ensues: qisas will also apply, even without having intended his death: the mere intention of the blow suffices to make qisas due.
If he did not intend the blow, and that is established by evidence or by the admission of the victim, there is no retaliation against him: it is an accident, whose diyah is borne by the aqilah.
Whether he intended the very person struck, or intended to strike someone wrongfully and hit another: he will be put to death for it, and the view that "it is an accident" is weak.
But if he intended to strike someone he may lawfully strike and hit another, it is an accident, provided the blow was in play or for discipline; likewise if he strikes another in the manner of play: it is an accident according to the correct view, and the same for lawful discipline, with an instrument fit for correction; but if the blow was for discipline in anger, the well-known position is that it is an intentional killing entailing qisas, except for the father and his like: no qisas, but an aggravated diyah (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/221, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/7, al-Sharh al-Kabir with the commentary of al-Dasuqi 6/182 and 184, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/226 and 227, commentary of al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 10/43).
The Shafi'is say: if he strikes him with a whip or a light stick, or throws a small stone at him, one looks: if he repeated the blows, reaching a number of which the like usually dies according to the state of the person struck, until death; or if the pain intensified and he remained suffering until death: qisas applies. If he did not repeat and confined himself to one or 2 strokes: if it was in a fatal spot, or in intense heat or cold that aid destruction, or if the person struck was small, or weak by constitution or by circumstance: qisas applies, for it is usually lethal; and otherwise, it is quasi-intentional with the diyah (al-Muhadhdhab 2/176, al-Bayan 11/337 and 338, Rawdat al-Talibin 6/134 and 135, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/215).
The Hanbalis say: if he strikes him with a small blunt object, like the stick, the whip or the small stone; or jabs him with his hands in a fatal spot, or in a state of weakness of the person struck, from illness or young age; or in a season of excessive heat or cold, such that that blow kills him; or if he repeated the blows until killing him with what usually kills: qisas applies, for he killed him with what the like of usually dies of, like the blow struck with a heavy blunt object.
And if he claims illness in all of that, it is not accepted; likewise if he says: "I did not intend his death", he is not believed, for the apparent is otherwise.
Of this type: if he squeezes his testicles violently and kills him with a squeeze of which the like usually dies: qisas falls upon him.
And if the blow was not struck in a fatal spot, nor in a state of weakness and the like: it is a deliberate accident, with the diyah; unless the blow is very slight, like the stroke of the pen or the finger away from a fatal spot and the like of what killing is not suspected of: there is then neither qisas nor diyah, for he did not die of it; likewise if he touches him with the heavy object without striking him: the diyah is due only for killing, and this is not killing (al-Mughni 8/210, al-Kafi 4/12 and 13, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/596, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/7 and 8, Manar al-Sabil 3/219).
The people of knowledge agreed that accidental and quasi-intentional killing entail the diyah, according to the saying of the Most High:
"Whoever kills a believer by mistake, then the freeing of a believing slave and a diyah delivered to his family."
Surah an-Nisa, 92
And the diyah is borne by the aqilah; they proved it by the Sunnah and by consensus.
As for the Sunnah: al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrated:
"A woman killed her co-wife with a tent pole; the case was brought to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and he ruled that the diyah would be upon her aqilah; now she was pregnant, and he ruled a ghurrah for the fetus. Someone of her kin said: shall we pay blood money for one who tasted nothing, nor drank, nor cried out to be heard, and whose like is cast away? He said: rhyming, like the rhyming of the Bedouins."
Reported by Muslim (1682)
In the Sunan of Ibn Majah, from al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, may Allah be pleased with him:
"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ruled that the diyah is upon the aqilah."
Authentic hadith, reported by Ibn Majah (2633)
And according to his saying, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"Know that the diyah of quasi-intentional accident, that committed with the whip and the stick, is one 100 camels, 40 of them pregnant, carrying their young in their wombs."
Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (4549), an-Nasa'i (4796), Ibn Majah (2628) and Ahmad (6552)
And the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him:
"Two women of Hudhayl fought; one threw a stone at the other and killed her and what was in her womb; the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ruled that the diyah for her fetus would be a male or female slave, and that the diyah of the woman would be upon her aqilah."
Reported by al-Bukhari (6910) and Muslim (1681)
And because he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, asked about the woman who had struck her co-wife with a tent pole, killing her and her fetus, ruled a ghurrah for the fetus and placed the diyah upon her aqilah (Reported by Muslim 1682).
...because of its resemblance to accident with regard to the instrument used, according to the saying of the Most High:
"Whoever kills a believer by mistake, then the freeing of a believing slave and a diyah delivered to his family."
Surah an-Nisa, 92
There is no retaliation, for it is not purely intentional killing according to all who affirm quasi-intentional killing.
All who affirm quasi-intentional killing agree that the diyah is due in it and is borne by the aqilah, according to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"Know that the diyah of quasi-intentional accident, that committed with the whip and the stick, is one 100 camels, 40 of them pregnant, carrying their young in their wombs."
Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (4549), an-Nasa'i (4796), Ibn Majah (2628) and Ahmad (6552)
And the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him:
"Two women of Hudhayl fought; one threw a stone at the other and killed her and what was in her womb; the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ruled that the diyah for her fetus would be a male or female slave, and that the diyah of the woman would be upon her aqilah."
Reported by al-Bukhari (6910) and Muslim (1681)
And because he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, asked about the woman who had struck her co-wife with a tent pole, killing her and her fetus, ruled a ghurrah for the fetus and placed the diyah upon her aqilah (Reported by Muslim 1682).
From 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:
"The blood money of quasi-intentional killing is aggravated, like the blood money of intentional killing, but its author is not put to death."
Hasan hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (4565) and Ahmad (6718)
And because it is a killing that does not entail retaliation: its diyah is therefore upon the aqilah, as with accidental killing (al-Hidayah 4/158 and 159, al-'Inayah 15/122 and 123, al-Jawharah al-Nayyirah 5/196 and 197, al-Ta'rifat 165, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/332, al-Ishraf ila Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 4/107 and 108, al-Bayan 11/449 and 450, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 8/329 and 330, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/215, al-Mughni 8/216, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/603, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/13 and 14, Manar al-Sabil 3/221).
And because every diyah due for a killing without settlement or partial pardon is upon the aqilah.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the diyah, that is, in quasi-intentional killing, is upon the aqilah according to the majority of the people of knowledge; Malik made of it an intentional killing entailing qisas (al-Mughni 8/216).
This diyah is aggravated and is upon the aqilah; the author does not share in it according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis; according to the Hanafis, he shares in it with them as one of them; this has been set out above in the category of accidental killing.
The remaining rulings of quasi-intentional killing are the same as the rulings of accidental killing already mentioned.
Likewise if he struck him to repel his aggression, or struck him as he had struck him, whether he died of another cause or not; and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa 34/151 and 152).
The fuqaha set as a condition, for qisas to apply, that the victim be protected in his blood. Thus, there is no qisas upon a Muslim who kills:
1 - the harbi (non-Muslim combatant): his blood is rather lawful, for lack of protection; and if he comes repenting, he is not put to death for what he killed before his repentance; there is no disagreement over this; whether he be of those whose jizyah is accepted, like the Jew and the Christian, or of those whose jizyah is not accepted, like the idolater; for the condition of the killer liable to qisas is adherence to the rulings, and the harbi does not adhere to them.
2 - likewise the harbi holding a safe-conduct, if a Muslim kills him: no qisas upon him according to the Hanafis in the apparent narration, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis; for his protection is not established absolutely, but temporarily, until the end of his stay in the abode of Islam; this is because the safe-conduct holder is of the people of the abode of war: he does not enter the abode of Islam intending residence, but for a passing need he comes to fulfill before returning to his original homeland; his protection therefore carries a presumption of nonexistence, according to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"The Muslims are equal in their blood: the guarantee of the least of them binds them all, and the safe-conduct of the furthest of them binds them all; they are one hand against those outside them; the strongest among them supports their weakest, and the one who hastens, the one who stays; a believer is not put to death for a disbeliever, nor one holding a covenant for the duration of his covenant."
Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2751 and 4530), an-Nasa'i (4735 and 4746), Ibn Majah (2660) and Ahmad (6970)
...for every diyah due for a killing without settlement or partial pardon is upon the aqilah.
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the people of knowledge agreed that the diyah of accident is upon the aqilah (al-Ishraf 8/7, al-Ijma' 699).
The fuqaha of the great centers agreed that the diyah of accident is deferred over 3 years; its detail will come in the Book of Diyat.
The fuqaha agreed that the accidental killer and the quasi-intentional killer inherit nothing of the diyah; they differed, however: do they inherit from the estate of the deceased, or not?
The Malikis hold that he inherits from his estate but inherits nothing of his diyah; this view has been transmitted from 'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, Ibn al-Musayyib, Mujahid and al-Zuhri; it is also the view of al-Awza'i, Sa'id ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh and Abu Thawr. Abu Thawr argued it thus: he inherits the rest of the estate by the Book, for Allah, exalted be His name, assigned the inheritances to their holders without mentioning a killer; when they differed over accidental killing, inheritance therefore belongs to him by the Book: the apparent meaning of the Book is never left except by a text of the Book, of the Sunnah, or a consensus showing that a part of it is excluded; failing that, the Book holds to its apparent meaning.
And because depriving the killer of inheritance is a punishment, now the one who errs suffers no punishment, just as no retaliation falls upon him (al-Muwatta' 2/868, al-Tamhid 23/443 and 446, al-Awsat 7/467 and 468, al-Ishraf 4/356).
The majority of the fuqaha, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that the killer, intentional or accidental, inherits nothing of his estate, by the general saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"The killer does not inherit."
Authentic hadith, reported by Ibn Majah (2645)
From 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb:
"Abu Qatadah, a man of Banu Mudlij, killed his son; 'Umar then took from him one 100 camels: 30 hiqqah, 30 jadha'ah and 40 pregnant ones, then said: where is the brother of the victim? For I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, say: 'The killer has no inheritance.' In a variant: 'Had I not heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, say: "The killer has nothing", I would have made you inherit'; he then called the brother of the victim and gave him the camels."
Reported by Ibn Majah (2646) and Ahmad (347 and 348)
And in the version of Abu Dawud:
"The killer has nothing; and if there is no heir, the inheritance goes to the person closest to him; and the killer does not inherit."
Hasan hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (4564)
Abu Qilabah narrated: "A man killed his brother in the time of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him; he did not make him inherit of him, and the man said: O Commander of the Faithful, I killed him only by mistake. He replied: had you killed him intentionally, we would have executed you for him."
Khallas narrated that "a man threw a stone which struck his mother and killed her; 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, made him pay the diyah and excluded him from the inheritance, saying: your share of her inheritance is that stone."
And because whoever's inheritance of the diyah of his victim is dropped, so is his inheritance of the rest of his estate, like the intentional killer: every estate whose inheritance would be forbidden him were he intentional is forbidden him even if he erred, like the diyah (al-Mabsut 30/46 and 47, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah 6/454, al-Umm 4/72, al-Hawi al-Kabir 8/84 and 85, al-Mughni 6/244, al-Kafi 2/560, al-Fatawa al-Kubra 3/261, Manar al-Sabil 2/401).
As for deprivation of the bequest, its detail has been set out above in intentional killing.
Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on them, said: if the heirs ratify it, it is valid; for the prohibition exists for the sake of the heirs' right, since the benefit of its annulment reverts to them, like the benefit of the annulment of inheritance; so if they ratify it, it is valid.
Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him, said: it is not valid; for it is a bequest made by way of punishment, so it is like the deprivation of inheritance, which does not depend on their ratification, and the bequest is likewise (1).
(1) "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" (7/339), "Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'" (5/19, 20), "al-Hidaya" (4/232), "Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya" (2/421), "al-'Inaya" (16/66), "al-Jawhara al-Nayyira" (6/378), "al-Ikhtiyar" (5/78, 79).