who is among a people hostile to you. If a believer kills him, then expiation is required of him, but blood money is not required, because he has forfeited his own protection by joining the ranks of the disbelievers.

The second interpretation of the verse is that it concerns a believer whose heirs are disbelievers. This is the correct and definitive interpretation: he is a Muslim man whose heirs are disbelievers hostile to us. In this case, expiation is obligatory because he is a believer, but blood money is not obligatory, because if we were to pay the blood money, the disbelievers would take it, and we should not give them that by which they may seek assistance in fighting the Muslims.

His statement, “The legally accountable person and others are alike in this regard,” means that this applies even to one who is not legally accountable. Thus, if a ten-year-old boy is playing with a rifle and strikes the person from whom he would inherit, he does not inherit from him, because these are financial rights connected to people; therefore, there is no distinction in them between one who is legally accountable and one who is not.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the killer does not inherit even if the killing was purely accidental. Those who hold this view cite the hadith: “The killer has no share of inheritance” (1). But this is not authentically reported from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. If it is not authentic, we return to the general legal principles. If we know with certainty that this heir did not intentionally kill, then we do not prevent him from inheriting, for he has become entitled to the inheritance—so how can we deprive him of it?! This occurs frequently.