Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/320)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Let us give an example that demonstrates the weakness of the view that the killer does not inherit, even when the killing was purely accidental. A man has two sons and possesses great wealth. The elder is undutiful toward his father and has nothing to do with him, while the younger is dutiful to his father, serves him, and strives to show him every kindness and goodness. The man says to his dutiful son, “I would like to go for umrah.” The son is a skilled driver, so he travels with his father. Then Allah wills that an accident occur through the hand of this dutiful son, entirely by mistake and without intention. The father dies, leaving millions behind. Who inherits him? The undutiful son inherits, while the dutiful son does not! It is impossible for the Sacred Law to bring such a ruling.

A son who would rather suffer the calamity himself than see it befall his father, and who would rather have his own head wounded than have even a finger of his father harmed—we say that he is deprived of the inheritance, while that undutiful son is the one who inherits! The Sacred Law does not bring such rulings. Since the hadith has not been authenticated, let us return to the general legal principles. Can this son, who was dutiful to his father, possibly be accused of deliberately killing him in order to inherit from him? This is impossible under any circumstances.

Therefore, we say that the correct view in this issue—the only view that, in our opinion, may be held—is that accidental killing does not prevent inheritance. If we were to bar him from inheritance, we would deprive him of a right that Allah has affirmed for him in His Book: “Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.” [al-Nisa 4:11]

In cases such as those we have mentioned, the suspicion is exceedingly remote. When the suspicion is remote and the cause of inheritance exists, how can we prevent that cause from taking effect merely in order to preserve the rule?! This is unsound. Hence, the school of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is the soundest of the legal schools in this matter,

ونضرب مثلاً يتبين به ضعف هذا القول، أنه لا يرث ولو كان خطأ محضاً: رجل له ولدان وهو ذو أموال كثيرة، أما الأكبر منهما فكان عاقاً لأبيه ولا يعرفه، وأما الثاني فهو بار بأبيه يخدمه ويجتهد في كل بر وإحسان، فقال الرجل للولد البار: أحب أن أذهب إلى العمرة، والولد يجيد قيادة السيارة، سافر هو وأبوه وأراد الله ﷾ أن يكون حادث على يد هذا الولد البار خطأ بدون قصد، مات الأب وعنده الملايين، من يرثه؟ العاق يرثه والبار لا يرثه!! لا يمكن أن تأتي الشريعة بمثل هذا، ابن يحب أن تكون المصيبة عليه دون أبيه، ويحب أن ينجرح رأسه دون أن يَمس أصبعَ أبيه شيءٌ نقول: يُحرم من الميراث، وهذا الولد العاق هو الذي يرث!! الشريعة لا تأتي بمثل هذا، وما دام الحديث لم يصح فلنرجع إلى القواعد العامة، فهل يمكن أن يتهم هذا الذي كان باراً بأبيه بأنه تعمد قتله لأجل أن يرثه؟ لا يمكن بأي حال من الأحوال، ولهذا نقول: القول الصواب في هذه المسألة الذي لا يجوز سواه فيما نرى، أن القتل خطأً لا يمنع من الميراث، وأننا لو منعناه من الميراث فقد حرمناه حقاً أثبته الله له في كتابه ﴿يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنْثَيَيْنِ﴾ [النساء: ١١]. والتهمة في مثل هذه الصور التي ذكرناها بعيدة جداً، وإذا كانت التهمة بعيدة وسبب الإرث موجود، فكيف نمنع نفوذ هذا السبب من أجل طرد القاعدة؟! لا يصح، ولهذا كان مذهب الإمام مالك ﵀ في هذه المسألة أصح المذاهب،