Such cases are common in his school, in that of al-Shāfiʿī, and in those of other imams. An imam may explicitly give different answers to two similar questions, and some of his followers may extend the answer to each question to the other, whereas the correct approach is to uphold his explicit rulings and the distinction between the two cases. For example, he explicitly ruled that a bequest to one’s killer is valid if made after the wounding, while also ruling that if a slave whose emancipation is stipulated to take effect upon his master’s death kills his master, that stipulation becomes void. Some of his followers accordingly derived two alternative positions from him on each question.

Others, however, said: Rather, if the killing occurs after the bequest is made, the bequest becomes void, just as an heir’s killing the person from whom he would inherit prevents him from inheriting. But if the bequest is made to the killer after the wounding, it is valid, for the testator consented to it after being wounded. There are many comparable cases.

He was asked:

“A holder of a land grant has a farmer cultivating it, and they divide the crop equally. Must he pay the tithe?”

He answered:

A person must pay the tithe on whatever grows on his property. Thus, when the crop from land held under a grant is divided equally, the farmer must pay the tithe on his half, and the grant holder must pay the tithe on his half. This is according to the correct view, which Muslims have followed in practice, both in earlier times and today: namely, the view that sharecropping is valid whether the seed is supplied by the owner or by the cultivator.