I say, and with God's help: There are five types of killing: First: Intentional killing: This is when one deliberately strikes someone with a tool that dismembers, such as a weapon, a heavy iron object, a sharp wooden object, glass, a stone, a needle in a lethal spot, and others. The conclusion of the investigators, Ibn Abidin, in "Rad al-Muhtar" 6: 528 states: "And all killings by bullets are intentional; because they are made of iron and cause injury, thus retaliation is required, but if they do not cause injury, retaliation is not required according to the narration of Al-Tahawi as indicated by Al-Tahawi from Al-Shalabi." The ruling on intentional killing is: 1. The obligation of sin; because its prohibition is more severe than the prohibition of uttering a word of disbelief, as uttering a word of disbelief is permissible for the coerced, unlike killing. 2. The obligation of retaliation in kind, so it does not become a financial matter except by mutual consent, thus a settlement is valid, even with the equivalent of blood money or more. 3. The non-obligation of expiation; because it is a pure major sin, and expiation has a meaning of worship that is not associated with it. Second: Quasi-intentional killing: This is when one intends to strike someone with something other than what is mentioned in intentional killing: that is, with something that does not dismember, even with a large stone or wood according to Abu Hanifa, contrary to others. However, if the quasi-intentional killing involves limbs rather than the soul, its ruling is the same as intentional killing in the obligation of retaliation; because there is no quasi-intentionality in matters less than the soul. The ruling on quasi-intentional killing is: 1. Sin; for the reasons mentioned. 2. Expiation. 3. A heavy blood money on the relatives. 4. The non-obligation of retaliation; due to its similarity to error considering its tool, unless it is repeated, then the Imam has the authority to kill him for policy reasons, as in "Al-Durr Al-Mukhtar" 6: 530. It includes running over someone with a car; due to the lack of use of something that dismembers in general as in tools of intentional killing, but it should be included under intentional killing if there are indications of intention; due to its proximity to the meaning of a heavy object as it is manual, while with the car it is mechanical. Third: Unintentional killing, which is of two types: 1. An error in the act itself, such as intending to hunt and hitting a human, or intending a man and hitting another. 2. An error in the actor's assumption (intention), such as aiming at a person under the assumption that he is an enemy or an apostate, and then discovering he is a Muslim; because he did not err in the act as he hit what he intended to throw, but he erred in the intention, that is, in the assumption where he thought the enemy was a Muslim and the human was prey. The error became two types; because a person acts with the heart and limbs, and each one can individually bear the error as mentioned, or collectively if he threw at a human thinking he was prey and hit another person. See: "Al-Tahbiin" 6: 101, "Bada'i Al-Sana'i" 7: 234, and others. Fourth: What is akin to error; such as a sleeper who rolls over on a person and kills him; because this is not truly an error due to the lack of intention from the sleeper towards anything, thus it becomes akin to unintentional killing from every aspect due to its occurrence not being intentional; because he died from the weight of the sleeper, thus its rulings apply; because there is no conception of intention from the sleeper to conceive of abandoning intention or neglecting caution. Examples include: if he was walking on the road carrying a sword or a stone or a brick or a piece of wood and it fell from his hand and killed someone due to the presence of the meaning of error in it, and its occurrence through direct contact as the tool reached the victim's skin. If a rider is walking on a public road and his animal steps on a man with its hands or feet; due to the presence of the meaning of error in this killing and its occurrence through direct contact; because the weight of the rider is on the animal, and the animal is a tool for him, thus the killing that occurs due to its weight is attributed to the rider, making it direct killing. It includes killing in car accidents, and a load falling from a crane on a person and killing him; due to the presence of the meaning of error and the lack of intention for this act at all. Its ruling is: 1. The obligation of blood money; due to the presence of the meaning of error, which is the lack of intention. 2. The obligation of expiation and deprivation of inheritance and bequest; due to the occurrence of killing directly; because he died from its weight; to imply that he might be negligent, and he was not sleeping intentionally to hasten inheritance. 3. In unintentional killing, he does not incur the sin of killing, but rather incurs the sin of neglecting caution and exaggerating in verification; because permissible actions should not be directly undertaken except on the condition that they do not harm anyone, and if they harm someone, then neglecting caution is realized, and he incurs sin, and the term expiation indicates that; because it is a veil, and there is no veil without sin. The evidence for the obligation of blood money in unintentional killing: 1. Allah said: {And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein; and the wrath and curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him} [An-Nisa: 92]. 2. Umar ruled it in three years in the presence of the Companions without objection, thus it became consensus. See: "Al-Mabsut" 26: 68, "Bada'i" 7: 271-272, "Durar Al-Hukam" 2: 90-91, "Rad Al-Muhtar" 6: 531, and others. Fifth: Killing due to causation; such as a well digger or someone placing a stone in someone else's property; because if he causes a killing, he becomes like the one who throws or pushes. Examples include: if an animal is injured or hit or struck, he is liable unless he has no expiation upon him, nor does he lose inheritance or bequest; because the killing occurred through causation rather than direct action, and there is no expiation on the driver or the leader, nor do they lose inheritance or bequest; because the act of driving and the weight brings the animal closer to killing, thus it is causative killing not direct, and causative killing does not relate to these rulings unlike the rider; because he kills directly as we have explained. If he stops an animal at the mosque door, it is like stopping it on the road; because he is transgressing in stopping unless the Imam has designated a place for Muslims at the mosque door to stop their animals, then he is not liable for what they cause while standing; because the Imam can do that if it does not harm the people, thus he is not transgressing in stopping, resembling stopping in his own property unless he is riding and his animal steps on a person and kills him; because that is killing by direct action, thus it is equal in all places. If he stops his animal in a place where the Imam has permitted stopping as in horse and mule markets; for the reasons we mentioned. If he stops his animal in the wilderness; because stopping in the wilderness is permissible due to the lack of harm to people, thus he is not transgressing in it. See: "Bada'i" 7: 271-272, "Fath Al-Qadeer" 10: 214, and others. It includes stopping a car in a place not designated for it, as if it did not stop in his property, or in a place where it is permitted to stop, and then hits a person and kills him, he is liable for blood money without expiation; due to the transgression on his part in stopping. And Allah knows best. Its ruling is: 1. Blood money is obligatory on the relatives; because it is the cause of the loss, and he is transgressing in digging, thus he is like the one who pushes the one thrown into it, so blood money is obligatory to protect lives and it falls on the relatives; because killing in this manner is less than killing by error, thus he is excused, and blood money is obligatory on the relatives as a relief for him as in error, rather it is more appropriate due to the absence of direct killing from him. 2. The non-obligation of expiation. See: "Al-Tahbiin" 6: 101-102, "Al-Bahr Al-Ra'iq" 8: 329, "Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyya" 6: 3, "Al-Mawsoo'a Al-Fiqhiya" 28: 226, and others. And Allah knows best.