Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (5/292)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the second year until the tenth or eleventh year without offering the funeral prayer over them.

“If he falls from his mount, or is found dead with no mark upon him, or is carried away and then eats, or remains alive for what is customarily considered a long time, he is to be washed and the funeral prayer offered over him.”

His statement, “If he falls from his mount,” means that if the martyr falls from his mount without any action on the part of the enemy, he is to be washed and the funeral prayer offered over him. But if he falls from his mount due to the enemy’s action and dies as a result, he is a martyr and is not to be washed, as mentioned previously.

His statement, “or is found dead with no mark upon him,” means that he has no sign of a wound, strangulation, or beating, yet is found dead. In that case, he is to be washed, shrouded, and the funeral prayer offered over him. There is a rational basis for this: upon his death, it becomes obligatory that he be washed, shrouded, and prayed over; while whether his death was caused by the enemy is uncertain, since there is no mark upon him. What is certain cannot be set aside on account of doubt. Rather, he must be washed, shrouded, and prayed over.

The author’s words, “with no mark upon him,” exclude the case where a mark is found on him, such as a wound, strangulation, or beating—that is, fatal blows. In such a case, the apparent indication is taken into account: namely, that the enemy inflicted this upon him. Accordingly, he is considered a martyr and is neither washed, shrouded, nor prayed over. Here, the apparent indication takes precedence over the original ruling, for the original ruling is that washing is obligatory; yet in this case we have waived that obligation on the basis of this apparent indication, namely the mark. The same applies if we know that he died through the enemy’s action despite there being no mark upon him—for example, if poison gas was used.

Some scholars excluded from the relevant marks bleeding from the nose, mouth, front private part, or anus. They said that this may occur in one who died a natural death, and thus does not indicate that the enemy caused it. However, the author’s wording indicates a general rule: whenever a mark is found on him which could have resulted from the enemy’s action, he is a martyr.

السنة الثانية إلى السنة العاشرة أو الحادية عشرة لم يصلِّ عليهم. وَإِنْ سَقَطَ عَنْ دَابَّتِهِ، أَوْ وُجِدَ مَيتاً، وَلَا أَثَرَ بِهِ. أَوْ حُمِلَ فَأَكَلَ أَوْ طَالَ بَقَاؤُهُ عُرْفاً غُسِّلَ وَصُلِّيَ عَلَيْهِ. قوله: «وإن سقط عن دابته»، أي: إن سقط الشهيد عن دابته بغير فعل العدو، غسل وصلي عليه. فإن سقط عن دابته بفعل العدو فمات من ذلك فإنه يكون شهيداً لا يغسل كما سبق. قوله: «أو وجد ميتاً ولا أثر به»، أي: ليس به أثر جراحة، ولا خنق، ولا ضرب، ووجد ميتاً فإنه يغسل ويكفن ويصلى عليه، وهذا له دليل نظري، وذلك أن هذا الميت وجب بموته أن يغسل ويكفن ويصلى عليه، وكون موته من فعل العدو مشكوك فيه؛ لأنه ليس فيه أثر، ولا يمكن أن ندع اليقين للشك، بل يجب أن يغسل ويكفن ويصلى عليه. وقول المؤلف: «ولا أثر به» يخرج به ما لو وجد به أثر مثل: جرح، أو خنق، أو ضرب أي ضربات مميتة، فإنه يحكم بالظاهر هنا، وهو أن الذي فعل به ذلك العدو، وعلى هذا يكون شهيداً لا يغسل ولا يكفن ولا يصلى عليه، وهنا غلّبنا الظاهر على الأصل؛ لأن الأصل وجوب التغسيل، وهنا أسقطنا هذا الواجب بهذا الظاهر الذي هو الأثر، وكذا إذا علمنا أنه مات بفعل العدو ولا أثر به كما لو استعمل الغازات. واستثنى بعضهم من الأثر: الدم من الأنف، أو الفم، أو القبل، أو الدبر، قال: لأن هذا قد يقع ممن مات موتاً طبيعياً، فلا يدل على أن العدو هو الذي فعل به هذا، ولكن كلام المؤلف يدل على العموم فمتى وجد به أثر يحتمل أنه من فعل العدو فهو شهيد.