Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/67)

with a Jewish woman and brought his case before the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Torah was brought, and it contained the verse prescribing stoning. (1)

His statement, “but not for matters they believe to be lawful”: an example is wine, for the People of the Book consider wine lawful. Thus, if one of the protected non-Muslim subjects is brought before us intoxicated, we do not enforce the prescribed punishment for drinking wine upon him. Even if we hold that the punishment for one who drinks wine is a prescribed penalty, we still do not enforce it upon him, because he considers it lawful. How can someone who regards something as lawful be punished for it?! However, it will be mentioned later that they are prevented from openly drinking wine. If they do so openly, we impose a discretionary punishment upon them that will deter them.

It may be derived from this ruling, which the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—have affirmed, that whoever considers lawful a matter over which there is scholarly disagreement is not bound by the ruling of one who considers it forbidden. An example is tobacco: there is no consensus that tobacco is forbidden, and some scholars differed concerning it, especially when it first appeared. Thus, if we see someone smoking tobacco while believing it to be lawful, we do not impose a discretionary punishment upon him. But if he believes it to be unlawful, we do impose such a punishment, because a discretionary punishment is obligatory for every act of disobedience for which there is neither a prescribed penalty nor an expiation.

Do we then condone it? That is, may I sit beside someone who smokes tobacco and considers it lawful?

The answer is: no.

(1) Recorded by al-Bukhari in The Book of Legal Punishments, chapter: “Rulings concerning the People of the Covenant” (6841), and by Muslim in The Book of Legal Punishments, chapter: “The Stoning of Jews for Adultery” (1699), on the authority of Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him. Note: Ibn Surayya was one of the Jewish rabbis. His name is explicitly mentioned in al-Tabari’s Tafsir (11921), Shakir edition.

بامرأة يهودية وترافع إلى الرسول ﷺ وجيء بالتوراة فإذا فيها آية الرجم (١). وقوله: «دون ما يعتقدون حله» مثل الخمر، فالخمر يعتقد أهل الكتاب أنه حلال، فإذا جيء إلينا بسكران من أهل الذمة فإننا لا نقيم عليه حد الخمر، حتى وإن قلنا: إن عقوبة شارب الخمر حد فإننا لا نقيم عليه الحد؛ لأنه يعتقد حله، والذي يعتقد حل الشيء كيف يعاقب عليه؟! لكن سيأتي أنهم يمنعون من إظهار شرب الخمر، فإن أظهروا ذلك فإننا نعزِّرهم بما يردعهم. ويؤخذ من هذا الحكم الذي أقره الفقهاء ﵏ أن من اعتقد حل شيء مختلف فيه فإنه لا يلزم بحكم من يرى تحريمه، مثل الدخان، فالدخان ليس مجمعاً على تحريمه، فمن العلماء من خالف فيه لا سيما أول ما ظهر، فإذا رأينا شخصاً يشرب الدخان وهو يرى أنه حلال فإننا لا نعزره، وإن كان يعتقد أنه حرام فإننا نعزره؛ لأن التعزير واجب في كل معصية لا حد فيها ولا كفارة. وهل نقره؟ بمعنى هل يجوز أن أجلس إلى جنب واحد يدخن ويعتقد حل الدخان؟. الجواب: لا.

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الحدود/ باب أحكام أهل الذمة (٦٨٤١)؛ ومسلم في الحدود/ باب رجم اليهود في الزنى (١٦٩٩) عن ابن عمر ﵄. تنبيه: ابن صوريا أحد أحبار اليهود، وقد ورد التصريح باسمه في رواية الطبري في «تفسيره» (١١٩٢١) ط/شاكر.