Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/284)

because this acknowledgement was made after the restriction was imposed, and he may not be required to satisfy it until the restriction is lifted—unless the claimant demands retaliation. If he demands retaliation, there is no objection to carrying it out. Thus, if the person in whose favour the acknowledgement was made says, “I want retaliation to be exacted from him and his hand cut off,” we say: There is no objection, because this does not relate to his property.

His statement, “or [acknowledges] property, it is valid,” refers to an offence that entails financial compensation, such as severing [a limb] above or below the joint. That is, if he severed it at the forearm, away from the joint, there is no retaliation; rather, financial compensation is due. Where a person has two of something, compensation for one of them is half the blood money. Thus, if he severed his hand at the middle of the forearm, there is no retaliation, but half the blood money is due. If he acknowledges this, the acknowledgement is accepted, but he may not be required to satisfy it until the restriction is lifted.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no difference whether the offence is recent or old. For example, suppose that the hand of the man whom the person under restriction acknowledges to have injured had healed long ago, while the restriction has been in place for only ten days. In that case, we know that the severing occurred before the restriction and that the blood money became due before the restriction. Yet we say: the condition for the blood money becoming due is the acknowledgement, and that did not occur until after the restriction. Moreover, it is possible that the person under restriction is lying in his acknowledgement. The point is that if he acknowledges an offence entailing retaliation or financial compensation, the acknowledgement is valid, but he may not be required to satisfy it until the restriction is lifted.

Likewise, if he owns a slave and acknowledges that his slave committed an offence, while the slave is among the property to be sold to repay the debt, we do not accept it until the restriction is lifted. At present, however, we do not.

لأن هذا الإقرار بعد الحجر ولا يطالبه إلا بعد فك الحجر، ما لم يطالب بالقود، فإن طالب بالقود فلا بأس أن يقاد، بأن قال المقر له: أنا أريد أن يقتص منه وتقطع يده، قلنا: لا بأس؛ لأن هذا لا يتعلق بماله. قوله: «أو مالاً صح» الجناية التي توجب المال، مثل القطع من دون المفصل، يعني لو قطعه من الذراع من دون المفصل فلا قود فيه، وإنما يجب المال، والمال إذا كان في الإنسان شيئان فإن في أحدهما نصف الدية، فهذا قطع يده من نصف الذراع فلا قود ولكن فيه نصف الدية، فإذا أقر بذلك يقبل الإقرار، ولا يطالب به إلا بعد فك الحجر. وظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه لا فرق بين أن تكون الجناية جديدة أو قديمة، فلو فرض أن هذا الرجل الذي أقر المحجور عليه بأنه هو الذي قطع يده، أن يده قد برئت منذ زمن والحجر ليس له إلا عشرة أيام فقط، فهنا نعلم أن القطع كان قبل الحجر، وأن الدية وجبت قبل الحجر، لكن نقول: شرط وجوب الدية هو الإقرار ولم يكن إلا بعد الحجر، واحتمال أن يكون المحجور عليه كاذباً في إقراره وارد، فالمهم أنه لو أقر بجناية توجب قوداً أو مالاً فالإقرار صحيح، لكن لا يطالب به إلا بعد فك الحجر. وكذلك لو كان له عبد وأقر بأن عبده جنى، والعبد من جملة المال يباع في الدين، فإننا لا نقبله إلا بعد فك الحجر، أما الآن فلا.