Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/147)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

liable, because, as yet, it is not something whose use is permissible; its owner may tan it or may not tan it. The matter is therefore referred to the judge’s discretion.

But is he punished for transgressing against the inviolable rights of others?

The answer is yes: he is punished and disciplined when he destroys something that is legally inviolable. The author only mentioned these three in the chapter on usurpation because of his statement, “Destroying these three entails no liability.” As for anything else that is destroyed, compensation is due, as will come, Allah willing.

“If one takes possession of a free person, he is not liable for him; but if he compels him to work or detains him, then he owes him his wage …”

His statement, “If one takes possession of a free person, he is not liable for him,” means that someone takes a free person and takes control of him until he makes him like his slave, and then the free person dies while under the usurper’s control. In that case, he is not liable for him, because he is free and not property, and a possessory hand cannot be established over a free person. But if he takes possession of a slave, he is liable for him, because a slave is property—just as he would be liable if he took possession of a car, a house, or the like.

However, in the chapter on blood-money, Allah willing, it will come that if someone usurps a young free person and he is struck by lightning, he is liable for him; and if he dies from an illness, there are two opinions regarding liability for him. This implies that control may be taken over a young free person, because he is unable to defend himself, unlike an adult. There are three views on this issue in the school of Imam Ahmad:

The first view is that control can never be taken over a free person; consequently, no liability is incurred. This is the authoritative position of the school.

The second view is that control can be taken over a free person; accordingly, the one who takes control of him is liable for his person and his benefit.

The third view distinguishes between a child and an adult: if one takes control of a child, he is liable for him, because the child is unable to defend himself; but if

يضمنه؛ لأنه إلى الآن ليس مما يباح استعماله، وصاحبه قد يدبغه وقد لا يدبغه، فيرجع في هذا إلى نظر القاضي. ولكن هل يعاقب على تعديه على حقوق الغير المحترمة؟ الجواب: نعم، يعاقب ويؤدب حيث أتلف شيئاً محترماً، وإنما ذكر المؤلف هذه الثلاثة في باب الغصب لقوله: «وإتلاف الثلاثة هدر» أما غيرها مما يُتلف ففيه الضمان وسيأتي إن شاء الله. وَإِنِ اسْتَوْلَى عَلَى حُرٍّ لَمْ يَضْمَنْهُ، وَإِنِ اسْتَعْمَلَهُ كُرْهاً أَوْ حَبَسَهُ فَعَلَيْهِ أُجْرَتُهُ … قوله: «وإن استولى على حر لم يضمنه» يعني أخذ حراً واستولى عليه حتى جعله كالرقيق له، ثم مات الحر ويد الغاصب عليه، فإنه لا يضمنه؛ لأنه حر وليس بمال، والحر لا تثبت عليه اليد، وإن استولى على عبد ضمنه؛ لأن العبد مال، كما لو استولى على سيارة، أو على بيت، أو ما أشبه ذلك فإنه يضمنه. لكن سيأتينا ـ إن شاء الله ـ في باب الديات أنه لو غصب حراً صغيراً فأصابته صاعقة فإنه يضمنه، وأنه إذا مات بمرض ففي ضمانه قولان، وهذا يقتضي أن اليد تستولي على الحر الصغير؛ لأنه لا يملك الدفاع عن نفسه بخلاف الكبير، وهذه المسألة فيها ثلاثة أقوال في مذهب الإمام أحمد: القول الأول: أن الحر لا يُستولى عليه أبداً وحينئذ لا يضمن، وهذا هو المذهب. القول الثاني: أن الحر يمكن الاستيلاء عليه، وعليه فيضمن المستولي عليه عينه ومنفعته. القول الثالث: التفريق بين الصغير والكبير، فإذا استولى على صغير فإنه يضمنه؛ لأنه لا يمكنه الدفاع عن نفسه، وإذا