Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/217)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Thus, in reality, he has brought about his own death, so the one who killed him bears no liability. However, he must repel him by the least harmful means possible. If a threat is sufficient to repel him, he should not strike him; if a light blow is sufficient, he should not strike him severely; if a severe blow is sufficient, he should not kill him; but if he cannot be repelled except by killing him, then he may kill him.

If someone were to say: It has been reported that if a man finds someone with his wife and kills him, there is no liability upon him (1), even though the person could have been repelled by means short of killing. Yet you say that an assailant may not be killed if he can be repelled without killing.

The answer is that killing a person whom one finds with his wife or a woman within his unmarriageable kin is not a matter of repelling an assailant; rather, it falls under punishing the aggressor. Since the aggression has already occurred, he is killed as a punishment, not in order to repel his aggression. Thus, there is a difference between the two cases. A comparable example is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, waived liability for the eye of one who looks through a crack in the door, should a person put out his eye without first warning him (2). This too falls under punishing the aggressor, because the aggression has already taken place; it is not a case of repelling an assailant. Repelling applies to something that has not yet occurred, whereas once something has occurred, there remains only punishment.

So if the person being assaulted does not know whether he may immediately kill him, because

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in the Book of Legal Punishments, chapter: “Whoever sees a man with his wife and kills him” (6846); and by Muslim in the Book of Li'an (Mutual Imprecation) (1499), on the authority of al-Mughirah. (2) Narrated by al-Bukhari in the Book of Blood Money, chapter: “If someone looks into a people’s house and they gouge out his eye, no blood money is due for it” (6902); and by Muslim in the Book of Etiquette, chapter: “The prohibition of looking into another person’s house” (2158), on the authority of Abu Hurayrah.

فهو الذي قتل نفسه في الحقيقة فلا ضمان على القاتل، ولكن يجب أن يدافعه بالأسهل فالأسهل، فإذا اندفع بالتهديد فلا يضربه، وإذا اندفع بالضرب الخفيف فلا يضربه ضرباً شديداً، وإذا اندفع بالضرب الشديد فلا يقتله، وإذا لم يندفع إلا بالقتل فله قتله. فإذا قال قائل: قد ورد فيمن وجد شخصاً على امرأته فقتله أنه لا ضمان فيه (١)، وإن كان يمكن أن يندفع بما دون القتل، وأنتم تقولون: إن الصائل لا يجوز قتله إن أمكن دفعه بما دون القتل. فالجواب: أن قتل من وجد شخصاً على امرأته أو محرمه ليس من دفع الصائل، ولكنه من باب عقوبة المعتدي، والعدوان حصل منه، فهو يقتل عقوبة لا لدفع عدوانه، ففرق بين هذا وهذا، ونظير ذلك أن النبي ﷺ أهدر عين من نظر من خصاص الباب فقام إنسان ففقأ عينه دون أن يحذره (٢)، فإن هذا من باب عقوبة المعتدي؛ لأنه قد حصل العدوان وليس من باب دفع الصائل، فإن المدافعة عن شيء لم يقع، أما شيء وقع ليس فيه إلا العقوبة. فإذا كان المصول عليه لا يدري هل يبادره بالقتل؟ لأن

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الحدود/ باب من رأى مع امرأته رجلاً فقتله (٦٨٤٦)؛ ومسلم في اللعان (١٤٩٩) عن المغيرة ﵁. (٢) أخرجه البخاري في الديات/ باب من اطلع في بيت قوم ففقؤوا عينه فلا دية له (٦٩٠٢)؛ ومسلم في الآداب/ باب تحريم النظر في بيت غيره (٢١٥٨) عن أبي هريرة ﵁.