Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/325)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

or in self-defense, highway robbery, or testimony given by his heir; or if a just combatant kills a rebel, or vice versa, he inherits from him. A slave neither inherits nor is inherited from, …

His statement, “or in self-defense”: This refers to a person from whom one would inherit who attacks his heir and cannot be repelled except by being killed. The heir may therefore kill him, repelling him by the least severe means available; if he cannot be repelled except by killing him and the heir kills him, he inherits from him, for the aggressor’s life is not inviolable.

His statement, “or highway robbery”: Highway robbery refers to armed bandits who confront people with weapons, whether in the open countryside or in built-up areas, and openly seize their property rather than stealing it covertly. They are called highway robbers. Thus, if he kills them, he inherits from them if he is their heir.

His statement, “or testimony given by his heir”: That is, an heir truthfully testifies that this person killed that person, and the killer was someone from whom the witness would inherit. In that case, he inherits from him, because the witness has fulfilled an obligation incumbent upon him.

His statement, “or if a just combatant kills a rebel, or vice versa, he inherits from him”: The difference between them is that the just combatant is defending, whereas the rebel is attacking. Thus, if rebels rise against the imam and the just combatant kills the rebel, or vice versa, the author says that he inherits from him. It was also said that if the rebel kills the just combatant, he does not inherit from him, because it was not a lawful killing; and this is the stronger view.

His statement, “A slave neither inherits nor is inherited from”: The evidence for this was mentioned previously at the beginning of the laws of inheritance: Allah Most High made inheritance the property of the heir, whereas a slave owns nothing. Therefore, he neither inherits nor is inherited from, because he has no property. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever sells a slave who possesses property, his property belongs to the one who sold him” (1). Thus, he owns nothing; and if he owns nothing, what could be inherited from him?!

(1) Its source has been cited previously on p. 164.

أَوْ صِيَالَةٍ أَوْ حِرَابَةٍ أَوْ شَهَادَةِ وَارِثِهِ، أَوْ قَتَلَ العَادِلُ البَاغِيَ وَعَكْسُهُ وَرِثَهُ، وَلَا يَرِثُ الرَّقِيقُ وَلَا يُورَثُ، ........ قوله: «أو صيالة»، هذا مورث صال على وارثه ولم يندفع إلا بالقتل، فله قتله، يدافع بالأسهل فالأسهل، فإذا لم يمكن دفاعه إلا بالقتل فقتله فإنه يرث؛ لأن الصائل لا حرمة له. قوله: «أو حرابة»، الحرابة يعني المحاربين الذين يتعرضون للناس بالسلاح في الصحراء، أو في البنيان ويغصبونهم المال مجاهرة لا سرقة، ويُسمَّوْن قطاع الطريق، فإذا قتلهم فإنه يرث إذا كان وارثاً. قوله: «أو شهادة وارثه»، يعني الوارث شهد بحق أن هذا قاتِلُ هذا، وكان القاتل مورثاً للشاهد فإنه يرث؛ لأن الشاهد قام بحق واجب عليه. قوله: «أو قتل العادلُ الباغيَ وعكسه ورثه»، الفرق بينهما أن العادل مدافع والباغي مهاجم، فإذا كان هناك بغاة خرجوا على الإمام، وقتل العادلُ الباغيَ أو بالعكس، فيقول المؤلف: إنه يرثه، وقيل: إن قتل الباغي العادلَ فإنه لا يرث؛ لأنه ليس بحق، وهو الراجح. قوله: «ولا يرث الرقيق ولا يورث»، والدليل سبق لنا في أول الفرائض أن الله ـ تعالى ـ جعل الميراث ملكاً للوارث، والرقيق لا يملك، فلا يرث ولا يورث؛ لأنه لا مال له، قال النبي ﷺ: «من باع عبداً له مال فماله للذي باعه» (١)، فهو لا يملك، وإذا كان لا يملك، فماذا يورث منه؟!

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٦٤).