Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/8)

and he dies, this is not purely deliberate killing, because the offence is not one that normally kills; nor is it accidental, because he intended the offence.

“Or accidental killing. Deliberate killing is when a person intends someone whom he knows to be a human being whose life is inviolable, and kills him by something likely to cause death …”

His statement, “or accidental killing”: this is the third category. It is when one does not intend the offence, or intends the offence but does not intend the victim. An example is when a mother turns over onto her child while asleep and kills him, or when someone sees game, shoots at it, and strikes a human being.

His statement, “Deliberate killing is when a person intends someone whom he knows to be a human being whose life is inviolable, and kills him by something likely to cause death”: this is the definition of deliberate killing.

By his statement, “intends,” the author shows us that the killer must have intent. Thus, the deliberate act of a minor or an insane person is treated as accidental, because neither possesses legally valid intent. In the case of the insane person, this is evident. As for the minor, although he does have intent, it is not an intent for which he is held legally accountable.

His statement, “someone whom he knows to be a human being whose life is inviolable”: if he intends someone whom he thinks is not human, or whom he thinks is a human being whose life is not inviolable, but kills a person whose life is inviolable, then this is not deliberate killing, because he did not intend an offence against one whose life is inviolable. For example, if he sees a form in the distance, thinks it is a palm-tree trunk, and shoots at it, this is not deliberate killing, because he did not intend a human being.

A second example: he sees a person in enemy territory, assumes him to be a hostile combatant, shoots at him, and kills him, only to discover that he was not a hostile combatant. This is not deliberate killing, because he did not intend to kill one whose life is inviolable.

فمات، فهذا ليس بعمد محض؛ لأن الجناية لا تقتل، وليس بخطأ؛ لأنه قصد الجناية. وَخَطَأٌ، فَالْعَمْدُ أَنْ يَقْصِدَ مَنْ يَعْلَمُهُ آدَمِيّاً مَعْصُوماً فَيَقْتُلَهُ بِمَا يَغْلِبُ عَلَى الظَّنِّ مَوْتُهُ بِهِ، ..... قوله: «وخطأ» هذا النوع الثالث، وهو ألاّ يقصد الجناية، أو يقصد الجناية لكن لا يقصد المجني عليه، مثل أن تنقلب الأم على ابنها وهي نائمة فتقتله، أو يرى صيداً فيرميه فيصيب آدمياً. قوله: «فالعمد أن يقصد من يعلمه آدمياً معصوماً فيقتله بما يغلب على الظن موته به» هذا تعريف العمد. وأفادنا المؤلف بقوله: «أن يقصد» أنه لا بد أن يكون للقاتل قصد، فأما الصغير والمجنون فإن عمدهما خطأ؛ لأنه ليس لهما قصد صحيح، أما المجنون فظاهر، وأمَّا الصغير فهو وإن كان له قصد، لكنه قصد لا يكلف به. وقوله: «من يعلمه آدمياً معصوماً» فإن قصد من يظنه غير آدمي، أو من يظنه آدمياً غير معصوم، فقتل معصوماً فليس بعمد؛ لأنه لم يقصد الجناية على معصوم، مثل أن يرى شاخصاً من بعيد فظن أنه جذع نخلة فرماه، فهذا ليس بعمد؛ لأنه لم يقصد الآدمي. مثال ثانٍ: رأى إنساناً وهو في أرض حرب، فظن أنه حربي فرماه فقتله، فإذا هو غير حربي، فهذا ليس بعمد؛ لأنه لم ينوِ قتل المعصوم.