Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/30)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

However, if he is unaware that killing is forbidden with respect to a particular person, liability rests upon the killer, because one may not proceed to kill a person until he knows that the person's blood may lawfully be shed.

“Or if the ruler wrongfully orders someone, who does not know that the ruler is acting unjustly in this matter, to be killed, and he kills him, then legal retaliation or blood-money is due from the one who gave the order. But if the legally responsible person who was ordered to do so kills him while knowing that killing is forbidden, liability rests upon him rather than upon the one who gave the order. And if two people participate in it, neither of whom would individually be subject to legal retaliation because of paternity or some other reason, then legal retaliation is due from the accomplice, …”

His statement, “Or if the ruler orders it,” refers to the highest authority in the state.

His statement, “wrongfully,” means that he orders the killing unjustly—for example, he says, “Soldiers, kill so-and-so,” and they kill him.

His statement, “someone who does not know that the ruler is acting unjustly in this matter,” means that they do not know that he is acting unjustly.

His statement, “and he kills him, then legal retaliation or blood-money is due from the one who gave the order,” refers to the ruler, not to the person ordered to carry it out. However, this view warrants consideration, especially if that ruler is known for injustice. For the person ordered to carry it out may not proceed to kill one whom the ruler has ordered him to kill until he knows, or at least considers it most likely, that the person's blood may lawfully be shed. Simply being told, “Kill so-and-so,” and then killing him is questionable, because the basic presumption is that blood is inviolable. Thus, one may not proceed unless one knows, or considers it most likely, that this prohibition has been lifted. This is particularly so if the ruler is known for injustice: the person ordered to carry it out must pause and ascertain the reasons for the order. This issue has three categories:

The first is that we know the ruler is not unjust; in that case, it is permissible to proceed with the killing.

أما لو كان يجهل تحريم القتل بالنسبة لشخص معين فالضمان على القاتل؛ لأنه لا يجوز أن يُقدم على قتل إنسان حتى يعلم أنه مباح الدم. أَوْ أَمَرَ بِهِ السُّلْطَانُ ظُلْماً مَنْ لَا يَعْرِفُ ظُلْمَهُ فِيهِ فَقَتَلَ، فَالقَوَدُ أَوِ الدِّيَةُ عَلَى الآمِرِ، وَإِنْ قَتَلَ الْمَأْمُورُ الْمُكَلَّفُ عَالِماً بِتَحْرِيمِ الْقَتْلِ فَالضَّمَانُ عَلَيْهِ دُونَ الآمِر، وَإِنِ اشْتَرَكَ فِيهِ اِثْنَانِ لَا يَجِبُ القَوَدُ عَلَى أَحَدِهِمَا مُنْفَرِداً لأُِبُوَّةٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهَا فَالْقَوَدُ عَلَى الشَّرِيكِ، ..................... قوله: «أو أمر به السلطان» وهو الرئيس الأعلى في الدولة. قوله: «ظلماً» أي: أمر بالقتل ظلماً، بأن قال: يا جنود اقتلوا فلاناً، فقتلوه. قوله: «من لا يعرف ظلمه فيه» أي: وهم لا يعلمون أنه ظالم. قوله: «فقتل، فالقود أو الدية على الآمر» وهو السلطان، لا على المأمور، ولكن هذا القول فيه نظر، لا سيَّما إذا كان هذا السلطان معروفاً بالظلم؛ لأنه لا يجوز للمأمور أن يقدم على قتل من أمره السلطان بقتله حتى يغلب على ظنه، أو يعلم أنه مباح الدم، أما مجرَّد أن يقال له: اقتل فلاناً، فيقتله، فهذا فيه نظر؛ لأن الأصل تحريم الدماء، فلا يجوز الإقدام عليه إلا حيث يعلم الإنسان، أو يغلب على ظنه أن هذا التحريم قد زال، ولا سيما إذا كان السلطان معروفاً بالظلم، فإنه يتعين أن يتريَّث المأمور حتى يعرف أسباب الأمر، وهذه المسألة لها ثلاثة أقسام: الأول: أن نعلم أن السلطان غير ظالم، فهنا يجوز الإقدام على القتل.