Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/38)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

intentional killing cannot be ascribed to either of them; therefore, no legal retaliation is exacted from them. It states in al-Mughnī: “There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge on this matter.”

The definition of minority is anything before puberty. Thus, if a boy was born at twelve o’clock, midday, and killed someone early in the day when he was fourteen years old, then killed another person at the end of the day, he is not executed for the first, because he had not yet reached puberty; but he is executed for the second, because he killed him after reaching puberty. If a person is intermittently insane and lucid, then if he kills while insane, he is not executed, whereas if he kills while lucid, he is executed.

Likewise, if he loses his reason for a cause other than insanity, such as old age—namely, senility that has reached the point of incoherent speech and the loss of discernment—and one day he leaves his house with a sword in his hand, sees someone, and strikes him on the head, he is not executed for him.

If, however, a man leaves his house intoxicated—may Allah protect us—with a sword in his possession, and encounters a man whose head he severs, then according to the established position of the school, he is executed, because he lost his reason through something for which he has no excuse; rather, through something prohibited.

The third condition is equivalence: the killer must be equal to the victim in religion, freedom, and slavery. Thus, a Muslim is not executed for a disbeliever, nor a free person for a slave; but the reverse applies: he is executed. A male is executed for a female, and a female for a male, ............

His statement, “The third condition is equivalence: the killer must be equal to the victim in religion, freedom, and slavery,” means that the killer must be equal to the victim in these matters.

His statement, “in religion,” means that a Muslim kills a Muslim.

His statement, “and freedom,” means that a free person kills a free person.

His statement, “and slavery”: what the author means by slavery here is ownership, because slavery is included under the term freedom. When there is equality in freedom, it is a free person and a free person; when there is no equality, it is a free person and a slave, or the reverse.

لم يتصور العمد منهما صار لا قصاص عليهما، قال في المغني: «بلا خلاف بين أهل العلم». وحد الصِّغر هو ما دون البلوغ، فلو أن رجلاً ولد في الساعة الثانية عشرة عند منتصف النهار، وقتل شخصاً في أول النهار وهو في الرابعة عشرة من عمره، وقتل آخَرَ آخِر النهار، فالأول لا يقتل به؛ لأنه لم يبلغ بعد، ويُقتل بالآخر؛ لأنه قتله بعد بلوغه، وإذا كان الرجل يُجَنُّ أحياناً ويعقل أحياناً، فإن قتل في حال جنونه لا يقتل، وإن قتل في حال عقله يقتل. ولو زال عقله بغير الجنون كالكِبَر وهو الهرم الذي بلغ الهذيان وسقط تمييزه، وخرج يوماً من بيته، وسيفه بيده، فرأى شخصاً فضربه على رأسه، فلا يُقتل به. ولو أن رجلاً خرج من بيته سكراناً ـ والعياذ بالله ـ ومعه السيف، فقابله رجل فجبَّ رأسه، فهذا على المذهب يقتل؛ لأنه زال عقله بأمر لا يعذر به، بل بأمر محرم. الثَّالِثُ: الْمُكَافَأَةُ، بِأَنْ يُسَاوِيَهُ فِي الدِّينِ، وَالْحُرِّيَّةِ، وَالرِّقِّ، فَلَا يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ، وَلَا حُرٌّ بِعَبْدٍ، وَعَكْسُهُ يُقْتَلُ، وَيُقْتَلُ الذَّكَرُ بِالأُنْثَى، وَالأُنْثَى بِالذَّكَرِ، ............ قوله: «الثالث: المكافأة، بأن يساويه في الدين، والحرية، والرق» أي: يساوي القاتلُ المقتولَ في هذه الأمور. فقوله: «في الدين» بأن يكون مسلماً يقتل مسلماً. وقوله: «والحرية» بأن يكون حراً يقتل حراً. وقوله: «والرق» المراد بالرق في كلام المؤلف الملك؛ لأن الرق داخل في كلمة الحرية؛ لأنه عند التساوي في الحرية يكون حر مع حر، وعند عدم التساوي يكون حر مع عبد، أو العكس.