Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/70)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Chapter: What Necessitates Retaliation for Injuries Short of Death

Whoever may be subject to retaliation for killing someone may likewise be subjected to retaliation for injuring that person’s limb or wounding him; whoever may not, then may not. Retaliation is due only for that which would entail the death penalty in cases of homicide, …

By his words, “for injuries short of death,” the author indicates that retaliation applies both to homicide and to injuries short of death. The basis for this is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He:

“And We ordained for them therein: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is just retribution.” [al-Ma’idah 5:45]

His statement, “Whoever may be subject to retaliation for killing someone may likewise be subjected to retaliation for injuring that person’s limb or wounding him; whoever may not, then may not,” is an important principle.

Thus, his words, “Whoever may be subject to retaliation for killing someone,” mean: one who would be killed in retaliation for him.

And his words, “may likewise be subjected to retaliation for injuring that person’s limb or wounding him,” mean that retaliation is taken from him for the limb or the wounds.

And his words, “whoever may not, then may not,” mean: whoever would not be subject to retaliation for killing someone is not subject to retaliation for injuring that person’s limb or wounding him. Thus, retaliation for limbs and wounds is subsidiary to retaliation for homicide. If a free person were to sever the hand of an enslaved person, would his hand be severed in return? No, because, according to the author, a free person is not killed for an enslaved person. If a Muslim were to sever the hand of a disbeliever, his hand would not be severed in return, because a Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever. Thus, if retaliation is not taken from him for the whole person, it is not taken from him for a part of that person. But if a disbeliever were to sever the hand of a Muslim, his hand would be severed in return, because a disbeliever is killed for a Muslim.

And if a woman were to sever a man’s hand, her hand would be severed in return, because a woman is killed

بَابُ مَا يُوجِبُ الْقِصَاصَ فِيمَا دُونَ النَّفْسِ مَنْ أُقِيدَ بِأَحَدٍ فِي النَّفْسِ أُقيدَ بِهِ في الطَّرَفِ وَالجِرَاحِ، وَمَنْ لَا فَلَا، وَلَا يَجِبُ إِلاَّ بِمَا يُوجِبُ القَوَدَ فِي النَّفْسِ، ................. أفادنا المؤلف بقوله: «فيما دون النفس» أن القصاص يكون في النفس، ويكون فيما دونها، والأصل في هذا قوله تعالى: ﴿وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالأَنْفَ بِالأَنْفِ وَالأُذُنَ بِالأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌ﴾ [المائدة: ٤٥]. قوله: «من أقيد بأحد في النفس أقيد به في الطرف والجراح، ومن لا فلا» هذه قاعدة مهمة. فقوله: «من أقيد بأحد في النفس» أي: قتل به قصاصاً. وقوله: «أقيد به في الطرف والجراح» يعني اقتص منه في الطرف والجراح. وقوله: «ومن لا فلا» أي: من لا يقاد بأحد في النفس لا يقاد به في الطرف والجروح، إذاً فالقصاص في الطرف والجروح فرع عن القصاص في النفس، فلو أن حراً قطع يد عبد فهل يقطع به؟ لا؛ لأن الحر لا يقتل بالعبد على كلام المؤلف، ولو أن مسلماً قطع يد كافر، فلا يقطع به؛ لأن المسلم لا يقتل بكافر، فإذا لم يقتص به في كله لا يقتص به في جزئه، ولو أن كافراً قطع يد مسلم فإنه يقطع به؛ لأن الكافر يُقتل بالمسلم. ولو أن امرأة قطعت يد رجل فتقطع يدها، لأن المرأة تُقتل