Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/90)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Thus, retaliation is not exacted by taking the offender’s limb in exchange for the victim’s limb until the victim’s limb has healed.

His statement, “Nor is retaliation exacted”: the author did not clarify whether this is prohibited or merely disliked. Both are possible. The well-known position of the madhhab is that it is prohibited, and that retaliation may not be exacted until the injury has healed. The evidence for this is the hadith of Amr ibn Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather: “A man stabbed another man in the knee with a horn. The wounded man came and asked the Prophet ﷺ to exact retaliation from him, but he forbade him. The man persisted, so he exacted retaliation for him. Then, after some time, the injured man came and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I have become lame’—that is, the injury had spread. The Prophet ﷺ said to him, ‘I forbade you, but you disobeyed me. May Allah cast you far away; your lameness is without compensation.’ Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade retaliation for a wound until its victim has healed.” (1)

The second view is that the prohibition indicates dislike and guidance. Its reasoning is that we say to the injured party: Wait, for perhaps your injury will spread; the injury has not yet become settled. It is in your interest to wait. If the prohibition is for guidance, then it is not forbidden. This is one of al-Shafii’s two views: that it is permissible to exact retaliation before healing. He cited as evidence that the Prophet ﷺ exacted retaliation for the man; had it been prohibited, he would not have done so.

But we respond that the very same hadith states: “Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade retaliation for a wound until its victim has healed.”

His statement, “Just as compensation is not sought for it”: that is, retaliation is not exacted for a wound or a limb before it has healed, nor is blood money sought for it. This is so that the extent of the injury and its final outcome may be known.

(1) Reported by Ahmad (2/217) and al-Daraqutni (3114), al-Risalah edition, on the authority of Amr ibn Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather. Al-Hafiz stated in Bulugh al-Maram (1083): “It has been deemed defective due to irsal [a missing link in the chain of transmission].” Al-Albani graded it authentic in al-Irwa (2237).

فلا يقتص من عضو الجاني بدل عضو المجني عليه حتى يبرأ عضو المجني عليه. وقوله: «ولا يقتص» لم يبين ﵀ هل هذا حرام، أو مكروه؟ فيحتمل أنه حرام ويحتمل أنه مكروه، والمشهور من المذهب أنه حرام، وأنه لا يجوز أن يقتص حتى يبرأ، ودليل ذلك حديث عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده: «أن رجلاً طعن رجلاً بقرنٍ في ركبته، فجاء المطعون وطلب من النبي ﷺ أن يقتص منه، ولكنَّه نهاه، فألح عليه، فاقتص منه، ثم جاء الرجل المجني عليه بعد مدة فقال: يا رسول الله، عرجت ـ أي: إن الجناية سرت ـ فقال له النبي ﷺ: «قد نهيتك فعصيتني، فأبعدك الله، وبطل عرجك»، ثم نهى رسول الله ﷺ أن يقتص من جرح حتى يبرأ صاحبه (١). والقول الثاني: أن النهي للكراهة والإرشاد؛ ووجه ذلك أننا نقول للمجني عليه: انتظر ربما تسري جنايتك، فالجناية لم تستقر بعد، فمن المصلحة لك أن تنتظر، وإذا كان النهي للإرشاد فإنه لا يحرم، وهذا أحد قولي الشافعي أنه يجوز أن يقتص قبل البرء، واستدل لقوله بأن الرسول ﷺ أقاد الرجل، ولو كان حراماً ما أقاده. ولكننا نقول في نفس الحديث: «ثم نهى رسول الله ﷺ أن يقتص من جرح حتى يبرأ». قوله: «كما لا تطلب له دية»، أي: أن الجرح والعضو لا يقتص منه قبل برئه، ولا تطلب له دية، وذلك من أجل أن نعرف الجناية واستقرارها.

(١) أخرجه أحمد (٢/ ٢١٧)، والدارقطني (٣١١٤) ط/ الرسالة، عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده، قال الحافظ في البلوغ (١٠٨٣): «أعل بالإرسال»، وصححه الألباني في الإرواء (٢٢٣٧).