Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/98)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “or he dies of illness”: that is, if the minor whom this person confined falls ill and dies, he is liable for him. If the person is a slave, then it is evident that he is liable, because he is a usurper. Liability for slaves is financial liability, and the usurper is liable in all cases. But the person in question is free. Thus, if he dies of an illness, the one who confined him is liable, even though they say that possession cannot be established over a free person and that no liability is incurred for him. For this reason, some scholars qualified this by saying that what is meant is that he dies from an illness peculiar to that locality. This is correct.

However, if he dies an ordinary death, without a cause peculiar to that locality, there is no basis for imposing liability, because possession cannot be established over him. But if he dies from an illness peculiar to that locality—for example, if the man overpowers him and takes him to an unhealthy land, where he falls ill and dies—then there is no doubt that he was the cause of bringing him to that land, where he died as a result of the epidemic.

Accordingly, the unqualified wording of the author is less sound. The correct view is that liability applies if he dies from an illness peculiar to that locality, since the captor caused him to come to that plague-ridden place. This applies when he is free. If he is a slave, however, he is liable without qualification, because liability for a slave is financial liability. Once he takes possession of him, he is liable for his services, for any diminution in his value should illness diminish it, and for every harm that befalls him, because his taking possession of him is unlawful.

If we are uncertain about the cause of a free person’s death—whether he died because he was in that locality or due to some other external cause—then the presumption is that there is no liability.

His statement, “or if he shackles and fetters a legally accountable free person, who then dies from a thunderbolt or a snakebite, the blood money becomes due”: regarding the minor, it has already been explained that merely overpowering and confining him renders the person liable if he dies

قوله: «أو مات بمرض» أي: الصغير الذي حبسه هذا الإنسان لو مرض ومات فإنه يضمنه، وهذا إذا كان عبداً فظاهر أنه يضمنه؛ لأنه غاصب، وضمان العبيد ضمان مالٍ يضمنه الغاصب بكل حال، لكنه حر، فإذا مات بمرض فإنَّه يضمنه، مع أنهم يقولون: إن اليد لا تستولي على الحر، ولا ضمان له، ولهذا قيده بعض أهل العلم بأن المراد مات بمرض يختص بتلك البقعة، وهذا صحيح، أما لو مات موتاً عادياً بغير سبب يختص بهذه البقعة، فلا وجه لضمانه؛ لأن اليد لا تثبت عليه، لكن إذا مات بمرض يختص بتلك البقعة، مثل لو قهره وذهب به إلى أرض وَبِيئة، فمرض ومات، فلا شك أنه هو السبب في جلبه إلى هذه الأرض التي مات فيها بسبب الوباء. وعلى هذا فإطلاق كلام المؤلف مرجوح، والصواب إذا مات بمرض يختص بتلك البقعة؛ لأنه هو السبب في مجيئه لهذه البقعة الموبوءة، وهذا إذا كان حراً، أما إن كان عبداً فإنه يضمنه مطلقاً؛ لأن ضمان العبد ضمان أموال، فإذا استولى عليه ضمن منافعه، وضمن نقصه إن نقص بمرض، وضمن كل آفة تحدث عليه؛ لأن استيلاءه عليه محرم. فإن شككنا في سبب موت الحر، هل مات بسبب كونه في هذه البقعة، أو بسبب آخر خارجي؟ فالأصل عدم الضمان. قوله: «أو غلَّ حراً مكلفاً وقيده فمات بالصاعقة أو الحية وجبت الدية» الصغير تقدم أنه بمجرد قهره وحبسه يضمنه إذا مات