Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/157)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

waiting for me, I would have thrust it into your eye.” (1)

The scholars likewise said: If he eavesdrops, you may pierce his ear. This issue is disputed, because the text pertains only to the eye. But since we have analogized hearing to sight in the case of one who looks through the gaps of a house, we say that hearing should likewise be analogized to sight with respect to blood-money.

Thus, the view that whoever causes him to lose his hearing on one side owes a full blood-money is undoubtedly what analogy and justice require; there is no difference between it and sight.

His statement: “If a one-eyed man deliberately removes the sound eye of a man with two sound eyes—the eye corresponding to his own sound eye—then he owes a full blood-money, and there is no retaliation.” A man has a sound right eye and a defective left eye. If he removes the right eye of a man whose eyes are both sound, then, were we to remove the one-eyed man’s sound eye, he would become blind; whereas, when this one-eyed man removed the sound man’s eye, he rendered him one-eyed, not blind. Therefore, there is no retaliation against this one-eyed man, even though the apparent meaning of the Quranic verse, “an eye for an eye” [al-Ma'idah: 45], indicates retaliation. If this one-eyed man loses his sight, then that is something he has brought upon himself deliberately. Why, then, did he not deliberately gouge out his left eye so that his other eye might remain?!

They replied: Yes, Allah says, “an eye for an eye,” and the preposition indicates compensation; and the value of this eye is not like the value of the one-eyed man’s eye.

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in al-Diyat (Blood Money), in the chapter “Whoever looks into a people's house and they put out his eye incurs no blood money” (6901), and by Muslim in al-Adab (Etiquette), in the chapter “The prohibition of looking into another person's house” (2157), on the authority of Abu Hurayrah. The wording is al-Bukhari's.

تنتظرني لطعنت به في عينك» (١). وكذلك قال العلماء: إذا تسمَّعَ فلك أن تطعن أُذُنه، وهذه المسألة خلافية؛ لأن النص إنما ورد في العين، ولكن ما دمنا ألحقنا السمع بالبصر في مسألة الذي ينظر من خصاص البيت، فإننا نقول: إذن نلحق السمع في مسألة الدية بالبصر. فالقول بأنه إذا أذهب سمعه من جانب واحد يلزمه دية كاملة لا شك أنه هو القياس والعدل، ولا فرق بينه وبين البصر. قوله: «وإن قلع الأعور عين الصحيح المماثلة لعينه الصحيحة عمداً فعليه دية كاملة ولا قصاص» رجل عنده العين اليمنى سليمة، والعين اليسرى عوراء، فقلع من رجلٍ صحيح العينين عينه اليمنى، فلو قلعنا عين الأعور صار أعمى، مع أن هذا الأعور لما قلع عين الصحيح صار أعور لا أعمى، فلا قصاص على هذا الرجل الأعور، مع أن ظاهر القرآن ﴿وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ﴾ [المائدة: ٤٥] القصاص، وإذا تلف بصر هذا الأعور فهو الذي جنى على نفسه وتعمد، فلماذا لم يَتَعمد أن يفقأ عينه اليسرى لأجل أن تبقى عينه؟! قالوا: نعم، الله ﷿ يقول: ﴿وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ﴾، والباء تدل على العوض، وعين هذا قيمتها ليست كقيمة عين

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الديات باب من اطلع في بيت قوم ففقأوا عينه فلا دية (٦٩٠١)، ومسلم في الآداب باب تحريم النظر في بيت غيره (٢١٥٧) عن أبي هريرة ﵁ واللفظ للبخاري.