Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/179)

care whether he kills someone or not. What is the answer to this?

The answer is: What is obligatory is that we adhere to the Sacred Law. Whoever displays signs of recklessness and indifference should be subject to discretionary punishment as the ruler sees fit. For example, his punishment may be the revocation of his driving licence or the confiscation of his vehicle.

Issue: If the offender has no liable agnatic relatives to bear the liability—because they are women, poor, or the like—upon whom does the blood-money become due?

They said: It is due from the public treasury; but if the offender is a non-Muslim, it is due from his own property.

The scholars said: If recourse to the public treasury is not possible, the blood-money is waived.

The correct view is that, if he has no liable agnatic relatives, it is due from him personally; and if he does not have the means, we take it from the public treasury. This is because the basic principle is that liability for the offence rests upon the offender, while the liable agnatic relatives have been made to bear it by way of mutual support and assistance.

His statement, “Nor a slave”: if a person kills a slave by mistake or in quasi-intentional killing, the liable agnatic relatives do not bear the liability, because compensation for a slave is treated like compensation for property. The blood-money for a slave is his value, however high it may be. Since this is so, the liability rests upon the killer, just as it does if someone kills an animal, or if a person shoots at game and strikes a camel: its compensation is due from the killer. The same applies to a slave.

Some scholars said that the blood-money for a slave is guaranteed by the liable agnatic relatives, because he is a human being and because expiation is required for killing him. If expiation is required, then blood-money is required; and if blood-money is required, it is due from the liable agnatic relatives.

However, the first view is more correct, because the obligation of expiation does not necessarily entail that the blood-money is borne by the liable agnatic relatives.

يبالي، أقتل نفساً أم لم يقتل، فما الجواب عن هذا؟ الجواب: أن الواجب أن نتمشى على الشرع، والذي يظهر منه أمارة التهوُّر وعدم المبالاة فإنه يُعزر بما يراه الإمام، فقد يكون تعزيره ـ مثلاً ـ بسحب رخصته، أو سيارته. مسألة: إذا لم يكن للجاني عاقلة تحمل لكونهم إناثاً، أو فقراء، أو ما أشبه ذلك فعلى من تجب الدية؟ قالوا: على بيت المال، وإن كان غير مسلم ففي مال الجاني. قال العلماء: وإذا تعذر بيت المال سقطت الدية. والصحيح أنه إذا لم يكن له عاقلة فعليه، فإن لم يكن هو واجداً أخذنا من بيت المال؛ وذلك لأن الأصل أن الجناية على الجاني، وحُمِّلَت العاقلة من باب المعاونة والمساعدة. قوله: «ولا عبداً» فلو أن شخصاً قتل عبداً خطأً، أو شبه عمد فإن العاقلة لا تحمله؛ لأن ضمان العبد يجري مجرى ضمان الأموال، ودية العبد قيمته بالغة ما بلغت، وإذا كان كذلك فإن ضمانه يكون على القاتل، كما لو قتل الإنسان بهيمة، وكما لو رمى شخص صيداً فأصاب بعيراً فإن ضمانها على القاتل، فكذلك العبد. وقال بعض العلماء: إن دية العبد مضمونة على العاقلة؛ لأنه إنسان، ولأنه تجب الكفارة في قتله، فإذا وجبت الكفارة وجبت الدية، وإذا وجبت الدية فهي على العاقلة. ولكن القول الأول أصح؛ لأنه لا يلزم من وجوب الكفارة أن تكون الدية على العاقلة.