Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/180)

Thus, a further condition must be added to the preceding conditions: the compensation due for the person killed must not be treated as compensation for property, as in the case of a slave. If it is treated as compensation for property, the liable agnatic relatives do not bear it.

His statement, “nor a settlement”: that is, the liable agnatic relatives do not bear liability for a settlement—namely, a settlement concerning a claim of killing which the defendant denies.

For example, a group of people claim that a man killed their deceased relative, whereas he did not kill him. They say to him, “Either pay the blood-money, or we will bring a case against you.” He therefore settles this claim with them for a sum of money. Must the liable agnatic relatives bear this settlement?

The answer is no, because it has not been established by evidence or by an admission from the person accused of the killing. Rather, it is a settlement of a claim with which the liable agnatic relatives have no connection.

If it is said, “But he has entered into a settlement,” we reply: This man settled a claim made against him, though he could have persisted in denying it and then taken the matter before the judge. If it were brought before the judge, the truth would become clear.

His statement, “nor an admission which they do not confirm”: that is, the liable agnatic relatives do not bear liability for an admission made by the defendant.

His statement, “which they do not confirm”: that is, this admission.

For example, a person is accused of being the killer, and he admits that he is the killer; but the liable agnatic relatives say, “We do not believe him.” Are we then to compel them?

The answer is that we do not compel them, because it has not been established by evidence. The blood-money is due from the offender who made the admission. Accordingly, the liable agnatic relatives are not held liable unless they confirm it or it is established by evidence.

Moreover, if we were to hold the liable agnatic relatives liable in such a case, we would open the door to those who employ legal stratagems,

إذاً يضاف شرط إلى الشروط السابقة، وهو ألاّ يكون ضمان المقتول جارياً مجرى الأموال كالعبد، فإذا كان جارياً مجرى الأموال فإن العاقلة لا تحمله. قوله: «ولا صُلحاً» أي: لا تحمل العاقلة صلحاً؛ أي: صلحاً عن دعوى قتل أنكره المدعى عليه. مثاله: ادعى جماعة على شخص أنه قتل مورثهم، وهو لم يقتله، فقالوا: إما أن تسلم الدية، وإما أن نشكوك، فصالحهم عن هذه الدعوى بمبلغ من المال، فهل تحمل العاقلة هذا الصلح؟ الجواب: لا؛ لأنه لم يثبت لا ببينة، ولا باعتراف الذي ادُّعِيَ عليه القتل، وإنما هو صلح عن دعوى لا دخل للعاقلة بها. فإن قيل: إن هذا قد صالح؟ قلنا: هذا الرجل صالح عن دعوى عليه، وبإمكانه أن يُصرَّ على الإنكار، ثم يحاكم إلى القاضي، وإذا حوكم إلى القاضي تبين الحق. قوله: «ولا اعترافاً» أي: لا تحمل العاقلة اعترافاً من المدعى عليه. قوله: «لم تصدقه به» أي: بهذا الاعتراف. مثاله: أن يُدَّعى على شخص أنه قاتِل، فيعترف بأنه هو القاتل، ولكن العاقلة قالوا: لا نصدِّق، فهل نلزمهم؟ الجواب: لا نلزمهم؛ لأنه ما ثبت ببينة، والدية تكون على الجاني الذي أقر، وعلى هذا فلا يلزم العاقلة ما لم تصدق به أو يثبت ببينة. ولأننا لو ألزمنا العاقلة بذلك لفتحنا باباً لأهل الحيل،