Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/200)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to be taken lightly: one cannot be put to death merely for refusing to swear—especially since some people may be driven by sinful pride and say, “I will not swear; either he produces evidence or I will not swear,” while in fact he is truthful in denying the claim. If we were to kill him, we would have committed a grave crime. But should we simply let him go free and leave him alone? The jurists say that he is to be released, but the correct view is that we oblige him to pay the blood money, because blood money is a financial payment. To let him go just like that, however, is a serious matter.

But if the offence does not entail retribution and entails only financial liability, then, if he refuses to swear, judgment is given against him on account of his refusal.

An example is where a man claims that the owner of a car ran over his deceased relative. In most cases, this would be accidental. The car owner says, “Someone else ran him over; it was not I.” We say to the car owner, “Swear,” because the claimant has no evidence. If he says, “I will not swear,” we say to him, “We rule against you on account of your refusal,” and we oblige him to pay the blood money, because the claim here entails a financial payment. Whenever it entails a financial payment, judgment concerning it may be given on account of refusing to swear.

His statement: “The oaths are to begin with the men among the heirs entitled to the blood claim; they are to swear fifty oaths. If the heirs refuse to swear, or if they are women, the defendant swears fifty oaths and is cleared.”

His statement: “The oaths are to begin with the men among the heirs entitled to the blood claim, and they swear fifty oaths”: is what counts the number of oaths or the number of those swearing? That is, do we require the guardians of the slain person to have fifty men among them swear, or is the intent fifty oaths, even if they are sworn by a single man?

The author holds—and this is the established position of the school—that what is intended is fifty oaths, even if sworn by one man. Thus, if the slain person has no heir except this one man, he swears fifty oaths and is entitled to the claim.

وَيُبْدَأُ بِأَيْمَانِ الرِّجَالِ مِنْ وَرَثَةِ الدَّمِ، فَيَحْلِفُونَ خَمْسِينَ يَمِيناً، فَإِنْ نَكَلَ الْوَرَثَةُ، أَوْ كَانُوا نِسَاءً حَلَفَ الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ خَمْسِينَ يَمِيناً وَبَرِئَ. يمكن أن تقتل بالنكول، لا سيما أن بعض الناس قد تأخذه العزة بالإثم، فيقول: لا أحلف، إما أن يأتي ببينة وإلا لن أحلف، ويكون صادقاً في نفي الدعوى، فلو قتلناه لاقترفنا جرماً عظيماً، ولكن هل نخلي سبيله ونتركه؟ الفقهاء يقولون: يُخلى سبيله، ولكن الصحيح أننا نلزمه بالدية؛ لأن الدية مال، وأَمَّا أن يذهب هكذا فالمسألة خطيرة. وأما إذا كانت الجناية لا توجب القصاص، وإنما توجب المال فإنه إذا نكل حكمنا عليه بالنكول. مثال ذلك: رجل ادعى أن صاحب السيارة هو الذي دعس مورِّثه، وهذا في الغالب خطأ، فقال صاحب السيارة: الذي دعسه شخص آخر، وليس أنا، فنقول لصاحب السيارة: احلف؛ لأن المدَّعِي ليس عنده بينة، فقال: لا أحلف؛ فنقول له: نقضي عليك بالنكول، فنُلزمك بالدية؛ لأن الدعوى هنا توجب مالاً، فإذا كانت توجب مالاً فإن المال يُقضى فيه بالنكول. قوله: «ويُبدأ بأيمان الرجال من ورثة الدم فيحلفون خمسين يميناً» هل المعتبر عدد الأيمان أو عدد الحالفين؟ يعني هل نلزم أولياء المقتول بأن يحلف منهم خمسون رجلاً، أو أن المقصود خمسون يميناً ولو من رجل واحد؟ المؤلف يرى ـ وهو المذهب ـ أن المقصود خمسون يميناً، ولو من رجلٍ واحدٍ، فإذا كان لا يرث المقتول إلا هذا الرجل، فيحلف خمسين يميناً ويستحق.