Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/212)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

in every revealed law; there is nothing in any law that ever permits fornication. Accordingly, if a dhimmi commits fornication with a woman of his own community who is not Muslim—whether Jewish or Christian—we carry out the prescribed punishment on him, because this punishment has two underlying purposes: to prevent the commission of similar acts and to expiate the sin. If he is not eligible for expiation, the second purpose remains: prevention. This is why the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, carried out the prescribed punishment on the two Jewish people who committed fornication (1), because they considered it forbidden.

But suppose that a particular sin is prohibited in their religion and entails a prescribed punishment in Islam, yet does not entail a prescribed punishment in their own law. Do we carry out the prescribed punishment on them according to Islam, or not?

The answer is: we do not carry out the prescribed punishment on them according to Islam, just as we do not carry it out on them according to Islam for what they consider lawful. If their law does not mandate a prescribed punishment for such a sin, we do not carry it out on them; rather, we subject them to discretionary discipline, because discretionary discipline is obligatory for every sin for which there is neither a prescribed punishment nor expiation.

Fourth: his statement, “aware that it is prohibited,” excludes one who is unaware of its prohibition; no prescribed punishment is due from such a person. But how do we know whether he is ignorant or aware of its prohibition? For if we say that awareness of its prohibition is a condition, everyone would claim that he was unaware of its prohibition, saying, “I did not know that theft was forbidden,” or “I did not know that fornication was forbidden.” In such a case, it must be considered: if he has

(1) Reported by al-Bukhari in The Book of Virtues, in the chapter on Allah's saying, “They recognize him as they recognize their own sons; yet a party among them knowingly conceals the truth” (3635), and by Muslim in The Book of Legal Punishments, in the chapter on stoning Jews and dhimmis for zina (1699), on the authority of Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him.

بكل شريعة، فليس في الشرائع شيء يبيح الزنا أبداً، وعلى هذا فإذا زنا الذمي بامرأة مثله ليست من المسلمين، يهودية، أو نصرانية، فإننا نقيم عليه الحد؛ لأن الحد فيه علتان: المنع من الوقوع في مثلها، والتكفير، فإذا كان هذا ليس أهلاً للتكفير، فهناك العلة الثانية وهي المنع، ولهذا أقام النبي ﷺ الحد على اليهوديين اللذين زنيا (١)؛ لأنهم يعتقدون تحريمه. لكن لو فرض أن هذا الذنب محرم عندهم، موجب للحد في الإسلام، غير موجب للحد في شريعتهم، فهل نقيم عليهم الحد بمقتضى الإسلام، أو لا؟ الجواب: لا نقيم عليهم الحد بمقتضى الإسلام، كما لا نقيم عليهم الحد بمقتضى الإسلام فيما يعتقدون حلّه، فإذا كانت شريعتهم لا توجب الحد في مثل هذه المعصية، فإننا لا نقيمه عليهم، لكن نعزرهم؛ لأن التعزير واجب في كل معصية ليس فيها حد ولا كفارة. رابعاً: قوله: «عالمٍ بالتحريم» خرج به الجاهل بالتحريم، فهذا لا حد عليه، ولكن كيف نعلم أنه جاهل، أو عالم بالتحريم؟ لأننا إذا قلنا: يشترط أن يكون عالماً بالتحريم، صار كل واحد من الناس يقول: إنه ليس عالماً بالتحريم، ويقول: ما علمت أن السرقة حرام، وما علمت أن الزنا حرام، فهنا يُنْظَر، إن كان قد

(١) أخرجه البخاري في المناقب باب قول الله تعالى: ﴿يَعْرِفُونَهُ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَإِنَّ فَرِيقًا مِنْهُمْ لَيَكْتُمُونَ الْحَقَّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ﴾ (٣٦٣٥)، ومسلم في الحدود باب رجم اليهود وأهل الذمة في الزنا (١٦٩٩) عن ابن عمر ﵄ ـ.