Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/213)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

lived in a Muslim land, his claim of ignorance regarding matters that are widely known is neither accepted nor entertained. But if he has only recently embraced Islam, or was raised in a remote desert region and knows nothing of the circumstances of the Muslims, then we accept his claim of ignorance. Thus, if it is something that a person in his situation could be unaware of, we accept his plea of ignorance and waive the prescribed punishment. If we are uncertain in this matter—whether he is someone who could be ignorant of such a matter or not—the basic presumption is lack of knowledge, so we do not carry out the prescribed punishment on him. This is because the condition must be established: namely, that he knew it was prohibited.

Is it also a condition that he know the punishment?

It is not a condition that he know the punishment. Thus, if a married man who committed fornication says, “Had I known that my prescribed punishment was stoning, I would never have committed fornication; rather, I thought the matter involved flogging only, and I can endure flogging,” we nevertheless stone him. Knowledge of the punishment is not a condition. Once he knew that it was prohibited, this means that he accepted violating the sacred prohibitions of Allah. Allah has made punishment obligatory upon the one who commits this sin, and he has no excuse.

Once the prescribed punishment has been established, who is addressed with carrying it out? Is every person entitled to carry it out? The author says:

“Then the imam or his deputy carries it out.”

His words, “Then [he] carries it out,” indicate that intention is essential. For example, if the imam becomes angry with someone over a matter other than fornication—such as hearing him insult the imam—and says, “This man is insulting me; flog him one hundred lashes,” then, after they have finished flogging him, he says to them, “He committed fornication, and let these lashes count for his fornication,” this does not suffice. Intention is indispensable. This is why he said, “Then [he] carries it out,” for carrying it out must be accompanied by intention.

عاش في بلاد الإسلام، فإن دعواه الجهل بالأمور الظاهرة لا تقبل، ولا تسمع منه، وأما إذا كان حديث عهد بالإسلام، أو كان ناشئاً في بادية بعيدة، لا يعرف شيئاً عن أحوال المسلمين، فإننا نقبل منه دعوى الجهل، فإذا كان مثله يجهله قبلنا دعواه بالجهل، ورفعنا عنه الحد، فإن شككنا في هذا الأمر، هل هو ممن يجهل مثل ذلك، أو لا؟ فالأصل عدم العلم، فلا نقيم عليه الحد؛ لأنه لا بد أن يتحقق الشرط، وهو أن يكون عالماً بالتحريم. وهل يشترط أن يكون عالماً بالعقوبة؟ لا يشترط أن يكون عالماً بالعقوبة، فلو قال الرجل المحصن الذي زنا: إنه لو علم أن حده الرجم ما زنا أبداً، لكنه ظن أن المسألة جلد فقط، وهو يصبر على الجلد فإننا نرجمه؛ لأنه لا يشترط العلم بالعقوبة، فإذا كان عالماً بالتحريم فمعنى ذلك أنه رضي بأن ينتهك حرمات الله، والله ﷿ قد أوجب العقوبة على هذا الفاعل لهذه المعصية، ولا عذر له. وإذا ثبت الحد، فمَنِ المخاطب بإقامته؟ وهل لكل إنسان أن يقيمه؟ قال المؤلف: «فيقيمه الإمام أو نائبه». وعلم من قوله: «فيقيمه» أنه لا بد من النية، فلو غضب الإمام على شخص في مسألة غير الفاحشة، مثلاً سمعه يسب الإمام، فقال: هذا الرجل يسبني، اجلدوه مائة جلدة، فلما انتهوا منه، قال لهم: إنه قد زنا وتكون الجلدات هذه عن زناه، فلا ينفع؛ لأنه لا بد من نية، ولهذا قال: «فيقيمه» والإقامة لا بد أن يكون لها نية.