Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/389)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “or an animal,” refers, for example, to a camel that attacks a person intending to kill him, or to a wolf that attacks him intending to eat his sheep. If the camel or wolf can be repelled only by being killed, is he liable for it? The answer is: he is not liable, because an aggressor has no inviolability, since it is harmful. If an animal is harmful by nature, it may be killed even if it has not attacked, such as a mouse, snake, scorpion, and the like. But if harming others is not its nature, it may be killed only while it is causing harm, as with a camel.

But if the camel’s owner claims that the camel did not attack, what is the ruling? According to the established school, he is liable, because the basic principle is that a Muslim’s property is inviolable. Thus, the presumption is that this camel is protected, unless evidence is established that it attacked him and could not be repelled except by being killed.

The correct view is that chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him: the matter is to be determined by the surrounding indications. Thus, if it is known that the person who killed it and claims that he was attacked is a righteous man, and that he would not violate another person’s rights except on legal grounds, then his statement is accepted; but he must take an oath, because the oath is required from the side whose claim is stronger. But if he is not known for righteousness, then the basic principle is that another’s property is inviolable and must be respected.

His statement, “And he is required to defend himself,” means that one attacked by a human being or an animal is obligated to defend himself, based on Allah’s saying: “And do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands.” [al-Baqarah 2:195] Whoever submits to an aggressor seeking to kill him has thrown himself into destruction and has fallen into what Allah has forbidden. It is also based on Allah’s saying: “And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them.” [al-Baqarah 2:191] Thus, He commanded that they be killed even at the Sacred Mosque, despite its

وقوله: «أو بهيمةٌ» كبعير صال على هذا الإنسان يريد أن يقتله، أو صال عليه ذئب يريد أن يأكل غنمه، ولم يندفع الجمل أو الذئب إلا بالقتل، فهل يضمن؟ الجواب: لا يضمن؛ لأن الصائل لا حرمة له؛ لأنه مؤذٍ، والمؤذي إن كان طبيعته الأذى قتل وإن لم يَصُل، كالفأرة، والحية، والعقرب، وما أشبهها، وإن لم يكن طبيعته الأذى فإنه يقتل حال أذيته، مثل الجمل، لكن لو ادعى صاحب الجمل أن الجمل لم يَصُل، فما الحكم؟ أما المذهب فيلزمه الضمان؛ لأن الأصل حرمة مال المسلم، فالأصل أن هذا الجمل محترم، إلا إذا قامت البينة على أنه صال عليه، ولم يندفع إلا بالقتل. والصحيح ما اختاره شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀ أنه يرجع في ذلك إلى القرائن، فإذا علم أن هذا القاتل الذي ادعى أنه صِيل عليه رجل صالح، ولا يمكن أن يعتدي على حق غيره إلا بموجب شرعي، فإن القول قوله، ولكن لا بد أن يحلف؛ لأن اليمين تكون في جانب أقوى المدعيين، وأما إذا كان غير معروف بالصلاح فإن الأصل ضمان مال الغير واحترامه. وقوله: «وَيَلْزَمُهُ الدَّفْعُ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ» أي: يلزم من صال عليه آدمي أو بهيمة أن يدافع عن نفسه وجوباً، لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَلَا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ﴾ [البقرة: ١٩٥]، ومن استسلم للصائل الذي يريد قتله فقد ألقى بنفسه إلى التهلكة، ووقع فيما نهى الله عنه، ولقوله تعالى: ﴿وَلَا تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِنْ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ﴾ [البقرة: ١٩١]، فأمر بقتلهم حتى عند المسجد الحرام مع