Qāʿidah fī Qitāl al-Kuffār - Ibn Taimiya - (202)

he is deemed one whose blood and property are exposed to seizure; no guilt-bearing inviolability is therefore affirmed for him. Consequently, were someone to kill him while he has no covenant, the killer would owe no compensation whatsoever—even if the victims were his women or children, the killer would still not be liable (1). We know of no disagreement among the Muslims on this point.

Yet it remains impermissible to kill them—just as it is impermissible to kill many types of animals. If someone were to kill such an animal, he would incur no liability, because its blood and property are likewise unprotected. The same applies to what God has created of plants and game: they are, in principle, permissible. Nevertheless, it is not allowed to destroy them without benefit. One may not slay game unless it is to be eaten, nor may one ruin what is lawfully usable for no purpose, for that is corruption, and Allah does not love corruption.

…entering into a truce with him, showing him clemency, or exchanging him for ransom; yet once the unbeliever has been given a treaty, that treaty renders his blood inviolable, whereas his unbelief had previously made it licit to shed. (1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya states in Al-Sarim al-Maslul, 2/258: “What the Law forbids is the deliberate intention to kill them. But if a man conducts a raid, launches a catapult, breaches a wall, or sets a fire and, as a result, women or children are killed, we bear no sin for that. In any case, a woman belonging to a belligerent enemy is not owed retaliation, blood money, or expiation, because the Prophet never commanded any of these for those who killed enemy women during his expeditions. In this respect she differs from a dhimmi woman.”

هُوَ مُبَاحُ الدَّمِ وَالمَالِ، فَلَمْ تَثْبُتْ فِي حَقِّهِ العِصْمَةُ المُؤْثِمِةُ، فَلَوْ قَتَلَهُ قَاتِلٌ وَلَا عَهْدَ لَهُ لَمْ يَضْمَنْهُ بِشَيءٍ، حَتَّى نِسَاؤُهُمْ وَصِبْيَانُهُمْ لَوَ قتلَهُمْ قَاتِلٌ لَمْ يَضْمَنَهُمْ (١)، وَمَا نَعْلَمُ فِي هِذَا نِزَاعًا بَيْنَ المُسْلِمِيْنَ. مَعَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَحِلُّ قَتْلُهُمْ، مِثْلَ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ الحَيوَان، لَا يَحِلُّ قَتْلُهُ، وَلَوْ قَتَلَهُ قَاتِلٌ لَمْ يَضْمَنْهُ بِشَيءٍ، وَهُوَ مُبَاحُ الدَّمِ وَالمَال، كَمَا نَقَوْلُ فِيْمَا خُلِقَ مِنَ النَّبَاتِ وَالصَّيْدِ هُوَ مُبَاحٌ، ثُمَّ مَعَ هَذَا لَا يَجُوْزُ إِتْلَافُهُ بِلَا فَائِدَةٍ، فَلَا يَجُوْزُ قَتْلُ الصَّيْدِ لِغَيْرِ مَأْكَلِه، وَلَا إِتْلَافُ المُبَاحَاتِ لِغَيْرِ مَنْفَعَةٍ، فَإِنَّ هَذَا فَسَادٌ، وَاللهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الفَسَادَ.

= ومهادنته والمن عليه ومفاداته؛ لكن إذا صار للكافر عهد عصم العهد دمه الذي أباحه الكفر). (١) قال شيخ الإسلام في الصارم المسلول (٢/ ٢٥٨): (نعم المحرم إنما هو قصد قتلهن فأما إذا قصد الرجل بالإغارة أو برمي منجنيق أو فتح شق أو إلقاء نار، فتلف بذلك نساء أو صبيان لم نأثم بذلك، وبكل حال فالمرأة الحربية غير مضمونة بقود ولا دية ولا كفارة لأن النبي لم يأمر من قتل المرأة في مغازيه بشيء من ذلك، فهذا ما تفارق به المرأة الذمية).