Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (3/286)

Second: this constitutes intentional killing and incurs retaliation unless the victim’s next of kin pardon the killer. This is the position of Mutarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn, and what they report from Mālik. Ibn al-Mājishūn’s statement and his report from Mālik have also been interpreted as applying if the blow was delivered in play, regardless of whether the other person was playing with him, provided it was known that he struck him only in play.

Third: this constitutes quasi-intentional killing and requires aggravated blood money payable from the offender’s own wealth: thirty she-camels in their fourth year, thirty in their fifth year, and forty pregnant she-camels carrying their young. This is the position of Ibn Wahb, one of Mālik’s followers, and of Rabīʿah, Ibn Shihāb and Abū al-Zinād. It has also been said that distinguishing between cases according to whether the other person was playing with him constitutes a fourth opinion on the issue.

As for the second form—intentionally striking someone as a disciplinary measure by someone entitled to administer discipline, such as a tutor or craftsman—in my view, it is subject to the same disagreement as intentionally striking someone in play. All three opinions mentioned regarding that form apply here. I have found that Abū al-Walīd al-Bāhī holds that the disagreement concerning this form relates only to whether the blood money is aggravated, and that retaliation is not applicable under any circumstances.

Section

This applies when it is known that the blow was administered as discipline. If, however, this is supported only by his own statement and claim, there are two opinions as to whether his claim should be accepted:

First: his claim is not accepted, and retaliation is exacted against him, because the wrongful assault is apparent and retaliation has become due, while he is claiming something that would exempt him from it.

Second: his claim is accepted. If accepted, the case is treated as though this had been established by testimony, and the aforementioned disagreement applies.

والثاني: أن ذلك عمد وفيه القصاص إلا أن يعفو أولياء القتيل، وهو قول مطرف وابن الماجشون وروايتهما عن مالك. وقد تؤول أن معنى قول ابن الماجشون وروايته عن مالك إن ضربه على وجه اللعب دون أن يلاعبه صاحبه أو لا يلاعبه إذا علم أنه لم يضربه إلا على وجه اللعب. والثالث: أن ذلك شبه العمد وفيه الدية مغلظة في مال الجاني ثلاثون حقة وثلاثون جذعة وأربعون خلفة في بطونها أولادها، وهو قول ابن وهب من أصحاب مالك، وقول ربيعة وابن شهاب وأبي الزناد. وقد قيل إن التفرقة بين أن يلاعبه أو لا يلاعبه قول رابع في المسألة. وأما الوجه الثاني: وهو أن يعمد للضرب على وجه الأدب وهو ممن يجوز له الأدب كالمؤدب والصانع فهو يجري عندي على الاختلاف في الذي يعمد للضرب على وجه اللعب ويدخل فيه الثلاثة الأقوال المذكورة في ذلك الوجه. ورأيت لأبي الوليد الباحي أن الاختلاف في هذا الوجه إنما هو راجع إلى تغليظ الدية ولا قصاص بحال. فصل هذا إذا علم أن ضربه كان على وجه الأدب، وأما إن لم يعلم إلا بقوله ودعواه ففي تصديقه على ذلك قولان: أحدهما: أنه لا يصدق ويقتص منه لأن العداء قد ظهر والقصاص قد وجب وهو يدعي ما يسقطه عنه. والقول الثاني: أنه يصدق في ذلك وإذا صدق فيه فهو بمنزلة إذا علم بالبينة ودخل الاختلاف المذكور في ذلك.