Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya - Ibn Taimiya - (الكتاب/113)

Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyyaIbn Taimiya

are to be fought as we have stated. Fighting them, however, is not equivalent to fighting disbelievers, since they are not disbelievers. Their property is therefore not to be taken (1), unless they have wrongfully taken other people’s property, in which case they are liable to restore it. An amount equal to what they took is to be recovered from them, even if the identity of the person who took it is unknown. The same rule applies if he is identified (2), for the supporter and the direct perpetrator are treated alike, as we have stated (3). If the direct perpetrator is specifically identified, however, the ultimate liability rests with him.

Whatever is recovered from him (4) is to be returned to the property owners. If returning it to them is impossible, it is to be spent in the interests of the Muslims, such as on the stipends of the force fighting them and other such needs.

Rather, the purpose of fighting them is to apprehend them so that the prescribed penalties may be enforced and they may be prevented from spreading corruption. If one of them is gravely wounded, he is not to be dealt a finishing blow that would kill him, unless [A/Q 35] he is liable to be executed. If he flees (5) and we are spared his harm, we do not pursue him unless he is subject to a prescribed penalty or we fear what he may subsequently do.

Any of them who is captured is given the same prescribed penalty as anyone else. Some jurists adopt such severity toward them that they hold their property to be spoils and require one fifth of it to be set aside, but most reject (6) this (7).

(1) “Their property is therefore not to be taken” is omitted from manuscripts (F, Y, Z). (2) Manuscripts (F, Y, Zh, L) read: “his identity was known”; manuscripts (Z, B) read: “the identity of the person who took it was known.” (3) See above, p. 101. (4) Manuscript (F) reads: “is taken from them.” (5) Manuscript (F) reads: “and if he flees.” (6) In the original and manuscript (Z), the word is written *ya’tūn* (“they come”)! (7) The original continues: “Unless they have wrongfully taken people’s property, in which case they are liable to restore it. An amount equal to what they took is to be recovered from them, even if the identity of the person who took it is unknown. The same applies if he is identified, for the supporting accomplice and the direct perpetrator are treated alike, as we stated above. If he is identified, however, the ultimate liability rests with him.” This entire passage appeared shortly before; perhaps the copyist of the original repeated it through a slip of the pen.

يُقاتلون كما ذكرنا؛ لكنَّ قتالهم ليس بمنزلة قتال الكفار إذ لم يكونوا كفارًا، فلا تُؤخذ أموالُهم (١) إلا أن يكونوا أخذوا أموال الناس بغير حق، فإنَّ عليهم ضمانها، فيؤخذ منهم بقدر ما أخذوا وإن لم يُعْلَم عين الآخذ، وكذلك لو عُلم (٢)، فإن الرِّدْء والمباشِر سواء كما قلناه (٣)، لكن إذا عُرف عينُه كان قرار الضمان عليه. ويُرَدُّ ما أُخِذَ منه (٤) على أرباب الأموال، فإن تعذَّر الردُّ إليهم كان لمصالح المسلمين من رزق الطائفة المقاتلة لهم، وغير ذلك. بل المقصود من قتالهم التمكُّن منهم لإقامة الحدود، ومنعهم من الفساد، فإذا جُرِح الرجل منهم جرحًا مُثْخنًا لم يُجْهز عليه حتى يموت إلا أن يكون [أ/ق ٣٥] قد وجب عليه القتل، فإذا هو هرب (٥) وكفانا شرَّه لم نَتْبَعه إلا أن يكون عليه حدٌّ أو نخاف عاقبته. ومن أُسِر منهم أُقِيم عليه الحدُّ الذي يُقام على غيره، ومن الفقهاء من يشدِّد فيهم حتى يرى غنيمة أموالهم وتخميسها، وأكثرهم يأبون (٦) ذلك (٧).

(١) «فلا تؤخذ أموالهم» سقطت من (ف، ي، ز). (٢) (ف، ي، ظ، ل): «علم عينه»، (ز، ب): «علم عين الآخذ». (٣) فيما تقدم (ص ١٠١). (٤) (ف): «يؤخذ منهم». (٥) (ف): «وإذا هرب». (٦) رسمها في الأصل و (ز): «يأتون»! (٧) بعده في الأصل: «إلا أن يكونوا أخذوا أموال الناس بغير حق فإن عليهم ضمانها، فتؤخذ منهم بقدر ما أخذوا وإن لم يعلم عين الآخذ، وكذلك لو عرف عينه فإن الردء والمباشر سواء كما قدمنا، لكن إذا عرف عينه كان قرار الضمان عليه» وهذا المقطع تقدم قريبًا بكامله، فلعل ناسخ الأصل سبق قلمه بتكراره.