Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya - Ibn Taimiya - (الكتاب/213)

Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyyaIbn Taimiya

taunting, or doing so in his absence, which is backbiting.

It is not permissible to transgress against him by reviling him more than he reviled the other person (1), or more severely than he did. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whatever the two of them say is held against the one who began it, so long as the wronged party does not transgress.” (2) It is therefore understood that one who requites in kind incurs no sin, provided he [does not] transgress.

As for speech that is forbidden because it violates Allah’s right, such that it remains unlawful even if it causes the person no harm—such as falsely accusing him of fornication or falsely branding him an unbeliever or a sinner—it may not be requited in kind. The offender is, however, subject to discretionary punishment, just as with bodily injuries for which no retaliation is prescribed. Scholars have differed, with two views, as to whether such a matter may be settled in exchange for monetary compensation.

An analogous case is where someone kills another in a mutilating manner—for example, by burning him or cutting off his hands and feet. Should he be treated as he treated his victim, or may retaliatory execution be carried out only by the sword? Jurists have two well-known positions. The position more consonant with the Quran, the sunnah, and justice is that he should be treated as he treated his victim, unless the act is itself forbidden, such as forcing him to drink wine, subjecting him to sodomy, or the like (3).

(1) The original reads: “that he ascribe more to him than he had ascribed to him”! (2) This was mentioned shortly above. (3) The passage from “How can it be permissible for a Muslim …” to this point is from the original. In the remaining manuscripts it is abridged as follows: (God [omitted in Zāy] commanded the Muslims not to let their hatred of the unbelievers cause them to act unjustly. He said: “Be just; that is nearer to piety.” If violating a person’s honor is forbidden because it infringes his right, due to the harm that befalls him [Zāy: “from the harm”; Fā: “on account of the harm”], then retaliation in kind is permissible [Yā: “retaliation may be taken from him”], such as invoking against him in the same manner as he invoked against the other person. If, however, the act is forbidden because it violates Allah’s right—such as lying—it is never permissible. Likewise, many [Zā: most] jurists have held that if someone kills another by burning, drowning, strangling, or the like, he is to be treated as he treated his victim, unless the act is forbidden [Fā adds: “in itself”], such as forcing him to drink wine or subjecting him to sodomy. Others have held that retaliatory execution may be carried out against him [“against him” omitted in Zā] only with the sword. The former view is more consonant with the Quran, the sunnah, and justice.)

الهمز، أو في مغيبه وهو الغيبة. ولا يجوز الاعتداء عليه بأن يسب أكثر مما يسبه (١)، أو أشد مما سبه، كما قال النبي ﷺ: «ما قالا فعلى البادئ منهما ما لم يعتدِ المظلوم» (٢)، فعُلِمَ أن المكافئ لا إثم عليه إذا إذا اعتدى. وأما ما كان من الكلام محرَّمًا لحقِّ الله، بحيث يحرم ولو لم يكن فيه إيذاء له، كالكذب عليه بالقذف والتكفير والفسق وغير ذلك؛ فهذا لا يجوز المقابلة بمثله، لكن يُعزَّر على ذلك، بمنزلة ما ليس فيه قصاص من الجوارح. وقد اختلف العلماء هل يجوز الصلح على ذلك بمال؟ على قولين. ونظير هذا: ما لو مثَّل بغيره في القتل، مثل أن يحرقه أو يقطع يديه ورجليه، فهل يُفْعَل به كما فعل أو لا قَوَد إلا السيف؟ فيه قولان مشهوران للفقهاء؛ أشبههما بالكتاب والسنة والعدل: أنه يُفْعَل به كما فعل ما لم يكن الفعل محرَّمًا في نفسه، كتجريع الخمر، والتلوُّط به، ونحو ذلك (٣).

(١) الأصل: «أن ينسب أكثر مما نسبه»! (٢) تقدم قريبًا. (٣) من قوله: «فكيف يجوز للمسلم ... » إلى هنا من الأصل، وقد اختُصِر في بقية النسخ إلى الآتي: (فأمر الله [لا: ز] المسلمين ألا يحملهم بغضهم للكفار على ألا يعدلوا وقال: (اعدلوا هو أقرب للتقوى)، فإن كان العدوان عليه في العرض محرمًا لحقه بما [ز: مما. ف: لما] يلحقه من الأذى جاز القصاص فيه [ي: الاقتصاص منه] بمثله، كالدعاء عليه بمثل ما دعا. وأما إذا كان محرمًا لحق الله تعالى كالكذب لم يجز بحال، وهكذا قال كثير [ظ: أكثر] من الفقهاء: إنه إذا قتله بتحريق أو تغريق أو خنق أو نحو ذلك، فإنه يفعل به كما فعل ما لم يكن الفعل محرمًا [ف: في نفسه] كتجريع الخمر والتلوط به ومنهم من قال: لا قود عليه [لا: ظ] إلا بالسيف. والأول أشبه بالكتاب والسنة والعدل).