Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

the wronged person’s right on that account. Thus, if a man’s wife commits adultery, he may accuse her of it, engage with her in the procedure of mutual imprecation, and seek to have her punished by stoning. A man other than her husband, by contrast, may not accuse her and cannot invoke mutual imprecation; rather, he incurs the prescribed punishment if he fails to produce four witnesses. Corrupting a woman’s relationship with her husband is among the gravest wrongs against him, and he considers it worse than taking his wealth. Hence, scholars unanimously agree that he may kill the other man to repel him from her if he cannot be repelled except by killing him. According to the stronger of the two views, he may kill him even if he could be repelled by lesser means. This is illustrated by the account of ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him: a man came to him holding a bloodstained sword and explained that he had found another man gratifying himself between his wife’s thighs and had struck him with the sword. ʿUmar approved of what he had done, commended him, and accepted his statement that he had killed him for that reason, since the evidence supported his account.

This is comparable to someone peering into a man’s house: the householder may put out his eye immediately, without first warning him. This is the sounder of the two views, as established in the two Sahīh collections, where the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“If a man peered into your house and you put out his eye, you would incur no liability.”

He gave the same ruling concerning someone who bit another person’s hand, whereupon the latter pulled his hand away and the biter’s teeth were dislodged. This is the position of the jurists of the hadith tradition and most of the early generations. There is disagreement on both questions, but this is not the place to discuss it. The point is that someone who commits adultery with another man’s wife wrongs her husband, and the husband has a claim against him. For this reason, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stated: “Whoever

حَقُّ الْمَظْلُومِ بِذَلِكَ وَلِهَذَا جَازَ لِلرَّجُلِ إذَا زَنَتْ امْرَأَتُهُ أَنْ يَقْذِفَهَا وَيُلَاعِنَهَا وَيَسْعَى فِي عُقُوبَتِهَا بِالرَّجْمِ بِخِلَافِ الْأَجْنَبِيِّ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ قَذْفُهَا وَلَا يُلَاعِنُ بَلْ يُحَدُّ إذَا لَمْ يَأْتِ بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَإِفْسَادُ الْمَرْأَةِ عَلَى زَوْجِهَا مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الظُّلْمِ لِزَوْجِهَا وَهُوَ عِنْدَهُ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ أَخْذِ مَالِهِ. وَلِهَذَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ قَتْلُهُ دَفْعًا عَنْهَا بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ إذَا لَمْ يَنْدَفِعْ إلَّا بِالْقَتْلِ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ وَيَجُوزُ فِي أَظْهَرِ الْقَوْلَيْنِ قَتْلُهُ وَإِنْ انْدَفَعَ بِدُونِهِ كَمَا فِي قِصَّةِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ لَمَّا أَتَاهُ رَجُلٌ بِيَدِهِ سَيْفٌ فِيهِ دَمٌ وَذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ وَجَدَ رَجُلًا تَفَخَّذَ امْرَأَتَهُ فَضَرَبَهُ بِالسَّيْفِ فَأَقَرَّهُ عُمَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَشَكَرَهُ وَقَبِلَ قَوْلَهُ أَنَّهُ قَتَلَهُ لِذَلِكَ إذْ ظَهَرَتْ دَلَائِلُ ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا كَمَا لَوْ اطَّلَعَ رَجُلٌ فِي بَيْتِهِ فَإِنَّهُ يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَفْقَأَ عَيْنَهُ ابْتِدَاءً وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُنْذِرَهُ هَذَا أَصَحُّ الْقَوْلَيْنِ كَمَا ثَبَتَ فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: {لَوْ اطَّلَعَ رَجُلٌ فِي بَيْتِك فَفَقَأْت عَيْنَهُ مَا كَانَ عَلَيْك شَيْءٌ} وَكَذَلِكَ قَالَ فِي الَّذِي عَضَّ يَدَ غَيْرِهِ فَنَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَانْقَلَعَتْ أَسْنَانُ الْعَاضِّ. وَهَذَا مَذْهَبُ فُقَهَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ. وَأَكْثَرُ السَّلَفِ وَفِي الْمَسْأَلَتَيْنِ نِزَاعٌ لَيْسَ هَذَا مَوْضِعَهُ؛ إذْ الْمَقْصُودُ أَنَّ الزَّانِيَ بِامْرَأَةِ غَيْرِهِ ظَالِمٌ لِلزَّوْجِ وَلِلزَّوْجِ حَقٌّ عِنْدَهُ وَلِهَذَا {ذَكَرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّ مَنْ

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies