Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (6/284)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

in killing Umar, [even if only by a word, was liable to be killed. Al-Hurmuzān was among those reported to have assisted in killing Umar ibn al-Khattāb] (1).

Since this was so, his execution was required. Carrying it out, however, was the prerogative of the rulers. Ubayd Allah therefore acted without authorization in killing him, and the ruler may pardon one who acts without his authorization.

As for his statement, “Alī intended to kill (2) Ubayd Allah ibn Umar,” if this were authentic, it would count against Alī.

The Rāfidis are devoid of reason (3): they praise him for something that is closer to blame than praise. This was a matter of independent legal judgment, and a ruler had already adjudicated that his blood was inviolable, so how could Alī lawfully overturn that judgment? Alī was not the slain man’s heir, nor had the slain man’s heir demanded retaliation. If the right belonged to the public treasury, the ruler was entitled to pardon him. This is among the considerations cited regarding Uthmān’s pardon: al-Hurmuzān had no agnatic heir other than the ruler. When someone who has no heir is killed, the ruler may execute his killer, or he may refrain from executing him and instead take the blood money, [and the blood money is a right belonging to the Muslims] (4), which he then allocates as public funds are allocated. If he waived for Umar’s family the blood money due for one Muslim, that was only part of what they were entitled to from the Muslims.

In any event, after Uthmān had pardoned him and ruled that his blood was to be spared, it was not permissible to kill him (5)

(1) The passage between square brackets is absent from N. (2) H, R, and B read: “Alī wanted to kill.” (3) N, M, and R read: “They have no reason.” (4) The passage between square brackets is absent from N and M. (5) H and B read: “what renders it permissible to kill him.”

عَلَى قَتْلِ عُمَرَ، [وَلَوْ بِكَلَامٍ، وَجَبَ قَتْلُهُ. وَكَانَ الْهُرْمُزَانُ مِمَّنْ ذُكِرَ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ أَعَانَ عَلَى قَتْلِ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ] (١) . وَإِذَا كَانَ الْأَمْرُ كَذَلِكَ كَانَ قَتْلُهُ وَاجِبًا، وَلَكِنْ كَانَ قَتْلُهُ إِلَى الْأَئِمَّةِ، فَافْتَاتَ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بِقَتْلِهِ، وَلِلْإِمَامِ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَمَّنِ افْتَاتَ عَلَيْهِ. وَأَمَّا قَوْلُهُ: إِنَّ عَلِيًّا كَانَ يُرِيدُ قَتْلَ (٢) عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ. فَهَذَا لَوْ صَحَّ كَانَ قَدْحًا فِي عَلِيٍّ. وَالرَّافِضَةُ لَا عُقُولَ لَهُمْ (٣) ، يَمْدَحُونَ بِمَا هُوَ إِلَى الذَّمِّ أَقْرَبُ ; فَإِنَّهَا مَسْأَلَةُ اجْتِهَادٍ، وَقَدْ حَكَمَ حَاكِمٌ بِعِصْمَةِ الدَّمِ، فَكَيْفَ يَحِلُّ لِعَلِيٍّ نَقْضُهُ؟ وَعَلِيٌّ لَيْسَ وَلِيَّ الْمَقْتُولِ، وَلَا طَلَبَ وَلِيُّ الْمَقْتُولِ الْقَوَدَ. وَإِذَا كَانَ حَقُّهُ لِبَيْتِ الْمَالِ، فَلِلْإِمَامِ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُ. وَهَذَا مِمَّا يُذْكَرُ فِي عَفْوِ عُثْمَانَ، وَهُوَ أَنَّ الْهُرْمُزَانَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ عَصَبَةٌ إِلَّا السُّلْطَانَ، وَإِذَا قُتِلَ مَنْ لَا وَلِيَّ لَهُ، كَانَ لِلْإِمَامِ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ قَاتِلَهُ، وَلَهُ أَنْ لَا يَقْتُلَ قَاتِلَهُ، وَلَكِنْ يَأْخُذُ الدِّيَةَ، [وَالدِّيَةُ حَقٌّ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ] (٤) ، فَيَصْرِفُهَا فِي مَصَارِفِ الْأَمْوَالِ. وَإِذَا تَرَكَ لِآلِ عُمَرَ دِيَةَ مُسْلِمٍ، كَانَ هَذَا بَعْضُ مَا يَسْتَحِقُّونَهُ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ. وَبِكُلِّ حَالٍ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ بَعْدَ عَفْوِ عُثْمَانَ وَحُكْمِهِ بِحَقْنِ دَمِهِ يُبَاحُ قَتْلُهُ (٥)

(١) مَا بَيْنَ الْمَعْقُوفَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (ن) . (٢) ح، ر، ب: وَكَانَ عَلِيٌّ يُرِيدُ قَتْلَ. (٣) ن، م، ر: لَا عَقْلَ لَهُمْ. (٤) مَا بَيْنَ الْمَعْقُوفَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (ن) ، (م) . (٥) ح، ب: مَا يُبِيحُ قَتْلَهُ.