Book 51: Apostasy (Ridda)
Title of book: Minhaj al-Talibin wa Umdat al-Muftin (منهاج الطالبين وعمدة المفتين في الفقه)
Author: Imam Nawawi
Full name: Imam Muhyiddin Abi Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (أبو زكريا يحيى بن شرف بن مُرِّيِّ بن حسن بن حسين بن محمد جمعة بن حِزام الحزامي النووي الشافعي)
Born: Muharram 631 AH/ October 1233 Nawa, Ayyubid Sultanate
Died: 24 Rajab 676 AH [9]/ 21 December 1277 (age 45) Nawa, Mamluk Sultanate
Resting place: Nawa, present Syria
Translated into English by: E. C. HOWARD
Field of study: sharia, Islamic law, fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence of Shafi'i's school of thought
Type of literature dan reference: classical Arabic
Contents
- Book 51: Apostasy (Ridda)
- Book 52: Fornication (Zina)
- Book 53: Defamation (Hadd al- Qazf)
- Book 54: Crimes punishable with Amputation (Qath' al-Sariqah)
- Return to: Minhaj al-Talibin of Imam Nawawi
كتاب الرِّدَّةِ
BOOK 51 .— APOSTASY (RIDDAH)
هِيَ: قَطْعُ الْإِسْلَامِ بِنِيَّةِ أَوْ قَوْلِ كُفْرٍ أَوْ فِعْلٍ، سَوَاءٌ
قَالَهُ اسْتِهْزَاءً أَوْ عِنَادًا أَوْ اعْتِقَادًا.
فَمَنْ نَفَى
الصَّانِعَ أَوْ الرُّسُلَ أَوْ كَذَّبَ رَسُولاً أَوْ حَلَّلَ مُحَرَّمًا
بِالْإِجْمَاعِ كَالزِّنَا وَعَكْسَهُ، أَوْ نَفَى وُجُوبَ مُجْمَعٍ عَلَيْهِ
أَوْ عَكْسَهُ.
أَوْ عَزَمَ عَلَى الْكُفْرِ غَدًا أَوْ تَرَدَّدَ
فِيهِ كَفَرَ.
وَالْفِعْلُ الْمُكَفِّرُ مَا تَعَمَّدَهُ
اسْتِهْزَاءً صَرِيحًا بِالدِّينِ أَوْ جُحُودًا لَهُ كَإِلْقَاءِ مُصْحَفٍ
بِقَاذُورَةٍ وَسُجُودٍ لِصَنَمٍ أَوْ شَمْسٍ.
وَلَا تَصِحُّ
رِدَّةُ صَبِيٍّ وَمَجْنُونٍ وَمُكْرَهٍ.
وَلَوْ ارْتَدَّ فَجُنَّ
لَمْ يُقْتَلْ فِي جُنُونِهِ.
وَالْمَذْهَبُ صِحَّةُ رِدَّةِ
السَّكْرَانِ وَإِسْلَامِهِ.
وَتُقْبَلُ الشَّهَادَةُ بِالرِّدَّةِ
مُطْلَقًا، وَقِيلَ يَجِبُ التَّفْصِيلِ، فَعَلَى الْأَوَّلِ لَوْ شَهِدُوا
بِرِدَّةٍ فَأَنْكَرَ حُكِمَ بِالشَّهَادَةِ فَلَوْ قَالَ: كُنْتُ مُكْرَهًا
وَاقْتَضَتْهُ قَرِينَةٌ كَأَسْرِ كُفَّارٍ صُدِّقَ بِيَمِينِهِ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا،
وَلَوْ قَالَا: لَفَظَ لَفْظَ كُفْرٍ فَادَّعَى إكْرَاهًا صُدِّقَ
مُطْلَقًا.
وَلَوْ مَاتَ مَعْرُوفٌ بِالْإِسْلَامِ عَنْ ابْنَيْنِ
مُسْلِمَيْنِ، فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمَا: ارْتَدَّ فَمَاتَ كَافِرًا، فَإِنْ بَيَّنَ
سَبَبَ كُفْرِهِ لَمْ يَرِثْهُ، وَنَصِيبُهُ فَيْءٌ وَكَذَا إنْ أَطْلَقَ فِي
الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَتَجِبُ اسْتِتَابَةُ الْمُرْتَدِّ وَالْمُرْتَدَّةِ،
وَفِي قَوْلٍ تُسْتَحَبُّ كَالْكَافِرِ، وَهِيَ فِي الْحَالِ، وَفِي قَوْلٍ
ثَلَاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ، فَإِنْ أَصَرَّا قُتِلَا، وَإِنْ أَسْلَمَ صَحَّ
وَتُرِكَ.
وَقِيلَ لَا يُقْبَلُ إسْلَامُهُ إنْ ارْتَدَّ إلَى
كُفْرٍ خَفِيٍّ كَزَنَادِقَةٍ وَبَاطِنِيَّةٍ.
وَوَلَدُ
الْمُرْتَدِّ إنْ انْعَقَدَ قَبْلَهَا أَوْ بَعْدَهَا، وَأَحَدُ أَبَوَيْهِ
مُسْلِمٌ فَمُسْلِمٌ، أَوْ مُرْتَدَّانِ فَمُسْلِمٌ، وَفِي قَوْلٍ مُرْتَدٌّ،
وَفِي قَوْلٍ كَافِرٌ أَصْلِيٌّ قُلْتُ: الْأَظْهَرُ مُرْتَدٌّ، وَنَقَلَ
الْعِرَاقِيُّونَ الِاتِّفَاقَ عَلَى كُفْرِهِ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، وَفِي
زَوَالِ مِلْكِهِ عَنْ مَالِهِ بِهَا أَقْوَالٌ: أَظْهَرُهَا إنْ هَلَكَ
مُرْتَدًّا بَانَ زَوَالُهُ بِهَا، وَإِنْ أَسْلَمَ بَانَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَزُلْ،
وَعَلَى الْأَقْوَالِ يُقْضَى مِنْهُ دَيْنٌ لَزِمَهُ قَبْلَهَا.
وَيُنْفَقُ
عَلَيْهِ مِنْهُ، وَالْأَصَحُّ يَلْزَمُهُ غُرْمُ إتْلَافِهِ فِيهَا، وَنَفَقَةُ
زَوْجَاتٍ وُقِفَ نِكَاحُهُنَّ وَقَرِيبٍ، وَإِذَا وَقَفْنَا مِلْكَهُ
فَتَصَرُّفُهُ إنْ احْتَمَلَ الْوَقْفَ كَعِتْقٍ وَتَدْبِيرٍ وَوَصِيَّةٍ
مَوْقُوفٌ، إنْ أَسْلَمَ نَفَذَ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا، وَبَيْعُهُ وَهِبَتُهُ
وَرَهْنُهُ وَكِتَابَتُهُ بَاطِلَةٌ، وَفِي الْقَدِيم مَوْقُوفَةٌ، وَعَلَى
الْأَقْوَالِ يُجْعَلُ مَالُهُ مَعَ عَدْلٍ، وَأَمَتُهُ عِنْدَ امْرَأَةٍ ثِقَةٌ،
وَيُؤَدِّي مُكَاتَبُهُ النُّجُومَ إلَى الْقَاضِي.
BOOK 51 .— APOSTASY (RIDDAH)
Apostasy
consists in the abjuration of Islam,
either mentally, or by
words, or by
acts incompatible with faith. As to
oral abjuration it
matters little whether
the words are said in joke, or
through a spirit
of contradiction, or in
good faith. But before such words
can be con-
sidered as a sign of
apostasy, they must contain a precise
declaration —
. That one does not
believe in the existence of the
Creator, or of
His apostles ; or
. That Muhammad, or one of
the other apostles, is an impostor ; or
. That one considers lawful
what is strictly forbidden by the
ijmaa ,
e.g. the crime of fornication ; or
. That one considers to be
forbidden what is lawful according to
the ijmaa .
. That one is
not obliged to follow the precepts
of the ijmaa , as well
positive as
negative ; or
. That one intends
shortly to change one’s religion ; or
that one
has doubts upon the subject
of the truth of Islam, etc.
As
to acts, these are not considered to
be incompatible with faith,
unless they
show a clear indication of a mockery or
denial of religion,
as, e.g. throwing
the Koran upon a muck heap, or
prostrating oneself
before an idol, or
worshipping the sun. No account is
taken of the
apostasy of a minor or
a lunatic, nor of acts committed under
violent
compulsion. Even where the guilty
person, after pronouncing the
words or
committing the acts, becomes mad, he
may not be put to
death until
he has recovered his sanity. This
favour, however, does
not, according to
our school, extend to the case of
drunkenness.
Apostasy, and a declaration of
having returned from one’s errors,
pronounced by a drunken person, have
the ordinary legal consequences.
Witnesses
need not recount in all their
details the facts that con-
stitute
apostasy ; they may coniine themselves to
affirming that the
guilty person is
an apostate. Other authorities are of
the contrary
opinion ; but the majority
go so far as to make no
account of the mere
denial of the
accused, even where the assertions of
the witnesses are
made in general
terms. But where, on the other hand,
the accused
declares that he acted
under compulsion, and the circumstances render
this assertion plausible, c.g. if ho
has been kept a prisoner by infidels,
he has a presumption in his favour,
provided he takes an oath ; but this
presumption does not arise in the
absence of such circumstances. Only
where
the two witnesses required by law do
not declare that “ the
accused is
apostate/ but that “ the words pronounced
by him are
words implying apostasy,
and the accused then maintains that
he only
pronounced them under compulsion,
the presumption is in his favour,
and it is not necessary for
him to give more detailed explanations.
Where, after the death of an
individual whose faith has never been
suspected, one of his sons who
are both Moslems declares that his father
abjured Islam and died impenitent,
and adds the cause of the apostasy,
this son alone is excluded from
the succession, and his portion escheats
to the state as a tax ; but
his deposition has no effect upon
the rights of
his coinheritors. *The
same rule applies also where the
cause of the
crime is not mentioned,
and the son limits himself to saying
that his
father died apostate.
An
attempt should bo made to induce the
apostate to return from
his or her
errors ; though, according to one
authority, this is only a
commendable
proceeding. The exhortation should take
place imme-
diately, or, according to one
jurist, in the first three days ;
and if it is
of no effect, the
guilty man or woman should be put
to death. Where,
on the contrary,
the guilty party returns from his or
her errors, this
conversion must be
accepted as sincere, and the converted
person left
alone ; unless, according to
some authorities, he has embraced an
occult
religion such as the Zend,
whose adherents, while professing Islam, are
none the less infidels in their
heart, or some doctrine admitting of a
mystic or allegorical interpretation of
the Koran.
The child of an
apostate remains a Moslem, without regard
to the
time of its conception, or
to one of its parents remaining a
Moslem or
not. One authority, however,
considers the child whose father and
mother have abjured the faith to
be an apostate ; while another con-
siders
such a child to be by origin an
infidel. [*The child should be
considered
as an apostate. This is what the
jurists of Irak have handed
down to
us as the universally accepted theory.]
*As to the ownership of the
property of an apostate dead in impeni-
tence, it remains in suspense, i.e.
the law considers it as lost from
the
moment of abjuration of tho
faith, but in case of repentance it
is con-
sidered to have been never
lost. However, there are several other
theories upon the subject ; though
all authorities agree that debts con-
tracted before apostasy, as well as
the personal maintenance of the
apostate
during the period of exhortation, are
charges upon the estate,
fit. is the
same with any damages due in
consequence of pecuniary
prejudice caused
to other persons, the maintenance of
his wives, whose
marriage remains in
suspense, and the maintenance of his
ascendants
or descendants. Where it is
admitted that ownership remains in
suspense, the same principle must be
applied to dispositions subse-
quent to
apostasy, in so far as they are
capable of being suspended,
such as
enfranchisement by will, and legacies,
which all remain intact
where the
exhortation is successful, though not
otherwise. On the
other hand, dispositions
which, by their very nature, do not
admit of
such suspension, such as
sale, pledging, gift, and enfranchisement by
contract, are null and void ab
initio ; though Shafii, in his first
period,
wished to leave them in
suspense. All authorities, moreover, are agreed
that* an apostate’s property may in
no case be left at his disposition
from the moment that a state of
apostasy has been ascertained, but
must
be deposited in charge of some
person of irreproachable character.
But a
female slave may not be so entrusted
to a man ; she must be
confided to
some trustworthy woman. An apostate’s
property must
be leased out ; and it
is to the court that his slave
undergoing enfranchis-
ment by contract
should make his periodical payments.
كتاب الزِّنَا
BOOK 52 .— FORNICATION (ZINA)
إيلَاجُ الذَّكَرِ بِفَرْجٍ مُحَرَّمٍ لَعَيْنِهِ خَالٍ عَنْ الشُّبْهَةِ
مُشْتَهًى يُوجِبُ الْحَدَّ.
وَدُبُرُ ذَكَرٍ وَأُنْثَى كَقُبُلٍ
عَلَى الْمَذْهَبِ، وَلَا حَدَّ بِمُفَاخَذَةٍ وَوَطْءِ زَوْجَتِهِ وَأَمَتِهِ
فِي حَيْضٍ وَصَوْمٍ وَإِحْرَامٍ.
وَكَذَا أَمَتِهِ الْمُزَوَّجَةِ
وَالْمُعْتَدَّةِ، وَكَذَا مَمْلُوكَتِهِ الْمَحْرَمِ.
وَمُكْرَهٍ
فِي الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَكَذَا كُلُّ جِهَةٍ أَبَاحَهَا عَالِمٌ
كَنِكَاحٍ بِلَا شُهُودٍ عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ.
وَلَا بِوَطْءِ
مَيِّتَةٍ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَلَا بَهِيمَةٍ فِي الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَيُحَدُّ
فِي مُسْتَأْجَرَةٍ.
وَمُبِيحَةٍ وَمَحْرَمٍ، وَإِنْ كَانَ
تَزَوَّجَهَا.
وَشَرْطُهُ التَّكْلِيفُ إلَّا السَّكْرَانَ،
وَعِلْمُ تَحْرِيمِهِ.
وَحَدُّ الْمُحْصَنِ: الرَّجْمُ، وَهُوَ:
مُكَلَّفٌ حُرٌّ، وَلَوْ ذِمِّيٌّ غَيَّبَ حَشَفَتَهُ بِقُبُلٍ فِي نِكَاحٍ
صَحِيحٍ، لَا فَاسِدٍ فِي الْأَظْهَرِ، وَالْأَصَحُّ اشْتِرَاطُ التَّغْيِيبِ
حَالَ حُرِّيَّتِهِ وَتَكْلِيفِهِ، وَأَنَّ الْكَامِلَ الزَّانِيَ بِنَاقِصٍ
مُحْصَنٌ.
وَالْبِكْرُ الْحُرُّ مِائَةُ جَلْدَةٍ وَتَغْرِيبُ عَامٍ
إلَى مَسَافَةِ قَصْرٍ فَمَا فَوْقَهَا، وَإِذَا عَيَّنَ الْإِمَامُ جِهَةً
فَلَيْسَ لَهُ طَلَبُ غَيْرِهَا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَيُغَرَّبُ
غَرِيبٌ مِنْ بَلَدِ الزِّنَا إلَى غَيْرِ بَلَدِهِ، فَإِنْ عَادَ إلَى بَلَدِهِ
مُنِعَ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَا تُغَرَّبُ امْرَأَةٌ وَحْدَهَا فِي
الْأَصَحِّ، بَلْ مَعَ زَوْجٍ أَوْ مَحْرَمٍ وَلَوْ بِأُجْرَةٍ.
فَإِنْ
امْتَنَعَ بِأُجْرَةٍ لَمْ يُجْبَرْ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَالْعَبْدِ
خَمْسُونَ، وَيُغَرَّبُ نِصْفَ سَنَةٍ، وَفِي قَوْلٍ سَنَةً، وَفِي قَوْلٍ لَا
يُغَرَّبُ.
وَيَثْبُتُ بِبَيِّنَةٍ.
أَوْ إقْرَارٍ
مَرَّةً.
وَلَوْ أَقَرَّ ثُمَّ رَجَعَ سَقَطَ.
وَلَوْ
قَالَ لَا تَحُدُّونِي أَوْ هَرَبَ فَلَا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ
شَهِدَ أَرْبَعَةٌ بِزِنَاهَا وَأَرْبَعُ نِسْوَةٍ أَنَّهَا عَذْرَاءُ لَمْ
تُحَدَّ هِيَ وَلَا قَاذِفُهَا.
وَلَوْ عَيَّنَ شَاهِدٌ زَاوِيَةً
لِزِنَاهُ، وَالْبَاقُونَ غَيْرَهَا لَمْ يَثْبُتْ.
وَيَسْتَوْفِيهِ
الْإِمَامُ أَوْ نَائِبُهُ مِنْ حُرٍّ وَمُبَعَّضٍ.
وَيُسْتَحَبُّ
حُضُورُ الْإِمَامِ، وَشُهُودِهِ.
وَيَحُدُّ الرَّقِيقَ سَيِّدُهُ
أَوْ الْإِمَامُ.
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعَا فَالْأَصَحُّ الْإِمَامُ.
وَأَنَّ
السَّيِّدَ يُغَرِّبُهُ، وَأَنَّ الْمُكَاتَبَ كَحُرٍّ، وَأَنَّ الْفَاسِقَ
وَالْكَافِرَ وَالْمُكَاتَبَ يَحُدُّونَ عَبِيدَهُمْ، وَأَنَّ السَّيِّدَ
يُعَزَّرُ وَيَسْمَعُ الْبَيِّنَةَ بِالْعُقُوبَةِ.
وَالرَّجْمُ
بِمَدَرٍ وَحِجَارَةٍ مُعْتَدِلَةٍ، وَلَا يُحْفَرُ لِلرَّجُلِ، وَالْأَصَحُّ
اسْتِحْبَابُهُ لِلْمَرْأَةِ إنْ ثَبَتَ بِبَيِّنَةٍ، وَلَا يُؤَخَّرُ لِمَرَضٍ
وَحَرٍّ وَبَرْدٍ مُفْرِطَيْنِ، وَقِيلَ يُؤَخَّرُ إنْ ثَبَتَ بِإِقْرَارٍ
وَيُؤَخَّرُ الْجَلْدُ لِمَرَضٍ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يُرْجَ بُرْؤُهُ جُلِدَ لَا
بِسَوْطٍ بَلْ بِعِثْكَالٍ عَلَيْهِ مِائَةُ غُصْنٍ، فَإِنْ كَانَ خَمْسُونَ
ضُرِبَ بِهِ مَرَّتَيْنِ، وَتَمَسُّهُ الْأَغْصَانُ أَوْ يَنْكَبِسُ بَعْضُهَا
عَلَى بَعْضٍ لِيَنَالَهُ بَعْضُ الْأَلَمِ، فَإِنْ بَرَأَ أَجْزَأَهُ.
وَلَا
جَلْدَ فِي حَرٍّ وَبَرْدٍ مُفْرِطَيْنِ، وَإِذَا جَلَدَ الْإِمَامُ فِي مَرَضٍ
أَوْ حَرٍّ وَبَرْدٍ فَلَا ضَمَانَ عَلَى النَّصِّ فَيَقْتَضِي أَنَّ
التَّأْخِيرَ مُسْتَحَبٌّ.
BOOK 52 .— FORNICATION (ZINA)
The crime of
fornication consists in the introduction
of the penis into
the vagina of a
woman with whom one has no right
of coition, without
one being able
to allege any cause of error. The
crime is punishable
with a definite
penalty ; and this punishment is also
applicable,
according to our school, to
whoever introduces his penis into the
podex
of a man or of a woman. On
the other hand, the penalty does not
apply
to a person who merely indulges
in voluptuous touching of the thighs,
nor to coition —
. With one’s
own wife or female slave during
their menstrues,
during a fast, or while
in a state of Hiram .
. *With
one’s own female slave married to
another man.
. *With one’s wife,
during her period of legal retirement.
. *With a female slave of whom
one is the owner, in case of
relation-
ship or-affinity within the prohibited
degrees.
. *Under violent compulsion.
. ft In cases where authorities
are not in agreement as to the
illegality of coition, e.g . in case
of a marriage concluded without
witnesses,
of which the Malekites do not admit
the absolute nullity.
. fWitli a
corpse, *or with an animal.
Thus
the law only punishes coition with a
free woman, or with the
slave of
another person, in the case of an
individual —
. With whom one is
not engaged in the bonds of
matrimony, and
who has surrendered herself
for nothing or for a remuneration.
.
With whom one is related by family
or marriage within the
prohibited degrees,
even though one may have married her
in fact,
but in contravention of the
law.
One is not punishable for
the crime of fornication unless one
is an
adult sane Moslem, and unless
one knew the act was forbidden.
Drunkenness cannot be pleaded as an
excuse.
The penalty is as follows.
. For a guilty person whom the
law considers as mohsan, by whicli
word is understood in this respect
an adult sane free Moslem man or
woman who has already experienced
coition in a legitimate marriage,
the
penalty is lapidation. *If this marriage
is attackable in any respect,
the
penalty of lapidation cannot be
pronounced, fit. is necessary that
coition
under the marriage must have consisted
in the introduction
of the penis
into the vagina, and that the man
should have been an
adult sane free
Moslem at the moment. Infidel subjects
of our
Sovereign are considered as
Moslems so far as regards this matter.
|The fact that one of the
accomplices in the crime of fornication
does
not satisfy all the conditions
required for lapidation, constitutes no
excuse for the other.
. For a
free person who is not molisan? the
punishment for forni-
cation is one
hundred stripes, followed by banishment
for one year
to a distance at least
permitting prayer to be abridged ; fand
if the
Sovereign designates a particular
spot as the criminal’s residence, he
must submit to this aggravation of
his punishment. In any case,
during
the period of his banishment, the
criminal may not remain in
the place
where the crime was committed, nor
in the place of his domi-
cile ;
fand if he makes his appearance in
one or other of these places,
the
authorities should drive him away, f A
banished woman need not
set out on
her journey alone ; she has a right
to be accompanied either
by her
husband, or by some one within the
prohibited degrees, at the
expense of
the state when she has not
sufficient means of her own.
fBut no
one can be obliged to accompany the
guilty woman, even for
hire.
.
For a slave, the punishment for
fornication is fifty stripes, followed
by
banishment for half a year, or according
to one authority a whole
year. One
jurist, however, does not admit banishment
as a punish-
ment where the criminal is a
slave.
The crime of fornication is
proved only by the evidence of witnesses
and by confession. A confession need
only be uttered once, and has
no
effect when retracted ; f but a retraction
is null and void where
the guilty
party asks for pardon or takes to
flight. As to the evidence
of
witness the reader must note that
the law requires four male
witnesses ;
but the definite penalty is not
pronounced, even on the
deposition of
these four witnesses, if four women
ascertain that the
woman accused is
still a virgin. But the deposition of
these four women
is not enough to
convict the accuser of defamation. If
one of the
witnesses indicates a certain
part of the house where the crime
was
committed, and the three others a
different place, the legal proof is
not attained.
It is the
Sovereign or his delegate who should
have the definite
penalty executed, where
the criminal is free or partially
enfranchised ;
and it is preferable
that the execution of the sentence
should take place
in presence of the
person who ordered it, and of the
witnesses. In the
case of a slave
the execution of the sentence should
be ordered either by
his master or
by the Sovereign, f the latter having
priority in case of a
dispute. fAs
to banishment it is always the
master who should see
to the
execution of the sentence in the
case of a slave ; but in this matter
a slave undergoing enfranchisement by
contract is considered as a free
man.
fThe right of the master to see
to the execution of a sentence
of
definite punishment pronounced against his
slave exists none the
less should
the master be a man of notorious
misconduct, or an infidel,
or himself a
slave undergoing enfranchisement by contract ;
and in the
case of a penalty at
the discretion of the court, the
right of execution
of the sentence
belongs exclusively to the master. fThe
master may
also examine the witnesses
in a penal matter.
Lapidation takes
place by means of pieces of dry
earth or of stones
of convenient
form and size. If the criminal is a
man, he is not half
buried in
the ground ; f but this procedure is
commendable in the case
of a woman,
at least where the crime has been
established by the
evidence of witnesses.
The sickness of the criminal, excessive
heat or
cold, are no grounds for
postponing the execution ; unless, according
to some authorities, where the proof
of the crime is a^onfession. On the
other hand, sickness is a good
ground for postponing the execution of a
sentence of flogging, unless no hope
can be entertained of a cure. In
these circumstances, however, flogging is
effected by means of one
stroke with
a rod with a hundred bands, instead of
by means of one
hundred strokes with
a whip with a thong ; if it is
impossible to procure
a rod with more
than fifty bands, then the flogging
consists of two strokes.
Even in
this case, however, the flogging must
be done in such a way
that the
criminal experiences some pain ; i.e . that
the bands must all
touch him or
at least contribute by their weight
to make the instrument
fall more
heavily ; for if the patient unexpectedly
recover, that is no
reason for
repeating the flogging. Flogging should
not take place at
a moment when it
is excessively hot or cold ; though,
according to
Shafii’s personal opinion,
the Sovereign, if he proceeds to
carry out the
execution of the
sentence, in spite of the criminal’s
sickness, is not
responsible for the
consequences that may ensue. According to
that
view it is merely commendable
to adjourn the punishment in that case,
but it is not a rule of
rigorous observance.
كتاب حَدِّ الْقَذْفِ
BOOK 53.— DEFAMATION
شَرْطُ حَدِّ الْقَذْفِ: التَّكْلِيفُ إلَّا السَّكْرَانَ الِاخْتِيَارُ،
وَيُعَزَّرُ الْمُمَيِّزُ، وَلَا يُحَدُّ بِقَذْفِ الْوَلَدِ وَإِنْ سَفَلَ.
فَالْحُرُّ
ثَمَانُونَ، وَالرَّقِيقُ أَرْبَعُونَ.
وَ الْمَقْذُوفِ:
الْإِحْصَانُ وَسَبَقَ فِي اللِّعَانِ.
وَلَوْ شَهِدَ دُونَ
أَرْبَعَةٍ بِزِنًا حُدُّوا فِي الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَكَذَا أَرْبَعُ
نِسْوَةٍ وَعَبِيدٍ وَكَفَرَةٍ عَلَى الْمَذْهَبِ.
وَلَوْ شَهِدَ
وَاحِدٌ عَلَى إقْرَارِهِ فَلَا، وَلَوْ تَقَاذَفَا فَلَيْسَ تَقَاصًّا.
وَلَوْ
اسْتَقَلَّ الْمَقْذُوفُ بِالِاسْتِيفَاءِ لَمْ يَقَعْ الْمَوْقِعَ.
BOOK .— DEFAMATION
Defamation is
punishable only when committed by a sane
adult
Moslem. Drunkenness is no excuse.
The law requires that the crime
should have been committed spontaneously.
As to a minor who has
attained the
age of discernment, he is punishable
at the discretion of
the court.
Ascendants are not punishable for
defamation against
their descendants.
The
penalty for a free person is eighty
stripes, and for a slave forty,
provided
that the injured party possesses the
character of mohsan, i.e.
would be
punishable with lapidation if the
accusation were well founded.
As to
the legal meaning of the word mohsan ,
we explained this when
treating of
imprecation.
There are punishable as
defamers : ^witnesses who prove in court
the crime of fornication, but are
not of the prescribed number of four
;
and even witnesses, of whatever
number, who are not male, free, and,
according to our school, Moslem. On
the other hand, a witness cannot
be
punished as a defamer who proves that
the accused confessed the
crime of
fornication, even though he be the
only witness.
Where two persons
mutually defame each other there is
no ground
for compensation ; and where
the injured party lias himself of
his own
accord applied the definite
prescribed penalty, the flogging has not
been
legally executed, and must be
repeated.
كتاب قَطْعِ السَّرِقَةِ
BOOK .— CRIMES PUNISHABLE WITH AMPUTATION
يُشْتَرَطُ لِوُجُوبِهِ فِي الْمَسْرُوقِ
أُمُورٌ: كَوْنُهُ رُبُعَ دِينَارٍ خَالِصًا أَوْ قِيمَتَهُ، وَلَوْ سَرَقَ
رُبُعًا سَبِيكَةً لَا يُسَاوِي رُبُعًا مَضْرُوبًا فَلَا قَطْعَ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ سَرَقَ دَنَانِيرَ ظَنَّهَا فُلُوسًا لَا
تُسَاوِي رُبُعًا قُطِعَ، وَكَذَا ثَوْبٌ رَثٌّ فِي جَيْبِهِ تَمَامُ رُبُعٍ
جَهِلَهُ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ أَخْرَجَ نِصَابًا مِنْ حِرْزٍ
مَرَّتَيْنِ فَإِنْ تَخَلَّلَ عِلْمُ الْمَالِكِ وَإِعَادَةُ الْحِرْزِ
فَالْإِخْرَاجُ الثَّانِي سَرِقَةٌ أُخْرَى، وَإِلَّا قُطِعَ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ نَقَّبَ وِعَاءَ حِنْطَةٍ وَنَحْوِهَا
فَانْصَبَّ نِصَابٌ قُطِعَ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ اشْتَرَكَا فِي
إخْرَاجِ نِصَابَيْنِ قُطِعَا، وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
وَلَوْ سَرَقَ
خَمْرًا وَخِنْزِيرًا وَكَلْبًا وَجِلْدَ مَيِّتَةٍ بِلَا دَبْغٍ فَلَا قَطْعَ،
فَإِنْ بَلَغَ إنَاءُ الْخَمْرِ نِصَابًا قُطِعَ عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ.
وَلَا
قَطْعَ فِي طُنْبُورٍ وَنَحْوِهِ، وَقِيلَ: إنْ بَلَغَ مُكَسَّرُهُ نِصَابًا
قُطِعَ.
قُلْت: الثَّانِي أَصَحُّ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
الثَّانِي
كَوْنُهُ مِلْكًا لِغَيْرِهِ.
فَلَوْ مَلَكَهُ بِإِرْثٍ وَغَيْرِهِ
قَبْلَ إخْرَاجِهِ مِنْ الْحِرْزِ، أَوْ نَقَصَ فِيهِ عَنْ نِصَابٍ بِأَكْلٍ
وَغَيْرِهِ لَمْ يُقْطَعْ.
وَكَذَا إنْ ادَّعَى مِلْكَهُ عَلَى
النَّصِّ.
وَلَوْ سَرَقَا وَادَّعَاهُ أَحَدُهُمَا لَهُ أَوْ
لَهُمَا فَكَذَّبَهُ الْآخَرُ لَمْ يُقْطَعْ الْمُدَّعِي، وَقُطِعَ الْآخَرُ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ.
وَإِنْ سَرَقَ مِنْ حِرْزِ شَرِيكِهِ مُشْتَرَكًا فَلَا
قَطْعَ فِي الْأَظْهَرِ، وَإِنْ قَلَّ نَصِيبُهُ.
الثَّالِثُ عَدَمُ
شُبْهَةٍ فِيهِ، فَلَا قَطْعَ بِسَرِقَةِ مَالِ أَصْلٍ وَفَرْعٍ وَسَيِّدٍ.
وَالْأَظْهَرُ
قَطْعُ أَحَدِ زَوْجَيْنِ بِالْآخَرِ.
وَمَنْ سَرَقَ مَالَ بَيْتِ
الْمَالِ، إنْ فُرِزَ لِطَائِفَةٍ لَيْسَ هُوَ مِنْهُمْ قُطِعَ، وَإِلَّا
فَالْأَصَحُّ أَنَّهُ إنْ كَانَ لَهُ حَقٌّ فِي الْمَسْرُوقِ كَمَالِ مَصَالِحَ
وَكَصَدَقَةٍ وَهُوَ فَقِيرٌ فَلَا، وَإِلَّا قُطِعَ.
وَالْمَذْهَبُ
قَطْعُهُ بِبَابِ مَسْجِدٍ وَجِذْعِهِ لَا حُصْرِهِ، وَقَنَادِيلَ تُسْرَجُ.
وَالْأَصَحُّ
قَطْعُهُ بِمَوْقُوفٍ.
وَأُمِّ وَلَدٍ سَرَقَهَا نَائِمَةً، أَوْ
مَجْنُونَةً.
الرَّابِعُ كَوْنُهُ مُحَرَّزًا بِمُلَاحَظَةِ أَوْ
حَصَانَةِ مَوْضِعِهِ، فَإِنْ كَانَ بِصَحْرَاءَ أَوْ مَسْجِدٍ اُشْتُرِطَ
دَوَامُ لِحَاظٍ، وَإِنْ كَانَ بِحِصْنٍ كَفَى لِحَاظٌ مُعْتَادٌ، وَإِصْطَبْلٌ
حِرْزُ دَوَابَّ، لَا آنِيَةٍ وَثِيَابٍ، وَعَرْصَةُ دَارٍ، وَصُفَّتُهَا حِرْزُ
آنِيَةٍ وَثِيَابِ بِذْلَةٍ، لَا حُلِيٍّ، وَنَقْدٍ.
وَلَوْ نَامَ
بِصَحْرَاءَ أَوْ مَسْجِدٍ عَلَى ثَوْبٍ أَوْ تَوَسَّدَ مَتَاعًا فَمُحْرَزٌ،
فَلَوْ انْقَلَبَ فَزَالَ عَنْهُ فَلَا، وَثَوْبٌ وَمَتَاعٌ وَضَعَهُ بِقُرْبِهِ
بِصَحْرَاءَ إنْ لَاحَظَهُ مُحْرَزٌ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
وَشَرْطُ
الْمُلَاحِظِ قُدْرَتُهُ عَلَى مَنْعِ سَارِقٍ بِقُوَّةٍ أَوْ اسْتِغَاثَةٍ.
وَدَارٌ
مُنْفَصِلَةٌ عَنْ الْعِمَارَةِ إنْ كَانَ بِهَا قَوِيٌّ يَقْظَانُ حِرْزٌ مَعَ
فَتْحِ الْبَابِ وَإِغْلَاقِهِ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
وَمُتَّصِلَةٌ
حِرْزٌ مَعَ إغْلَاقِهِ وَحَافِظٍ وَلَوْ نَائِمٌ، وَمَعَ فَتْحِهِ وَنَوْمِهِ
غَيْرُ حِرْزٍ لَيْلاً، وَكَذَا نَهَارًا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَكَذَا
يَقْظَانُ تَغَفَّلَهُ سَارِقٌ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، فَإِنْ خَلَتْ فَالْمَذْهَبُ
أَنَّهَا حِرْزٌ نَهَارًا زَمَنَ أَمْنٍ وَإِغْلَاقِهِ، فَإِنْ فُقِدَ شَرْطٌ
فَلَا.
وَخَيْمَةٌ بِصَحْرَاءَ إنْ لَمْ تُشَدَّ أَطْنَابُهَا
وَتُرْخَى أَذْيَالُهَا فَهِيَ وَمَا فِيهَا كَمَتَاعٍ بِصَحْرَاءَ، وَإِلَّا
فَحِرْزٌ بِشَرْطِ حَافِظٍ قَوِيٍّ فِيهَا وَلَوْ نَائِمٌ.
وَمَاشِيَةٌ
بِأَبْنِيَةٍ مُغْلَقَةٍ مُتَّصِلَةٍ بِالْعِمَارَةِ مُحْرَزَةٌ بِلَا
حَافِظٍ.
وَبِبَرِّيَّةٍ يُشْتَرَطُ حَافِظٌ وَلَوْ نَائِمٌ.
وَإِبِلٌ
بِصَحْرَاءَ مُحْرَزَةٌ بِحَافِظٍ يَرَاهَا.
وَمَقْطُورَةٌ
يُشْتَرَطُ الْتِفَاتُ قَائِدِهَا إلَيْهَا كُلَّ سَاعَةٍ بِحَيْثُ يَرَاهَا،
وَأَنْ لَا يَزِيدَ قِطَارٌ عَلَى تِسْعَةٍ.
وَغَيْرُ مَقْطُورَةٍ
لَيْسَتْ مُحْرَزَةً فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَكَفَنٌ فِي قَبْرٍ بِبَيْتٍ
مُحْرَزٍ مُحْرَزٌ.
وَكَذَا بِمَقْبَرَةٍ بِطَرَفِ الْعِمَارَةِ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ لَا بِمَضْيَعَةٍ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
BOOK .— CRIMES PUNISHABLE WITH
AMPUTATION
CHAPTER I.— THEFT (SARIQAH)
Section
Amputation for theft
is applicable only under the following
circum-
stances : —
. That at least
the quarter of an entire dinar has
been stolen, or
an object of that
value. fThus if one steals a piece
of unminted gold
of the volume of a
quarter of a dinar , that would not have
this volume
after being placed under
the die, one is not liable to
the definite pre-
scribed penalty. This
penalty should be pronounced against a thief
who takes several dinars , believing them
to be pieces of copper of less
than the required value ; j*and also
against a person who steals an old
coat of less than the required
value ; but in the pocket of which,
acci-
dentally and without his knowledge,
there is something of which the
value, added to that of the
coat, does amount to the value required.
Where one commits two thefts at
the same place, each less than the
quarter of a dinar , but more when
taken together, one has committed
two
non-punishable thefts, if the owner
perceived the first before the
second
took place, and repaired the fastening
in the meanwhile.
jOthenvise there is
considered to be only one theft, of
the required
amount, and consequently the
thief is punishable with amputation,
f The
penalty is applicable also to the
case of a person who makes an
opening in a sack of corn, etc.,
so that its contents are abstracted, to
the minimum value required. Two
persons committing this abstrac-
tion together
are punishable with amputation only when
they take
twice the minimum, as
otherwise each would be considered to have
taken an inferior amount. Amputation
is never applicable to a person
who
steals things impure in themselves, and
consequently without
legal value, such as
wine, pork, a dog, or the untanned
skin of an
animal that has died a
natural death or been killed in any
other manner
than by slaughtering or
in hunting in accordance with the
precepts of the
law. ffBut where the
vessel in which some prohibited liquid is
contained is stolen at the same
time, and the value of this vessel
reaches
the required minimum, amputation
should be pronounced, without
regard to
the contents. And in accordance with
this same principle
amputation does not
take place for the theft of a guitar
or other instru-
ment of music, though
some authorities exact it where the
different
fragments of the guitar have
the required value. [fThese authorities
are right.]
. That the stolen
property belongs to another. Consequently
amputation does not take place where
the stolen object has already
become
the property of the thief before its
abstraction ; even though
this may be
unknown to him, as by succession.
Nor does it take place
where the
original value of the things stolen
has already diminished,
before their
abstraction, below the minimum, as where
the owner eats
some of his
provisions, etc. According to Shafii’s
personal opinion it
is not absolutely
necessary that one should be the
owner of the object
to render
amputation inapplicable ; it is enough if
one has claimed it
in a court of
justice, f Where only one of two
accomplices makes some
claim to an
object either for himself or for
both of them, while the
other
opposes this claim, the former alone
is exempt from amputation ;
his
claim does not save his accomplice
from amputation. *And it
follows also
from this principle that amputation is
not rigorously required
in the case
of theft of an object of which
one is co-proprietor, when this
object
is in a jointly owrned shop, however
small may be the thief’s
share.
. That the abstraction cannot
have been committed by error.
Consequently
amputation does not take place for
abstractions to the
prejudice of one’s
ascendants or descendants, nor for those
committed
by a slave to the prejudice
of his master ; ^though amputation is
rigorously necessary for abstractions
committed by one of two married
persons to the prejudice of the
other. As to thefts to the prejudice
of the public treasury, they do
not involve amputation in the following
cases : —
(a) Where the stolen
object is intended specially for a corporation
of which the thief is a member.
(b) f Where the thief has' a claim
to the stolen object under some
respect, e.g. where a Moslem steals
money intended for the public good,
or where a poor person steals money
forming part of the charity tax.
Our school insists upon amputation
for taking a door or a beam
from a
mosque, but not for taking a mat or
a lighted lamp. j*On the
other hand,
amputation is rigorously necessary for any
one who steals
any fixed object, or
carries off a female slave enfranchised on
account
of maternity, asleep or mad.
That the stolen object is kept
sufficiently safe, either in sight, or
in a sure place. When one deposits
an object on a desert plain or in a
mosque one ought not to lose
sight .of it ; but when one deposits it
somewhere inside an enclosed place,
it is sufficient to take the usual
amount of care to see to the
fastenings. A stable is a sure place for
animals, but not for household goods
or wearing apparel ; the court-
yard of a
house and the soffa are sure places
for utensils and daily
clothes, but
not for finery, nor for gold and
silver coin. If one lies down
upon a
coat in a desert plain or in a
mosque, or uses something as a
pillow, these objects are kept
sufficiently safe, provided the sleeper does
not turn over in his sleep and
does not lie down to the side. A
coat
or other object placed upon a
desert plain close to the owner are
con-
sidered to be kept safely so
long as he does not lose sight
of them, and is
able to defend
them from attack, either by his own
strength or by calling
for assistance. A
solitary house is a safe place if a
strong man is in
charge of it,
it matters little if the door is
open or closed. A house
surrounded by
other houses is a safe place if the
door is closed, and there
is a
guardian, even though he should be
in the habit of going to sleep ;
but if the guardian goes to
bed leaving the door open the house
is not a
safe place by night,
for by day. fit is the same
where a guardian is
a person to be
easily duped by thieves. An uninhabited
house, sur-
rounded by other houses,
constitutes a safe place, according to our
school, only during the day ;
provided it is during a time of
peace, and
the door is closed. A
tent in a desert plain, if the ropes
are not stretched
tight and the
lower extremities not firmly attached to
the soil, is regarded,
with everything
it contains, in the same way as
objects placed upon
the plain. If
the ropes are stretched tight, and
the extremities attached
to the soil,
the tent is a safe place, if it
has a strong guardian, even though
he
is in the habit of going to
sleep. Cattle in a stable or an enclosed
place belonging to a house is
sufficiently safe even without a guardian ;
but such a place in a desert
requires a guardian, who need not, however,
always be awake. As to camels
on a desert plain they are sufficiently
guarded if in charge of a herdsman ;
and the same is the case with
camels or elephants attached to one
another, so as to walk in file, pro-
vided that their conductor ascertains
every hour that they are all there,
and provided there are no more
than nine head, f Animals not attached
to one another on the march
are not considered to be sufficiently
guarded. A shroud is sufficiently guarded
in a tomb situated in some
closed
construction, for in a cemetery on the
outskirts of habitations,
but not in a
tomb situated in some desert place.
فَصْلٌ [فيما يمنع القطع وما لا يمنعه]
يُقْطَعُ مُؤَجِّرُ
الْحِرْزِ، وَكَذَا مُعِيرُهُ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ غَصَبَ
حِرْزًا لَمْ يُقْطَعْ مَالِكُهُ، وَكَذَا أَجْنَبِيٌّ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ
غَصَبَ مَالاً وَأَحْرَزَهُ بِحِرْزِهِ فَسَرَقَ الْمَالِكُ مِنْهُ مَالَ
الْغَاصِبِ، أَوْ أَجْنَبِيٌّ الْمَغْصُوبَ فَلَا قَطْعَ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَا
يُقْطَعُ مُخْتَلِسٌ وَمُنْتَهِبٌ وَجَاحِدٌ وَدِيعَةً.
وَلَوْ
نَقَبَ وَعَادَ فِي لَيْلَةٍ أُخْرَى فَسَرَقَ قُطِعَ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
قُلْت:
هَذَا إذَا لَمْ يُعْلَمْ لِمَالِكِ النَّقْبِ، وَلَمْ يَظْهَرْ لِلطَّارِقِينَ،
وَإِلَّا فَلَا يُقْطَعُ قَطْعًا، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَلَوْ
نَقَبَ وَأَخْرَجَ غَيْرُهُ فَلَا قَطْعَ.
وَلَوْ تَعَاوَنَا فِي
النَّقْبِ وَانْفَرَدَ أَحَدُهُمَا بِالْإِخْرَاجِ أَوْ وَضَعَهُ نَاقِبٌ
بِقُرْبِ النَّقْبِ فَأَخْرَجَهُ آخَرُ قُطِعَ الْمُخْرِجُ.
وَلَوْ
وَضَعَهُ بِوَسَطِ نَقْبِهِ فَأَخَذَهُ خَارِجٌ وَهُوَ يُسَاوِي نِصَابَيْنِ لَمْ
يُقْطَعَا فِي الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَلَوْ رَمَاهُ إلَى خَارِجِ حِرْزٍ
أَوْ وَضَعَهُ بِمَاءٍ جَارٍ أَوْ ظَهْرِ دَابَّةٍ سَائِرَةٍ أَوْ عَرَّضَهُ
لِرِيحٍ هَابَّةٍ فَأَخْرَجَتْهُ قُطِعَ.
أَوْ وَاقِفَةٍ فَمَشَتْ
بِوَضْعِهِ فَلَا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَا يُضْمَنُ حُرٌّ بِيَدٍ،
وَلَا يُقْطَعُ سَارِقُهُ.
وَلَوْ سَرَقَ صَغِيرًا بِقِلَادَةٍ
فَكَذَا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ نَامَ عَبْدٌ عَلَى بَعِيرٍ
فَقَادَهُ وَأَخْرَجَهُ عَنْ الْقَافِلَةِ قُطِعَ، أَوْ حُرٌّ فَلَا فِي
الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ نَقَلَ مِنْ بَيْتٍ مُغْلَقٍ إلَى صَحْنِ دَارٍ
بَابُهَا مَفْتُوحٌ قُطِعَ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا، وَقِيلَ إنْ كَانَا مُغْلَقَيْنِ
قُطِعَ.
وَبَيْتُ خَانٍ وَصَحْنُهُ كَبَيْتٍ، وَ دَارٍ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ.
Section
The lessor for the
lender of a shop is punishable with
amputation
for abstracting an object
deposited in the shop by the lessee
or borrower ;
but if the shop
is occupied by a person who has
usurped it, neither the
owner fnor
any one else is punishable for
committing such abstraction.
Nor is
amputation applicable : —
. If a
person who has usurped an object
places it in a shop which
belongs to
him, and the owner of the object
so usurped comes and takes
another
object belonging to the usurper and
deposited in the same
shop.
.
flf any other person takes the
usurped object from the shop.
.
In case of open theft, or robbery,
or denial of a deposit.
f Amputation
is applicable to a person who penetrates a
wall and
by this means steals
something the next night. [Unless before
the theft
the owner is informed of
the fact that a hole has been made
in his wall,
or the hole is
visible to passers by, for under
these circumstances the
place is
insufficiently safe and consequently there
is no ground for
amputation.]
In a
case where one criminal makes a hole
in the wall, and another
makes use
of it for theft, neither are liable
to amputation ; and where
both together
make the hole but only one commits
the abstraction,
the latter alone suffers
amputation. Even if one of the two
places the
stolen object close to
the hole and the other takes it,
the latter alone is
punishable with
amputation ; *and this principle is carried
so far that
amputation is not
pronounced against the accomplice even
though he
places the object in the
middle of the hole and the value
exceeds twice
the legal minimum.
Amputation is rigorously necessary
where the object is taken from
the
owner under the following circumstances : —
. If the thief throws the
thing to some one who is about
to go
away.
. If he throws
it into running water.
. If he
places it on the back of a moving
animal.
. If he exposes it in
the open when a violent wind is blowing.
f On the other hand, this
penalty is not applicable where the thief
merely places the object upon the
back of an animal that happens to
stop at that place, and goes
on with it as a load. A free person,
not
being an object of commerce,
cannot be stolen ; consequently one is
not
punishable with amputation for carrying
off a free person ; f even
though it may
be a small child wearing a collar the
value of which
reaches the legal
minimum. It follows from this principle
that one
'wlio finds a slave sleeping
on a camel and leads tlie beast far
from the
caravan without waking the
sleeper, should be amputated ; fbut if
the
sleeper is a free man he is still
in possession of his mount, and con-
sequently amputation is not applicable. On
the other hand, amputation
is prescribed
for transporting an object belonging to
another from a
closed room into the
courtyard of the house if the main
door is open,
but not if the
room is open and the house door
shut. According to
some authorities
amputation is rigorously necessary even
where the
doors of both room and
house are shut ; f while the same rules
are
applicable in the case of a room
at an inn from which one has
abstracted
another’s baggage and deposited
it in the courtyard.
فَصْلٌ [في شروط السارق الذي يقطع]
لَا يُقْطَعُ صَبِيٌّ
وَمَجْنُونٌ وَمُكْرَهٌ.
وَيُقْطَعُ مُسْلِمٌ وَذِمِّيٌّ بِمَالِ
مُسْلِمٍ وَذِمِّيٍّ، وَفِي مُعَاهَدٍ أَقْوَالٌ: أَحْسَنُهَا إنْ شُرِطَ
قَطْعُهُ بِسَرِقَةٍ قُطِعَ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
قُلْت: الْأَظْهَرُ
عِنْدَ الْجُمْهُورِ لَا قَطْعَ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَتَثْبُتُ
السَّرِقَةُ بِيَمِينِ الْمُدَّعِي الْمَرْدُودَةِ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، أَوْ
بِإِقْرَارِ السَّارِقِ، وَالْمَذْهَبُ قَبُولُ رُجُوعِهِ.
وَمَنْ
أَقَرَّ بِعُقُوبَةٍ لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى فَالصَّحِيحُ أَنَّ لِلْقَاضِي أَنْ
يُعَرِّضَ لَهُ بِالرُّجُوعِ، وَلَا يَقُولُ: ارْجِعْ.
وَلَوْ
أَقَرَّ بِلَا دَعْوَى أَنَّهُ سَرَقَ مَالَ زَيْدٍ الْغَائِبِ لَمْ يُقْطَعْ فِي
الْحَالِ، بَلْ يُنْتَظَرُ حُضُورُهُ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
أَوْ أَنَّهُ
أَكْرَهَ أَمَةَ غَائِبٍ عَلَى زِنًا حُدَّ فِي الْحَالِ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَتَثْبُتُ
بِشَهَادَةِ رَجُلَيْنِ، فَلَوْ شَهِدَ رَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ ثَبَتَ الْمَالُ
وَلَا قَطْعَ، وَيُشْتَرَطُ ذِكْرُ الشَّاهِدِ شُرُوطُ السَّرِقَةِ.
وَلَوْ
اخْتَلَفَ شَاهِدَانِ كَقَوْلِهِ: سَرَقَ بُكْرَةً، وَالْآخَرِ عَشِيَّةً
فَبَاطِلَةٌ.
وَعَلَى السَّارِقِ رَدُّ مَا سَرَقَ، فَإِنْ تَلِفَ
ضَمِنَهُ وَتُقْطَعُ يَمِينُهُ.
فَإِنْ سَرَقَ ثَانِيًا بَعْدَ
قَطْعِهَا فَرِجْلُهُ الْيُسْرَى، وَثَالِثًا يَدُهُ الْيُسْرَى، وَرَابِعًا
رِجْلُهُ الْيُمْنَى، وَبَعْدَ ذَلِكَ يُعَزَّرُ وَيُغْمَسُ مَحَلُّ الْقَطْعِ
بِزَيْتٍ أَوْ دُهْنٍ مُغْلًى، قِيلَ: هُوَ تَتِمَّةٌ لِلْحَدِّ، وَالْأَصَحُّ
أَنَّهُ حَقٌّ لِلْمَقْطُوعِ، فَمُؤْنَتُهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلِلْإِمَامِ
إهْمَالُهُ.
وَتُقْطَعُ الْيَدُ مِنْ الْكُوعِ، وَالرِّجْلُ مِنْ
مَفْصِلِ الْقَدَمِ.
وَمَنْ سَرَقَ مِرَارًا بِلَا قَطْعٍ كَفَتْ
يَمِينُهُ.
وَإِنْ نَقَصَتْ أَرْبَعَ أَصَابِعَ قُلْت: وَكَذَا
لَوْ ذَهَبَتْ الْخَمْسُ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَتُقْطَعُ
يَدٌ زَائِدَةٌ أُصْبُعًا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ سَرَقَ فَسَقَطَتْ
يَمِينُهُ بِآفَةٍ سَقَطَ الْقَطْعُ، أَوْ يَسَارُهُ فَلَا عَلَى
الْمَذْهَبِ.
Section
Theft committed by a
minor or a lunatic, or under violent com-
pulsion does not involve amputation ; but
it is of small consequence
whether
the injured party or the criminal
are Moslems or inlidel subjects
of
our Sovereign. As to an inlidel
living among us by virtue of a safe
conduct or an armistice jurists are
not in agreement, though the better
doctrine tends to regard as liable
to amputation those who are expressly
subject to our laws in this
respect. [The generally accepted doctrine
forbids the amputation of such infidel.]
Theft is proved fby the
accuser’s oath, if the accused challenges
him to it ; and also by the
accused’s confession, which may, however
be retracted, according to our
school, ffWhere the accused confesses
some
crime incurring a penalty of reparation
towards God and conse-
quently not
remissible, the court should have it
explained to him that
retractation is
permissible, without however, imposing it
upon him as
an order. Moreover, if
any one of his own accord presents
himself
before the court and admits
having stolen the property of another
person who is absent, f the penalty
of amputation may not be pronounced
before the return of the injured
party, and his confirmation of the fact ;
fbut execution should take place at
once where the accused admits
forcing
the slave of another to commit the
crime of fornication. Theft
is also
proved by the deposition of two male
witnesses ; the deposition
of one man
and two women is not sufficient for
pronouncing the definite
prescribed penalty,
though enough for the civil action
resulting from the
crime. The witnesses
should make a detailed account of the
fact, and
if the details do not
agree, if, for example one of the
witnesses declares
that it happened at
dawn, and the other at the beginning
of the night,
their depositions cancel
each other.
Without prejudice to the
penalty incurred the thief should be
condemned to a restitution of the
object stolen, or if it be lost
to a
payment of its value.
Amputation of the right hand
takes place for the first offence ; that
of the left foot for the
second ; that of the left hand for
the third, and
that of the right
foot for the fourth. Subsequent offences
are punish-
able at the discretion of
the court. The joint whore the
amputation is
to be effected should
first be anointed with boiled fat
and oil. This act
is considered by
some jurists as a necessary accompaniment
of the
penalty. fThe majority, however,
regard it as the sufferer’s right, so
that he has to bear the
expense, and the Sovereign need not
order it
ex officio. The hand is
amputated at the wrist, and the foot
at the
joint below the ankle. A
person who commits several thefts for the
first time suffers only the
amputation of the right hand, even though
there were missing from it four
fingers [for even five]. The hand is
amputated without regard to the fact
that it may have an extra finger.
If the criminal has already lost
the right hand in consequence of some
malady, amputation does not take
place for the first theft. But,
according to our school, it is
not a reason for dispensing with the ampu-
tation of the right hand that the
sufferer has already lost the left,
although on that account the penalty
is in his case much more serious
than it otherwise would be.
باب قَاطِعِ الطَّرِيقِ
CHAPTER II.— BRIGANDS (QATI' AL-TARIQ)
هُوَ مُسْلِمٌ مُكَلَّفٌ لَهُ شَوْكَةٌ، لَا مُخْتَلِسُونَ يَتَعَرَّضُونَ
لِآخِرِ قَافِلَةٍ يَعْتَمِدُونَ الْهَرَبَ، وَاَلَّذِينَ يَغْلِبُونَ شِرْذِمَةً
بِقُوَّتِهِمْ قُطَّاعٌ فِي حَقِّهِمْ، لَا لِقَافِلَةٍ عَظِيمَةٍ، وَحَيْثُ
يَلْحَقُ غَوْثٌ لَيْسَ بِقُطَّاعٍ، وَفَقْدُ الْغَوْثِ يَكُونُ لِلْبُعْدِ أَوْ
لِضَعْفٍ وَقَدْ يَغْلِبُونَ وَالْحَالَةُ هَذِهِ فِي بَلَدٍ فَهُمْ
قُطَّاعٌ.
وَلَوْ عَلِمَ الْإِمَامُ قَوْمًا يُخِيفُونَ الطَّرِيقَ
وَلَمْ يَأْخُذُوا مَالاً وَلَا نَفْسًا عَزَّرَهُمْ بِحَبْسٍ وَغَيْرِهِ.
وَإِذَا
أَخَذَ الْقَاطِعُ نِصَابَ السَّرِقَةِ قَطَعَ يَدَهُ الْيُمْنَى وَرِجْلَهُ
الْيُسْرَى، فَإِنْ عَادَ فَيُسْرَاهُ وَيُمْنَاهُ.
وَإِنْ قَتَلَ
قُتِلَ حَتْمًا.
وَإِنْ قَتَلَ وَأَخَذَ مَالاً قُتِلَ ثُمَّ صُلِبَ
ثَلَاثًا ثُمَّ يُنَزَّلُ، وَقِيلَ يَبْقَى حَتَّى يَسِيلَ صَدِيدُهُ، وَفِي
قَوْلٍ يُصْلَبُ قَلِيلاً ثُمَّ يُنَزَّلُ فَيُقْتَلُ.
وَمَنْ
أَعَانَهُمْ وَكَثَّرَ جَمْعَهُمْ عُزِّرَ بِحَبْسٍ وَتَغْرِيبٍ وَغَيْرِهِمَا،
وَقِيلَ: يَتَعَيَّنُ التَّغْرِيبُ إلَى حَيْثُ يَرَاهُ.
وَقَتْلُ
الْقَاطِعِ يُغَلَّبُ فِيهِ مَعْنَى الْقِصَاصِ، وَفِي قَوْلٍ الْحَدِّ فَعَلَى
الْأَوَّلِ لَا يُقْتَلُ بِوَلَدِهِ وَ ذِمِّيٍّ.
وَلَوْ مَاتَ
فَدِيَةٌ.
وَلَوْ قَتَلَ جَمْعًا قُتِلَ بِوَاحِدٍ، وَلِلْبَاقِينَ
دِيَاتٌ.
وَلَوْ عَفَا وَلِيُّهُ بِمَالٍ وَجَبَ وَسَقَطَ
الْقِصَاصُ وَيُقْتَلُ حَدًّا.
وَلَوْ قَتَلَ بِمُثْقَلٍ أَوْ
بِقَطْعِ عُضْوٍ فُعِلَ بِهِ مِثْلُهُ.
وَلَوْ جَرَحَ فَانْدَمَلَ
لَمْ يَتَحَتَّمْ قِصَاصٌ فِي الْأَظْهَرِ.
وَتَسْقُطُ عُقُوبَاتٌ
تَخُصُّ الْقَاطِعَ بِتَوْبَتِهِ قَبْلَ الْقُدْرَةِ عَلَيْهِ، لَا بَعْدَهَا
عَلَى الْمَذْهَبِ، وَلَا تَسْقُطُ سَائِرُ الْحُدُودِ بِهَا فِي
الْأَظْهَرِ.
CHAPTER II.— BRIGANDS
Section
By “
brigand ” is understood an adult sane
Moslem who troubles the
security of
the roads by armed force ; but not a
person who furtively
joins the rear
of a caravan, intending to escape after a
few thefts. Those
who confine themselves
to attacking and robbing travellers who
are
alone or in small groups should
be considered as brigands in respect
to the persons they can get
the better of, but not in respect
of a large
caravan. Besides, in the
term brigandage is not included an attack
at a moment, when, or in a place
where, one can call for help ; but
the
term does cover an attack when
this is not the case, either on
account
of distance, or on account
of the weakness of persons living
near by,
even though it may be
in a town.
Brigands who trouble the
security of the roads by menace only,
and do not rob or murder
travellers should be punished by the
Sovereign
with imprisonment, etc., by way
of punishment at discretion ; but a
brigand guilty of theft, to an
amount usually involving amputation,
should
lose the right hand and the left
foot ; or, for a second offence,
the
loft hand and the right foot.
Homicide committed by a brigand
renders
rigorously necessary an application of the
death penalty ; and
homicide accompanied
by theft is punished with death ;
and the corpse
is exposed for three
days upon a cross. After this period
it should bo
taken down. According,
however, to some authorities it should
remain
until a clear liquid begins to
flow from it. One jurist even maintains
that the guilty person should first
be crucified for some time and then
taken down to be put to death.
A person who takes part in the
misdeeds of brigands, and joins
their
band, but is not employed in it,
and is not guilty of any criminal
act, should be punished with
imprisonment, banishment, etc., by way of
punishment at discretion. As to
banishment, some jurists maintain
that the
Sovereign should indicate the place where
the guilty party
should reside.
The
death penalty, to which a brigand is
liable for homicide, is
equivalent to a
penalty under the law of talion ;
though, according to
one authority, it
is even then a definite prescribed
penalty. According
to the theory adopted
by the majority a brigand cannot be
put to death
for killing his
descendant or an infidel subject of
our Sovereign ; and if
he dies
before execution the price of blood
due for his victims constitutes
a debt
payable from his estate. If a brigand
has committed several
homicides this
theory requires that he should be
put to death for one
of these
homicides, while his estate remains
burdened with the price of
blood due
for the others ; but even when one
adopts that theory the
brigand should
none the less be put to death
as subject to a definite
proscribed
penalty when the representative of the
victim pardons him
for a fine, though
the talion does not exist in these
circumstances. A
brigand who kills his
victim either by means of a blunt
instrument, or
by cutting off a limb,
should suffer death in the same way ;
but if his
victim recovers from the
effects of his wound, the brigand is
not punish-
able under the law of
talion. Nor is he liable to the
special penalties
formulated against him,
if he changes his conduct before
falling into the
hands of the
authorities ; all without prejudice to the
penalties to be
pronounced for the
special offences of which he is
guilty. As to a
brigand whose
repentance is only manifested after his
arrest, our school
grants him no
such favour ; *and in general the
other definite prescribed
penalties should
bo undergone in spite of the
criminal’s repentance.
فَصْلٌ [في اجتماع عقوبات على شخص واحد]
مَنْ لَزِمَهُ قِصَاصٌ
وَقَطْعٌ وَحَدُّ قَذْفٍ وَطَالَبُوهُ جُلِدَ ثُمَّ قُطِعَ ثُمَّ قُتِلَ،
وَيُبَادَرُ بِقَتْلِهِ بَعْدَ قَطْعِهِ لَا قَطْعُهُ بَعْدَ جَلْدِهِ إنْ غَابَ
مُسْتَحِقُّ قَتْلِهِ، وَكَذَا إنْ حَضَرَ وَقَالَ عَجِّلُوا الْقَطْعَ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ، وَإِذَا أَخَّرَ مُسْتَحِقُّ النَّفْسِ حَقَّهُ جُلِدَ فَإِذَا
بَرِئَ قُطِعَ، وَلَوْ أَخَّرَ مُسْتَحِقُّ طَرَفٍ جُلِدَ، وَعَلَى مُسْتَحِقِّ
النَّفْسِ الصَّبْرُ حَتَّى يَسْتَوْفِيَ الطَّرَفَ فَإِنْ بَادَرَ فَقَتَلَ
فَلِمُسْتَحِقِّ الطَّرَفِ دِيَةٌ، وَلَوْ أَخَّرَ مُسْتَحِقُّ الْجَلْدِ حَقَّهُ
فَالْقِيَاسُ صَبْرُ الْآخَرِينَ.
وَلَوْ اجْتَمَعَ حُدُودٌ لِلَّهِ
تَعَالَى قُدِّمَ الْأَخَفُّ فَالْأَخَفُّ.
أَوْ عُقُوبَاتٌ لِلَّهِ
تَعَالَى، وَالْآدَمِيِّينَ قُدِّمَ حَدُّ قَذْفٍ عَلَى زِنًا، وَالْأَصَحُّ
تَقْدِيمُهُ عَلَى حَدِّ شُرْبِ، وَأَنَّ الْقِصَاصَ قَتْلاً وَقَطْعًا يُقَدَّمُ
عَلَى الزِّنَا.
Section
In a case where the
offender has to undergo several penalties
for
offences against men, and consequently
capable of being remitted, such
as
the death penalty, amputation of a limb,
and the penalty for defama-
tion, ho
is first flogged, then suffers amputation,
and is finally put to
death. The
death penalty should be executed
immediately after the
amputation. Consequently
the latter penalty should be put off
in the
absence of the person who
has the right to demand the penalty
of death,
fand even if he is
present and insists upon proceeding at
once to ampu-
tation. On the other
hand, where the person who has tho
right to demand
the death penalty,
wishes the execution to be put off,
there is no objec-
tion to proceeding
at once to the flogging ; and this
penalty should be
followed immediately by
amputation, if the person who has
the right
to exact the death penalty
pardons the criminal. In a case where the
porson who can exact the penalty
of amputation, wishes its execution
to
be put off, the person who can
exact the penalty of flogging need not
wait ; but the penalty of death may
not on any consideration bo
executed
before amputation ; and the person who
proceeds in spite
of this to the
execution of tho criminal -owes to
the injured party who
had the right
to exact amputation the price of
blood for the limb that
should have
been amputated. The person who has
the right to exact
flogging may
oblige the two others to wait as
long as he pleases ; this
at least
is what strict logic requires. Where
the offender has to suffer
not
penalties capable of remission, but
penalties for offences committed
against
God, the lightest is executed first,
and so on in order. If lie has
to undergo a penalty for an offence
against God and also a penalty
that
may be remitted, a penalty pronounced for
defamation has priority
over one
pronounced for fornication, for over one
pronounced for wine-
drinking. f And similarly a
penalty under the law of talion, whether
of death or of amputation, has
priority over a penalty incurred for the
crime of fornication. []