if he had not apostatized. If the wound was accidental, atonement (kaffara) is obligatory in any case, because he has caused the loss of a protected life.
Section: If he wounds him while he is a Muslim, and he then apostatizes, and then he wounds him another wound, and he then accepts Islam and dies from them both, there is no retribution in it; because he died from two wounds, one guaranteed and one not guaranteed, and half the blood money is obligatory therein for that reason. It is the same whether the two wounds are equal or one of them is greater, such as if he cut off his hands while he was a Muslim, and he then apostatizes, and he [the perpetrator] cuts his foot, or the reverse; because the wound in both cases is like the wounding of two legs. Does retribution become obligatory for the limb that was cut during the state of his Islam? There are two possibilities, based upon [the case of] one who cuts his limb while he is a Muslim, then he apostatizes and dies in his state of apostasy. If he cut his limb during his apostasy first, and then he accepts Islam, and then he cuts his other limb, and he dies from both, the ruling therein is like the one preceding it.
Section: A Dhimmi is killed for a Muslim; because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed the Jew who smashed the head of a girl from the Ansar for ornaments she had, and because if he is killed for his own equivalent, then for someone superior to him it is more appropriate. A Dhimmi is killed for a Dhimmi, whether their religions are the same or different. If a Christian kills a Magian or a Jew, he is killed for it. Ahmad specified this regarding a Christian being killed for a Magian if he kills him. It was said: "How can he be killed for him when their blood monies are different?" He said: "I follow the view that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed a man for a woman." He meant that he killed him for her despite the difference in their blood money, and because they are equal in sanctity through the Dhimma and the deficiency of disbelief, so retribution occurs between them, just as if their religion were equal. This is the school of al-Shafi'i.
Section: A Dhimmi is not killed for a Harbi (combatant). We know of no disagreement regarding this; because he is of permissible blood absolutely, resembling a pig. There is no blood money for him for that reason, nor atonement, and no retribution, blood money, or atonement is obligatory for killing an apostate, regardless of whether a Muslim or a Dhimmi kills him. This is the opinion of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Some of the
(24) Omitted from: the original, M. (25) Its authentication has preceded, on page 448. (26) In M: "wa-diyatuhuma" (and their [dual] blood money).
لو (٢٤) لم يَرْتَدَّ. وإن كان الجَرْحُ خَطَأً وجبتِ الكَفَّارةُ بكلِّ حالٍ، لأنَّه فَوّتَ نَفْسًا مَعْصومةً.
فصل: وإن جَرَحَه وهو مُسْلِمٌ فارْتَدَّ، ثم جَرَحه جُرْحًا آخرَ، ثم أسْلَم ومات منهما، فلا قِصاصَ فيه؛ لأنَّه مات من جُرْحَيْنِ مَضْمونٍ وغيرِ مَضْمونٍ، ويجبُ فيه نِصْفُ الدِّيَةِ لذلك. وسواءٌ تَساوَى الجُرْحانِ، أو زاد أحَدُهما، مثل أن قَطَعَ يَدَيْه وهو مسلمٌ فارتدَّ، فقَطَعَ رِجْلَه، أو كان بالعكسِ؛ لأنَّ الجُرْحَ في الحالينِ كجُرْحِ رِجلَينِ. وهل يجبُ القِصاصُ في الطَّرَفِ الذي قَطَعه في حالِ إسلامِه؟ يَحْتَمِلُ وَجْهَيْنِ، بِناءً على مَنْ قَطَعَ طَرَفَه وهو مُسْلِمٌ، فارْتَدَّ ومات في رِدَّتِه. ولو قَطَعَ طَرَفَه في رِدَّتِه أوَّلًا، فأسْلَم، ثم قَطَعَ طَرَفَه الآخرَ، ومات منهما، فالحكمُ فيه كالتي قبلَها.
فصل: ويُقْتَلُ الذميُّ بالمُسْلمِ؛ لأنَّ النَّبِيَّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- قَتَلَ اليَهُودِيَّ الذي رَضَّ رأسَ جَارِيةٍ من الأنْصارِ على أوْضاحٍ لها (٢٥)، ولأنَّه إذا قُتِلَ بمِثْلِه فبِمَنْ فَوْقَه أَوْلَى. ويُقْتَلُ الذِّمِّيُّ بالذِّمِّيِّ، سواءٌ اتَّفَقَتْ أدْيانُهم أو اختلَفتْ. فلو قَتَلَ النَّصْرانِيُّ مَجُوسِيًّا أو يَهُودِيًّا، قُتِلَ به. نَصَّ عليه أحمدُ في النَّصْرانيِّ يُقْتَلُ بالْمَجُوسِيِّ إذا قَتَلَه، قيل: فكيف يُقْتَلُ به، ودِيَاتُهما (٢٦) مُخْتَلِفَةٌ؟ فقال: أذهبُ إلى أنَّ النَّبِيَّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- قَتَلَ رجلًا بامْرأةٍ. يعني أنَّه قَتَلَه بها مع اخْتِلافِ دِيَتِهما، ولأنهما تَكافئَا في العِصْمةِ بالذِّمَّةِ ونَقِيصةِ الكُفْرِ، فجَرَى القِصاصُ بينهما، كما لو تَساوَى دِينُهما. وهذا مذهبُ الشافعيِّ.
فصل: ولا يُقْتَلُ ذِمِّيٌّ بحَرْبيٍّ. لا نعلمُ فيه خِلافًا؛ لأنَّه مُباحُ الدَّمِ على الإِطْلاقِ، أشْبَهَ الخِنْزِيرَ، ولا دِيَةَ فيه لذلك ولا كَفَّارةَ، ولا يجبُ بقَتْلِ المُرتَدِّ قِصاصٌ ولا دِيَةٌ ولا كفارةٌ لذلك، سَواءٌ قَتَلَه مسلمٌ أو ذِمِّيٌّ. وهو قولُ بعضِ أصحابِ الشافعيِّ. وقال بعضُ
(٢٤) سقط من: الأصل، م.(٢٥) تقدم تخريجه، في صفحة ٤٤٨.(٢٦) في م: "وديتهما".