Therefore, preserving the living being is more appropriate. Our view is that this child does not customarily live, and it is not certain that it will survive; thus, it is not permissible to violate a certain sanctity for a speculative matter. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Breaking the bone of a deceased person is like breaking the bone of a living person." Narrated by Abu Dawud (4), and it constitutes mutilation (muthla), and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade mutilation (5). It differs from the primary case (the case of the fetus whose partial emergence is observed), for its life is negated (6), and its survival is merely conjectured. Based on this, if part of the child emerges alive and it is impossible to extract it except by incision, the location is incised and it is extracted, for the reason we mentioned. If it dies in that state and it is possible to extract it, it is extracted and washed. If washing it is impossible, it is left, and the mother is washed, as well as the part of the child that had appeared; what remains is considered in the state of the interior and does not require Tayammum (dry ablution) on its account, because the entire fetus was in the state of the interior, then some of it appeared, so the ruling attached to it, while what remained stays as it was. This was mentioned by Ibn Aqil, who said: "It is an incident I was asked about, and I issued a legal opinion regarding it."
Section: If the deceased swallowed money, it must be considered whether it belongs to him or to someone else. If it belongs to him, his abdomen should not be incised because he consumed it during his lifetime. It is possible that if the amount is small, it is left, but if its value is substantial, his abdomen may be incised and it is extracted, because this involves preserving wealth from loss and benefiting the heirs whose rights were attached to his wealth during his illness. If the money belongs to someone else and he swallowed it with their permission, it is like his own property, because
(4) Its verification has already been cited on page 377. (5) It was recorded by al-Bukhari in: The Chapter on Plunder without the owner's permission, from the Book of Injustices (Mazalim); in: The Chapter on the Story of 'Ukl and 'Urayna, from the Book of Military Expeditions (Maghazi); and in: The Chapter on What is Disliked Regarding Mutilation, Animals Kept for Target Practice, and Bound Animals, from the Book of Slaughtering and Hunting. Sahih al-Bukhari 3/178, 5/165, 7/122. Also by Abu Dawud in: The Chapter on the Prohibition of Mutilation, from the Book of Jihad; and in: The Chapter on What Has Been Said Regarding Warfare, from the Book of Penalties (Hudud). Sunan Abi Dawud 2/49, 444. By al-Tirmidhi in: The Chapter on What Has Been Said Regarding the Prohibition of Mutilation, from the Chapters on Blood-Money (Diyat). Aridat al-Ahwadhi 6/179. By Ibn Majah in: The Chapter on the Prohibition of Reserving Animals for Target Practice and Mutilation, from the Book of Slaughtering and Hunting. Sunan Ibn Majah 2/1063. By al-Darimi in: The Chapter on Urging Charity, from the Book of Zakat; and in: The Chapter on the Prohibition of Mutilation of Animals, from the Book of Sacrifices (Adahi). Sunan al-Darimi 1/390, 2/83. And by Imam Ahmad in: al-Musnad 4/246, 307, 428, 429, 432, 436, 439, 440, 445, 5/12, 13. (6) In A and M: "muta'ayyinah" (certain).
فَلإبْقاءِ الحَىِّ أَوْلَى. ولَنا، أنَّ هذا الوَلَدَ لا يَعِيشُ عَادَةً، ولا يَتَحَقَّقُ أنَّه يَحْيَا، فلا يجوزُ هَتْكُ حُرْمَةٍ مُتَيَقَّنَةٍ لأمْرٍ مَوْهُومٍ، وقد قال عليه السَّلَامُ: "كَسْرُ عَظْمِ المَيِّتِ كَكَسْرِ عَظْمِ الحَىِّ". رَوَاه أبو دَاوُدَ (٤)، وفيه مُثْلَةٌ، وقد نَهَى النَّبِيُّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- عن المُثْلَةِ (٥). وفارَقَ الأصْلَ؛ فإنَّ حياتَه مُنْتفِيَةٌ (٦)، وبَقَاءَهُ مَظْنُونٌ، فعلَى هذا إن خَرَجَ بعضُ الوَلَدِ حَيًّا، ولم يُمْكِنْ إخْرَاجُه إلَّا بِشَقٍّ، شُقَّ المَحَلُّ، وأُخْرِجَ؛ لما ذكرْنا. وإن ماتَ على تلك الحالِ، فأمْكَنَ إخْرَاجُه، أُخْرِجَ وغُسِّلَ. وإن تَعَذَّرَ غَسْلُه تُرِكَ، وغُسِّلَتِ الأُمُّ، وما ظَهَرَ من الوَلَدِ، وما بَقِىَ ففى حُكْمِ الباطِنِ لا يَحْتَاجُ إلى التَّيَمُّمِ مِن أجْلِه؛ لأنَّ الجَمِيعَ كان في حُكْمِ الباطِنِ، فظَهَرَ البَعْضُ، فتَعَلَّقَ به الحُكْمُ، وما بَقِىَ فهو على ما كان عليه. ذَكَرَ هذا ابنُ عَقِيلٍ. وقال: هي حادِثَةٌ سُئِلْتُ عنها، فأفْتَيْتُ فيها.
فصل: وإنْ بَلَعَ المَيِّتُ مَالًا، لم يَخْلُ مِن أن يكونَ له أو لغيرِه، فإن كان له لم يُشَقَّ بَطْنُه؛ لأنَّه اسْتَهْلكَه في حَياتِه، ويَحْتَمِلُ أنَّه إن كان يَسِيرًا تُرِكَ، وإن كَثُرَتْ قِيمَتُه، شُقَّ بَطْنُه وأُخْرِجَ؛ لأنَّ فيه حِفْظَ المالِ عن الضَّيَاعِ، ونَفْعَ الوَرَثَةِ الذين تَعَلَّقَ حَقُّهم بمَالِه بِمَرَضِه. وإن كان المالُ لغيرِه، وابْتَلَعَه بإذْنِه، فهو كمالِه؛ لأنَّ
(٤) تقدم تخريجه في صفحة ٣٧٧.(٥) أخرجه البخاري، في: باب النهبى بغير إذن صاحبه، من كتاب المظالم، وفى: باب قصة عكل وعرينة، من كتاب المغازى، وفى: باب ما يكره من المثلة والمصبورة والمجثمة، من كتاب الذبائح. صحيح البخاري ٣/ ١٧٨، ٥/ ١٦٥، ٧/ ١٢٢. وأبو داود، في: باب في النهى عن المثلة، من كتاب الجهاد، وفى: باب ما جاء في المحاربة، من كتاب الحدود. سنن أبي داود ٢/ ٤٩، ٤٤٤. والترمذي، في: باب ما جاء في النهى عن المثلة، من أبواب الديات. عارضة الأحوذى ٦/ ١٧٩. وابن ماجه، في: باب النهى عن صبر البهائم وعن المثلة، من كتاب الذبائح. سنن ابن ماجه ٢/ ١٠٦٣. والدارمى، في: باب الحث على الصدقة، من كتاب الزكاة، وفى: باب النهى عن مثلة الحيوان، من كتاب الأضاحى. سنن الدارمي ١/ ٣٩٠، ٢/ ٨٣. والإِمام أحمد، في: المسند ٤/ ٢٤٦، ٣٠٧، ٤٢٨، ٤٢٩، ٤٣٢، ٤٣٦، ٤٣٩، ٤٤٠، ٤٤٥، ٥/ ١٢، ١٣.(٦) في أ، م: "متيقنة".
