may Allah be pleased with him, fought the people of apostasy with the collective body of the Companions. Furthermore, Allah the Almighty has commanded fighting the disbelievers in several places in His Book, and these people are the most deserving of being fought because leaving them might embolden others like them to imitate them and apostatize along with them, thus increasing the harm caused by them. If he fights them, he kills those he is able to overcome, their fugitives are pursued, their wounded are finished off, and their wealth is taken as spoils. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: It does not become a land of war until it combines three things: that it is adjacent to the land of war with nothing of the land of Islam between them; second, that no Muslim or protected dhimmi remains in it in safety; and third, that their laws are enforced within it. Our argument is that it is a land of disbelievers in which their laws prevail, so it is a land of war, just as if it possessed these characteristics, or [like] the land of the original disbelievers.
Section: If an apostate intentionally kills someone who is his equal, he is subject to retaliation (qisas). Ahmad clearly stated this. The guardian of the victim is given the choice between killing him and pardoning him. If he chooses retaliation, it is given priority over the execution for apostasy, whether the apostasy occurred before or after [the killing], because it is a right of a human being. If he pardons him in exchange for wealth, the blood money (diyah) becomes obligatory upon his wealth. If the killing was by mistake, the blood money is obligatory upon his wealth, because he has no paternal relatives (aqilah). Al-Qadi said: The blood money is taken from him over three years because it is the blood money for accidental killing. If he is killed or dies, it is taken from his wealth immediately, because deferred debt becomes due upon death in the case of someone who has no heir. It is possible that the blood money is due from him immediately, because it is only deferred in the case of the aqilah as a form of mitigation for them, as they carry the burden for others by way of consolation. As for the perpetrator, it is due from him immediately because it is a replacement for something destroyed, and therefore it is immediate, like all other replacements for destroyed properties.
1547- Issue: He said: (And whoever among the two parents embraces Islam, his minor children follow him in that.)
This is also the opinion of al-Shafi'i. The adherents of reason (the Hanafis) said: If both his parents or one of them embraces Islam, and he attains puberty and refuses Islam, he is coerced into it and is not killed. Malik said: If the father embraces Islam, his children follow him, but if the mother embraces Islam, they do not follow her, because the child of two warring parents follows his father, not his mother, as evidenced by the two clients (mawalayn) when one of them is...
(1) In the original: "al-harbi".
رَضِيَ اللهُ عنه, قاتلَ أهلَ الرِّدَّةِ بجماعةِ الصَّحابةِ، ولأنَّ اللهَ تعالى قد أمرَ بقتالِ الكُفَّارِ في مواضِعَ من كتابِه، وهؤلاء أحَقُّهم بالقتالِ؛ لأنَّ تركَهم رُبَّما أغْرَى أمْثالَهم بالتَّشَبُّهِ بهم، والارْتدَادِ معهم، فيَكْثُرُ الضَّرَرُ بهم. وإذا قاتلَهم، قَتَلَ من قَدَرَ عليه، ويُتبَعُ مُدْبِرُهم، ويُجَازُ على جَرِيحِهم، وتُغْنَمُ أمْوالُهم. وبهذا قال الشَّافِعِىُّ. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: لا تَصِيرُ دارَ حربٍ حتى تَجْمَعَ فيها ثلاثةَ أشياء؛ أن تكونَ مُتاخِمَةً لدارِ الحربِ، لا شىءَ بينهما من دارِ الإِسلامِ. الثاني، أن لا يَبْقَى فيها مُسْلِمٌ ولا ذِمِّىُّ آمِنٌ. الثالث، أن تَجْرِىَ فيها أحكامُهم. ولَنا، أنَّها دارُ كُفَّارٍ، فيها أحكامُهم، فكانتْ دارَ حربٍ، كما لو اجْتَمعَ فيها هذه الخِصالُ، أو دارَ الكَفَرَةِ الأصْلِيِّين.
فصل: وإنْ قتَلَ المُرْتَدُّ مَنْ يُكافئُه عَمْدًا، فعليه القِصَاصُ. نَصَّ عليه أحمد. والوَلِىُّ مُخيَّرٌ بين قَتْلِهِ والعَفْوِ عنه، فإن اخْتارَ القِصاصَ، قُدِّمَ على قتلِ الرِّدَّة، سواءٌ تقدَّمتِ الرِّدَّةُ أو تأَخَّرتْ؛ لأنَّه حقُّ آدَمِىٍّ، وإن عفَا على مالٍ، وجَبَتْ الدِّيَةُ في مالِه. وإن كان القتلُ خطأً، وجَبتِ الدِّيَةُ في مالِه؛ لأنَّه لا عاقلةَ له. قال القاضِى: وتُؤخذُ منه الدِّيَةُ في ثلاثِ سِنِين؛ لأنَّها دِيَةُ الخطإِ، فإن قُتِلَ أو ماتَ، أُخِذَتْ من مالِه في الحالِ؛ لأنَّ الدَّيْنَ المُؤَجَّلَ يَحِلُّ بالموتِ في حَقِّ مَن لا وارثَ له. ويحْتَمِلُ أن تجبَ الدِّيَةُ عليه حالَّةً؛ لأنَّها إنَّما أُجِّلَتْ في حَقِّ العاقِلَةِ تخفيفًا عليهم، لأنَّهم يَحْمِلونَ عن غيرِهم على سبيلِ المُواساةِ، فأمَّا الجانِى، فتجبُ عليه حالَّةً؛ لأنَّها بدلٌ عن مُتْلَفٍ، فكانت حَالَّةً، كسائرِ أبْدالِ المُتْلَفاتِ.
١٥٤٧ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَمَنْ أسْلَمَ مِنَ الْأَبَوَيْنِ، كَانَ أوْلَادُهُ الْأَصَاغِرُ تَبَعًا لَهُ).
وبهذا قال الشافِعِىُّ. وقال أصحابُ الرَّأْىِ: إذا أسْلَمَ أبَواه أو أحدُهما، وأدركَ فأبَى الإِسلامَ، أُجْبِرَ عليه، ولم يُقْتَلْ. وقال مالِكٌ: إنْ أسلَمَ الأبُ، تَبِعَهُ أولادُه، وإن أسْلَمَتِ الأُمُّ لم يَتْبَعُوها؛ لأنَّ وَلدَ الحَرْبِيَّيْن (١) يتْبَعُ أباه دُونَ أُمِّه، بدليلِ الْمَوْلَيَيْن إذا كانَ
(١) في الأصل: "الحربي".
