for fighting the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), then say: Indeed, Allah permitted it for His Messenger, and did not permit it for you." This refutes what they argued based on the killing of Ibn Khatal; for that was a concession for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) which he prohibited people from imitating him in, and he clarified that it was specifically for him alone. As for what they narrated of the hadith, it is from the speech of 'Amr ibn Sa'id al-Ashdaq, with which he attempted to refute the statement of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) when Abu Shurayh narrated this hadith to him, and the statement of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is more worthy of being followed. As for the lashing of the adulterer, the severing of the thief, and the order for retaliation (qisas), these are absolute regarding locations and times; they encompass any unspecified location, by necessity that there must be a location, so it is possible to carry them out in a place other than the Haram. Then, even if it were general, what we have narrated is specific and thus would specify it, along with the fact that it has been specified by what they mentioned regarding the pregnant woman and the sick person whose recovery is hoped for, for the hadd (prescribed punishment) is delayed for them, and the killing of the pregnant woman is delayed; thus, it is permissible that it be specified also by what we have mentioned. Reasoning by analogy with the vicious dog is not correct; for that is its nature, which is harm, so the Haram did not prohibit it to repel its harm from its people. As for the human being, the original principle regarding him is sanctity, and his sanctity is great; it is only made permissible due to an incidental factor, so he resembles the aggressor among the permissible animals that are eaten, for the Haram protects them. If this is established, he is not traded with, he is not purchased from, he is not fed, and he is not given shelter. It is said to him: Fear Allah and go out to the Hill (the area outside the Haram); so that the right which is due from you may be fulfilled. If he goes out, the right of Allah is fulfilled upon him. This is the statement of everyone we have mentioned. It is only like this because if he were fed or sheltered, he would be able to stay permanently, and the right that is upon him would be lost. If he is prevented from that, it serves as a means to his departure, so the right of Allah Almighty is established in his regard. We are not obligated to feed him, just as game is not hunted in the Haram, and we are not obligated to provide for it. Ibn Abbas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Whoever incurs a hadd, then takes refuge in the Haram, he shall not
(11) In the original: "bi-qital". (12) In B and M: "Hanzal" (error). (13) In B and M: "al-adha" (error). (14) In M: "wa-huwa". (15) In B and M: "wa-awa".
لِقِتَالِ (١١) رَسُولِ اللهِ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-، فقُولُوا: إنَّ اللهَ أَذِنَ لِرَسُولِه، ولَمْ يَأْذَنْ لَكُمْ". وهذا يَدْفَعُ ما احْتَجُّوا به من قَتْلِ ابن خَطَلٍ (١٢)؛ فإنَّه من رُخْصَةِ رسولِ اللَّه -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-، التي مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أن يقْتَدُوا به فيها، وبَيَّنَ أنَّها له على الخصوصِ، وما رَوَوْه من الحديثِ، فهو من كلامِ عمرِو بنِ سعيدٍ الأشْدَقِ، يَرُدُّ به قولَ رسول اللَّه -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- حينَ رَوَى له أبو شُرَيْحٍ هذا الحديثَ، وقولُ رسول اللَّه -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أحَقُّ أن يُتَّبَعَ. وأمَّا جَلْدُ الزَّانِى، وقطعُ السَّارِقِ، والأمرُ بالقِصَاصِ، فإنَّما هو مُطْلَقٌ في الأمْكِنَةِ والأزْمِنَةِ، فإنَّه يتناوَلُ مَكانًا غيرَ مُعَيَّنٍ، ضَرُورَةَ أنَّه لا بُدَّ من مكانٍ، فيُمْكِنُ إقامتُه في مكانٍ غيرِ الحَرَمِ، ثم لو كانَ عُمومًا، فإنَّ ما رَوَيْناه خَاصٌّ يُخَصُّ به، مع أنَّه قد خُصَّ ممَّا ذكرُوه الحامِلُ، والمريضُ المرْجُوُّ بُرْؤُه، فتأخَّرَ الحَدُّ عنه، وتأخَّرَ قتلُ الحامِلِ، فجازَ أن يُخَصَّ أيضًا بما ذكرْنَاه. والقياسُ على الكلب العقُورِ غيرُ صحيحٍ؛ فإنَّ ذلك طبعُه الأذَى، فلم يُحَرِّمْه الحَرَمُ ليُدْفَعَ أذاه عن أهلِه، فأمَّا الآدَمِىُّ (١٣)، فالأصلُ فيه الحُرْمَةُ، وحُرْمَتُه عَظِيمَةٌ، وإنَّما أُبيحَ لعارضٍ، فأشْبَهَ الصائِلَ من الحيواناتِ المباحَةِ من المأكولاتِ، فإنَّ الحَرَمَ يَعْصِمُها. إذا ثبتَ هذا، فإنَّه لا يبايَعُ ولا يُشارَى ولا يُطْعَمُ ولا يُؤْوَى، ويُقالُ له: اتَّقِ اللهَ واخْرُجْ إلى الحِلِّ؛ ليُسْتَوْفَى منك الحَقُ الذي قِبَلَكَ. فإذا خرجَ اسْتُوفِىَ حَقُّ اللَّه منه. وهذا (١٤) قولُ جميعِ من ذكرْناه. وإنَّما كان كذلك؛ لأنَّه لو أُطْعِمَ أو أُوِىَ (١٥)، لَتَمَكَّنَ من الإِقامَةِ دائما، فَيَضِيعَ الحَقُّ الذي عليه، وإذا مُنِعَ من ذلك، كان وسيلةً إلى خُروجِه، فيُقامُ فيه حَقُّ اللَّه تعالى. وليس علينا إطْعامُه، كما أنَّ الصَّيْدَ لا يُصادُ في الحَرَمِ، وليس علينا القِيامُ به. قال ابن عباسٍ، رحمه اللهُ: مَن أصابَ حَدًّا، ثم لجأَ إلى الحَرَمِ، فإنَّه لا
(١١) في الأصل: "بقتال".(١٢) في ب، م: "حنظل" خطأ.(١٣) في ب، م: "الأذى" خطأ.(١٤) في م: "وهو".(١٥) في ب، م: "وأوى".
