The ascending one, because it descends upon it from above, making it the cause of its sinking. Thus, the descending ship is placed in the position of the traveler, and the ascending one in the position of the stationary one. If they both sink, there is nothing upon the ascending party, and upon the descending party is the value of the ascending ship or the indemnity for what it decreased if it was not completely destroyed, unless the negligence was on the part of the ascending party, such as by being able to turn his ship aside, while the descending party was neither capable nor negligent; in that case, the liability is upon the ascending party because he is the negligent one. If there was no negligence from either of them, but a wind arose, or the water had a strong current such that he was unable to control it, then there is no liability upon him, because controlling it is beyond his power, and God does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. The second state is that they are equal. If both persons in charge were negligent, each of them guarantees the other's ship, including what was in it of souls and wealth, as we have said regarding the two horsemen who collide. If they were not negligent, there is no liability upon either of them. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions in the case of no negligence; one of them is that there is liability upon both of them because they are in their hands, so liability is incumbent upon them, as if two horsemen collided, due to the two horses being beyond their control. For us, the navigators do not set the ships in motion by their own action, nor is it usually possible for them to control them or to take precautions against that, so it is like when lightning strikes and burns a ship. It differs from two horses, for it is possible to control them and take precautions against their running. If one of them was negligent alone, the liability is upon him alone. If they disagree regarding the negligence of the person in charge, his statement is accepted along with his oath, because the original state is the absence of negligence, and he is a trustee, so he is like a depositary. According to al-Shafi'i, if both were negligent, upon each of the two persons in charge is the liability for half of his ship and half of his companion's ship, like his opinion on the collision of two horsemen, as previously mentioned.
Section: If the two persons in charge are the owners of the ships along with what is in them, they offset each other, and the one due the surplus takes his surplus. If they are hired hands, they are liable, and there is no offsetting here because the one to whom it is due is not the one who is liable. If there are free people in the ships who perished, and they had intentionally caused the collision, and that is something that usually kills, then retaliation is due upon both of them. And if they were slaves, there is no retaliation upon the persons in charge, if it was
(5) In B, M: "liability".
المُصاعِدَةِ؛ لأنَّها تَنْحَطُّ عليها من عُلْوٍ، فيكونُ ذلك سببًا لغَرَقِها، فَتُنَزَّلُ المُنْحَدِرَةُ بمنزلَةِ السَّائِرِ، والمُصاعِدَةُ بمنْزلةِ الواقفِ. وإن غَرِقَتَا جَمِيعًا، فلا شىءَ على المُصْعِدِ، وعلى المُنْحَدِرِ قِيمَةُ المُصْعِدِ، أو أَرْشُ ما نَقَصَتْ إن لم تَتْلَفْ كلُّها، إلَّا أن يكونَ التَّفْرِيطُ من المُصْعِدِ، بأن يُمْكِنَه العُدولُ بِسَفِينَتِه، والمُنْحَدِرُ غيرُ قادِرٍ ولا مُفَرِّطٍ، فيكونُ الضَّمانُ على المُصْعِدِ؛ لأنَّه المفَرِّطُ. وإن لم يَكُنْ من واحِدٍ منهما تَفْرِيطٌ، لكن هاجَتْ ريحٌ، أو كانَ الماءُ شديدَ الجِرْيَةِ، فلم يُمْكِنُه ضَبْطُها، فلا ضمانَ عليه؛ لأنَّه لا يدْخُلُ في وُسْعِه ضَبْطُها، ولا يُكَلِّفُ اللهُ نفسًا إلَّا وُسْعَها. الحال الثاني، أنْ تَكُونَا مُتَسَاوِيَتَيْنِ، فإن كان القَيِّمَانِ مُفَرِّطَيْنِ، ضَمِنَ كلُّ واحِدٍ منهما سفينةَ الآخَرِ، بما فيها من نفسٍ ومالٍ، كما قُلْنا في الفَارِسَيْنِ يَصْطَدِمَانِ، وإن لم يكُونَا مُفَرِّطَيْنِ، فلا ضَمَانَ عليهما. وللشَّافِعِىِّ في حالِ عَدَمِ التَّفْرِيطِ قولان؛ أحدُهما، عليهما الضَّمَانُ؛ لأنَّهما في أيْدِيهما، فَلَزِمَهُما الضَّمَانُ، كما لو اصْطَدَمَ الفَارِسَانِ؛ لِغَلَبَةِ الفَرَسَيْنِ لهما. ولنا، أنَّ الملَّاحَيْنِ لا يُسَيِّرَانِ السَّفِينَتَيْنِ بِفِعْلِهما، ولا يُمْكِنُهما ضَبْطُهما في الغالبِ، ولا الاحْترِازُ من ذلك، فأَشْبَهَ ما لو نَزَلَتْ صاعِقَةٌ أحْرَقَتِ السَّفِينَةَ، ويُخالِفُ الفَرَسَيْنِ، فإنَّه مُمْكِنٌ ضَبْطُهُما، والاحْترازُ من طَرْدِهما. وإن كان أحدُهما مُفَرِّطًا وحدَه، فعليه الضَّمَانُ وحدَه، وإن اخْتَلَفَا في تَفْريطِ القَيِّمِ، فالقولُ قولُه مع يَمِينِه؛ لأنَّ الأصلَ عَدَمُ التَّفْرِيطِ، وهو أمينٌ، فهو كالمُودَعِ. وعند الشَّافِعِىِّ، أنَّهما إذا كانا مُفَرِّطَيْنِ، فعلى كلِّ واحِدٍ حن القَيِّمَيْنِ ضَمانُ نِصْفِ سَفِينَتِه ونصفِ سَفِينَةِ صاحبِه، كقولِه في اصْطِدامِ الفَارسَيْنِ، على ما مَضَى.
فصل: فإن كان القَيِّمَانِ مالِكَيْنِ للسَّفِينَتَيْنِ بما فيهما تَقَاصَّا، وأخذَ ذُو الفضلِ فَضْلَه، وإن كانا أَجيرَيْنِ، ضَمِنَا، ولا تَقَاصَّ ههُنا؛ لأنَّ مَن يجبُ له غيرُ مَنْ يجبُ عليه. وإن كان في السَّفِينَتَيْنِ أحْرارٌ فهَلَكُوا، وكانا قد تَعَمَّدَا المُصادَمَةَ، وذلك ممَّا يَقتُلُ غالبًا، فعليهما القِصاصُ. وإن كانوا عبيدًا، فلا قصاصَ (٥) على القَيِّمَيْنِ، إذا كان
(٥) في ب، م: "ضمان".
