A woman ordered one of her sons, who was three years old, to go to the shop with his sister, but a car hit him and he died. Is she required to fast or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He said: May the Shaykh be respected, a woman ordered one of her sons to go to the shop with his sister, but a car hit him and he died. Is she required to fast, given that the boy was three years old?
The Shaykh : Yes, we must know an important rule mentioned by the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them). They said regarding crimes and accidents: "If the one who caused the incident and the one who directly committed it are both present, the liability falls on the one who directly committed it". Pay attention to this rule: If the one who caused the incident and the one who directly committed it are both present, the liability falls on the one who directly committed it, because he is the one who directly committed the crime. Therefore, the car owner is the one responsible, because it is obligatory to stop the car and not to drive in crowded markets as one would in the open desert. Thus, in such a case, the liability falls on the car owner, not an expiation or blood money. As for the woman, she owes nothing. Yes, if we suppose, which is very unlikely, that the woman took her boy and threw him in front of the car in a situation where the driver could not stop the car, then on whom does the liability fall? On the woman, because she is the one who caused it. But I say: It is not befitting for a woman to take her small child out into a market where there are many cars. What benefit is there in a three-year-old going out with his sister? There is no benefit. Also, a three-year-old walks slowly and cannot run fast, so there is danger to him and to his sister as well. Therefore, it is obligatory for the woman and for whoever is the guardian of children not to take these small children out into markets where there are many cars. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, we must know an important rule mentioned by the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them). They said regarding crimes and accidents: "If the one who caused the incident and the one who directly committed it are both present, the liability falls on the one who directly committed it". Pay attention to this rule: If the one who caused the incident and the one who directly committed it are both present, the liability falls on the one who directly committed it, because he is the one who directly committed the crime. Therefore, the car owner is the one responsible, because it is obligatory to stop the car and not to drive in crowded markets as one would in the open desert. Thus, in such a case, the liability falls on the car owner, not an expiation or blood money. As for the woman, she owes nothing. Yes, if we suppose, which is very unlikely, that the woman took her boy and threw him in front of the car in a situation where the driver could not stop the car, then on whom does the liability fall? On the woman, because she is the one who caused it. But I say: It is not befitting for a woman to take her small child out into a market where there are many cars. What benefit is there in a three-year-old going out with his sister? There is no benefit. Also, a three-year-old walks slowly and cannot run fast, so there is danger to him and to his sister as well. Therefore, it is obligatory for the woman and for whoever is the guardian of children not to take these small children out into markets where there are many cars. Yes.