Issue: A man who killed in self-defense is demanded by the victim's relatives for retaliation, but he has no witnesses; what should he do?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But here is an issue: suppose I killed him in defense of myself, my family, and my property, and then his relatives demanded retaliation from me and said, "You killed him, and you admitted that you killed him, so we demand that you be killed." He said, "I was defending myself." They said, "Bring witnesses." He said, "If there had been witnesses, he would not have attacked me. He would not have attacked me unless the place was..."
The questioner : ...empty.
The Shaykh : ...empty. So they said, "If you have no witnesses, you have nothing but your defense." He said, "He was in his house, people, look at that." They said, "Yes, you invited him to your house to kill him in your house. Is this possible, or is it not possible?"
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, meaning... the mind, so then we demand that he be killed. What does he do?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The judiciary rules that he be killed because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saidSunan al-Bayhaqi 18:642 And if we were to accept such a claim, every person’s heart would be filled with hatred for someone who invites him to his house, saying, "Please, please, you are honored and dear to us, and we love you, and we have prepared good food, fruit, meat, bread, and the like for you. Please." That person is driven by greed, the love of food, and he comes, yes. So when he enters, he kills him and claims that he was the one who entered his house to attack him and his sanctity. Is this possible, or not? It is possible. So when this matter is possible and not impossible, the one who claims the contrary must provide proof, otherwise he is killed. And on the Day of Resurrection, the Just Judge, Mighty and Majestic, will judge between them. As for us in this world, we have only the apparent, and this is undoubtedly harsh according to the apparent rules of the Shari'ah. But Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that it is obligatory to look at the circumstances, because the presence of proof in such a situation, yes, is difficult or impossible. And because this happens often: a person attacks someone, and the one attacked defends himself until he reaches the degree of killing.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him, that it should be looked at in this case regarding the circumstances. If the one killed is known for evil and corruption, and the killer is known for good and righteousness, then the word of the killer is accepted, and in that case, there is no liability upon him. Because the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) By consensus, it is not restricted to witnesses, for proof is everything that clarifies the truth and reveals it. And if a strong, apparent circumstance establishes the truth of the claim, then it is obligatory to act in accordance with it. As we said in the case of a man claiming a garment in the possession of another, which he has discarded: the word of the claimant is accepted. As if we saw a bald man with no headscarf, and another man with a headscarf wearing one and holding another in his hand, and he is fleeing, and the bald man is running after him saying, "Give me my headscarf." So that one stopped. "What is your headscarf? You are poor, you, you have no headscarf..." He says, "This is my headscarf." Yes, is it possible that this is the case, or not? It is possible. It is possible that this bald man truly has no headscarf and found this man with two headscarves and said, "I will claim this one for myself." Yes. But we say here that we go by what is apparent to us. Or is it true that what is in a person’s possession, what is in a person’s hand, is his without doubt? But this is an apparent circumstance that supports the claimant’s claim, so it is acted upon. And you also have the issue of qasamah. What is in qasamah? Is there killing in it, or not? What is it based on?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is based on circumstance, so oaths were made on the side of the claimant. So the saying of Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, is the truth in this issue, and the people cannot be reformed except by it. Because there are many who attack safe, gentle people in their houses, who are known for righteousness and non-aggression, yes. So this wicked criminal attacks them. If the poor man defends himself and kills him because he could not be repelled except by killing, we say, "We hold you liable." That is the problem. Okay, if it is possible to repel him without killing, and he kills him, is he liable, or not?
The questioner : He is liable.
The Shaykh : He is liable, yes, because this is repelling an attack, so it must be done with the easiest means first. Okay, if he fears that he will be preempted by killing... now they have not yet engaged, but he fears that he will be preempted by killing because the attacker has a weapon. Is it permissible for him to preempt by killing?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, he may preempt. Meaning, if this criminal has a weapon and draws it on the one being attacked, saying, "Come, let me have your life or your family, or else this, I will kill you," this pistol, and he fears that if he refuses, what? He will kill him. He fears that he will kill him, so he may preempt by killing, because this is the limit of his ability; he cannot submit to this and be killed. If you say, "Is it not possible that he threatens and does not act?" Huh?
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : So the answer is yes, it is possible, yes, it is possible that he threatens and does not act. But what is the original state, and he is a criminal now?
The questioner : That...
The Shaykh : ...that he will kill him. Notice, what does the criminal say himself? He says, "I am killed, I am killed." That is what he says. He says, "I am killed, I am killed, either by this man or by the authorities. I want to kill him, I will proceed." Yes? Is that not so? It is possible. If someone says, "Is it not possible that the pistol in his hand is a children’s toy?" Eh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say, I do not know. This is possible, but I am now in a state where I cannot inspect or verify, and I am afraid that if I delay a moment, I will be killed. The issue is not an intellectual matter, it is a matter of action: how do I act in this situation? This is the least I am able to act with. Clear? For this reason, the scholars said that if he fears that he will be preempted by killing, he may preempt by killing, yes. Unlike if he does not fear, then he must repel with the easiest means first. Yes?
The questioner : ...empty.
The Shaykh : ...empty. So they said, "If you have no witnesses, you have nothing but your defense." He said, "He was in his house, people, look at that." They said, "Yes, you invited him to your house to kill him in your house. Is this possible, or is it not possible?"
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, meaning... the mind, so then we demand that he be killed. What does he do?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The judiciary rules that he be killed because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said
If people were given what they claim, men would claim the blood and property of others.
لو يُعطى الناس بدعواهم لادعى رجال دماء قوم وأموالهمHe said, may Allah have mercy on him, that it should be looked at in this case regarding the circumstances. If the one killed is known for evil and corruption, and the killer is known for good and righteousness, then the word of the killer is accepted, and in that case, there is no liability upon him. Because the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
The proof is upon the claimant.
البيّنة على المدعيThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is based on circumstance, so oaths were made on the side of the claimant. So the saying of Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, is the truth in this issue, and the people cannot be reformed except by it. Because there are many who attack safe, gentle people in their houses, who are known for righteousness and non-aggression, yes. So this wicked criminal attacks them. If the poor man defends himself and kills him because he could not be repelled except by killing, we say, "We hold you liable." That is the problem. Okay, if it is possible to repel him without killing, and he kills him, is he liable, or not?
The questioner : He is liable.
The Shaykh : He is liable, yes, because this is repelling an attack, so it must be done with the easiest means first. Okay, if he fears that he will be preempted by killing... now they have not yet engaged, but he fears that he will be preempted by killing because the attacker has a weapon. Is it permissible for him to preempt by killing?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, he may preempt. Meaning, if this criminal has a weapon and draws it on the one being attacked, saying, "Come, let me have your life or your family, or else this, I will kill you," this pistol, and he fears that if he refuses, what? He will kill him. He fears that he will kill him, so he may preempt by killing, because this is the limit of his ability; he cannot submit to this and be killed. If you say, "Is it not possible that he threatens and does not act?" Huh?
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : So the answer is yes, it is possible, yes, it is possible that he threatens and does not act. But what is the original state, and he is a criminal now?
The questioner : That...
The Shaykh : ...that he will kill him. Notice, what does the criminal say himself? He says, "I am killed, I am killed." That is what he says. He says, "I am killed, I am killed, either by this man or by the authorities. I want to kill him, I will proceed." Yes? Is that not so? It is possible. If someone says, "Is it not possible that the pistol in his hand is a children’s toy?" Eh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say, I do not know. This is possible, but I am now in a state where I cannot inspect or verify, and I am afraid that if I delay a moment, I will be killed. The issue is not an intellectual matter, it is a matter of action: how do I act in this situation? This is the least I am able to act with. Clear? For this reason, the scholars said that if he fears that he will be preempted by killing, he may preempt by killing, yes. Unlike if he does not fear, then he must repel with the easiest means first. Yes?