`Abdur Razzâq dans son Musannaf et al-Bayhaqî dans son Sunan ont rapporté qu’un homme avait accueilli des gens de Hudayl. Ils ont envoyé une esclave pour aller chercher du bois de chauffage et l’hôte était attiré par elle, alors il l’a suivie et a voulu agir à sa guise avec elle, mais elle a refusé. Il a lutté avec elle pendant un moment, puis elle s’est échappée de lui et lui a lancé une pierre et l’a tué. Ses maîtres sont allé voir `Umar et lui ont informé de la situation. `Umar a envoyé des enquêteurs qui ont trouvé leurs traces et (ont affirmé ce que la femme avait dit). Par la suite, `Umar a dit : « Aucune Diyyah (ou Qisâs – expiation en termes de prix du sang ou etc.) n’est à être payée pour celui qui a été tué par Allah »
Leçons :
Il a considéré comme légitime d’avoir versé le sang de l’agresseur qui a voulu la violer. Donc, il n’y aurait pas de Qisâs (représailles des membres de la famille de l’homme) ou de Diyyah (compensation) et aucune expiation ne devait être offerte.
Cela démontre comment l’Islam traitait les esclaves, quelque chose d’unique aux Musulmans à une époque où l’esclavage était aussi répandu que l’iPhone aujourd’hui.
----------------------------------------------
[English]
Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated that a man hosted some people from Hudayl. They sent a slave woman to fetch some firewood and the host was attracted to her, so he followed her and wanted to have his way with her but she refused. He wrestled with her for a while, then she escaped from him and threw a rock at him and killed him. Her masters went to `Umar and informed him of the situation. `Umar sent investigators who found their tracks and (affirmed what the woman said) thereafter `Umar said “ No diyah (or qisas - expiation in terms of blood money or etc) is to be paid for the one who was Killed by Allah”
Lessons
He regarded it as legitimate to have shed the blood of that aggressor who wanted to rape so there would be no qisas (retaliation from the relatives of the man) or diyah (compensation) and no expiation was to be offered.
Shows how Islam treated slaves , something unique to Muslims in an era where slavery was as widespread as iphone today
Il a considéré comme légitime d’avoir versé le sang de l’agresseur qui a voulu la violer. Donc, il n’y aurait pas de Qisâs (représailles des membres de la famille de l’homme) ou de Diyyah (compensation) et aucune expiation ne devait être offerte.
Cela démontre comment l’Islam traitait les esclaves, quelque chose d’unique aux Musulmans à une époque où l’esclavage était aussi répandu que l’iPhone aujourd’hui.
- Why the Shariah
----------------------------------------------
[English]
Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated that a man hosted some people from Hudayl. They sent a slave woman to fetch some firewood and the host was attracted to her, so he followed her and wanted to have his way with her but she refused. He wrestled with her for a while, then she escaped from him and threw a rock at him and killed him. Her masters went to `Umar and informed him of the situation. `Umar sent investigators who found their tracks and (affirmed what the woman said) thereafter `Umar said “ No diyah (or qisas - expiation in terms of blood money or etc) is to be paid for the one who was Killed by Allah”
Lessons
He regarded it as legitimate to have shed the blood of that aggressor who wanted to rape so there would be no qisas (retaliation from the relatives of the man) or diyah (compensation) and no expiation was to be offered.
Shows how Islam treated slaves , something unique to Muslims in an era where slavery was as widespread as iphone today
- Why the Shariah
No comments:
Post a Comment