FQP02 Fiqh of Penalties – Book of Fatal and Non-Fatal Assault (Continued)

may not

want

to proceed. So today inshallah we will try to cover cuttable Jeanette or the book of crimes fatal and non fatal assault. We started it last time we'll try to finish it off today inshallah. And then in the second session we will attempt to finish the chapter

on conditions and obligate conditions of obligation and execution of kasasa equal retribution, which has to do with Casa kasasa. Steve.

And as you know, we had just started last time the new segment on

penalties, the fact of penalties, which will include Jeannette and Hadoop and we talked about the difference between Jeanette and dude.

And we said that janai out in general would be about whatever you harvest the consequences of. So, modernity Adak.

So, in linguistically, then it became it became

sort of more attached to

assault or aggression. And then we said its aggression against the body vigorous aggression against the property and then aggression against the honor. And we said that in the terminology of the footpath

would refer to aggression against the body on the aggression against property and honor are called the different things such as theft or if the last embezzlement or reverse forceful seizure or pass sort of accusation of chase people of

sexual immorality and,

and things like that, so, but Gen X would mean assault against the body, or life or life and or body. And that's what we are discussing here. And this chapter will not include only generics, but also Hadoop, which are the fixed penalties. And those fixed penalties or Hadoop are a little bit different from generic because why both generic and Hadoop have some overlap between hakalau How can I buy the rights of a law and the rights of the people we give precedence to people's rights in Jeanette, and we get precedents the laws right and Hadoop. So in Jeanette, the family would have a say, or earlier than the errors of the victim will have a say in the course of the punishment.

Whereas in Hadoop,

except for some disagreement over you know, pardoning people that have the class for the accusation of accusation of chase people,

but in general, and Hadoop are not negotiable, because they are the right of Allah subhanaw taala and no one can speak on behalf of Allah

to basically pardon people on behalf of a loss of

denial then is the section that we are

going over now, and inshallah we will come to Hadoop shortly. And after we finish the segment, the next segment will be jihad. And then the following segment and Salah will be about that, which is judicial, the judiciary and testimonies. But judiciary is you know, it's just judiciary, because testimonies will be included under judiciary. So

now to remember Kodama mala in his book alone, which is a humbling primer.

On the said, kita Wilson is the book of crimes fatal and non fatal assault

kutlu variety, a half penny on customer service attacks on justifiable killing is divided into three types. And then he started to talk about the three types of justifiable killing. And these are the three types according to the vast majority of scholars, and we said before alarmed, which is intentional

murder or murder proper, and we said the second one will be

ship with lamb, which is Kwazii

murder.

And the third one would be hotter, which is

mistake and

murder.

So I am passing fanatical exam these are the three divisions he will start to go over them one by one. And it is quite clear the difference between these is pretty simple and tensional you meant to get

seven alarmed. You meant to assault two but not kill, but he ended up killing. So he hit someone with a rock or something and ended up killing him. There was an intention of aggression here, but not intention of murder. So

whereas here you did not intend to hurt or assault or anything, you're trying to shoot a deer and you shot your friend or like a bypasser that is mistaken murder. It is obvious that this is a very irrational classification, isn't it? Okay. And now,

as we said last time that we will not go over the details of poquelin pillar, there is another type of path that is called the proximate villa. And that is, according to the Maliki's are reporting the Hanbury method chosen by the Mira hula, the Catholic Villa which is deceptive, treacherous, good and good. It involves treachery that involves a deception, when you give someone an appointment, you know, somewhere in like far away and then kill them or you put like sleep medicine to someone's

beverage and kill them something of that nature of this call because

it is not going to be discussed here because that is not somebody saying Humbert is going to differentiate in the authorized view, not the minor view in the authorized view. They don't differentiate differentiate between the treacherous killing and intentional killing the difference, according to the Maliki's and that sort of immunity American law

is that Patrick Vila is not basically subject to pardoning there's only the death penalty for chocolate Vila treacherous killing, the family will not have the right to pardon the murder and

it is hard it is a fixed penalty in the sense and we talked about the evidence for the two possessions on pattern so we will not repeat this now. Now let's go over the three types of cuts in the hanbali mother

in law said

any actor who be Jordan fair linear linearly boo van and we have to be methodical in how you can be severe how in Chi Minh check

out our

savvy summon our sanity Allah is on my YouTube boo boo when he when he has a cause even the men become in tune adomian muscleman for whoever you hire rally up by in a tower de what deity Natalia Rasulullah sallallahu sallam, Mankato level partiton for what we find in the rain in your patella, how we act to

him and EFD who

when sought to be extra minute there does. Okay. unjustifiable killing is divided into three types first intentional murder in which one kills the victim by wounding him or by any action that is likely to cause this, such as beating him with a large weighty object or repeating the trauma with a smaller one throwing him from a high, suffocating, burning or drowning him giving him poison to drink falsely testifying against him, thus bringing onto him the death penalty or the like of those actions. Why intending to murder and being aware of the inviolability of the murdered in such a case the entitled heirs of the victim will be the entitle the heirs of the victim

will be

given the choice between lethal retaliation equal retribution and

receiving an indemnity because the Messenger of Allah sallallahu Sallam said, if someone is killed, his or her entitled heirs may choose between killing the murder and sparing him or her in exchange for an indemnity.

If and then the check said if both parties mutually agree on more than the prescribed indemnity, it is permissible. So, a lot here to discuss. So, we are talking now about alarm, and he is talking about when is the time when is it

it is on.

So, we have a carton

which is the murderer

we have an MK two

which is the victim,

the murderer

and we have a pack

which is the murdering or the killing. So, killer kill killing

the actual act of killing here.

So, it is armed when you have an Patan

macula meaning legally liable not insane, not a child.

If the carton is insane, our child it goes here immediately, even if he intended, because his intention is not complete, he does not have the lay he does not have basically the complete capacity to intend

you know knowingly and so he has to be a mechanic which means legally liable

above saying above Cena though, the second one here, he has to be what

God said. Meaning he has to be to have intended.

So it's adverbs and killing or intentional killing, he has the intent and purpose to the victim

needs to be at me of course a human being and needs to be monsoon, monsoon means inviolable,

inviolable, who is inviolable? What are the four causes of inviolability?

Most of them

for

my head which is covenanted rd.

Or

then me, which is the non Muslim who lives in a Muslim land under Muslim rule, or

mustermann, someone who has been given a man or asylum or, you know, been gays or sort of given security or safety, promise of safety, security. So these are four causes that would make someone in inviolable and as we said, the division of heartburn Darul Islam, that we will come to, we now have the default based on the fact that all Muslims are in international treaties through the UN or from before this, the League of Nations and so on the door, our door reconciliation, and when Muslims are able to practice their Deen, they are dual,

which is security landed security.

So basically, everybody is inviolable, inviolable. Now, now, awareness, someone not inviolable, you know, a warrior like a combatant or an

attacker that is assaulting you.

They removed their inviolability, by their aggression. Certainly the attacker needs to be repelled with the least possible so you don't kill them just because they are scratching you or biting you.

sort of push them out. But if it if it takes getting, then be it because you need to defend yourself, your property and your honor.

Now with the least sort of

That will do the job

push them away.

Now, the

that is the the idea of inviolability. Certainly if someone, if someone had committed a crime that would make them

deserving of death, deserving of death, this person is not inviolable. If someone other than those authorities went ahead and killed them,

then they have not killed someone inviolable, however, the authorities should punish them for usurping the right of the Dharma of the community taking it into his own hands, he does not have that right. So, he is it is a punishable crime, but it is not a pithos since the person was not was not invited, not inviolable. Okay, or not muscle.

Now, the third

sort of element here, which is the the cutlet sales, remember, we said about a part of the cartel needs to have two conditions fulfilled, he needs to be legally liable passive intending.

Mach two needs to be mousumi inviolable, and then when we talk about who Jubal causes the obligation of equal retribution, then we will say this, this mark two needs to be equal to the profit. And we'll come to this discussion later. However, we are just talking about when is a time, when is it intention, these are the conditions that need that we need to fulfill to the Met, intentional, now, whether equal retribution or lethal retaliation will be in order, that's a different discussion, we will come to the conditions of that a little later. But now.

So So remember, this particular one, he needs to have intended, so how do we judge this?

We judge this by this, what did he use? How did he do it? How did he kill the person? So Allah, Allah will see the tool that he used to give the person that Allah needs either like a sharp

bladed sort of tool,

or it needs to be another or another will see it another way of killing?

That usually kills that would usually kill would usually kill. So the first question that we ask about the law, or the instrument,

and instrument slash,

the certainty of the procedure or the sort of the, the way that he killed them, because there does not always need to be an instrument if he pushes them off the cliff or something. It's no instrument here. But the way of killing the method of killing, the method of getting so the method of killing or the slash the instrument needs to work. First thing to you usually can or usually be usually lethal.

So struck him with a sword.

Or,

you know, like a rock like a heavier and why do we say like a very heavy rock because we have reports from the Prophet sallallahu. So do different reports from the Prophet about getting with a rock. You know, the story of the Jewish man who killed the young woman to see her jewelry

has

been crushed in her head between two rocks, the prophets of Southern did the same to him. In a different report, two women were fighting with each other and one of them threw a rock at the other woman, the two women from was It has been reported, you know, it may be the same thing and just different reports. One time she had killed her with a pole of the 10th and one time she had killed her with Mark could be the two different incidents

with a rock.

But the Prophet sallallahu Sallam deemed this ship harmed or Koozai murder because they were fighting and maybe it was a different type of rock.

different size of rock different sort of technique of getting or assaulting one would usually result in death or one is usually Lisa and one is not this one the woman the Prophet sallallahu Sallam deem that

she The victim was pregnant. So, he deemed that there would be compensation for the fetus and the the over the blood money of the woman would be binding on the family of the killer the murder and once we say it is binding on the family of the murder the killer, it is not intentional murder, it is either this or this. Because in these Chabad armed and thought was a murder, and they can murder that there is not binding on the victim only, but it is binding on his entire family. Okay, so, instrument, so you push someone off the cliff, but what I want you to understand because the in there the sort of detail rulings, and this is important, we have to understand where they're coming

from, we have to, you know, first teleki, which is you know, you learn from them you receive then at the buzzer, then you try to understand then it tallied or listed then you try to rationalize and figure out the root sort of cause the marks the objectives. So, and and then you will have some understanding, but if you get get sort of bound by the

sometimes it's not right, necessarily not not necessary, right, the principle that the working from does not always translate to proper application.

People make mistakes and when we say that our folks are not infallible, we have to actually believe that we have to, you know, be true to that sort of understanding. We love them we respect them, we honor them but they're not infallible they make mistakes sometimes they don't they try to sort of translate the principle into detailed rulings and they just doesn't cross over

and the very sort of proof on this is that they disagreed over these things all the time. So we if you know if honoring them would necessarily mean accepting their positions then we will accept contradictions we have accepted you know, you know, left and right and contradictions Okay, so what you need to understand is when they talk about how they killed they wanted to figure out if he intended to kill that instrument that method because sometimes they would have they would disagree over how someone over what would be usually Lisa and what would not be usually but their principles are very very strong. The first thing they looked at the other half the app does not use what he

kill. So if the owner does not or the instrument does not usually or the technique

of the assault does not usually kill

and keep in mind they also mentioned that if you lock someone up and you starve them to death that's killing intentional murder. They even in Latin America for instance, they mentioned clearly that if you lock someone up in a cold room and they die of

you know the

freeze to death

These are from the cold that this would be intentional murder. So the we're not limited to you know, the very direct type of murder

although the mobile shot and the suburbia we will come to this when it comes to the wreck in possession

direct act of murder versus causation we will come to this hopefully at some point

maybe he will not mention it. So I will mention it inshallah briefly. So if it does not use what they deserve, then the next question we ask is, what was this person this person have special circumstances? Was it like a new board? Like how much of a rock how big of a rock Do you need to kill a newborn and if it was like a small rock

like a little rock

But it was a newborn, then we will deem it like, so it's like you don't want to be rigid. It's not like this size rock would know, we would ask about other things, you know, who is the victim? was the victim, a newborn? That elderly person that would the fragile?

And then so that's the second question that we asked. Okay, no, it was a normal person. Or maybe that's the third question and the second would be, where did Where did he hit him? Where did he hit him? Because if you you know, hit someone with a needle

in their finger, is that different from hitting someone with a needle in their heart?

In Yes, so, there are sensitive areas. So, they look at all these things to sort out what is intentional, all of this all of this discussion of the method or the technique to ascertain work and pass that there was intention to kill In fact, so, that is that is the hope and there is the talk a lot about different issues here, when it comes to the instrument or comes to the method or the technique of killing, I just want to mention one thing to you which is the the difference between and mobile Shara and instead of the mobile Shara

and at the sub will suburbia.

So, two people will kill one person, two people will kill one person, one of them

battle so directly killed,

killed by their own hand or their own work. The other one sort of order that facilitated the prep to the scene that something the the the usual example is someone dig the wheel and someone pushed to the victim into the wheel who can

Okay, so, who is going to be subject to equal retribution?

The one who pushed not the one who dig? Because the he is closer. And so

yes,

he is the direct killer,

the immediate killer. So the one who did the well is not subject to equal retribution. Someone made someone stand on a chair and like tied a rope around their neck and someone pushed to the chair, the person who have the victim stand on the chair and tie the rope around their neck is not subject to equal retribution, it is the person who pushed because one is moved outside one is and with a sub now, when are we going to be make both liable?

And when are we going to reverse this and make them with a sub

liable for equal retribution that does not mean the other person will not be punished? We're just talking about Lisa retaliation equal retribution that does not mean that the other person will not be punished by the state okay. So, when in the case of Accra,

in the case of Accra, like x says to why if you do not kill z, I will kill you. X can actually do it. Why kill z to spare his life?

Who's liable for equal retribution in this case?

Okay, so, two scenarios here. If the ikura was actually complete, like the croc mode,

both will be liable.

If

If y if whatever who like who order who why order the Z, if y

if if y did not have that much power over x, he just ordered him to Kim z, then only x will be liable who killed not the order but the Dewar. But if the Dewar was doing this, under can

cleat corrosion, both would be liable. Why did we make x viable even though he was under corzan and under Coors, and he should not be liable

because that corrosion does not, you know, that will get you exempted or pardoned is when you are threatened by something greater than what you're being asked to do, greater than what you are being asked to do. So, it cannot be more of a minute deny and more. So I will, you know, if you don't basically

eat the swine, I will kill you, you eat, you eat the pork, that's fine. And here you are. But if you don't kill another person who is just as in viable as you are, I will kill you, you cannot kill the other person. It is you laugh didn't matter enough. So we'll be happy. So you don't spare your life by killing someone else.

then in this case, we will make you both liable. But what if what if the killer

the killer the actual killer was a child insane, you know or child or insane? The or there would be liable for equal retribution and not the immediate killer. So, here are different scenarios, one scenario, you have the order liable, which is the motor sub not the mobile ship, you know, the one farther away in one not immediately killed,

sometimes he will be liable, sometimes the immediate killer will be liable, sometimes both will be liable. But in general, the principle is what the principle is that mubasher is liable, not intercepted. So the immediate killer is liable not the sub not the the person who did the setup or the person who ordered the killing, you know,

but did not immediately

kill or directly kill. So this is the issue of mubasher and the sub. So you have like maybe you could say it's an English primary cause secondary cause or something of this nature. So the one that is closer to the act of getting will be usually liable, except in certain cases.

exam

I guess that's it for this part. Then the safes

for how they are fired up. So in this case,

the heirs the entirety of the heirs of the victim will be given the choice between lethal ideation and receiving an indemnity because the muscles are have a lot of Southern said if someone is killed the his or her entitled The Heirs ma to may choose between killing the murder and sparing him or her in exchange for an indemnity.

So, now intention of getting and all of this is intentional killing, no intentional killing someone kills someone intentionally. The entitle The Heirs who are the entitle The Heirs

different designs have different sort of takes on the entirety of the errors in the Hanbury mess up all the heirs of the estate are the heirs of the right

you know

basically have taken indemnity of the choice between the three options that they have, what are the three options that they have? One is called sauce. That is Lisa retaliation equal retribution center. The second one is called the that is the indemnity

and

We will come to the you know, we'll have a whole chapter on indemnity and what the indemnity is but you know, the 100 camels like just for the starter and then we'll talk about the details of the deal. The third is

which is to pardon

were pardoning

here they will get only the sub and Cara the reward of the Farah.

But Allah said from

Allah from an Africa were asked Maha fragile who Allah

so remember me or him Allah said Allah said he who will pardon and Isla

that means what

caused the rectification wreck the you know, reconcile reconciliation.

But it is not simply a reconciliation here because of the mountaineer wants to say that is about righteousness rectification

then his reward is with a law. So, he says that if halfway does not result in reforming the victim the murder or reforming the relationship between the two tribes or between the two families, if it doesn't result in something good, then a half is not necessarily superior all the time and for half well involved in the aggressor is then if one is not in this case superior in this case, what is superior is sauce.

So, it is not like alpha is a an absolute value that it will always be better it is off with that results in rectification reformation that results in good things happening you know for the parties involved not off with that with involved in the murder and the basically

waste the opportunity to rectify them and to protect the community from them, okay. So, because they are

the family will have to make that decision. And then the next session inshallah we will talk about

some more details in this regard. Now, if the family decided that they want the family and this is a collective decision that they would make the agreements within the different lab, but in the Hanbury math lab, and according to the majority, this is a collective decision that they will all make together whether they are men or women doesn't matter. It is a collective decision that they will all make in the hundred emails in the authorize the view of the hundred emails.

If they decided that they want to take more than that the or someone of them decided that they want to take more than that the everybody wants to the someone said no, I'm not gonna give up my right to sauce. Although if someone gave his right up to sauce, then the rest of the people are going to have to give it up.

But if they are negotiating for more than that the can they do that? Can they negotiate for more than the deal? Can they negotiate for two men? $2 billion?

Yes. So they will say to the murderer $2 billion or sauce twos. So they can do this is that exploitation blackmailing? I mean he is a murderer anyway. So, like if

anyway,

that is what he said and in the end when the extra minute damages

which which means that if I agree on more than the prescribed indemnity, it's permissible that both parties agree on more than the prescribed indemnity.

Now

and no, it is. No, in order to have the sauce. They all have to agree on the sauce if one of them

pardoned. And that's the issue here and that is why I talked to you last time about

this the right of the state, does the state have any right and this or it is left up to the family and if one in the family said, I do not want a source, then that's the end of the story. And as I said last time, the state will then have a right to punish them. Murder, according to the Hanafi Maliki's some shafa is and a minor report in the Hanbury method supported by have we are in his work at Hamilton I remember this Yes. So

so next to this is me alarmed and that's what he went go over now or quiz I murder and he says, Remember Kodama Kamala Khan Sani shippuuden do and yet Ahmed deny he be mad I have to live in for the power the fee with dear to Allah Al Qaeda. Second quiz I intentional manslaughter.

mistaken death resulting from a deliberate assault. That's what it is. It's mistaken death resulting from a deliberate assault. This is where one intentionally assault someone in a way that would not usually cause death. There is no lethal retaliation in this case, and the indemnity is you from the killer, or male paternal kin, male paternal kin, in Shepherd on the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said Allah in fee Katelyn Cutler in the Katyn shipping alarm the mechanic is salty what also may a two minute label or about one minute happy boy Tony.

So Allah NFV patina and

shipping

in FY 14

sabe

Alam

McKenna, the salty while Assa and in summary report, or what had

me at one minute a bit

meaner a bit.

harbor when I'm in ha,

feeble Tony Ha.

I will do

so,

most very in the victim of murder quiz I murder

Shepard on mechanics. So to

that which is done by the whip the stick or the rock

may have been 100 camels. 40 of them have

40 of them are pregnant. 40 of them are pregnant, they have their offspring in their wombs. So why did he say for the have this is called them over lover, the animal lover is divided into four, you know, they will come to the sort of distinction. We'll have a whole chapter on there. But then, is 520 20 2020 2020 candles. So I've

been to the Boone hacker Java that is five different types 20 of each and then that's the demo. The demo is divided into four categories.

And

that is a Togolese and the 40 of them will have their

will be pregnant. So the bottom line in this case is that

someone killed the someone in a fight or give the someone wanting to hurt but not wanting to kill.

Then that's

there will be no no equal retribution no sauce.

No these are today's and no equal retribution knocking sauce for sure. There will be either they are or

they are or

last one

is recovering ketamine caminada winlock calm

Mina can come in beynac movano Missa Missa de Manila mina familiarises for cM charedim with vi Tabata minima. So, I believer, it were not for it is not for a believer to kill another believer except mistakenly and whenever it gives a believer

then the compensation

or not the compensation but the punishment for that or will be recompense, for that will be

free of believing slave

and the

for the people of that victim,

indemnity,

but if he is from a warring enemy, if if he has from a warring tribe, then only freeing a

believing slave would be required and if he is from a, a sort of a tribe and nation people, between you and whom there is a covenant, there is a covenant, then both and he mentioned that they are here first indemnity and then terracotta momina emancipating, a free man speaking, believing slave. So,

now, this is this is

this is this has two things now, this applies to quiz I murder and mistaken murder, it has the anchor for, right. Mina is not there. It's not given to the family. It's not indemnity, not given to the family. It's not about money.

But it is a kuffaar, expiation, expiation, fara expiation, so what we have data

plus Alka Faraj.

So indemnity

plus expiation

in which the case

in these two cases Kwazii murder and mistaken murder because this was about mistaken murder and we apply it to Kwazii murder because who is it murder is mistaken to some extent. In a way it is mistaken. He did not actually mean to kill.

So, indemnity plus expiation. Now, do you remember when we talked to here we did not mention expiation.

We did not mention expiation, and intentional killing. There is no expiation in the Hanbury method or even according to the majority, the sapphires would the man than expiation in addition to that there, because they said that this is worse than this. And if expiation is binding here, it should be binding a4 CRI here hear bill Allah, but that Johor say no, this is too bad to have an explanation for

too bad to have an explanation for an explanation as to purify you, you have committed an enormous crime here, that would not have usually expiation if you like, you know, it didn't

like in Ramadan, you have whatever, intercourse or this or that, to purify you, you when you kill someone, intentionally, too big of a crime, to be to have a father or to have a purification. So, that is the position of the

the the majority that in intentional murder, there is no explanation. Now in both

coins, I am mistaken murder, there is indemnity and the execution expiation, and this is by consensus, indemnity and expansion because it's the very verbatim statement of the Quran. So it's, it's clear.

The expiation is worked.

Rocco manna freeing like emancipating, believing slave from unlimited fisiologia dynamotor vi so he who is unable who cannot find or afford a slave to emancipate fast in two consecutive months, fasting two consecutive months you miss one day you do like any new from the so fasting two consecutive months. That is the expiation

got somebody that would that be equivalent to?

These are contemporary issues that like

we know some of the scholars said that but it is just like contemporary scholars. So you know,

said like, fellas figure out how much money and then give this money out how much money was that would would like freenas slave cost and then we'll, since there are no slaves now let's not make this an automatic transfer from freeing a slave to fasting because for most people first thing is really very hard, like two months consecutively. So let's figure out how much it would have cost and then figure out what would be comparable to freenas. But this is a very contemporary discussion and we're trying to first lay the foundations here.

Now, the

expiation, plus indemnity binding here

and we did talk about the indemnity and we did talk about the expiation are we missing anything? They said it's too big of a deal to kill someone because Allah subhanaw taala settled near term Amina Muhammad and

didn't fear while they will love Allah He went on

and he who kills believer willingly

advertently

his recompense will be harder than fee to dwell there in forever. Well, how do llamada you know Allah is angry Mallanna who encouraged him

all the time and prepared for him. Great torment.

So huge thing now money after a moment and does not mean that you kill a non believer

because there is you know,

the upper hand says

nothing.

Okay.

I

already saw the fee

for it so the first 190 minutes.

Canada

have Canada and Australia.

So Menagerie valic Israel and Oman, Qatar and Epson in an Epson whoever it gives us all unjustifiably not for equal retribution not for killing another soul.

*a animal, Jamia, he had it is as if he had killed all people or all humanity, and whoever gives rescues or gives it life saves spares that is if he saved all humanity. So that is about enough in general, not a believing naps but just enough and the Prophet sallallahu wasallam highlighted this underscore that emphasized so much and in in many hobbies but one of them particularly strong and reported by McCarty from the love nominal loss where he said

Mankato and hidden lamb era have a hot agenda when he haha you gentlemen Maserati Urbina, who he who gives a covenant non Muslim, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though the fragrance of Paradise can be smelled from a distance of 40 years. So there is nothing that can be stronger than there's no like, sort of.

There's no stronger

phrasing than this. And then the Prophet sallallahu Sallam also said about the killing, as reported about Friday, also from the lab, Norma this time, and you have them both in your book. He kept he said about killing in general. You know, that moment? First hotton mendini Mela Musab dammann haraam Lai Azad force Hutton mendini is a very important

part of the sort of aggression that people commit.

fevers hotton

mendini,

mala Musa

Domine haraam.

So I believe and will continue to be first ha at ease mendini concerning his the mallam usurp dominance

haraam huntin, he sheds sacred blog content he sheds inviolable blood sacred blood. What is the diamond Harmon that's the Muslim The more I had the zimmy and the monster that is anyone who is not who is inviolable. That is the default for all humanity. That's the default for all humanity except worrying and

people or

people who committed crimes

that are subject to capital punishment and

you know assaulters like aggressors that are trying to hurt you

or your family

or your property. Okay.

So the last one The last type, which is the mistaken calendar now you did not intend to hurt you did not intend to carry the mountain anything with you, you ended up killing a soldering

iron huduma and you have found a way to beat him up to the patentee here with a sub cut the behalf of anyone who will Caitlyn, Caitlyn, Mo civilian most known for her chemo. Her chemo should be alarmed. Third mistaken killing which has two types first to do something that does not target the victim. But that results in his killing or two causes getting by digging well, or the like. The ruling concerning the killing the one who is asleep each child or insane is like that for Quasar intentional men slaughter Quasar intentional manslaughter, so

so there will be the mo lover. The difference between Shepherd armed with Fatah is that the indemnity here is greater in the larger indemnity than in the case of Fatah, but it is pretty much the same. The combination of the Fatah for motion had on them Fatah, he says copper is whenever like you trying to hit the air and you had someone or you are speeding and you basically killed someone pedestrian, or like another motorist or you dig the wheel and someone fell into the wheel. Now what if you're not speeding?

What if you dig the well and you have enough signs and an officer the

safety measures and someone still fell on the wheel, someone still jumped in front of your car while you were sort of completely

legal and sober.

Then metta herdsmen who follow the manaphy that which cannot be avoided, there shall not be there should be no liability concerning it. So like you cannot avoid thinking and well in your in your land, if you have done your job

with all the safety measures, and that is why this mistaken killing the severity of the punishment and mistaken getting it makes the entire community, the entire society careful.

diligent about safety measures safety measures. They say that the mistaken killer have done something wrong. It is not like he has not done anything wrong. What is it that he had done wrong? He did not intend to kill he didn't have to hurt but he was not careful enough. careful enough. So he was shooting the year he should have looked to the right he should have looked to the left. He's driving he should have paid attention he should have not been texting he should have not been speeding stuff like this. He he did the well but he didn't put up enough signs he did not do all the safety measures. Once he has done all the safety measures he's not liable for whatever happens

because matter whom can have the hardware is minimum without which cannot be avoided the

fair amount of fee there will be no liability concerning you're doing your own you're minding your business you're doing your own thing within your sort of sort of territory.

He should not be liable

Okay, I know I said he The second type of mistaken carrying gear and you have to know Muslim and Fedora Harvey Harvey and we oxido ramier sofka farfield see boom.

Our file Ciba Sermo Muslim and for Vika farrakhan, Villa de La da da, da da La como min for the heavy rock.

Okay, second.

Killer Muslim in

the abode of war, thinking he is a warring enemy or to target the lions often back into unbelievers and injure a Muslim, then there will be an expiation without indemnity This is because a lot, but if the deceased was from a people at war with you, and he was a believer, then only the freeing of a believing slave is binding only the fruit. So, why is he making a separate type here? Because as we said in all of the quiz is murder and the mistaken murder, the basically the punishment or the penalty or the recompense or what, what is binding is a DMCA fara indemnity and expiation, there are cases where he says that only XP only expiation will be binding emancipation of

believing slave. When is that when a in the battlefield war, you know, and the land of war, you kill someone.

A warring you target someone you think that they are warring enemy, and you had a believer. And in this case, you will not get the indemnity

because the believer is more yours than

theirs, you will not give the indemnity to the family because they are a warring enemy to begin with. And as we said, everybody now is inviolable by default in the whole world except in limited in the limited cases that we have discussed because it's land of conciliation and of security, given all the agreements in the United Nations, and prior to that, the League of Nations and so on.

But if you could imagine how fair that is, in their times, like now, they are in combat with a warring enemy. Certainly, you will not give indemnity to the warring enemy, you know, but if you by mistake, killer believer who was there, not as like a defector from the Muslim army, because if they are, then they are there is no explanation for them.

But if they were there, because the currency we just couldn't avoid it or just happen to be there, etc, and you kill them, then there will be expiation in this case and no indemnity.

Is that clear? Yes. So, Charlie, I'll stop here and come back in six minutes.

To go over the conditions of the obligation and execution of key source recording

plans.