To begin with, we pray that Allāh lifts the hardship from our people in Palestine, especially in Gaza, and we ask Him to accept this child among the young servants of Paradise.
Now, regarding the ruling:
This is a situation that arises during times of crisis and extreme need, when people are desperate for essentials such as food and water, which can lead to jostling and crowd pressure.
Before presenting the conclusion drawn from my reasoning on similar cases, I will mention some comparable incidents:
1. The Story of the Pit (Zubbiyah):
(Zubbiyah: a pit for trapping lions; also refers to a raised mound)
It was narrated from Ḥanish ibn al-Mu῾tamir that ῾Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) said:
“The Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) sent me to Yemen. We came upon a people who had dug a pit to trap a lion. While they were gathered around it, a man fell in. He clung to another, who clung to another, until four men had fallen in and were wounded by the lion. Then one man stood up and killed the lion with a spear, but the four injured men all died from their wounds. The relatives of the first man (who fell in) approached the relatives of the last man who fell in and drew their weapons to fight. ῾Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) arrived just after this had happened and said: ‘Do you want to fight while the Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) is still alive? I will issue a ruling—if you accept it, good; otherwise, we will wait until you bring the case to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Anyone who transgress after that will have no right.’ Then he said: ‘Gather blood money contributions from the tribes of all those who were present at the pit: one-fourth of the full amount, one-third, one-half, and the full blood money. The first man’s relatives gets a quarter of the diyyah (blood money) because three others fell on top of him, the second’s relatives gets one-third, the third’s relatives one-half, and the fourth’s relatives the full diyyah.’ They refused to accept the ruling and went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at the Maqām ᾽Ibrāhīm (Station of Abraham) and narrated the incident. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved the ruling.”
[Recorded by ᾽Aḥmad and others with slight variations, including: “He placed the blood money on the tribes who were present and jostling at the pit.”]
2. The Case of the Pincher and the Crushed Girl:
As mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in ᾽I῾lām al-Muwaqqi῾īn:
“Al-Sha῾bī said: Three girls were playing. One of them climbed onto another’s shoulders. The third pinched the girl who was being climbed on. That girl jumped in pain, causing the one on her shoulders to fall and die from a broken neck.
The case was brought to ῾Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him), and he ruled that the blood money be divided into thirds among the families of the three girls. He excluded the third that corresponded to the direct action of the falling girl (the one who moved and caused herself to fall), because she had a role in her own death.”
These examples show that in cases involving collective crowding or shared responsibility, we must take into account multiple factors. The one who ends up harmed in such a scenario may be both an agent and a victim of the same event.
3. The Blind and the Sighted Man:
Narrated by Al-Shawkānī in Nayl al-Awṭār:
“῾Alī ibn Rabāḥ al-Lakhmī narrated: A blind man used to say the following poetic verses:
O people, there is fallacy I found
The sighted can’t be seen by the blind
They both died when they fell on the ground
That is, a blind man was being guided by a sighted man during ῾Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s caliphate. They both fell into a well. The blind man landed on the sighted one, killing him. ῾Umar ruled that the blind man had to pay the blood money for the death of the sighted man. [Recorded by Al-Dāraqutnī]
Based on these accounts, the dīyah (blood money) for the deceased child in Gaza should, in principle, be borne collectively by the people involved in the crowding, with payment distributed among their respective ῾āqilah (close relatives).
My Opinion:
However, the context of war and ongoing conflict changes how dīyah is handled. In such situations, it should be paid from one of two sources:
- From the spoils of war taken from the enemy.
- From Bayt al-Māl (the public treasury), under the authority of the ruler.
Evidence for this includes what occurred at the Battle of ᾽Uḥud, when the Muslims mistakenly killed Al-Yamān (Ḥusayl ibn Jābir), the father of Ḥudhayfah:
῾Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated: “Al-Yamān, an elderly man, was placed in a fortified shelter with the women on the day of ᾽Uḥud. He came out seeking martyrdom but approached from the direction of the enemy. The Muslims mistook him for one of the disbelievers and struck him down despite Ḥudhayfah shouting: “My father! My father!” But they didn’t hear him in the chaos. Ḥudhayfah said: ‘May Allāh forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful.’
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled for the payment of his dīyah.”
[Recorded by Al-Shāfi῾ī and Al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan]
Abū Isḥāq al-Fazārī, quoting al-Zuhrī, said: “The Muslims mistakenly killed Ḥudhayfah’s father at ᾽Uḥud. Ḥudhayfah said, ‘May Allāh forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful.’ The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then paid the blood money on their behalf.”
Also narrated by Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Sarrāj, from ῾Ikrimah: “Ḥudhayfah’s father was killed by some Muslims at ᾽Uḥud, thinking he was an enemy, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) paid his blood money.”
Ibn Ḥajar said in Fatḥ al-Bārī: “The narrators [of this report] are trustworthy despite some disconnected chains.”
Similarly, Musaddad reported in his Musnad (as quoted by Ibn Ḥajar in Fatḥ al-Bārī) from Yazīd ibn Madhkūr: “A man was crushed in the crowd on Friday and died. ῾Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) paid the dīyah from the Bayt al-Māl (public treasury).”
From a rational perspective:
Those present at the food kitchen were poor and in need. Hunger and desperation led to the crowding. Such necessity forces behavior that would not occur in normal conditions. Rulings during a time of war is not the same as peace.
Conclusion:
The dīyah for this child should be paid from the authority (the ruler), once stability returns. It may also be taken from enemy spoils.
Fatwā issued by Dr. Khāid Naṣr