Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/160)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

by the condition that he is obliged to support him. But if he is not obliged to support him—such as an uncle who has sons—then he is not required to pay his Fitr charity, because he does not inherit from him.

“A slave jointly owned by partners: they owe one saʿ; and it is recommended on behalf of the fetus . . .”

His statement, “A slave jointly owned by partners: they owe one saʿ,” means that if a slave is owned jointly by several people—for example, if three people own a slave, one holding one-half, the second one-third, and the third one-sixth—does the Fitr charity become due from them equally according to their number, or in proportion to their respective shares of ownership?

The answer is: if we say that it is due according to their number, then each of them must pay one-third of a saʿ, because there are three of them.

But if we say that it is due in proportion to their ownership shares, then the first must pay one-half of a saʿ, the second one-third of a saʿ, and the third one-sixth of a saʿ. This is because it is based on joint ownership, and is therefore apportioned according to their respective shares. This is the view adopted by the author, and it is the correct view.

Some scholars, however, said that each of them must pay a full saʿ, since the Fitr charity is an obligation that cannot be divided; each person is an owner, so each must give a saʿ. Yet this view is weak, because the sound view is that the Fitr charity paid on behalf of another is secondary: originally, it is an obligation due from each individual personally, while whoever bears it on his behalf is secondary and thus incurs the financial liability. So, if there are three secondary parties—the co-owners—and one original party—the slave—how can the one original party be made into three? Rather, we consider the original party, who is one, and say that they collectively owe one saʿ in proportion to their ownership shares. This is analogous to the reverse case: if one person owned three slaves, he would owe three saʿs on their behalf, one saʿ for each slave.

بما إذا كان يجب عليه الإنفاق عليه، أما إذا لم يجب عليه الإنفاق عليه، كالعم الذي له أبناء فلا تجب عليه زكاته؛ لأنه لا يرثه. وَالْعَبدُ بَيْنَ شُرَكَاءَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَاعٌ، وَيُسْتَحَبُّ عَنِ الجَنِينِ ......... قوله: «والعبد بين شركاء عليهم صاع» أي: إذا كان عبد بين أشخاص هم شركاء، كأن يكون عبد بين ثلاثة لأحدهم نصفه، وللثاني ثلثه، وللثالث سدسه، فهل تجب زكاة الفطر عليهم بحسب رؤوسهم أو بحسب ملكهم؟ الجواب: إن قلنا: تجب بحسب الرؤوس لزم كل واحد ثلث صاع؛ لأنهم ثلاثة. وإن قلنا: تجب بحسب ملكهم، قلنا: على الأول نصف صاع، وعلى الثاني ثلث صاع، وعلى الثالث سدس صاع؛ لأنها مبنية على الشراكة فيكون على حسب ملكهم، وهذا هو الذي ذهب إليه المؤلف وهو الصحيح. ولكن قال بعض العلماء: يجب على كل واحد منهم صاع؛ لأن الفطرة واجب لا يتبعض، فكل إنسان مالك فيجب عليه أن يخرج صاعاً، ولكن هذا القول ضعيف؛ لأن الصحيح أن الفطرة بالنسبة للغير فرع بمعنى أنها أصلاً واجبة على كل شخص بعينه، ومن تحملها عنه فهو فرع فتكون غرماً، فإذا كان عندنا فروع ثلاثة وهم الشركاء، وعندنا أصل واحد وهو الرقيق فكيف نجعل الأصل ثلاثة؟ فنعتبر الأصل وهو واحد، ونقول: عليهم صاع بحسب ملكهم، كما لو كان الأمر بالعكس بأن يكون ثلاثة أرقاء عند شخص واحد فعليه لهم ثلاثة أصواع لكل واحد صاع.