Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/237)

His statement, “Or if he settles with a legally accountable person”: he specified a legally accountable person because the acknowledgment of one who is not legally accountable is invalid in the first place. Since his acknowledgment is invalid, a settlement with him is likewise invalid.

His statement, “Or with a woman, so that she acknowledges, in return for compensation, that she is his wife: this is invalid.” An example of this is where the state grants an unmarried person a certain amount from the public treasury, while granting a married person twice that amount. A man then asks a woman to acknowledge that she is his wife so that he may receive the allowance given to married people, and she does so. This is forbidden, because it leads to many consequences. If he were to die, she would inherit from him; and if she were to die, he would inherit from her. Furthermore, if she were to bear a child born of fornication, the child would be affiliated to the man before whom she acknowledged the marriage. Many rulings would follow from this. Therefore, it is not lawful for a man to settle with a woman in order for her to acknowledge that she is his wife.

This applies where he settles with a woman for compensation in exchange for her acknowledgment. If he settles with her without compensation, the ruling is the same, although in most cases it would only occur in return for compensation—whether a tangible asset, a benefit, or something else.

Question: Suppose the woman truly is his wife, but she denies that she is his wife; the witnesses have died, the marriage document has been lost, and nothing now remains except her acknowledgment. He therefore settles with her so that she will acknowledge that she is his wife. What is the ruling on this settlement?

Answer: As for the woman, it is forbidden for her to take compensation for this acknowledgment, because she is his wife. As for the man, it is permissible for him to offer the compensation, since this enables him to recover his right. A comparable case is where someone takes something belonging to you and refuses to acknowledge that it is yours unless you give him compensation. If you give it to him, that is permissible for you, but forbidden for him.

وقوله: «أو صالح مكلفاً» عبر بقوله: مكلفاً؛ لأن غير المكلف لا يصح إقراره أصلاً، وإذا كان لا يصح إقراره فإنه لا تصح المصالحة معه. قوله: «أو امرأة لتقر له بالزوجية بعوض لم يصح»، مثاله: الدولة فرضت للإنسان الأعزب شيئاً من بيت المال وللمتزوج ضعفه، فطلب إنسان من امرأة أن تقر بأنها زوجته؛ ليعطى مكافأة متزوج، وفعلت، فهذا حرام؛ لأنه يترتب على هذا أمور كثيرة، لو أنه مات لورثته، ولو ماتت لورثها، ثم لو أتت بولد زنا لألحق بهذا الرجل الذي أقرت له بالزوجية، وترتب عليه مسائل كثيرة، فلا يحل أن يصالح امرأة لتقر له بالزوجية. هذا لو صالح امرأة لتقر له بعوض، فلو صالحها بغير عوض فالحكم كذلك، ولكن في الغالب أنه لا يكون إلا بعوض، إما عين وإما منفعة أو غير ذلك. مسألة: لو كانت المرأة زوجة حقيقية وأنكرت أنها زوجته، والشهود قد ماتوا ووثيقة النكاح ضاعت، ولم يبق الآن إلا إقرارها، فصالحها لتقر له بالزوجية فما حكم هذا الصلح؟ الجواب: هذا بالنسبة للمرأة حرام عليها أن تأخذ عوضاً عن هذا الإقرار لأنها امرأته، أما بالنسبة للرجل فهو جائز أن يبذل العوض، لأن فيه استنقاذاً لحقه، ونظير ذلك لو أن أحداً أخذ منك شيئاً وأبى أن يقر أنه لك إلا بعوض تعطيه إياه، فأعطيته إياه فهذا بالنسبة لك جائز، وبالنسبة له محرم.