Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/333)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and not stoning, as evidenced by Allah Most High’s words:

“The woman and the man guilty of fornication—flog each of them with a hundred lashes, and do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out Allah’s law, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let a group of the believers witness their punishment.” [al-Nur]

Thus, Allah calls the prescribed punishment a punishment. Therefore, if she does not testify, the prescribed punishment becomes due upon her.

If the husband wishes to undertake liʿān against his wife in order to establish what he has alleged against her, but wishes to appoint someone to undertake liʿān on his behalf, this is not accepted, because liʿān pertains to the husband himself. If he does not undertake liʿān, the prescribed punishment for false accusation becomes due upon him; and if he undertakes liʿān while she refuses to do so, the prescribed punishment for adultery becomes due upon her. An agent cannot say, “May Allah’s curse be upon him if he is lying,” for the agent himself has not made the accusation. Likewise, the woman may not appoint someone to undertake liʿān on her behalf.

His statement, “and oaths”: representation does not apply to them, so agency in them is invalid. For example, if someone makes a claim against Zayd for one hundred riyals but has no evidence, the ruling is that Zayd, the defendant, must swear an oath that the claimant has no right against him, because the Prophet ﷺ said, “The oath is upon the one who denies.” (1) Once the oath is required of the one who denies the claim, if he says, “I appoint so-and-so to swear on my behalf,” this is invalid, because it is among those matters that pertain to the person himself: he is the one who will either be sinful or truthful. Thus, agency is not valid in this matter.

If a Jew were liable for jizyah, and the date for collecting it from him were Monday, and he said to his servant, “Go and give the Muslims the jizyah,” and the servant went and paid it, such agency would not be valid, because this pertains to the person himself, due to Allah Most High’s words describing the collection of jizyah: “until

(1) Its source has already been cited on p. 164.

وليس الرجم، بدليل أن الله تعالى قال: ﴿الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُمْ بِهِمَا رَأَفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ *﴾ [النور]، فسمى الله الحد عذاباً، فإن لم تشهد وجب الحد عليها. فإذا أراد الزوج أن يلاعن الزوجة؛ لإثبات ما ادعاه عليها، ولكنه أراد أن يوكل من يلاعن عنه، فهذا لا يقبل؛ لأن اللعان يتعلق بالزوج نفسه، إذ أنه إذا لم يلاعن وجب عليه حد القذف، وإن لاعن ونكلت هي وجب عليها حد الزنا، فالوكيل لا يجوز أن يقول: «وأن لعنة الله عليه إن كان من الكاذبين»، وهو ـ أيضاً ـ لم يقذف، وكذلك المرأة لا توكل من يلاعن عنها. وقوله: «والأيمان» لا تدخل فيها النيابة فلا تصح فيها الوكالة، فلو أن شخصاً ادعى على زيد بمائة ريال وليس عنده بينة، فالحكم أن يحلف زيد المدعى عليه يميناً بأنه لا حق لفلان عليه؛ لأن النبي ﷺ قال: «واليمين على من أنكر» (١)، فلما توجهت اليمين على المنكر، قال: أُوكِّلُ فلاناً يحلف عني، فهذا لا يصح؛ لأن هذه مما تتعلق بالإنسان نفسه، وهو الذي يكون آثماً أو بارّاً، فلا يصح فيها الوكالة. ولو أن يهودياً عليه جزية، وكان موعد أخذ الجزية منه يوم الاثنين، فقال اليهودي لخادمه: اذهب أعطِ المسلمين الجزية، فذهب الخادم وأعطى الجزية، فلا يصح التوكيل؛ لأن هذا يتعلق بالإنسان نفسه، لقول الله ـ تعالى ـ في صفة أخذ الجزية: ﴿حَتَّى

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٦٤).