Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/395)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and it is possible for the child to be hers even if she is not an adulteress, for she may have been impregnated through mistaken intercourse or under compulsion. Thus, if she says, “This is my son,” we ascribe him to her, even if the husband does not acknowledge him.

The third view is that, if she has a husband, the child is not ascribed to her, based on the Prophet’s statement, “The child belongs to the marital bed” (1). Here, the husband has not claimed that he is his child. If we were to ascribe him to her, it would bring disgrace upon the husband, since it would mean that she must have committed adultery or had intercourse by mistake. This is the strongest of the views.

His statement, “Muslim or disbeliever,” means that it makes no difference whether the one acknowledging him as his child is a Muslim or a disbeliever. If he is Muslim, the matter is clear and presents no difficulty. If he is a disbeliever, we ascribe the child to him, but we do not allow him custody of the child. We say: Yes, the child is your child, but he is deemed Muslim, and you have no right of custody over him.

The benefit of ascribing him to the man is the establishment of lineage. This disbeliever may perhaps embrace Islam one day, in which case the foundling will be returned to him and they will inherit from one another. The Sacred Law places great emphasis on establishing lineage.

His statement, “he is ascribed to him,” means that he becomes his child, and the claimant’s children become his siblings.

“Even after the foundling’s death; and he does not follow the disbeliever in his religion unless clear evidence testifies that he was born upon his marital bed, ...”

His statement, “even after the foundling’s death,” indicates that there is a difference of opinion. That is, he is ascribed to him even after the foundling has died, and this is the established position of the school, because the Sacred Law places great emphasis on establishing lineage. Since no one else has claimed him, let him be his child.

The second view is that after the foundling’s death, we do not state categorically that his claim is accepted; rather,

(1) Its source reference has been cited previously, p. 393.

ومن الممكن أن يكون ولداً لها وإن لم تكن زانية، فقد توطأ بشبهة أو مكرهة، فإذا قالت: هذا ابني، فإننا نلحقه بها حتى وإن لم يقبل الزوج. الثالث: إن كانت ذات زوج لم يلحق بها لقول النبي ﷺ: «الولد للفراش» (١) وهنا الزوج لم يدع أنه ولده، وإذا ألحقناه بها صار في ذلك عار على الزوج، فيلزم أن تكون زانية أو موطوءة بشبهة، وهذا هو أحسن الأقوال. وقوله: «مسلم أو كافر» يعني سواء كان المقِر بأنه ولده مسلماً أو كافراً، إن كان مسلماً فالأمر ظاهر ولا إشكال فيه، وإذا كان كافراً فإننا نلحقه به لكننا لا نمكنه من حضانته، نقول: نعم الولد ولدك لكنه محكوم بإسلامه ولا حضانة لك عليه. والفائدة من إلحاقه به النسب، وهذا الكافر ربما يسلم في يوم من الأيام، فيرد اللقيط إليه ويتوارثان، والشارع له تشوف بالغ في إلحاق النسب. وقوله: «لحق به» أي: صار ولداً له، وصار أولاد المدعي إخوة له. وَلَوْ بَعْدَ مَوْتِ اللَّقِيطِ، وَلَا يَتْبَعُ الكَافِرَ فِي دِينِهِ إِلاَّ بِبَيِّنَةٍ تَشْهَدُ أَنَّهُ وُلِدَ عَلَى فِرَاشِهِ، ........ قوله: «ولو بعد موت اللقيط» هذه إشارة خلاف، يعني أنه يلحق به ولو بعد موت اللقيط، وهو المذهب؛ لأن للشارع تشوفاً بإلحاق النسب، ولم يدعه أحد فليكن ولداً له. والقول الثاني: أنه بعد موت اللقيط لا نطلق أنه يقبل، بل

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٣٩٣).