Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/396)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

there is further detail. If there is cause for suspicion, he is not ascribed to him. An example of such suspicion is where the foundling has abundant wealth, and after the foundling’s death someone claims that he was his son in order to inherit that wealth. In this case, we do not accept his claim, because the grounds for suspicion are fully present. Moreover, what benefit, in terms of lineage, is gained when he has died and left neither descendants nor anything behind?! This view is correct: after the foundling’s death, if suspicion and circumstantial evidence indicate—for example—that he only seeks the wealth, we do not ascribe the foundling to him.

His statement, “and he does not follow,” refers to the foundling.

His statement, “the disbeliever in his religion,” means the disbeliever who claims him as his child. We rule that the foundling is his child, but we do not rule that he follows his religion, since it has previously been established that the foundling is Muslim.

His statement, “unless clear evidence testifies that he was born upon his marital bed”: if he produces clear evidence that the child was born to his wife or to his concubine, then he must be ascribed to him in both lineage and religion, until he reaches the age of discernment and chooses whichever religion he wishes. But if he claims him without any evidence, then the foundling follows the disbeliever in lineage but not in religion.

From his statement, “and he does not follow the disbeliever in his religion unless clear evidence testifies,” we learn that the child of a disbeliever follows the disbeliever in religion. Thus, if the parents of a child die as disbelievers, that child is legally deemed a disbeliever with respect to the rulings of this world: he is neither washed, shrouded, nor prayed over, nor buried among the Muslims, because he is legally deemed a disbeliever. As for the Hereafter, the correct view is that the children of the polytheists will be tested: that is, Allah, exalted is He, will question them in the Hereafter and charge them with matters known only to Him. Some of them will obey and others will disobey. Whoever obeys will deserve the reward of the obedient, and whoever disobeys will deserve the recompense of the disobedient. This is the soundest of the views.

في ذلك تفصيل، إن كان هناك تهمة، فإنه لا يلحق به، والتهمة مثل أن يكون لهذا اللقيط أموال كثيرة، فيدعي بعد موت اللقيط أن اللقيط ولده؛ من أجل أن يرث هذه الأموال، فهذا لا نقبل دعواه؛ لأن التهمة هنا قائمة قياماً تاماً، ثم أي فائدة ـ من حيث النسب ـ نحصل عليها وهو قد مات، ولم يخلف ذرية ولا شيئاً؟! وهذا القول هو الصواب، أنه بعد موت اللقيط إذا قامت التهمة والقرينة ـ مثلاً ـ على أنه إنما يريد المال، فإننا لا نلحقه به. قوله: «ولا يتبع» الضمير يعود على اللقيط. قوله: «الكافرَ في دينه» أي الكافر الذي ادعاه، نحكم بأنه ولده ولا نحكم بأنه على دينه؛ لأنه سبق لنا أن اللقيط مسلم. قوله: «إلا ببينة تشهد أنه ولد على فراشه» فإذا أقام بينة بأنه ولد من زوجته أو أنه ولد من سُرِّيَّتِهِ، فهنا لا بد أن نلحقه به نسباً وديناً حتى يبلغ سن التمييز، ويختار من الأديان ما شاء، أما إذا ادعاه وليس له بينة فإن يتبع الكافر نسباً ولا يتبعه ديناً. واستفدنا من قوله: «ولا يتبع الكافر في دينه إلا ببينة» أن ولد الكافر يتبع الكافر في الدين، فإذا مات طفل أبواه كافران، فإن هذا الطفل كافر حكماً في أحكام الدنيا فلا يغسل ولا يكفن ولا يصلى عليه ولا يدفن مع المسلمين؛ لأنه كافر حكماً، أما في الآخرة فالصحيح أن أولاد المشركين يمتحنون، بمعنى أن الله ﷿ يسألهم في الآخرة ويكلفهم بأشياء الله أعلم بها، فمنهم من يطيع ومنهم من يعصي، فمن أطاع استحق ثواب المطيع ومن عصى استحق ثواب العاصي، هذا هو أصح الأقوال