Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the feet are shown. For feet—glory be to Allah—are a clear indication of faces. Here in our town, there are people who recognize a man by his foot: when one of them sees the foot and its toes, he says, “It is as though I am looking at his face”—glory be to Allah! In the past, when someone climbed a wall—the walls used to be made of mud, which retained the impression of the toes—if he had, for example, stolen something and climbed over the wall, the man would recognize him from his big toe alone and say, “It is as though I am looking at his face.” Likewise, if he entered a sheep pen, stole something, and left, then the other man saw the traces of his feet in the sand, he would say, “It was so-and-so.” The point is that faces and feet indicate lineage, for Mujazziz al-Mudliji—may Allah be pleased with him—saw only their feet.

It makes no difference whether the first, second, or third person is the claimant. That is, if one comes at one o’clock, another at two, and a third at three, and all of them claim that he is his son, we present him to the physiognomists; whichever claimant they attribute him to, he is assigned to him. However, this is on the condition that the physiognomist has been tested and proven accurate.

The statement of physiognomists regarding lineages is accepted. But is their statement likewise accepted regarding property? That is, if the physiognomist sees the thief’s footprint and says, “This is so-and-so, son of so-and-so,” is this acted upon? Or should it be said that it is merely a supporting indication, so the man is brought forth: if he confesses, then he is held liable; otherwise, he is acquitted? The scholars differ over this. Some say that if he has been tested and found accurate, his statement is acted upon. As we have mentioned, these physiognomists may even testify with certainty that this is the foot of so-and-so, son of so-and-so. Thus, it constitutes a supporting indication. And in the case of David and Solomon—peace and blessings be upon them—“when they gave judgment concerning the field, when the sheep of the people had strayed therein...”

الأقدام؛ لأن الأقدام ـ سبحان الله ـ دليل واضح على الوجوه، حتى إنه عندنا هنا في البلد أناس يعرفون الرجل بقَدمِه، فإذا رأى القدم ورأى أصابعه قال: كأنني أشاهد وجهه ـ سبحان الله! ـ حتى إنه إذا تسلق الجدار، وكانت الجدران من قبل من الطين تتأثر بالأصابع، فإذا سرق ـ مثلاً ـ وتسلق الجدار عرفه بإبهامه فقط، ويقول: كأنني أشاهد وجهه، وإذا دخل على حوش الغنم، وسرق وخرج ورأى أثر أقدامه في الرمل، قال: هو فلان، فالمهم أن الوجوه والأقدام تدل على النسب؛ لأن مجززاً المدلجي ﵁ إنما رأى أقدامهما. ولا فرق بين أن يكون الأول مدعياً أو الثاني أو الثالث، يعني لو أن أحدهم جاء في الساعة الواحدة والآخر في الساعة الثانية والثالث في الساعة الثالثة، وكلهم ادعى أنه ولده، فإننا نعرضه على القافة فمن ألحقته به لحقه، لكن بشرط أن يكون مجرباً بالإصابة. وقول القافة في الأنساب معتبر، فهل يعتبر قول القافة في الأموال، بمعنى أن القائف إذا رأى قدم السارق، وقال: هذا فلان بن فلان، فهل يؤخذ به، أو يقال: إنه قرينة ويؤتى بالرجل إن أقر وإلا برئ؟ فيها خلاف بين العلماء: منهم من قال: إذا عرف بالإصابة بالتجربة فإنه يؤخذ به، وكما ذكرنا هؤلاء القافة ربما يشهدون شهادة على أن هذا قدم فلان بن فلان، وليس عندهم فيه شك، فيكون قرينة، وفي قضية داود وسليمان ـ عليهما الصلاة والسلام ـ ﴿إِذْ يَحْكُمَانِ فِي الْحَرْثِ إِذْ نَفَشَتْ فِيهِ

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies