Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/47)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “as if he were to say: ‘for the children of his child,’” means that only the children of his sons are included, not the children of his daughters. However, the correct view is that if he says, “for the children of his child,” both the children of his sons and the children of his daughters are included, but not the children of his daughters’ daughters, because the second occurrence of the word “child” includes both males and females.

His statement, “and his offspring from his loins,” means that when he explicitly restricts it by saying “from his loins,” the children of daughters are unquestionably excluded.

Thus, if he says, “This is an endowment for the children of my child from my loins,” the children of daughters are not included, because they are not offspring from his loins, but offspring from his womb. A child is in the woman’s womb and from the man’s loins. Therefore, one who is related to him through his daughters is not related to him through his loins, but through his womb; and he has restricted it to his loins.

Accordingly, with respect to the children of his daughters, an endower’s wording falls under one of three cases:

The first is that he explicitly states their exclusion, saying, “My children and their children from my loins.” In this case, they are unquestionably excluded.

The second is that he explicitly states their inclusion, or that there is a contextual indication; in this case, they are included.

The third is that he states it without qualification; in that case, they are not included.

If he says, “for his offspring,” the word dhurriyyah (offspring) is an intensive passive form, meaning: those whom Allah brought forth from him. Those whom Allah brought forth from him are the children from his loins. Thus, if he says, “This is an endowment for my offspring,” his children—both sons and daughters—are included; then the children of his sons are included as well, but not the children of his daughters, because they are not from his offspring.

Here, an objection arises that we answered at the outset: Jesus, peace be upon him, is among the offspring of Abraham. How can that be? The answer is that Jesus, peace be upon him, his father is his mother, because

قوله: «كما لو قال على ولد ولده» فإنه يدخل أولاد بنيه فقط دون أولاد البنات، ولكن الصحيح أنه إذا قال: على ولد ولده، فإنه يدخل أولاد البنين وأولاد البنات دون أولاد بنات البنات؛ لأن كلمة «ولده» الثانية تشمل الذكور والإناث. قوله: «وذريته لصلبه» يعني إذا نص على التقييد بالصلب فإن أولاد البنات لا يدخلون بلا إشكال. فلو قال: هذا وقف على ولد ولدي لصلبي، فلا يدخل أولاد البنات؛ لأن أولاد البنات ليسوا ذرية لصلبه بل ذرية لبطنه، فالولد يكون في بطن الأنثى وفي صلب الرجل، فمن ينسب إليه عن طريق البنات لا ينسب إليه لصلبه بل لبطنه، وهو قيدها بصلبه. إذاً الواقف بالنسبة لأولاد بناته لا يخلو من ثلاث حالات: الأولى: أن ينص على عدم الدخول بأن يقول: أولادي وأولادهم لصلبي، فهنا لا يدخلون بلا إشكال. الثانية: أن ينص على الدخول أو توجد القرينة فهنا يدخلون. الثالثة: أن يطلق، فلا يدخلون. وإذا قال: على ذريته، وذرية فعيلة بمعنى مفعولة، أي: من ذرأهم الله منه، والذين ذرأهم الله منه هم أولاد الصلب، فإذا قال: هذا وقف على ذريتي دخل الأولاد من بنين وبنات، ودخل بعد ذلك أولاد البنين، دون أولاد البنات؛ لأنهم ليسوا من ذريته. وهنا يرد علينا الإشكال الذي أجبنا عنه أولاً، وهو أن عيسى ﵊ من ذرية إبراهيم، فكيف كان ذلك؟ والجواب أن عيسى ﵊ أبوه أمه؛ لأنه