Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/92)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

if one who is not free acquires something from his child’s wealth, whatever he acquires reverts to his master.

Is it a condition that he share his child’s religion? If we consider the general wording of the hadith, we would say that this is not a condition. Accordingly, a disbelieving father may take from the wealth of his Muslim child, and a Muslim father may take from the wealth of his disbelieving child. This is the apparent meaning of the hadith.

It has also been said that a disbelieving father is not to be permitted to take from the wealth of his Muslim child, because there is no bond between them and no mutual inheritance. Moreover, Allah Most High says: “Allah will never grant the disbelievers a way against the believers” [al-Nisāʾ 4:141]. Furthermore, if we were to permit the disbelieving father to take from the wealth of his Muslim child, this would humiliate the Muslim; perhaps the disbelieving father may even intend to humiliate his son by taking from his wealth.

In my view, there is no doubt that a disbelieving father has no right to take from the wealth of his Muslim child. As for a Muslim father taking from the wealth of his disbelieving child, here we may apply the general wording of the hadith and say that he may take, because the disbeliever’s remaining upon disbelief is itself unacceptable: he follows a religion that is not pleasing to Allah. Thus, placing the Muslim in authority over his wealth has a reasonable basis—especially if the son is among those at war with the Muslims, for if he is among them, there is no doubt that his wealth is lawful.

Thus, the statement, “he may,” refers to the father. We add the qualification “free,” and another qualification: “of the same religion,” according to the view of many scholars; or, according to the sounder view, that he not be a disbeliever taking from the wealth of a Muslim.

His statement, “and he may take and acquire”: the difference between the two is that taking is by way of use, whereas acquiring is by way of adding it to his own property. Thus, he may take his son’s car and use it to travel to Mecca, Riyadh, or Medina,

غير الحر لو تملك من مال ابنه فإن ما تملكه يرجع إلى سيده. وهل يشترط أن يكون موافقاً لابنه في الدِّين؟ إن نظرنا إلى إطلاق الحديث قلنا: لا يشترط، وعلى هذا فيجوز للأب الكافر أن يأخذ من مال ولده المسلم، وللأب المسلم أن يأخذ من مال ولده الكافر، هذا ظاهر الحديث. وقيل: إنه لا يُمكَّن الأب الكافر من الأخذ من مال ولده المسلم؛ لأنه لا صلة بينهما، ولا توارث؛ ولأن الله تعالى يقول: ﴿وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلاً﴾ [النساء: ١٤١]؛ ولأننا لو مكنا الأب الكافر من الأخذ من مال ولده المسلم، لكان في ذلك إذلال للمسلم، وربما يقصد الأب الكافر أن يذل ابنه بالأخذ من ماله. وعندي لا شك أنه ليس للأب الكافر أن يأخذ من مال ولده المسلم، أما أخذ الأب المسلم من مال ولده الكافر، فهنا قد نقول بعموم الحديث وأن له أن يأخذ؛ لأن أصل بقاء الكافر على الكفر ممنوع، فهو على دين غير مَرْضيٍّ عند الله، وتسليط المسلم على ماله له وجهة نظر، لا سيما إذا كان الابن من المحاربين، فإنه إذا كان من المحاربين فلا شك أن ماله حلال. إذاً قوله: «له» أي: للأب، ونضيف وصفاً «الحر» ووصفاً آخر «الموافق في الدين» على رأي كثير من العلماء، أو على الأصح ألا يكون كافراً يأخذ من مال مسلم. وقوله: «وله أن يأخذ ويتملك» الفرق بينهما: يأخذ على سبيل الاستعمال، ويتملك على سبيل الضم إلى ملكه، فله أن يأخذ سيارة الابن يسافر بها إلى مكة، إلى الرياض، إلى المدينة،