Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/100)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

doubt, because the testimony of ascendants and descendants is disallowed when it is testimony in a person’s favor, owing to the possibility of bias. But where it is testimony both for and against him—as is the case with a marriage contract—it is not disallowed. Moreover, we say: the established school permits both witnesses, or one of them, to be an enemy of the husband or the wife, even though an enemy’s testimony against his enemy is inadmissible because he is suspect in such a case. So we ask: is this marriage for a person or against a person?

The answer is: it is both for and against him. If you accept the testimony of an enemy, even though it is not purely in his favor or purely against him, then accept the testimony of a relative as well, because it too is not purely in his favor or purely against him. In reality, marriage is neither a right exclusively in favor of the husband or wife nor exclusively a liability upon either of them; rather, it is both for and against them, since it entails rights due to each contracting party and obligations incumbent upon each. The correct view, therefore, is that the contract is valid. This is a reported position from Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and it was preferred by many of the scholars of the school. Few ordinary people are mindful of this issue: they may conclude a marriage contract while the husband’s father is present and count him as one of the witnesses. According to the established school, this is invalid, but the correct view is that it is permissible.

“Compatibility—which consists of religious commitment and social standing, the latter being lineage and freedom—is not a condition for its validity, ………”

His statement, “Compatibility—which consists of religious commitment and social standing, the latter being lineage and freedom—is not a condition for its validity,” explicitly affirms this. Some scholars hold that compatibility is a condition for validity; others hold that it is a condition for the contract to be binding; while yet others hold that it is a condition for neither.

His statement, “compatibility”: it derives from kufʾ, which in the Arabic language means “equal” or “equivalent.” What is meant here is that the husband be a suitable match for marriage.

شك؛ لأن شهادة الأصول والفروع ممنوعة حيث كانت شهادة للإنسان؛ خشية التهمة، أما حيث تكون شهادة عليه وله، كما هو الحال في عقد النكاح فلا تمنع، ثم إننا نقول أيضاً: المذهب يجوِّزون أن يكون الشاهدان، أو أحدهما عدوّاً للزوج أو الزوجة، وشهادة العدو على عدوه غير مقبولة؛ لأنه متهم فيها، فنقول: هذا النكاح هل هو للإنسان، أو على الإنسان؟ الجواب: له وعليه، فإذا قبلتم شهادة العدو مع أنها لم تتمحض له ولا عليه، فاقبلوا شهادة القريب؛ لأنها لم تتمحض له ولا عليه، فالنكاح في الحقيقة ليس حقاً للزوج أو الزوجة، ولا حقاً عليه، بل هو له وعليه؛ لأنه يوجب حقوقاً للعاقد وحقوقاً عليه، فالصواب إذاً أنه يصح العقد، وهو رواية عن الإمام أحمد ﵀ واختارها كثير من الأصحاب، وهذه المسألة قلَّ من يتفطن لها من العوام، فقد يعقدون وأبو الزوج موجود ويعتبرونه أحد الشهود، وهذا على المذهب لا يصح، ولكن الصحيح أنه جائز. وَلَيْسَتِ الكَفَاءَةُ ـ وَهِيَ دِينٌ وَمَنْصِبٌ، وَهُوَ النَّسَبُ وَالحُرِّيَّةُ ـ شَرْطاً فِي صِحَّتِهِ، .......... قوله: «وليست الكفاءة ـ وهي دين ومنصب، وهو النسب والحرية ـ شرطاً في صحته» نص على ذلك؛ لأن من العلماء من قال: إن الكفاءة شرط في الصحة، ومنهم من قال: إنها شرط في اللزوم، ومنهم من قال: إنها ليست شرطاً في هذا ولا هذا. وقوله: «الكفاءة» من الكُفء، وهو المِثْل في اللغة العربية، والمراد بها هنا أن يكون الزوج أهلاً لأن يُزوَّج.