Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/148)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

“The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is merely what they say with their mouths, echoing the words of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah destroy them! How deluded they are!” [Al-Tawbah 9:30]

until He says:

“Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Al-Tawbah 9:31]

In summary, the view held by the majority of scholars is that anyone who follows the religion of the People of the Scripture and affiliates himself with them—even if he professes the Trinity—his slaughtered animals are lawful, and marriage to their women is lawful.

His statement, “except for a free woman from the People of the Scripture”: Is a Magian woman analogous to her? No, she is not, even though the jizyah is collected from the Magians. Yet they differ from the People of the Scripture with respect to slaughtered animals: the slaughtered animals of the Magians are not lawful, nor is marriage to their women lawful, by consensus. No one differed regarding the lawfulness of their slaughtered animals except Abu Thawr, may Allah have mercy on him; however, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, strongly repudiated this view. Thus, the slaughtered animals of the Magians are not lawful, nor is marriage to their women lawful, though the jizyah is collected from them, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ collected the jizyah from them (1). The correct view regarding the jizyah, as we have previously discussed, is that it is collected from all disbelievers, because the purpose is for the disbelievers to remain under the protection and care of the Muslims, so that perhaps they may accept Islam. In this respect, there is no difference between Jews, Christians, Magians, and others.

“A free Muslim man may not marry a Muslim slave woman unless he fears the hardship of celibacy, because of a need for sexual gratification or service, and is unable to afford a free woman or the price of a slave woman, ……”

His statement, “A free Muslim man may not marry a Muslim slave woman”: “Free” excludes a slave, for a slave may marry a slave woman because he is of equal status to her.

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jizyah, chapter: “Jizyah and Truce Agreements,” no. 3157, on the authority of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf.

﴿وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ *﴾ [التوبة] إلى أن قال: ﴿هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ﴾ [التوبة: ٣١]. فالحاصل: أن الذي عليه جمهور أهل العلم أن من تدين بدين أهل الكتاب وانتسب إليهم، ولو كان يقول بالتثليث فإنه تحل ذبيحته، ويحل نكاحه. وقوله: «إلا حرة كتابية» هل مثلها المجوسية؟ لا، ليست مثلها مع أن المجوس تؤخذ منهم الجزية، ولكنهم يخالفون أهل الكتاب في الذبائح، فلا تحل ذبائح المجوس، ولا تحل مناكحتهم بالإجماع، ولم يخالف في حل ذبائحهم إلا أبو ثور ﵀، ولكن الإمام أحمد ﵀ أنكر هذا القول إنكاراً عظيماً، فالمجوس لا تحل ذبائحهم، ولا يحل نكاح نسائهم، ولكن تؤخذ منهم الجزية؛ لأن الرسول ﷺ أخذ الجزية منهم (١)، والصحيح في مسألة الجزية كما تقدم لنا أنها تؤخذ من جميع الكفار؛ لأن المقصود أن يكون الكفار تحت حضانة المسلمين ورعايتهم لعلهم يسلمون، وهذا لا فرق فيه بين اليهود والنصارى والمجوس وغيرهم. وَلَا يَنْكِحُ حُرٌّ مُسْلِمٌ أَمَةً مُسْلِمَةً، إِلاَّ أَنْ يَخَافَ عَنَتَ العُزُوبَةِ، لِحَاجَةِ المُتْعَةِ، أَوْ الخِدْمَةِ، وَيَعْجَزُ عَنْ طَوْلِ حُرَّةٍ، أَوْ ثَمَنِ أَمَةٍ، ........ قوله: «ولا ينكح حر مسلم أمة مسلمة» «حر» احترازاً من العبد، فالعبد له أن يتزوج أمة؛ لأنه يساويها.

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الجزية/ باب الجزية والموادعة (٣١٥٧) عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف ﵁.