Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/153)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the son to marry one of them. This is permissible subject to the aforementioned conditions for marrying a slave woman, because she falls under the general purport of the verse:

“from among your believing slave women.” [al-Nisa’ 4:25]

and under the general purport of His saying:

“Lawful to you are all beyond these.” [al-Nisa’ 4:24]

His statement, “but not his son’s slave woman”: for example, a man has a wealthy son, but cannot find anyone to arrange his marriage because he is elderly. His son owns slave women, and he wishes to marry one of them. Is this permissible? The author says: It is not permissible for him to marry her, even if the conditions for the permissibility of marrying a slave woman are fulfilled in his case. This is because a father, unlike a son, may acquire ownership from his child’s wealth. Since he may acquire ownership from his son’s wealth, he has no need to marry his son’s slave woman; rather, he may acquire her as his property, whereupon she becomes lawful to him by virtue of right-hand possession. Thus, because he may acquire ownership of her, he has no need to marry his son’s slave woman, and he has a semblance of ownership in her.

However, this view is weak, because the father does not have a semblance of ownership in his son’s property; rather, he has a right to acquire ownership. There is a difference between saying, “You may acquire ownership,” and saying, “You have ownership.” If we say, “You have ownership,” this means that he shares ownership with the son; whereas if we say, “You may acquire ownership,” it means that he does not share ownership, but has the right to acquire it. What is meant here is that he has the right to acquire ownership. Accordingly, we say that his son’s slave woman is lawful for him, because she falls under the general purport of Allah Most High’s saying:

“Lawful to you are all beyond these.”

The correct view in this matter, therefore, is that a father may marry his son’s slave woman if the conditions that permit him to marry slave women are fulfilled.

If it is asked, “How can you permit this when he has the right to acquire ownership? Why do you not tell him: ‘Acquire ownership of her’?” We reply: He may not choose to acquire ownership of her; rather, he may prefer

الابن أن يتزوج واحدةً منهن، يجوز بالشروط السابقة في نكاح الأمة؛ لأنها داخلة في عموم الآية: ﴿مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ﴾ [النساء: ٢٥]، وفي عموم قوله: ﴿وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ٢٤]. قوله: «دون أمة ابنه» مثلاً رجل له ابن غني، لكن لم يجد أحداً يزوجه؛ لأنه كبير السن، وعند ابنه إماء مملوكات، فأراد أن يتزوج واحدة منهن، فهل يجوز؟ يقول المؤلف: لا يجوز أن يتزوجها، ولو تمت شروط نكاح الأمة في حقه؛ لأن الأب له أن يتملك من مال ولده بخلاف الابن، فإذا كان له أن يتملك من مال ولده، فلا حاجة إلى أن يتزوج أمة ولده، بل يتملك الأمة، وتحل له بملك اليمين، فهو إذاً مستغنٍ عن نكاح أمة ابنه بجواز تملكه، فله فيها شبهة ملك. ولكن هذا القول ضعيف؛ لأنه ليس للأب شبهة ملك في مال ولده، بل له شبهة تملك، وفرق بين أن نقول: لك التملك، وأن نقول: لك ملك؛ لأننا إذا قلنا: ملك، يعني أنه مشارك للابن، وإذا قلنا: تملك، يعني أنه ليس مشاركاً، لكن له أن يتملك، والمراد هنا أن له التملك، وحينئذٍ نقول: إن أمة ابنه حلال له، لدخولها في عموم قوله تعالى: ﴿وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ﴾، فالصواب في هذه المسألة أنه يجوز للأب أن يتزوج أمة ابنه إذا تم في حقه شروط جواز نكاح الإماء. فإن قيل: كيف تجيزون هذا وهو له حق التملك، لماذا لا تقولون له: تملكها؟ فنقول: قد لا يختار أن يتملكها، بل يحب