Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/158)

The difference between the two is that purchasing may be intended for emancipation, whereas marriage is not intended for divorce. This is how Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, distinguished between them.

Accordingly, if a man wishes to marry a second wife, and his first wife learns of it and becomes angry, he may say, “If I marry so-and-so, she is divorced.” Then, if he marries her, she is not divorced, because marriage is not intended for divorce.

Some scholars hold that neither case is valid, because he does not own the woman such that he may own the right to divorce her, nor does he own the slave such that he may own the right to emancipate him.

His statement, “except for a female slave from the People of the Book”: it is permissible to have intercourse with a female slave from the People of the Book by virtue of ownership, even though it is not permissible to have intercourse with her through a marriage contract. This is because—as mentioned previously—a condition for the validity of marrying a female slave is that she be a believer, due to Allah’s statement: “from among your believing slave women” [al-Nisaʾ: 25]. Thus, marriage to a believing female slave is permissible, while marriage to an unbelieving female slave is not. Yet intercourse with a female slave from the People of the Book is permissible by virtue of ownership, based on the general import of Allah’s statement: “except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess” [al-Muʾminun: 6].

It is understood from the author’s words, “a female slave from the People of the Book,” that a female slave who is not from the People of the Book is not lawful by virtue of ownership. Thus, if someone purchased an idolatrous female slave, it would not be lawful for him to have intercourse with her—according to the author, may Allah have mercy on him. Therefore, if war broke out between the Muslims and the Hindus and we took their women captive, then according to the view adopted by the author, their women would not be lawful.

But this is contrary to the apparent meaning of the Quran, and it is a weak view. The correct view is

والفرق بينهما أن الشراء يراد للعتق، والنكاح لا يراد للطلاق، هكذا فرق الإمام أحمد ﵀ بينهما. ولهذا لو أراد شخص أن يتزوج ثانية، وعلمت الأولى وغضبت، فإنه يقول: إن تزوجت فلانة فهي طالق، فإذا تزوجها لا تطلق؛ لأن النكاح لا يراد للطلاق. ومن العلماء من قال: لا يصح في المسألتين؛ لأنه لم يملك المرأة حتى يملك طلاقها، ولم يملك العبد حتى يملك عتقه. قوله: «إلا أمة كتابية»، فالأمة الكتابية يجوز وطؤها بملك اليمين، مع أنه لا يجوز وطؤها بعقد النكاح؛ لأنه ـ سبق لنا ـ أنه يشترط لجواز عقد النكاح على الأمة أن تكون مؤمنة لقوله تعالى: ﴿مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ﴾ [النساء: ٢٥]، فنكاح الأمة المؤمنة جائز، ونكاح الأمة الكافرة غير جائز، ووطء الأمة الكتابية يجوز بملك اليمين، والدليل عموم قول الله تعالى: ﴿إِلاَّ عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ﴾ [المؤمنون: ٦]. وعلم من قول المؤلف: «أمة كتابية» أن الأمة غير الكتابية لا تحل بملك اليمين، فلو اشترى الإنسان أمة وثنية، فإنه لا يحل له أن يطأها ـ على كلام المؤلف ﵀، فإذا وقعت حرب بين المسلمين وبين الهندوس، وسبينا نساءهم، فعلى ما ذهب إليه المؤلف فإن نساءهم لا تحل. لكن هذا خلاف ظاهر القرآن، وهو قول ضعيف، والصواب