Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/159)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

that intercourse with a female slave whom one owns is lawful, whether she is from the People of the Book or not. Nowhere in the Book of Allah is it stipulated that a female slave acquired through ownership must be from the People of the Book. The verses are clear: “except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess.” Whoever excludes any category of female slaves from this general ruling must produce evidence. Accordingly, if a person owns a female slave who is not from the People of the Book, he may have intercourse with her by virtue of ownership—contrary to what is implied by the author’s words, may Allah have mercy on him. This view that we have mentioned was also the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

Some have related a consensus that intercourse with female slaves who are not from the People of the Book is unlawful, but this consensus is not sound.

Whoever combines, in a single contract, a woman lawful for him and one unlawful for him, the contract is valid with respect to the one who is lawful. The marriage of an indeterminate intersex person is not valid until their status becomes clear, ……..

His statement, “Whoever combines, in a single contract, a woman lawful for him and one unlawful for him, the contract is valid with respect to the one who is lawful”: the scholars call this “severing the transaction,” that is, the contract. It means that when a sale or marriage contract combines two things, such that the contract is valid regarding one but not the other, it remains valid concerning that for which it is valid and is invalid concerning that for which it is not. This is the established position of the school, and it is correct, because the operative cause in one case entails validity, whereas in the other it entails invalidity; thus, each must be given effect.

Some scholars said that it is not valid even with respect to the lawful woman, because it is one contract comprising both something permitted and something prohibited, so the prohibitive aspect prevails. But the correct view is that the multiplicity of the objects of contract is like the multiplicity of contracts, even if the wording is one. An example is a man who marries two women in a single contract: one of them is in a state of ihram, while the other is not. The contract is valid for the woman who is not in ihram, but invalid for the one who is in ihram.

أن الأمة المملوكة وطؤها حلال، سواء كانت كتابية، أم غير كتابية، وليس في كتاب الله ﷿ اشتراط أن تكون من مُلِكت كتابية، والآيات واضحة، ﴿إِلاَّ عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ﴾ فمن يُخرِج نوعاً من الإماء عن هذا العموم فعليه الدليل، وعلى هذا فلو كان عند الإنسان أمة غير كتابية وهو مالك لها فإن له أن يطأها بملك اليمين، خلافاً لما يفيده كلام المؤلف ﵀ وهذا الذي ذكرناه هو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀. وقد حكى بعضهم الإجماع على أن غير الكتابية من الإماء لا يحل وطؤها، ولكن هذا الإجماع غير صحيح. وَمَنْ جَمَعَ بَيْنَ مُحَلَّلَةٍ وَمُحَرَّمَةٍ فِي عَقْدٍ صَحَّ فِيمَنْ تَحِلُّ، وَلَا يَصِحُّ نِكَاحُ خُنْثَى مُشْكِلٍ قَبْلَ تَبَيُّنِ أَمْرِهِ، .......... قوله: «ومن جمع بين محلَّلةٍ ومحرمةٍ في عقدٍ صح فيمن تحل»، هذا يسميه العلماء تفريق الصفقة أي: العقد، يعني إذا جمعت الصفقة في بيع أو نكاح بين شيئين، يصح العقد على أحدهما دون الثاني، فإنه يصح فيما يصح العقد عليه، ويبطل فيما لا يصح، هذا هو المذهب وهو الصحيح؛ لأن العلة في أحدهما تقتضي الصحة وفي الآخر تقتضي البطلان، فيجب العمل بها. وقال بعض أهل العلم: إنه لا يصح في المحللة أيضاً؛ لأن العقد واحد اشتمل على مباح ومحظور، فيغلب جانب الحظر، ولكن الصواب أن يقال: إِنَّ تعدُّدَ المعقود عليه كتعدد العقد، وإن كانت الصيغة واحدة، مثال ذلك: رجل تزوج امرأتين في عقد، إحداهما مُحْرِمة، والأخرى غير محرِمة، فيصح العقد في غير المحرمة، ولا يصح في المحرمة.