Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/294)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

only. He said: This is the apparent meaning of the Quran, so let us adhere to it. Yet there is some reservation in the heart concerning this, because the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—were more knowledgeable than us of the objectives of the Quran, especially with regard to legal rulings, for the Quran was revealed in their time and in their language, and they understood it in the manner they held. This is the view of the majority of the scholars: seclusion is legally equivalent to intercourse.

His statement, “as a legal ruling,” means: compulsorily. Some scholars said that it enters his ownership by choice: if he wishes, he may take it, and if he wishes, he may refrain. They cited the verse: “unless they forgo it, or he in whose hand is the marriage tie forgoes it.”

Those who held that it enters his ownership compulsorily also cited the verse and said: Forgoing can only apply to something due. Once it becomes due, we may forgo it; but if it has not entered our ownership, how can we forgo it? This is closer to what is correct. Thus, if half becomes due to me from the woman, I may forgo it; and if half becomes due to her from me, she may forgo it.

There remains the question: when a person relinquishes his due right, is it waived from the one released whether he accepts or not, or is acceptance necessary?

For example, a man is owed one hundred riyals by someone, and he says to him: “I have pardoned you and released you from the debt.” The one released says: “I do not accept.” Is this binding upon him or not? According to the school, it is binding. If he releases his debtor from the liability, it is binding whether the debtor accepts or not, because this is a gift of attributes. This is like if I were owed one hundred sāʿs of average-quality wheat from you, and you brought me one hundred sāʿs of fine wheat: am I required to accept? According to the school, I am required to accept. The second view is that acceptance is not binding, out of fear of being placed under an obligation.

The point is that in this issue—namely, the gift of attributes—the school does not stipulate acceptance, and this is the case under discussion. The second view is that it is necessary

فقط، وقال: إن هذا ظاهر القرآن فلنأخذ به، ولكن في النفس من هذا شيء؛ لأن الصحابة ﵃ أعلم منا بمقاصد القرآن، لا سيما في الأحكام الشرعية؛ لأن القرآن نزل في وقتهم وبلغتهم، وفهموه على ما يذهبون إليه، وهذا قول جمهور أهل العلم أن الخلوة تلحق بالجماع. وقوله: «حكماً» أي: قهراً، وقال بعض العلماء: إنه يدخل في ملكه اختياراً، إن شاء أخذ، وإن شاء لم يأخذ، واستدل بالآية: ﴿إِلاَّ أَنْ يَعْفُونَ أَوْ يَعْفُوَ﴾. والذين قالوا: إنه يدخل في ملكه قهراً استدلوا بالآية، وقالوا: لا عفو إلا عن واجب، فإذا وجب فنعفو، أما إذا لم يدخل مُلْكَنَا فكيف نعفو؟! وهذا أقرب، فإذا وجب لي على المرأة النصف عفوت، وإذا وجب لها النصف عليَّ عفت. يبقى النظر إذا عفا الإنسان عن حقه الواجب، فهل يسقط عن المعفو عنه، رضي أو لم يرضَ، أو لا بد من القبول؟ مثال ذلك: رجل يطلب شخصاً مائة ريال، فقال له: قد عفوت عنك وأبرأتك، فقال المعفو عنه: لا أقبل، فهل يلزمه أو لا؟ المذهب يلزم، فإذا أبرأ غريمه من ذمته لزمه، قَبِل أم لم يقبل؛ لأن هذا هبة أوصاف، كما لو كنت أطلبك مائة صاع بر وسط، وأتيتني بمائة صاع بُرٍّ طيب، فهل يلزمني أن أقبل؟ المذهب يلزمني أن أقبل، والقول الثاني: أنه لا يلزم خشية المنة. المهم أن هذه المسألة وهي هبة الأوصاف، المذهب لا يشترط فيها القبول، وهي مسألتنا هذه، والقول الثاني: أنه لا بد