Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/265)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

As for the first two categories—an impairment that does not affect one’s ability to work at all, or affects it only slightly—they do not prevent the slave from being valid for emancipation. But where it clearly impairs the ability to work, the slave is not valid for emancipation.

An example is his statement: “such as blindness.” There is room for scrutiny in citing blindness as an example, because not every form of blindness prevents a person from working. How many blind people have occupations by which they earn their living. Therefore, it must be qualified as blindness that prevents him from working, for the purpose of emancipation is that a person should possess his own benefit and earnings. If a blind person is prevented by his blindness from working and is emancipated, he becomes dependent upon others, whereas before his emancipation his master was providing for him. For this reason, he is not valid for emancipation. If, however, it does not prevent him from working, then it does no harm.

Some literalist scholars said that an impaired slave is valid for emancipation, because Allah mentioned nothing in the Quran except faith. Even if he is unable to work, he is freed from his master and finds himself a free man, able to go wherever he wishes and return whenever he wishes; thus, he benefits from this emancipation. However, the majority of scholars—even to the extent that some of them have cited it as a consensus—say that he must be free of any defect that clearly impairs the ability to work.

As for a one-eyed person, it has been said that he is not valid for emancipation, by analogy with a one-eyed sacrificial animal. But it may be said: even if we concede that the loss of one eye affects work, it affects it only slightly, and so he is valid for emancipation.

His statement, “or paralysis of a hand or foot”: paralysis of a hand or foot plainly impairs most forms of work, although someone whose foot is paralyzed may benefit from another type of work that does not require his foot, such as spinning, weaving, and the like.

His statement, “or their loss”: that is, the loss of a hand or a foot. This is clear.

فأما القسمان الأولان، الضرر الذي لا يضر بالعمل إطلاقاً، أو يضر به ضرراً خفيفاً فإنهما لا يمنعان من إجزاء الرقبة، وأما ما يضر بالعمل ضرراً بيناً فإنه لا تجزئ فيه الرقبة. مثاله: قوله: «كالعمى» التمثيل بالعمى فيه نظر؛ لأنه ليس كل عمى يمنع من العمل، فكم من أناسٍ عمي وعندهم أعمال يتعيشون بها، فلهذا يجب أن يقيد بالعمى الذي يمنعه من العمل؛ لأن المقصود من العتق هو أن يملك الإنسان نفعه وكسبه، والأعمى الذي يمنعه عماه من العمل إذا أعتق صار عالة على غيره؛ لأنه قبل أن يتحرر كان سيده ينفق عليه فلهذا لا يجزئ، وأما إذا كان لا يمنعه فلا يضر. وقال بعض أهل الظاهر: إن المعيب يجزئ؛ لأن الله ﷾ ما ذكر في القرآن إلا الإيمان فقط، وهذا إن كان لا يستطيع العمل لكنه يتحرر من سيده، فيجد نفسه حُرّاً طليقاً يذهب حيث شاء، ويرجع حيث شاء فهو يستفيد من هذا العتق، ولكن جمهور العلماء ـ حتى إن بعضهم ذكره إجماعاً ـ يقولون: لا بد أن يكون سليماً مما يضر بالعمل ضرراً بيناً. وأما الأعور فقد قيل: إنه لا يجزئ قياساً على العوراء في الأضحية، ولكن يقال: وإن سلمنا أن العور يضر العمل، فإنه يضر ضرراً خفيفاً فيجزئ. قوله: «والشلل ليد أو رجل» الشلل في اليد أو الرجل واضح أنه يضر بغالب الأعمال؛ لأن الأشل بالرِّجل قد ينتفع بعمل آخر لا يحتاج إلى رجله فيه، كالغزل والنسج وما أشبه ذلك. قوله: «أو أقطعهما» أقطع اليد أو الرجل، وهذا ظاهر.