Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/268)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “a child born of fornication”: that is, emancipating him is valid. An example is a non-Muslim combatant born of fornication whom we then enslave, or a man who fornicated with another person’s slave woman and she gave birth: the child is then a slave belonging to her master, because he is owned.

His statement, “a fool”: that is, emancipating a fool is valid. He is one who deliberately acts wrongly—that is, he is hasty and does not deliberate in matters. It was also said that he is one whose conduct is unsound.

His statement, “a mortgaged slave”: that is, emancipating a mortgaged slave is valid. For example, a master mortgages his slave to someone from whom he seeks to borrow dirhams; when the debt falls due, if he does not repay it, the slave is sold and the debt is paid from his price. Does emancipating this mortgaged slave suffice? The author says that it does, because emancipation has a powerful legal effect. Thus, if a person emancipates one quarter of his slave, the entire slave becomes free. However, we have previously discussed in the chapter on mortgages that the mortgagor’s emancipation of the pledged slave is invalid unless the mortgagee agrees, because the latter’s right is attached to him. If you emancipate him, he becomes free and the mortgagee can no longer benefit from him; this would therefore nullify his right. The response to their reasoning is that this slave is encumbered; if it is prohibited for his master to emancipate him, then how can that emancipation take effect? On this basis, emancipating him as an expiation is not valid.

His statement, “a slave who has committed an offense”: that is, it is valid to emancipate a slave who has committed an offense, such as a slave who killed someone and is undoubtedly liable to retaliatory execution. If his master emancipates him as an expiation, it suffices, because he may perhaps be pardoned, so his execution is not certain. Nevertheless, there is some reservation concerning this, because people’s attachment to such a slave is not like their attachment to one who has committed no offense: when his master sees that he is to be executed, he emancipates him. Thus, the matter requires further consideration. For this reason, some scholars say that a slave who has committed an offense cannot validly be emancipated as an expiation, because he is liable to be put to death and is therefore diminished in value.

قوله: «وولد الزنا» أي: يجزئ، كحربي وُلِد من الزنا، ثم استرققناه، أو رجل زنى بأمة إنسان وولدت، فإن الولد يكون رقيقاً لسيدها؛ لأنه مملوك. قوله: «والأحمق» أي: يجزئ عتق الأحمق، وهو الذي يرتكب الخطأ عن عمد، يعني أن عنده عجلة ولا يتأنى في الأمور، وقيل: هو الذي تصرُّفُه غير سليم. قوله: «والمرهون» أي: يجزئ إعتاق العبد المرهون، كسيد رهن عبده لشخص يطلبه دراهم، فإذا حل الدَّين ولم يوفِ يباع العبد، ويوفى دَينه، فهل يجزئ هذا المرهون بإعتاقه؟ المؤلف يقول: يجزئ؛ لأن العتق له نفوذ قوي، ولذلك لو أعتق الإنسان ربع عبده عتق العبد كله، ولكن سبق لنا في باب الرهن أن عتق الراهن للمرهون لا يصح إلا بموافقة المرتهن؛ لأنه تعلق حقه به، فأنت إذا أعتقته صار حراً فلا ينتفع به، فيكون في ذلك إسقاط لحقه، والجواب على تعليلهم: أن هذا العبد مشغول، وإذا كان يحرم أن يعتقه سيده فكيف ينفذ؟! وبناء على هذا، فإنه لا يصح إعتاقه في الكفارة. قوله: «والجاني» أي: يصح أن يعتق الجاني، كعبد قتل شخصاً، ولا شك أنه يقتص منه، فأعتق عن كفارة فيجزئ؛ لأنه ربما يُعفى عنه، فقتله غير متعين، لكن في النفس من هذا شيء؛ لأن هذا العبد تعلُّقُ النفس به ليس كتعلقها بمن ليس بجانٍ؛ لأن سيده لما رأى أنه يقتل أعتقه، فالمسألة فيها نظر؛ ولهذا فبعض العلماء يقول: إن الجاني لا يصح أن يعتق في الكفارة؛ لأن الجاني يطالب بأن يقتل، فهو ناقص القيمة.