Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/308)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

he is still not ascribed to him, due to the general import of the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer receives nothing but the stone.” This remains so even if the adulterer says, “I want this child; ascribe him to me,” and even if he subsequently marries the woman with whom he committed adultery. This is done by some people: when a man commits adultery with a woman and she becomes pregnant by him, they say, “We wish to conceal her affair.” So he marries her, claims the child as his own, and they regard this as concealing the matter for everyone, resolving the problems, and preventing the mother and child from being reproached. In any case, the author’s words are clear: the child cannot be ascribed to him unless he was born to his wife. If he was born to a woman unrelated to him, he is not ascribed to him, even if he claims him as his own.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, held that if he claims the child as his own and no one else claims him, then the child is ascribed to him, in order to preserve the child’s lineage, lest it be lost and lest he be reproached. Moreover, as mentioned previously, in the matter of acknowledging an heir, if a person acknowledges that someone is his heir or his son—for example, if he says of an unknown person, “This is my son”—we stated previously that he is ascribed to him. All of this is in order to preserve lineages. Thus, this man who claims this child as his own, when no one else claims him, is entitled to him as his child. This was also the view of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and was adopted by some of the early generations as well.

The Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer receives nothing but the stone,” consists of two inseparable clauses in a case where there is both a marital bed and an adulterer. Thus, if a man commits adultery with a married woman and says, “The child is mine,” we say: No. The reason for the hadith also indicates this. Its background was that Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, claimed a boy whom his brother Utbah had entrusted to his care, because Utbah had committed adultery with a slave woman belonging to Zam‘ah. Zam‘ah was the father of Sawdah, the wife of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd ibn Zam‘ah disputed over the boy. As for Sa‘d, he said:

فلا يلحقه؛ لعموم قول النبي ﷺ: «وللعاهر الحجر»، حتى لو قال الزاني: أنا أريد هذا الولد، انسبوه إليّ، وحتى لو تزوج المزني بها بعد، كما يجري عند بعض الناس، إذا زنى بامرأة وحملت منه، قالوا: نريد أن نستر عليها، فيتزوجها، ويستلحق الولد، ويكون في هذا ستر على الجميع، وتحل المشاكل، ولا تعير الأم، ولا يعير الولد! المهم أن كلام المؤلف واضح أنه ما يمكن أن يلحق به، إلا إذا كان من زوجته، أما إذا كان من امرأة أجنبية فلا يلحق به ولو استلحقه. واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀: أنه إذا استلحقه ولم يَدَّعِهِ أحدٌ فإنه يلحق به؛ حفظاً لنسب هذا الطفل؛ لئلا يضيع نسبه، ولئلا يعير، وإذا كان الإنسان في باب الإقرار بالميراث ـ كما سبق ـ إذا أقر بأن هذا وارثه، أو أنه ابنه، كإنسان مجهول قال: هذا ابني، فإنه سبق لنا أنه يلحق به، كل ذلك حفظاً للأنساب، فهذا الرجل الذي استلحق هذا الولد بدون أن يدعيه أحد يكون له، وهو مذهب إسحاق بن راهويه، واختاره بعض السلف أيضاً، وقول الرسول ﷺ: «الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر» جملتان متلازمتان، فيما إذا كان عندنا فراش وعاهر، فلو زنى رجل بمزوجة، وقال: الولد لي، نقول: لا، ويدل لذلك سبب الحديث، فإن سبب الحديث هو أن سعد بن أبي وقاص ﵁ ادعى أن غلاماً كان عهد به إليه أخوه عتبة؛ لأن عتبة فجر بوليدة لزمعة، وزمعة أبو سودة زوج رسول الله ﷺ، فاختصم فيه سعد بن أبي وقاص، وعبد بن زمعة، أما سعد فقال: