Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/312)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “possible,” means that it is not stipulated that the spouses’ coming together be established. That is, whether we know that they came together or do not know it, so long as it is possible, the child belongs to him. This is one view among three, and it is the Hanbali school’s position.

The second view is that the child is ascribed to him from the time of the marriage contract, whether it was possible for him to be with her or not. According to this view, if he marries a woman while he is in the farthest East and she is in the farthest West, and she gives birth six months after the contract, the child is ascribed to him even if he never travelled. They say that a woman becomes a marital bed merely by virtue of the contract, and that the possibility of their coming together is not a condition. This is the view of Abu Hanifah.

The third view is that she does not become a marital bed for him until it is established that he came together with her and had intercourse with her. This is because she is a bed, and a bed is something spread out; he cannot make her his bed unless he has intercourse with her. According to this view, if he contracts marriage with her but does not consummate the marriage, and she gives birth to a child more than six months later, the child is not his. This is the correct view, and it was the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. She becomes a marital bed only through actual intercourse; otherwise, she does not. Likewise, as will come, Allah willing, a slave woman does not become a marital bed for her owner unless he has intercourse with her. This is entailed both by the linguistic evidence and by rational evidence. How can the child possibly be ascribed to him when he says, “I neither consummated the marriage with her nor went to her”?

As for the second view, which holds that she becomes a marital bed for him whether intercourse with her was possible or not—rather, merely by the contract—this is as far removed from reason as can be. What is remarkable is that it is the view of Abu Hanifah, while the Hanafi jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, consistently base their juristic issues on reasoning and intellect; yet in this

وقوله: «أمكن» فلا يشترط تحقق اجتماع الزوجين، يعني سواء تحققنا أنهما اجتمعا أم لم نتحقق، فما دام الأمر ممكناً فالولد له، وهذا قول بين أقوال ثلاثة، وهو مذهب الحنابلة. القول الثاني: أنه يلحق به منذ العقد، سواء أمكن اجتماعه بها أم لم يمكن، وعلى هذا القول فإذا تزوج امرأة وهو في أقصى المشرق وهي في أقصى المغرب، ثم ولدت بعد العقد بنصف سنة فإنه يلحق به، ولو لم يسافر، يقولون: لأن المرأة تكون فراشاً بمجرد العقد ولا يشترط إمكان اجتماعهما، وهذا مذهب أبي حنيفة. القول الثالث: أنها لا تكون فراشاً له حتى يتحقق اجتماعه بها ووطؤه إياها؛ لأنها فراش، وفراش بمعنى مفروش، ولا يمكن أن يفرشها إلا إذا جامعها، وعلى هذا القول إذا عقد عليها ولم يدخل بها، وأتت بولد لأكثر من ستة أشهر فليس ولداً له، وهذا القول هو الصحيح وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀ فما تكون فراشاً إلا بحقيقة الوطء وإلا فلا، كما أن الأمة ـ كما سيأتي إن شاء الله ـ أنها لا تكون فراشاً لمالكها إلا إذا وطئها، وهذا كما أنه مقتضى الدليل اللغوي، هو مقتضى دليل العقل، فكيف يمكن أن نلحقه به، وهو يقول: أنا ما دخلت عليها ولا جئتها؟! أما القول الثاني الذي يقول: تكون فراشاً له أمكن وطؤه أم لم يمكن، بل بمجرد العقد، فهذا أبعد ما يكون عن المعقول! والعجيب أنه مذهب أبي حنيفة، والأحناف ﵏ دائماً تكون مسائلهم الفقهية مبنية على النظر والعقل، لكن في هذه