Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/502)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Thus, it is stipulated that the provider be an heir of the person maintained, whether by a prescribed share or as a residuary—except in the case of direct ascendants and descendants, for whom this is not stipulated. The evidence that inheritance is a condition is His saying, exalted is He:

“Upon the heir is the like of that [which was incumbent upon the father].” [al-Baqarah 2:233]

He did not say, “Upon the relative.” This shows that the quality of being an heir is taken into consideration, and that the provider must be an heir of the person maintained. However, if we say that one is not obliged to provide maintenance for them, this does not mean that one is not obliged to maintain ties with them. Maintaining kinship ties is one matter, while financial maintenance is another. One must maintain ties with them in whatever ways people recognize as such, whether through words, actions, or wealth.

His statement, “not by kinship alone”: the correct view is that maintenance is obligatory even for one whom a person inherits through distant kinship, apart from direct ascendants and descendants, due to the generality of the verse. So long as the Quran has linked the ruling to a cause that exists in such a relative, what could exclude him from it? If he inherits him through distant kinship, then he is obliged to support him, since he falls under the general meaning of His saying, exalted is He:

“Upon the heir is the like of that [which was incumbent upon the father].”

This is the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

An example is a wealthy nephew whose maternal uncle is poor, and this maternal uncle has no heir other than his nephew. Is the nephew obliged to support him? According to the madhhab, he is not, because he is among the distant kindred. According to the correct view, however, he is obliged to support him.

Examples:

First: A wealthy man has a poor brother who has sons. Is the wealthy brother obliged to support his poor brother? According to the madhhab, he is not obliged, because this wealthy brother does not inherit from his poor brother; rather, the poor brother’s sons exclude him. Likewise,

فيشترط أن يكون المنفِق وارثاً للمنفَق عليه بفرض أو تعصيب، إلاّ في عمودي النسب فلا يشترط، والدليل على اشتراط الإرث قوله تعالى: ﴿وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣٣] فلم يقل: وعلى القريب، فدل ذلك على اعتبار صفة الإرث، وأنه لا بد من أن يكون المنفِق وارثاً للمنفَق عليه، لكن إذا قلنا: إنه لا يجب الإنفاق عليهم، فليس معنى ذلك أنه لا تجب صلتهم، فالصلة شي والإنفاق شيء آخر، فلا بد من صلتهم بما يعدُّه الناس صلة بالقول والفعل والمال. وقوله: «لا برحم» الصواب أنها تجب النفقة حتى لمن يرثه بالرحم من غير عمودي النسب؛ لعموم الآية، وما دام أن القرآن قيد الحكم بعلة موجودة في ذي الرحم، فما الذي يخرج ذلك؟! فإذا كان يرثه بالرحم فإنه يجب عليه الإنفاق عليه لدخوله في عموم قوله تعالى: ﴿وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ﴾، وهذا هو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀. مثاله: ابن أختٍ غني له خال فقير، وهذا الخال ليس له أحد يرثه سوى ابن أخته، فهل تجب نفقته عليه؟ أما على المذهب فلا؛ لأنه من ذوي الأرحام، وأما على القول الصحيح فإنه يجب الإنفاق عليه. أمثلة: الأول: رجل غني، له أخ فقير له أبناء، فهل يجب على الأخ الغني النفقة على أخيه الفقير؟ لا يجب على المذهب؛ لأن هذا الأخ الغني لا يرث أخاه الفقير، بل يحجبه أبناؤه، وكذلك