Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/503)

nor is he obliged to support his brother’s children, because he does not inherit from them, as their father excludes him.

Second: A wealthy man has a poor paternal cousin, and there are no other relatives besides them. He is obliged to support him, because he inherits from him as a residuary.

Third: A wealthy maternal brother has a poor maternal brother, and there is no one else besides them. He is obliged to support him, because he inherits from him by a prescribed share.

Fourth: A wealthy nephew through a sister has a poor maternal uncle. According to the madhhab, he is not obliged to support him; according to the stronger view, however, he is obliged to do so, because each of them inherits from the other.

Thus, our governing principle is that the provider must be an heir of the person maintained, whether by a prescribed share, residuary inheritance, or distant kinship—except for direct ascendants and descendants, for whom inheritance is not a condition.

His statement, “whether or not the other inherits from him, as in the case of a brother”: that is, the heir is obliged to provide maintenance whether the provider is himself an heir or not. An example is a full brother together with another full brother: these two brothers inherit from one another. If either one died leaving the other, the latter would inherit from him. Thus, if there is a wealthy full brother who has a poor full brother, and the wealthy one inherits from his brother—that is, he is not excluded by a son or by the brother’s father—then he is obliged to support him.

His statement, “as in the case of a paternal aunt”: an example is a wealthy nephew through a brother and a poor paternal aunt. Here, the nephew inherits from her as a residuary, because he is a nephew through a brother; but she does not inherit from him as a residuary, because a paternal aunt is among the distant kindred. Thus, if there is a wealthy nephew through a brother and a poor paternal aunt, we say: You are obliged to support her, because you inherit from her. And if there is a paternal aunt

لا يجب عليه الإنفاق على أبناء أخيه؛ لأنه لا يرثهم إذ يحجبه أبوهم. الثاني: رجل غني له ابن عمٍ فقير، وليس هناك غيرهما من القرابة فتجب عليه النفقة؛ لأنه يرثه بالتعصيب. الثالث: أخ من أم غني، وأخوه من أمه فقير، وليس ثَمَّ غيرهما فتجب عليه النفقة؛ لأنه يرثه بالفرض. الرابع: ابن أخت غني وخاله فقير، فعلى المذهب لا يجب عليه النفقة، وأما على الراجح تجب النفقة؛ لأن كلاًّ منهما يرث الآخر. فصارت القاعدة عندنا: أنه يشترط أن يكون المنفِق وارثاً للمنفَق عليه بفرض، أو تعصيب، أو رحم، إلاّ عمودي النسب فلا يشترط الإرث. قوله: «سواء ورثه الآخر كأخ أو لا» أي: يجب على الوارث أن ينفِق سواء كان المنفق وارثاً أو لا؛ مثال ذلك: أخ شقيق مع أخ شقيق، فهذان الأخوان يتوارثان، فلو مات أحدهما عن الآخر لورثه، فلو وُجِد أخ شقيق غني وله أخ شقيق فقير والغني يرث أخاه، يعني ليس محجوباً بابنٍ ولا بأبٍ للأخ، فإنه يجب عليه أن ينفق عليه. قوله: «كعمة» مثاله: ابن أخ غني، وعمة فقيرة، فهنا ابن الأخ يرثها بالتعصيب؛ لأنه ابن أخ، ولا ترثه هي بالتعصيب؛ لأنها عمة من ذوي الأرحام، فإذا وُجد ابن أخ غني وعمة فقيرة قلنا: يجب عليك أن تنفق عليها؛ لأنك ترثها، وإذا وجد عمة