Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/504)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and a wealthy paternal aunt has a poor nephew through a brother, she is not obliged to support him, because she inherits from him through distant kinship, not by a prescribed share or residuary inheritance.

His statement, “and a freed slave”: the freed slave is inherited by the one who emancipated him, whereas he does not inherit from his emancipator. For example, a man owns a slave and emancipates him. The slave then engages in trade, and Allah makes him wealthy, while his former master is poor. Is the freed slave obliged to support his former master? No, because he does not inherit from him. But if the case is reversed—if the freed slave becomes poor and the former master is wealthy—then the former master is obliged to support him, because he inherits from him as a residuary.

His statement, “according to what is customary”: the amount of maintenance is determined by customary practice, owing to the saying of Allah Most High: “Upon the father is the mothers’ provision and their clothing according to what is customary.” [al-Baqarah 2:233] Then He, Glorified is He, says: “And upon the heir is a duty like that.” [al-Baqarah 2:233]

His statement, “provided that the one entitled to it is poor”: this is the second condition: the person entitled to maintenance must be poor. Poverty means being devoid of something, and it shares the same broader etymological root as the term for a desolate, empty place, since the letters are the same though arranged differently. Poverty is of two kinds: poverty of wealth and poverty of work. Poverty of wealth is that one does not possess wealth, while poverty of work is that one has no means of earning—either because he is weak and unable to work, or because he cannot find work. But if he is self-sufficient through his wealth or through his earnings, then he is not entitled to maintenance. If he is self-sufficient through wealth, then he has wealth at hand; and if he is self-sufficient through earnings, we require him to earn.

His statement, “and his inability to earn”: this is included within poverty. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that maintenance is not obligatory for one capable of earning, even if the work is considered demeaning for someone of his standing. Thus, if it is assumed that a wealthy man

غنية وابن أخ فقير فإنه لا يجب عليها أن تنفق عليه؛ لأنها ترثه بالرحم، لا بفرض ولا تعصيب. قوله: «وعتيق» العتيق يرثه المعتِق، وهو لا يرث المعتِق، كرجل عنده عبد، فأعتقه، ثم صار العبد يبيع ويشتري فأغناه الله، وكان سيده فقيراً، فهل يجب على العبد أن ينفق على سيده؟ لا؛ لأنه لا يرثه، ولو كان الأمر بالعكس، بأن افتقر العتيق، والسيد غني، فإنه يجب على السيد أن ينفق عليه؛ لأنه يرثه بالتعصيب. قوله: «بمعروف» فالإنفاق يرجع في قدره إلى العرف؛ لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَعَلَى الْمَولُودِ لَهُ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣٣]، ثم قال سبحانه: ﴿وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣٣]. قوله: «مع فقر من تجب له» هذا هو الشرط الثاني، أن يكون من تجب له النفقة فقيراً، والفقر معناه الخلو، وهو متفق مع القفر للمكان الخالي، في الاشتقاق الأكبر؛ لأن الحروف متفقة مع اختلاف الترتيب، وهو نوعان: فقر مالٍ، وفقر عمل، ففقر المال ألا يجد مالاً، وفقر العمل ألاّ يجد كسباً، إما لكونه ضعيفاً لا يستطيع العمل، وإما لكونه لا يجد عملاً، أمَّا إن كان غنياً بماله أو بكسبه فإنه لا نفقة له؛ لأنه إن كان غنياً بماله فالمال عنده، وإن كان غنياً بكسبه فإننا نلزمه بأن يكتسب. قوله: «وعجزه عن تكسب» هذا داخل في الفقر، وظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه لا يجب الإنفاق على قادر على التكسب حتى ولو كان التكسب بالنسبة لمثله مزرياً، فلو فرض أن إنساناً غنياً